5 NOVEMBER 1842, Page 19

PROFESSOR HOSKINCS INTRODUCTORY LECTURE ON ARCHITECTURE.

Wass, in our notice of Professor DONALDSON'S Inaugural Lecture at University College, we contended for the expediency of adopting a style of architecture suited to improved methods of construction, we were not aware of having so high an authority in support of our argu- ment as Professor Hosittso ; not having heard his Introductory Lecture on the Principles and Practice of Architecture, delivered to the students of King's College in January last, nor seen it in print until after our remarks appeared. Not only does Professor Ilossuria advocate "an alteration in the stereotyped arrangement which long usage has sanc- tioned," and to which "architects have been such slaves," but lie himself is an innovator in the article of bridges of masonry ; "the design of which may," he considers, "be greatly improved, while the cost of con- struction is materially diminished." The nature and extent of this innovation are explained and illustrated by Mr. HOSKING in a work on

Bridges, now in course of publication ; but it is not necessary for cis here to enter into a discussion of this subject. Our object in alluding to it is, to show that a College Professor, who unites practical experience with sound principles, has led the way in deviating from the broad beaten track of precedent, where imitative mediocrity may safely tread, and has struck out boldly into a new path, which the light of science has enabled him to discover and explore to the end. In this day, when the progress of art as applied to architecture is retrogressive, while science is progressive, such an example is most valuable ; especially in the in- stance of a Professor of one of the Metropolitan Colleges, whose opi- nions, independently formed, are the result of mature reflection, and whose views of the responsibility and dignity of the profession of an architect are calculated to raisa its members in their own and the public estimation.

The lecture enforces the necessity for the architect to possess tho- rough knowledge and practical skill in all that relates to the business of construction, including road-making, drainage, and other matters that have been considered to belong more particularly to the civil engineer, or hydraulic architect, as Mr. HOMING terms him : and by way of ex- emplifying this necessity, the Professor passes in review the various duties that may be required of an architect, enumerating the several descriptions of buildings, and the multifarious details essential to be considered in their planning and erection. As an outline of the course of study and practice requisite to the complete education of an accom- plished architect, this lecture should be in the hands of all who aspire to this honourable but arduous profession ; and it would be read with advantage by all who are in any way concerned in the employment of architects, that they may be able to distinguish the man of science from the pretender, and learn to appreciate the value of those labours which they have been accustomed to regard too lightly. The mob of young practitioners who consider themselves qualified, by a few years' practice in an architect's office, to design and erect buildings, will stand aghast at the wide range of knowledge and experience here sketched out for them to enter upon ; and the parent who has paid a premium of some hundreds of pounds for the privilege of his son performing the duties of a drawing-clerk, may be inclined to think that his money has been thrown away. Mr. HOSKING lays great stress upon the importance of a student being practically conversant with every operation in archi- ture, and with the nature and economy of the materials and labour em- ployed in building; which alone can make an architect any thing be- yond a mere drawer of plans. He complains that the architects have sunk into mere artists ; "that an architectural design is looked upon as an artist's sketch—a work of nought ; and every man, how ignorant soever, deems himself competent to judge of its merits ; and the un- worthy practice of architects is to submit to have their productions so considered and adjudged."

This is a prelude to a denunciation of the present system of com- petition: Mr. HOSKIN° is favourable to the principle, and only opposed to the practice that is now pursued. "Competition, properly con- ducted," says he, "is the sure way to obtain excellence ; but there are many conditions to the proper conduct of a competition. There must be perfect explicitness in the terms, careful investigation to determine that the terms are complied with, perfect competence in the judges to select, and perfect honour in making the selection." To the propriety of these conditions every one will assent: the difficulty is to get them observed ; and this consists, as we have before said, in the want of a tribunal able to decide on the merits of the competitors, and respon- sible for its decision. Such a tribunal would be competent to insist on certain terms being laid down, and observed by all parties : but, as Mr. HOSKINO truly says, "such a tribunal is not to be found." Well, then, until it be found—and that it does not exist, is only one of the many proofs of national ignorance and indifference in all that relates to the fine arts—publicity is the only check, though an insufficient one, to those paltry intrigues that have made the public the prey of jobbers. The idea of the public judging of the merits of architectural designs, Mr. HOOKING treats with a contemptuous scorn, that like, all scorn, we suspect, has more of pride than sense in it. "Exhibit Greek odes and hieroglyphic inscriptions," he exclaims, "and ask the public to judge of the merits of the one and to give translations of the other." The simile is not pertinent : all that the public are expected to judge of is the design of the exterior ; and, unless architecture is an exception to the other fine arts, its productions should have that power of im- pressing the mind of the unprofessional but intelligent spectator, with a sense of fitness, beauty, or grandeur, that would carry as strong a conviction of the surpassing merits of a noble design to the unbiassed mind, as the most learned professor would arrive at by attentive study. Knowledge is necessary to explain the grounds of preference, and to discriminate between two designs of nearly equal merit ; but that same faculty which enables the wondering beholder to feel the grandeur of St. Paul's and Westminster Abbey, qualifies him to pronounce a verdict in favour of a grand design over a mean one. There was no difference of public opinion as to the superiority of Mr. BARRY'S design for the Houses of Parliament : a few interested or disappointed parties cavilled at it, but the mass of the public were decidedly in its favour, from the first hour of its exhibition. Nearly the same may be said of Mr. DONALDSON'S design for the Royal Exchange. We must not be mis- understood as setting up the liking of any ignorant individual against a professional opinion : what we contend for is, that the mass of educated and observing persons—the intelligent portion of the public—are com- petent to form a judgment of the merits of a building, as well as of a statue, or a picture. And, further, we claim for the people the right of being heard, either through the press or otherwise, in any case where popular opinion differs from that of any tribunal, however lofty, in the matter of a great public building, which the people are to have con- stantly before their eyes, and moreover must pay for. Mr. Hosgrrici's remedy for the evils of the present system of compe- tition appears to be this : a few architects should be invited to com- pete, and all who send in designs should be remunerated for their labour : "when all are paid for,' says he, "all may be used ; and the best design in a concurrence may ,be greatly improved by the incorpora- tion of the excellences of others.' We very much doubt whether any good would result from such an amalgamation: besides, who is to undertake the task ? At best, this would only be buying up the ideas of others to let one fortunate individual have the credit of them. No, to use a homely proverb, "Let every tub stand on its own bottom." Pay the competitors—that is but just ; and having done so, there is less to complain of on their part ; though, after all, what is the twenty or fifty guineas for a set of designs, compared to the chagrin of unfair preference? Still the grand difficulty remains: who is to decide? Be- sides, this course would preclude from competition all but known men, while it would not necessarily include those of eminent talent. If com- petitions a ere fairly conducted, architects of character and standing would enter the field even though it were open to all : instead of three large premiums, there might be several smaller ones, as Mr. HOSKIN° sug- gests, for ably-planned designs ; and the successful competitor should in every case have the superintendence of the building, but not be allowed to appropriate the ideas of others. The architect's commission on the work should be the one grand prize in the lottery of competition ; which, though it must necessarily be a lottery, need not be a gambling one, since not chance, nor interest, but merit alone, should gain the prize.

There is much good sense in the following suggestion-

" In truth, the public or their committees ask for too muck, having reference to what they really want Let the requirement be confined to a general design of a building of the particular kind required, of certain capacity, and adapted to a particular site, and to be built of certain main constituent materials, Stipulate for a particular scale, and that the designs shall be presented in drawings, in outline or tinted, and of what particular tint or tints alone; and if perspective views are desired, 6x the point or points of view. More will not then be required than most architects would be willing to engage themselves upon for a comparatively small fee, giving the public thereby the advantage of competition, as far as it can be made of any use, without involving the great expense that elaborated designs must occasion." But the grand difficulty is not obviated. Again we ask, where is the tribunal ? In the case of public works of importance, we would suggest that a board composed of amateurs of known taste and scientific attainments, with two or three professional men to assist them, would be the fittest; and in smaller competitions similar assistance might be procured to guide the local committees. After all, the difficulty is not so much to determine which is the best design, as to ascertain that it is planned scientifically, as well as fitly. In the recent competitions for public buildings, no doubt existed as to which design ought to have been preferred: it was the jobbing spirit that prevented justice being done. In the case of the Royal Exchange, for example, it was known before the competition began who was to have it, just as the jockies know before the race which horse is to win. It is not so much judgment as honesty that is wanted. Hear Mr. HOSKIN° on this point- " The first premium for the General Post-office was awarded to one of the most accomplished men of the present race of architects; but both the design and its author were passed over, and the work was executed by and from the design of an architect who did not appear to have responded to the public call to compete. London Bridge was offered for public competition, and the pre- miums were awarded to some of the competitors; but the work was executed by others, and after a design which had not been submitted in the competition, and which must have existed when the competition was set on foot, as its re- puted author was then already dead. The successful competitor in the com- petition for the _Royal Exchange was passed over because his design was not the best, and the design stated to be the best was rejected upon the pretence that it was not practicable ; whilst the work has fallen to an architect who is understood not to have taken part in the public competition at all."

Mr. llosinerc rightly says, that the remedy for this evil rests with the architects as a profession: in this we entirely agree with him. But we differ from his opinion that the public are most to blame : we think the "public" more sinned against than sinning. Architecture will never rank as a profession so high as it deserves, until the architect learn to become a master of nobler arts than those of intrigue.