58 ee ———————— ————eeeeeeOeeoeqeqoN aaa TO CORRESPONDENTS. [We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our correspondents. The Editor respectfully requests that a]] communications should be drawn up as briefly as possible, as there are many claimants upon the space allotted to correspondence.) To Our READERS.—We shall feel obliged to any of our readers who will favour us with brief notes of works con- templated or in progress in the provinces. Letters relating to advertisements and the ordinary business of the Paper should be addressed tothe EDITOR, $1, TAVISTOCK-STREET, COVENT-GARDEN, W.C. Advertisements for the current week must reach the office not later than 5 p.m. on Thursday.
Novrce.—On account of the Index, which occupies several pages of this week's impression of the BUILDING NEWS, several articles remain over, including * Brickwork, No. XIL;” “How to Build Scientifically;” ‘Decorative Processes ;' “ Sewer Ventilation ;" ‘‘ Great Italian Architects, No. IIL ;” “Plumbing, No. I.;”) “Hammer- beam Roofs,” &c. Recerven.—C. H. M.—W. H. T.—A. L. J.—T. S., Jun.— A. W. P.—J. H. T—E. W. S.—E. W. T.—J. P. S.— E. W. P.—B. A—C. & Co.—B. & Son.—Wm. Irving, Toronto.—C. T.—J. A.—W. H. B—Enquirer.—J. B.— E. M. S.—W. F.—W. B.—E. P. H.—C. B. A.—W. F. GC. A, Weppne.—Your next letter on Mortar next week. E. W.—Ask “B. I.," through our office, who is writing the series of articles on “How to Build Scientifically.” The same writer answered several questions submitted to him in his series of papers on “ Dilapidations.” RHYME WITHOUT REASON.—The doggrel referred to by you was sent to us and rejected as a matter of course before it appeared elsewhere. THOs. Morris.—The conclusion of ‘ Pedestals” next week- Cc. C.—*Note on Brickwork" forwarded to author of papers. No doubt he will be glad to answer any questions. EXceLsror.—There will be a series of articles on the question inguired about at no distant date. CHAMPETRE.—See our answers to correspondents on “House Planning,” page 8, the week before last. The description, of course, must be written on separate paper. R. Q.—Your suggestion was sent to the author of the papers on Plumbing. He writes to say that he should be very glad to receive suggestions, or if he can answer any questions which may be put to him on the subject treated of. 8. S. StaALLwoop.—Drawing returned. W. B.—No license required. E. P. C.—See last sentence of article on “ Decorative Pro- cesses.” Correspondence. > NEW LAW COURTS. To the Editor of the Burrpine News. Srr,—I have hitherto carefully abstained from all criticism on Mr, Street’s designs, and have no intention of deviating from this course. I regret, therefore, extremely that the references to me in his recent pamphlet (many of which appear to me un- called-for and very misleading) oblige me to take steps to make public the real state of the case as regards my position in the competition. I hope my answer will be in the hands of the printer this week, and in the meantime must ask your readers to hesitate before accepting the statements referred to.— Tam, &c., Epwarp Ms Barry. 21, Abingdon-street, S.W., Jan. 17. Sre,—Absent from England, and unable to take part in the discussion that has arisen as to the New Law Courts, I will nevertheless beg you to permit me to say a few words in reply to an appeal which Mr. Seddon made to me in the Times of December 30, as to one part of Mr. Street’s design, in reference to which there can, I think, be but one opinion on the part of every impartial person who has made, as I have, the architecture of the Middle Ages the chief study of his life. Before I do so, however, I should be glad to refer to a matter which is eyen of greater importance than the designs of the Law Courts, but upon which the latter may have an influential bearing. That the second great opportunity of giving a safe direction to the architecture of the future, which has occurred in this country during the present century, should be permitted to pass by, and be lost, as the last was, by the adoption of designs, and of a style which do not combine the perfection which our national art attained in. the best and purest period with the advanced knowledge that the mechanical experience and the constructive skill of the present day affords us, would be nothing less than a national misfortune. Now, notwithstanding the “ profound conviction” of Mr. Fergusson that he sees the path which would lead to this desired result, and in pursuance of which he would confide the construction of our public build-
THE BUILDING NEWS. ings to our engineers, and their decoration to our architects, the former providing the framework, as he explains it, and the latter the “doors and windows,” the whole being presented in a vehicle which, for want of a better name, he calls Italian, he must permit me to doubt the prudence of overplacing implicit reliance on the prophetic assurances, for I cannot forget that it was under the influence of the same profound conviction that he denounced the plans of the Royal Engineers when he propounded his | visionary scheme for the fortification of Portsmouth ; that he pronounced the mosque of Omar, in defiance of all ancient and modern evidence, to be the true site of the Holy Sepulchre; that hedeclares in his “History of Architecture,” against the clearest proofs to the con- trary, that the use of the pointed arch preceded that of the cireular arch; and that he prevailed on the directors of the Crystal Palace to adopt his prepos- terous restoration of the Palace of Nimroud, in which the debased and ornate capitals and cornices of Perse- polis are made to figure on the backs of the grave old bulls and lions of Sennacherib. In presence, then, of the grave doubts suggested by these visionary conclusions, and in the absence of any evidence that Mr. Fergusson has hitherto given us of his ability to place upon paper the correct re- presentation of any of the numerous buildings that he has visited, or of any architectural idea that has crossed his versatile mind, I may venture to assume that it is hardly on such authority or upon such assurances that the country and the Legislature will consent, in a matter of such importance, to reverse their decision, and to base their verdict for the pre- sent and their hopes for the future. . But if we take it for granted, in the absence of the smallest trace in the architecture of the present of the germs of that architecture of the future which appears to be so ardently desired by some visionary minds, that it is in obedience to a national impulse that the House of Commons has decided to haye recourse on this occasion to the architecture of the past, and in so doing to adopt neither the temple of the Greeks nor the basilica of the Romans as the type to be followed in the designs of our future Law Courts, but some phase of the former architecture of our own country, it is all the more necessary that it should securely provide for the realisation of its wishes by insisting upon two essential conditions of success, namely: 1. That the style to be adopted should be that of the best and finest period of our national architecture ; and 2, That the design itself should be the best in that style that modern art can produce. Now it will not, I think, be disputed by any one who has studied the subject, that of the 800 years during which alone we can be said to have had any national architecture at all, the first 300 were marked by a regular and rapid upward progress, which culminated at the close of the thirteenth century in astyle which for purity and gracefulness, for the nobility of its proportions, and the excellence of its sculpture and ornamental detail, has never been sur- passed, if indeed equalled, by that of any other age or country ; whilst of the remaining 500 years the first 300 were signalised by a constant downward progress, resulting in complete debasement at the end of the sixteenth century, and the last 200 by the servile copyism of the works of every other age and nation under the sun. What, then, can we do better in our search for the architecture of the future than recur to that point in the history of our national architecture at which it attained its highest state of perfection, and work upwards and onwards from that elevation, instead of downwards and backwards, as our forefathers did in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries? In selecting, then, the style of the’ close of the thirteenth century for his designs of the New Law Courts, Mr. Street, it appears to me, exercised a sound discretion, and fulfilled the first condition of a successful result, and the House of Commons has decided wisely in confirming this choice. As to whether Mr. Street has succeeded, on the whole, in fulfilling the second condition or not, I cannot judge, for I have never seen his plans, and the disjointed portions of them that have been pub- lished are insufficient to convey a correct idea of their entire effect; but I can recognise in parts of the principal front, features of a striking character, and of a certain grandeur, the grouping of which, when seen as they will appear when executed in perspec- tive, may produce effects totally unexpected by those who have based their criticisms on the eleva- tions alone. Upon one point, however, I will venture to express a very confident opinion, for Ido not entertain the smallest doubt that if the Central Hall of Mr, Street's design be executed as it is represented in the Architect of December 9, the City of London will possess the finest hall of the kind, without any exception, that has ever been constructed in any country, or in any
Jam. 19. 1872) 0m age, up to the present time. It is designed after the purest forms of the best period; it has excellent pro- portions ; is of noble size; will be admirably lighted with a double range of lofty two-light windows, which can be filled, as suggested by Mr. Seddon, with the light and delicate grisaille glass of the very period, instead of the gaudy and offensive red and blue patchwork of the present day; and it will be covered with that most elegant of all roofs, modern, Classical or Medieval, the simple quadripartite vault- ing of the thirteenth century, the natural covering, and the appropriate finish of the whole design, to the dignified simplicity of which it contributes in no small degree. Who will regret, except Mr. Fergus- son, the substitution of this graceful ‘ ceiling,” as he not incorrectly terms it, for the gloomy, cayernous roof of Westminster Hall, grand though it be, as a _ marvellous example of the obsolete carpentry of the fifteenth century? And why should Mr. Street object to place over this vaulting the light and com- paratively fireproof iron structure, useful and ugly, but out of sight, with which modern engineering will supply us, instead of the forest of timber, from the inflammability of which Mr. Fergusson cynically prophecies the destruction, at some future day, of the entire building ? Anxious as I am in the cause of art alone for the preservation of this striking and original design. in which I recognise, without the smallest approach to servile copyism, the true spirit and the graceful forms of the best period of our national architeciure, I am nevertheless fully sensible of the boldness at the present moment, and in the presence of what has been written and published in reference to this parti- cular portion of Mr. Street's design, of the declara- tion of opinion whlch I have ventured to make; but I make it with the prophetic assurance that on the day that the Hall shall be opened for pnblic use, there will be no one present, unless it be Mr. Fergus- son himself, should he still remain unconverted, who will have the still greater boldness to compare the Central Hall of the British Law Courts disadvanta- geously with that of any other hall in Europe.—I am, &c., Epmunp SHARPE. Prades, Pyrenées Orientales, Jan. 9th, 1872.
ART vy. SCIENCE. Sm,—Permit me, in answer to aletter in your last weeks issue on the subject of ‘Art v. Science,” to reply a few words. The quotation from Whately seems to give it as a general rule that art is the practical outworking of science, and from the tone of your correspondent’s letter I gather that this is the point which he wishes to contest. Now, I think the fair answer is to be obtained from the inquiry, what is meant by art? If this be merely the “set of rules,” or means by which a certain end is reached, such, for instance, as the “art of building, the art of printing,” &c., surely this is no more than the scien- tific method by which such object is attained, which latter designation would, I think, be much more apt. But if by art is meant the nobler productions of architecture, painting, sculpture, music, &e., then I think your correspondent is right in taking the side which, I suppose, he does that such art is not the outcome of science. And I would define the difference thus :—Science is the study which calls, in order to its successful development, for the highest powers of the intellect, while art springs directly from the inspiration of the soul. I am. quite aware that the scientific man is not successful unless his heart be in his work, nor the artist unless his passion be controlled by judgment. Still, I cannot but think that the intellectual faculties are more particularly engaged in the one, and the powers of imagination and passion in the other. The successful pursuit of science demands the philoso- pher’s thought; the successful pursuit of art the poet’s Hight. I would put forth these remarks in the same spirit of inquiry as your correspondent “ Art ;” yet, hoping they may aid him in his discussion, I am, &e., W. R. FOUNDATIONS FOR BUILDINGS. Sm,—I wish to call attention to a point of prac- tice that may be suggestive to some, and may possibly bring an answer from others who have tried it with success or otherwise. In building on clay soil we have always considered that if we went down about four or five feet, and had concrete under the walls, say three feet deep, and a foot wider than the walls, and sometimes chain bond in the walls them- selves, we might reckon on the building standing firm and free from settlements, These last three summers have taught me to the contrary, and my object in writing this is to elicit whether it would not be better to give up the use of concrete under walls, and
