66

wise, and the Committee appear to adopt his conclusion.* But what has all this to do with the "want of information" among our workmen ?" The only persons in fault (if there be any) are clearly the patrons of architecture and its most eminent professors, with, at the head and front of all, Mr. Barry and the two Houses of Parliament. Let them look to it, and leave "our workmen" to answer for their own imputed offences against good taste as best they may, without being called upon to take upon them the sins of their superiors.

With regard to the "fancy-trade, and especially the silk manufacture," we are not referred by the Committee to the evidence of any particular witness, although this is undoubtedly their great gun.' It may be admitted, that our silkweavers are not so forward in the race as many of our other manufacturers, but, at the same time, any Committee but such an one as this might have discovered plenty of indications in the facts which came before them, that the march of improvement has begun to be extremely rapid in this branch as well as others, and that our workmen" in the silk line promise ere long to give their foreign rivals the go-by,-of which more anon, But why did this most candid of Committees omit to notice those branches of the fancy-trade in which British supe riority is most decided,-why include all in one sweeping clause, without a particle of reservation, when scarcely a single witness was examined before them who did not make mention of some proof of British skill, aye, in those very Arts of Design "" most in connexion with manufacture? Why leave out the

The reasons advanced (according to the Committee) by Messrs. Papworth and Cockerell for their respective condemnations of the styles of Louis XIV. and Elizabeth, are worthy of notice. The former, we are told, is not only "inferior in taste," but "easy of execution." Wherein consists the force of this latter objection? Would the Committee recommend the purchase for the National Gallery of the works of Cornelius Ketel, who painted, not with a pencil, but with his great toe? Surely, the usual method, that pursued by Raphael and Titian, must have been quite "easy" in comparison! Mr. Cockerell's objection to Elizabethan architecture is more formidable: it is, says he, of "spurious origin"-that is, we suppose, its parts have been invented at different periods. Mr. Cockerell is of that class of architects who would pull down St. Paul's. Why? Because it is not in the pure Grecian style; the Greeks were ignorant of the principle of the arch, and therefore (a very good reason) never introduced a dome!

very name of iron-casting, in which we excel all our competitors so transcendently?-a line of art-manufacture far exceeding in extent and importance, as well as mechanico-artistical ingenuity, ten thousand such petty trades as China painting. Nay, why, if they can find room to particularise the exertions of an individual Frenchman to bring to perfection the Cashmere shawl, can they not do as much to celebrate the efforts of Mr. Smith, the very first witness they examined, to apply a higher order of fine art than usual to fenders and stove-fronts? Why could they not (always bearing in mind their anxiety to record instances of individual ingenuity among the French,) leave upon record that these productions were so beautiful as to call forth the admiration of Sir Francis Chantrey, or the more important fact that, among the artisans of Sheffield (who share with their neighbours the stigma of knowing nothing of art,)" there are several artists capable of producing such models as those," which excited the admiration of our great sculptor, and which were produced in proof of the skill of " our workmen before the Committee? But it would be endless to enumerate all their omissions of this kind, although it may be worth while to note one of the most glaring. Among a Committee charged with such an investigation as theirs, it might certainly be expected that some persons would be found who had heard of the superior excellence of British pottery, both in its merely useful and in its artistical relations; yet in no corner of the Report do we find a word about "Wedgwood ware," and this, notwithstanding Mr. Martin, whose testimony the Committee bring forth with so much parade when he condemns our productions in China-painting, had pronounced the articles of that ware to be beautiful works of art," and notwithstanding another witness had duly informed the Committee that "Mr. Wedgwood improved the forms of pottery, and diffused them more than any other person." Had he and his work-people been Frenchmen, we should have heard enough of the obligations the world lay under to him and them for the wider diffusion of art. Wanting that requisite, they are treated with silent contempt; the most extraordi nary instance on record of a manufacture rising up within the memory of man, and

in the heart of England, and diffusing classic grace of form in every habitation of the land (and not only our land but others), from the palace to the cottage, is passed by without a syllable of notice by a Committee sitting for the special purpose of tracing the progress of the arts of design in connexion with manufactures in this country! Why?-because all this did not take place abroad. Mr. Cockerell could be quoted in proof of the charge that 66 our workmen are guilty of bringing into vogue the Elizabethan style of building, but nothing is heard of his whereabout when he is so injudicious as to observe, "I have found Wedgwood's works esteemed in all parts of Europe, and placed in the most precious collections of this description of works." So inconvenient a fact must have gone horribly against the grain.

"

Instances of point-blank contradiction, in the evidence of the witnesses, to the very incorrect statement of the Committee (or their reporter), as to the "too frequent, if not uniform occurrence of a comparison disadvantageous to native talent, in the matter of design, in said evidence, are" too numerous to mention." A few may suffice. Mr. Smith is asked, with reference to his branch (iron ornaments), "Do you think the foreign models are superior, or inferior to the English?" And he replies (with a small degree, indeed, of " uniformity"), "In this branch of manufacture I think they are inferior." Mr. James, the eminent mercer, testifies to a very considerable improvement in the colours and patterns of the silk manufacture, and that "the importation of French silks has almost ceased in consequence of this improvement." Mr. Harrison observes particularly, that "there is no want of talent (for design) in the country, because there are a great many persons engaged exclusively in the production of designs for printed cottons, challis, and bandanas,"

but who are not yet so conversant with the figuring of silk. The evidence of Mr. Batt, as to the superiority of British porcelain, at least in some departments, has been already adverted to: he concedes very freely to the French the superiority of design in metallic manufactures "with a few exceptions," which make sad havoc with the Committee's "uniformity," as they include no less than the whole of "the manufactures in silver, gold, jewel

lery, and castings in iron, in which," Mr. Batt thinks, "we excel them in design." Mr. C. H. Smith, architectural sculptor, deposes that "the public demand for architectural ornaments increases and that the workmen have gradually improved, that he has no difficulty in finding useful assistants, providing he can afford to give them a fair remuneration.” Mr. Samuel Wiley, of the firm of Jennings and Batteridge, of Birmingham, adduces facts so important, and so strictly bearing on the question, that the omis sion of any allusion to them in the Report, taken in conjunction with the sweeping condemnation of English talent in design, and the succeeding paragraph as to the exceeding abilities of the French workmen in that particular, is rather extraordinary even for our Committee. He says, that the firm to which he belongs "have made great improvements in the japan trade of late years. Being men of taste, and stimulating their apprentices and teaching them the art of drawing, our men have inserted works of art in the Birmingham exhibition* and other places. ***** Every workman designs his own pattern. A good designer is well encouraged he is a most valua ble man. The French prefer our articles, because they are much better in material, workmanship, and design, in character, beauty, and every thing. They do not seem to raise the japan-trade to an art; they appear merely to daub it over, and call it japan; there is neither design nor beauty of execution in French work. *** Our workmen generally come at twelve or fourteen years of age. We teach them first of all drawing and designing, and then manufacturing." A pretty specimen this, of that uniform testimony borne by the witnesses to the fact of English inferiority in the arts of design which the Committee so fervently lament! After this, to cite more instances would be an useless task:-any thing more complete, more thoroughly condemnatory, more satisfying as to the Committee's animus could hardly be expected.

Another proof of the foreign bias of the Committee might be drawn, if it

* Mr. Wiley might have mentioned that the late eminent R. A., Mr. Bird, whose pictures of ChevyChace, and Illustrations of the Bible, elicited such high admiration, was originally a painter of teatrays at Birmingham. It was mentioned to the Committee that Flaxman, the sculptor, and Mr. Wyon, of the Mint, were brought up at Soho.

were required, from the simple fact, that the only witnesses who were subjected to what may be termed a cross-examination, were precisely those who had the temerity to express an opinion in favour of our native workmen,―amongst whom the editor of the Mechanics' Magazine came in for the greatest share, although his cross-examiners certainly "took nothing by their motion." It is impossible to read without amusement the answers returned by this witness to some of the puzzling questions propounded by the wiseacres of the Committee,-to observe without a smile the manner in which he makes his replies tell to the confusion of his pragmatical questioners. For instance, when some M.P. is determined to make it appear that the public call for none but the most classical of designs, while the workmen persist in thrusting inferior designs down their throats, sorely against their will, how completely is he put down by the quiet observation, "there is a pattern which was a long time in very general use for table-service, called the willow pattern '-there is nothing very classical in that!" Again, how pleasantly are the Committee rebuked for their disposition, to run down our homebred taste to the exaltation of every nation" on the Continent,' by the remark that "very much of the bad taste of this country has been owing to the circulation of wretched prints all over the country, and still more wretched stuccoimages," and that "this inundation of execrable taste has not proceeded from native artists, but from Italians !" Oh! for a Cruikshank to have sketched the elongated physiognomy of the Honourable Member at this truly home-blow! Shocking, indeed, it must have been to the feelings of the whole Committee to be reminded thus unceremoniously that the public taste is now too improved to put up with the trash these foreigners were guilty of perpetrating, but required something far superior,-in the shape of casts from the works of Chantrey, an English professor of the "highest branches of poetical design," and of Thom, one of the very class of mechanics whose inferiority in the arts of design is so deeply to be deplored!

A good sifting cross-examination might have been employed to better effect in a far different quarter. Mr. Donaldson, the architect, gave a first-rate opening

for any member of the Committee-had there been any,—with a British feeling, to "show up "the true value of his evidence. This gentleman, by way of illustrating his position as to the cheapness of art in France, instanced his own work on doorways, the plates to which would have cost him four guineas each in England, whereas he "sent his drawings to Paris, and had estimates from four French engravers,-put the work into the hands of the best of these,- -a man who is second to none in Europe in his art,-paid the expense of the carriage of the plates to England, the duty of 30 per cent., and various incidental expenses, and the whole cost did not exceed two guineas! Now it appears that Mr. Donaldson had just before introduced to the Committee the "Vorbilder fur Fabrikanter und Handwerker," of which we hear so much in their Report. What, then, if our imaginary cross-examiner, after a due time spent in admiration of the most elaborate of all the plates, had begged of Mr. Donaldson to give him the name of the engraver. Would he not have felt a little embarrassed as he answered "WILSON LOWRY?" Suppose the same process repeated with a second, a third, a fourth,-the masterpieces of the whole work,-would Mr. Donaldson have been able to suppress a blush as he stammered forth the names of TURRELL, ROFFE, and MOSES, all well known as first-rate English engravers? Terribly would he have been perplexed as the annoying questions poured in upon him. How was it that Professor Beuth entrusted none of his elaborate embellishments to the Frenchman, "who is second to none in Europe in his art ?" How came he to pass him by, with all his cheapness, and send his work to the high-priced English engravers, paying to boot "the expense of the carriage of the plates to Germany, the duty, and the various incidental expenses connected with their being executed in London and transmitted to Germany ?" Simply, of course, because Mr. Donaldson's Parisian engraver could not come nigh our countrymen in the practice of the highest branches of the art. Mr. Donaldson's doorway plates may have been done cheaply, but they can hardly have been done well,- -as well as they would have been here. To suppose otherwise, is to suppose Professor Beuth a natural-born

fool, and the Prussian government a sad waster of its cash. Nor can the Germans in general be much wiser than the Professor, for with them a book "mit Englischen stablistichen" is considered a very superior affair. The Russians, too, must be a stupid set, when they send to " dear old England" if they want a first-rate embellishment, instead of putting in requisition the talents of the half-price Frenchman, "who is second to none in Europe in his art." But what are we to

say to the French themselves, who, in spite of their possessing this cheap firstrate, -"second to none in Europe in his art," not only invite English second-rate engravers to Paris (who there suddenly find themselves promoted to the front rank of the profession), but actually encounter the higher charges of our artists, and all the expensive etcetera, whenever they wish to bring out a book or a print in the very first style of art. It is so notorious that even Mr. Donaldson must have allowed it, had it been put home to him, that any Parisian engraving of unusual excellence will be found, on examination, to have an English name in the corner.

This letter has already extended to so great a length, that, for fear of trespassing too long on your and your readers' patience, I hasten to conclude by subscribing myself,

Sir, yours most respectfully,

London, Jan. 17, 1837.

H.

a

Fig. 1.

13 in.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

IMPROVED TIMBER-RAILWAY BASE, AND SADDLE-RAIL.

Sir, I beg to offer my ideas of Mr. Vignoles' project for longitudinal timbers for the upper works of railways. It appears, in my view, that the scantling is too slight, and that the material composing the rail is not disposed to produce the greatest strength.

Suppose the Memel timber to be sawn diagonally, four pieces will be the result, as before; but instead of 9 inches bearing, they will have 13 inches, and instead of a depth of 4 inches, they will be 6 inches; and in the shape, very nearly approaching to that which has been demonstrated to be the strongest, with a minimum of materials. The following hasty sketch will explain.

Fig 1 shows the Memel timber, with the saw-kerfs for cutting four. Fig. 2, the timber in position, surmounted with the rail cast saddle-ways, presumed to contain 481bs. per yard.

In p. 259, Mr. Vignoles states that if an equal economy in sawing up of the timber can be otherwise obtained, wrought-iron rods may be used to keep the track in gauge; of course, they will be applicable here.

Figure 3 shows the practicability of getting eight timbers out of the baulk fig. 1, by cutting again from a to the centre. I do not venture to say this will be strong

enough, but as the bearing and the depth is the same as proposed by Mr. Vignoles, I have shown it on the score of economy, and think it will be equally applicable as his on solid, or unmade ground. I am, Sir, yours truly,

W. THOROLD. C. E.

Norwich, Jan. 14, 1837.

ACTION OF THE ATMOSPHERE IN BOILING WATER.

Sir, I cannot refrain from troubling you with a few remarks on that collection of errors which appears in a recent number, under the title of "On the Action of the Atmosphere," and which bears the signature of "W." As the whole article is composed of details of experiments, explained on the most miraculous principles, for the purpose of supporting the theory which is advanced in the first sentence, we cannot do better than examine the experiments, and show the absurdity of the explanations, in the order in which "W." has arranged them.

In the first place, "W." asks, Is not boiling "caused by a current of air, which enters through the bottom of the vessel, rises up through the water, and thereby causes the bubbling?" &c. How "W." could imagine that air would penetrate "through" a piece of metal was to me a matter of surprise, until I found it accounted for most readily in another part of his remarks. "The heat of the fire," he observes, "rarefies the air, expands the metal of the vessel, and by these means the air appears to be enabled to penetrate the metal!" But "W." will find that "these means" are not adequate to produce the effect which he ascribes to them; for if he will trouble himself to procure a metallic vessel, and after heating it much hotter than the temperature of boiling water (and consequently causing the metal to expand much more), expose it by means of a condensing syringe to a very great pressure, and not merely to a current of hot air, he will find that after exposing it to these additional "means," not a particle of air will penetrate it. Thus we see that boiling cannot be caused by the bubbling up of air, which has "penetrated" the metal; and if "W." still maintains that it is caused by "currents

of air," he must show, in a more satisfactory manner, how the air arrives at the bottom of the vessel.

He next asks, "Does not the light coloured matter, which is called steam, consist of particles of water thrown up and carried off from the surface by the air, as it rushes through the boiling water?" Steam is not "light coloured matter," but is perfectly invisible, and although it consists of particles of water, the particles are not torn asunder by the rushing" of air through the water, as "W." supposes them to be, but stand at the great distance from each other, in which they are found in steam, by virtue of heat, and without any connexion whatever with the air.

"W." next directs attention to the phenomena which present themselves, in the passing of cold water to the boiling state; he imagines that the small bubbles which appear on the sides of a vessel of water, when becoming warm, are the first appearances of boiling. Truly, these small bubbles are portions of air; but they are not produced on the sides of a vessel from "currents of air" which " penetrate it," but have first been absorbed from the atmosphere, by the water being exposed to it; and if "W." will take a portion of water, and expose it under the exhausted receiver of an air-pump, he will observe that these bubbles of air will rise from it without the assistance of heat, and that the water thus freed from air, will no longer exhibit these small bubbles on his applying heat to it.

Another argut which " W." uses to support his theory is, that "if a tin vessel containing water be partly immersed in a vessel of boiling water, the water in the tin vessel may be raised to a boiling heat, but will not boil," because, as he supposes, the air is excluded by the boiling water which surrounds the tin vessel. Here he first tells us, that the boiling of the water in the large vessel is occasioned by the "currents of air" which " penetrate the bottom" of it, and rise to the top; but he says that the water of the small vessel cannot boil, because the air has no access to it. Pray, what becomes of the "currents of air" which rise from the bottom of the large vessel in which it is immersed? In rising they must inevitably