JuNE 14, 1872. THE BUILDING NEWS. 477 Seen eee ene eee ————————EEeeee the vote. The discussion was supported by the President, Professors Hayter Lewis and Kerr, and Messrs. I'Anson and Roger Smith as members of the Committee, and Mr. Douglas Mathews as its secre- tary; among the members of the Congress who engaged in it were Messrs. Street, Burges, Aitchison, Godwin, Peddie, Darbishire, Botham, Fowler, Edmes- ton, Cates, Waterhouse, and Hine. Among the new points which especially raised dis- cussion was a proposal that in cases where consider- able repetition occurred the custom of charging a lower commission for the repeated buildings should be recognised. Little or no difference of opinion as to the fairness of this prevailed, but the wording of the clause occupied some time in settlement. An- other new proposal was that where architects were compelled to alter plans owing to a large discrepancy between their estimate and the tenders received they should admit that they were not entitled to charge for this work. A long discussion as to the percen- tage of discrepancy which might be fairly allowed ended in the rule being fixed with reference to “‘unreasonable discrepancy,” no percentage being named. The words “ordinary percentage” brought up Mr. Burges, Mr. Waterhouse, and Mr. Aitchison, who discussed at some length the question of an architect charging a rate above the usual rate if his services are much in request. This, it was under- stood, he was fully entitled to do by special agree- ment. Mr. Peddie raised the kindred question of omitting time as a basis of charge in cases where exceptional skill or experience are required, such as opinions on valuation and light and air, and carried dis point. The questions of valuing property and that of laying out estates, stand over, however, for further consideration on Friday. A long conversation ensued on the question of the preparation of additional copies and tracings of documents and drawings, and who was to pay for them; and on the preparation of quantities. The ultimate result was that the old clause as to quantities is to stand, with one or two additional words; and that a new clause proposed by the committee to the effect that no commission or payment of any sort is to be received by the architect from a builder or any tradesman engaged on work which he superin- tends was cordially agreed to. The mode of making payments on account to architects was discussed. The committee had pro- posed to incorporate the terms of payment issued by her Majesty’s Board of Works, also retaining the clause hitherto in use. This was ultimately agreed to, but not without a protest from Mr. Street, who deprecated anything like the introduction of alter- native modes of payment. The ownership of drawings was the last point which raised much discussion, but the clause of the committee was ultimately adopted. That clause states that it has been the custom for architects to retain their drawings; that no authoritative legal decision has yet settled the rights of the case, and that architects will do well in consequence of this uncertainty to enter into special agreements with their clients on this head. The consideration of this subject will be resumed to-day (Friday), at noon; and there seems every pro- bability that this statement of professional practice and charges will be then settled and adopted for general use throughout Great Britain, with the formal sanction of the Conference.
THIRD DAY.—WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12.— VISIT TO WESTMINSTER ABBEY. ADDRESS BY MR. GILBERT SCOTT. In accordance with the arrangements laid down on the programme, a visit was paid on Wednesday morning to Westminster Abbey. The time appointed was half-past eleven o'clock, and the rendezvous was ‘the Chapter House, recently restored by Mr. G. G. Scott, R.A. Shortly after the appointed time be- tween fifty and sixty of the gentlemen attending the Conference had assembled, and Mr. Gilbert Scott gavean address in the Chapter House. He said :— ‘Gentlemen, your secretary has kindly asked me to ‘commence our proceedings here by addressing a few words to you on the subject of the buildings which now surround us ; I will attempt to do so as well as Tam able. My greatest difficulty is that I am ad- dressing gentlemen many of whom know quite as much as I do myself on the subject, but as on all such occasions one must address one’s remarks to some one imaginary individual who may not know so much of the subject, I must adopt that course now although I doubt whether there is such an individual present), apologising for repeating what is a thrice- told tale. The buildings with which we are sur- rounded—I refer now to the Abbey Church and its
accompanying buildings—are, I think, most remark- able among the buildings of England, as exhibiting to us the earliest, or, if not the earliest, some of the finest specimens of English national architecture. They are further especially remarkable as exhibiting to us every great transition and change which has comeoyer English architecture. The first of these great changes was simply the substitution of a foreign style (the Norman) for an English style (the Anglo-Saxon). We have no really Anglo-Saxon remains in connection with the Abbey as far as I am aware, but we have here—not in merely unim- portant fragments, but in considerable masses— buildings of a class of which I know no others in England—that is to say, we have Norman buildings of an age previous to the Norman Conquest. Edward the Confessor, educated as he was in Normandy, and throughout his life showing a great preference for its inhabitants, was likely, in rebuilding his favourite royal abbey, to make use of Norman architecture. Accordingly we find it recorded by an almost con- temporary writer that this church, of which he built the eastern portions, was “ the earliest in England of the new style of building, which, since his time, has become so prevalent.” This was written by a Norman historian, who was living at the time of the church being built, although he did not write those words until forty years after the church was built. Of Edward’s buildings one cannot, owing to the lapse of time, say much of the arcbitecture, which was quiet and simple in character; enough of it, however, remains to show us that it was developed gradually from Anglo-Saxon buildings, and that it did not develope itself wholly from the earliest specimens of the style of Normandy. The remains of this period consist of two or three bays of the nave, and portions of the choir, which we have within the last few years discovered, the substructure of the dormitory, a considerable portion of the dormitory itself, and the refectory. Most of these you will be able to see to- day. Of the more perfect Norman work we have very little remaining. We have recently found a number of beautiful fragments (which are now in the porch of this building) of the Norman cloister, but we haye nothing, I believe, in situ, excepting the remains of S. Catherine’s Chapel, which can also be seen by you to-day. Of the great transition from Norman to Early English, or rather from Romanesque to Early Pointed, we have no remains at all in the Abbey as far as I am aware. Nor can we say that we have anything that we can term a development of Early Pointed; but when we arrive at the transi- tion between Karly Pointed and Middle Pointed, we are not only most gloriously rich, but we stand almost alone among all English buildings in the fact, the absolute certainty, that we have the earliest perfected tracery in England. There is no other building in England which exhibits perfected tracery as a great principle of design throughout so early as this. The building in which we are now assembled exhibits this more perfectly than does the Abbey, where we haye very few windows of more than two lights. Here (in the Chapter House) we have windows of four lights, which, though very simple, are as perfect as the windows of any later period. Going on we have the same style carried on to the date of Edward L., but it differs very little from Henry III.’s style, although there was a more rich clustering of the columns, anda greater multiplicity of the groining ribs. We have not so much of the Middle Pointed style as we have of the preceding style. It consists of several monuments, of which the finest are those of Edmund, Queen Eleanor, and some others. The only actual structural works of the period I know of in connec- tion with the Abbey are the two bays of the cloister immediately oppposite to the door of this building. We have discovered in the course of the restoration of this building that the window over the door is in the same state as the cloister opposite. When we get beyond that work—and only five years beyond it: the cloister was built in 1345, in pure Late Decorated style—five years afterwards we have them commencing the south walk of the cloister, and then we find the next great transition commencing— namely, that from Middle Pointed to Perpendicular. I believe that we have here the earliest specimens of this phase of our architecture in England. The same was carried on afterwards in the nave, but it was so transformed from its usual form that it ean hardly be called Perpendicular. The same imitation was carried to a far greater extent in the two western- most bays of the north wall adjoining the church, which, although exact copies, or very nearly exact copies of the bays of Edward I.’s time, give proofs that they were built by the same people as built the nave and the cloister. The same style was continued after the commencement of the next style. I must now notice the closing work of our Abbey, which exhibits the last phase of English architecture—a style absolutely and purely English, and a style of
which I think we have much more occasion to be proud than it is at present the fashion to admit. I mean the so-called Tudor style, and especially that development of it which we recognise as fan- groining. I refer, of course, to Henry VII.’s Chapel. But the great works of the Abbey are not limited to Gothic architecture. Wehave in that very chapel what, I think, is the first Renaissance work in England, Torregiano’s magnificent tomb of Henry VII. ; so that our Abbey exhibits every develop- ment of style, and generally the earliest and some of the finest phases of the history of architecture in the Middle Ages in England. These historical facts, however, are but mere dry bones; our business is not with archeology, but with architecture, and happily, when wecome to examine into the artistic merits of these buildings, we find that they not only exhibit the earliest specimens of their styles, in most instances, but are among the very finest examples of the purity of those styles. We cannot say much about the architecture of Edward the Confessor's time, but when we get to the time of Henry ILI. we find the architecture fully equal to anything in this country—I think finer. Henry III. resembled the Confessor in some of his tastes. Like him he was very much devoted to French art; he was also specially devoted to the Confessor himself. The one introduced the earliest French development of his style. The other introduced or grafted upon the English development—our so-called Early English style—the latest French develop- ment, that is to say, the ‘Transitional. He carried it out in the most magnificent way to be found in any building in England. I think our Perpendicular work here, simple as it is, is as good as any you will find anywhere else in England. When you get to Henry VII.’s Chapel the same ex- cellence is observable. The more that building is examined, the more astonishing will be found the system on which it is designed, and the more beautiful will the detail exhibited by it appear. Then again, going away from Gothic to the one specimen which we have of the Renaissance, I believe it would be very hard to find, in all the range of Renaissance works, one finer than the tomb of Henry VII. One of the most remarkable circumstances connected with all these works is, that of all the architects—I don’t say of the sculptors—employed upon all these different works we don’t know the name of one. Though Edward the Confessor must have brought an architect from Normandy he has forgotten to tell us his name. Though Henry III. aspired to eree: one of the finest churches in Christendom, and suc- ceeded, he has forgotten to tell us the name of his architect, and the same is to be said of each one of the series of kings and abbots. Even Henry VIL, building that magnificent chapel, did not let us know the name of the architect. Nor have any of these architects attempted to record their own names. On the other hand, all the sculptors have left us records of their names, and even the workers in mosaic pavement have left us their names. How is it, then, that the architects engaged in building the Abbey itself, and the splendid building in which we are now assembled, should never take the trouble to let us know who they were? How very different were they from the architects of the present day! They aimed at erecting the finest building in the country, and were content with having thoroughly succeeded, and equally content that their names should never be handed down to posterity. Whether this must be considered a proof, according to the idea of a certain writer, that they were mere workmen I leave it to you to judge. For my own part I cannot con- ceive it possible. They were workmen in a certain sense, as every architect ought to be; the very name of his profession, his art, shows that he is the prince of workmen. The architects of such buildings as Westminster were certainly princes among their workmen. I dare say, too, that they were much more among their work than we can be, and that their influence over their work was much more direct than that exercised by us over our works; more than that, it was the wholesome fashion in their day —I wish it was in the present day—that every one should be thoroughly practicalin his ownline. The physician of those days could extract his medicines from the herbs of the field; the painter often pre- pared and ground his own paint, and we know that in Italy architects could not only carve the foliage of their buildings, but could do the figure subjects, and, further than that, could decorate the walls of their buildings with their own paintings. But to talk of such architects as workmen in the modern sense of the word, and to say that we are to make over our works to workmen, is a very different case. These architects were not in the least degree workmen in the sense in which we now regard workmen. They were princes among workmen. Some of them we know were actually ecclesiastics,
