side of the Exhibition, as it would not have done if the professors and the lovers of architecture had not in time bestirred themselves. I turned accordingly with anxiety to the prospectus of the French Exhibition, which has just been re-printed and circulated from South Kensington, to see if it indicated progress or retrogression since 1862 in respect of the due recognition of architecture as an elemental idea in the general arrangement. It is my duty to report that I am filled with grave apprehensions that, if that programme is to be acted upon, we shall find that recognition even less complete than it was in 1862. Of course allowance must be made in reading this document for that love of playing at scientific arrangement, which among foreigners sometimes tends towards something not very unlike pedantic fussiness. In one respect I am glad to say that the Exhibition of 1867 is a marked improvement upon its predecessors-it will be truly universal-by breaking down the geographical divisions which converted its predecessors into what a man given to playing upon words might have called a map of the world upon Mercator's projection, and by ranging class against class in direct cosmopolitan competition. Here, however, I must pause in my praise, looking at the programme with an architectural eye. The prospectus ranges the exhibition in ten groups, subdivided into ninety-five classes. What an architect might have marshalled together under the great group of architecture is dotted up and down the list as follows: Group 1 is entitled "Works of Art," and divided into five classes, of which No. 4 is headed "Architectural Designs and Models," to be placed in the first gallery of the building, and is thus epitomized:"Sketches and details; elevations and plans of buildings; Restorations based upon existing views or documents." I should have mentioned that in a previous class termed "other paintings and drawings" occur "Cartoons for stained glass and frescoes," while there is another class of "Sculpture and die sinking" which may cover architectural sculpture, which has otherwise no distinct place. Class 9, in group 2, introduces us to photographs of buildings. The third group is headed" Furniture and other objects for the use of dwellings," and includes thirteen classes, which in their turn include a mass of miscellaneous articles, which it is difficult to imagine could not be better subdivided. The "Upholstery and decorative work" class starts with "Bed furniture and stuffed chairs," and closes with " Furniture, ornaments and decorations for the service of the church." The next class is designated "Chrystal, fancy glass, and stained glass," and also runs from the secular to the sacred, from "drinking glasses" to "stained glass windows," the cartoons for such windows. being, as we have seen, ever so many classes back. After exhausting other materials the classifier seems to have thought that the time for metal had arrived, and with a true system-monger's instinct he begins from the beginning with a class of "cutlery-knives, pen-knives, scissors, razors, &c.-cutlery of every description," and goes on to recapitulate in subsequent classes "church plate," "plate for the dining table," and "statues and bas-reliefs in bronze, cast iron, zinc, &c." I am sure you will admire the philosophic rigour of the classification, which ranges razors and bronze statuary" side by side, and calls them both furniture. The anti-climax of the furniture group is a class of leather work and wicker. A long sweep brings us to the eightieth class of "Civil engineering, public works, and architecture," (architecture you will note coming after civil engineering) in the large group Apparatus and processes in the common arts," in which a miscellaneous catalogue tails off with "Models, plans, and drawings of public works, bridges, viaducts, aqueducts, drains, canal bridges, &c., lighthouses, and public buildings for special purposes," as if there could be a public building without a special purpose!" buildings for civil purposes; mansions and houses for letting; lodging houses for the working classes, &c." I ask you, as men of common sense, if this elaborate catalogue, coming where it does, and contrasted with the vague generalities of the so-named architectural class in group 1 does not indicate the subordination of pure architecture to so-called engineering? Another jump brings us to the last class but two, No. 93, which it seems is to be placed in the "Park," and is

of "

termed "Examples of dwellings characterized by cheapness, combined with the conditions necessary for health and comfort," and is divided into two heads; "Examples for dwellings for families, suitable to the different classes of workmen in each country," and "Examples of dwellings suggested for factory hands in cities or in the country."

We shall be but guests at Paris, and so neither courtesy nor possibility allow us, I suppose, to make any formal opposition to a scheme already so elaborately prepared and officially published. We can only bear it and make the best of it. As your President I have the honour of being one of the British Commissioners, and I need hardly tell you that my most strenuous exertions shall be devoted to furthering the good cause of Architecture. I should advise the formation here at as early a date as convenient of an Exhibition Committee. This Committee ought to originate within the Institute; but, I think you will agree with me, that it might well contain an addition of co-operators from the cognate societies. If such were formed it would be my constant duty and pleasure to be the representative of its wishes at the Commission. In any case, let every British architect, let every British architectural sculptor, metal worker, wood carver, glass painter, and ceramist, gird himself up for a victory upon a foreign soil.

I must now offer a few remarks upon that which is even more important than the details of architectural administration, namely, the condition among us of that art in whose behalf alone this administration possesses any value. I am glad to be able to speak in a hopeful tone, and I am glad that the improvement which prompts that tone is one upon which I can insist without trenching on that impartiality which the position, in which you have placed me, demands. To whichever side the victory in the battle of styles may verge, this much is certain that the truth of architecture has been made more precious in our eyes, and her fertility of resources has been enhanced in consequence of the conflict. All sides are now agreed that material ought to be real, and all sides are anxious to enlarge the list of real materials. Variety of colour and variety of material in the same building has by this time become a question merely of degree; the sky line is appreciated and studied, the catalogue of plants available for the working artist's chisel is no longer limited to the acanthus and the honeysuckle. Finally - The painter and the sculptor are, as in great old days, both of them welcomed as brethren of the architect, and co-operators in the broad idea of the completed construction-not merely as the parasites who are to fasten on the finished pile.

No doubt, with the single exception of the recognition of the sky line, the acceptance of these incidents does not amount to the demonstration of improvement in that which is of the chief importance in architectural art,-composition. It is possible to conceive the world's noblest design carried out in cement, while the vilest nightmare might be embodied in a façade of marble and serpentine, bristling with sculpture, and bedaubed with gold mosaic. Yet, indirectly, the consciousness of variety in his materials, and in his permitted details, and the responsibility thus laid upon him to make his use of all, must strengthen the heart and heighten the intellect of the composer, for opportunities make men, as often at least as men make opportunities. As far also as truthfulness of material comes into question, a tender conscience in avoiding shams will also breed a manly truthfulness in the composition of the mass; for it is untrue to nature that the man who sees no vice in palming off plaster for stone and marble, and graining for oak, should be very scrupulous about the proportions of the mass, or the purity of his details, should he see a short and easy way open to vulgar popularity through the lavish employment of gaudy and meretricious forms.

If what I have said be true, we may expect to see the fullest proofs of the improvement in London and other large towns. Of the condition of London architecture, I am willing to think more favourably and anxious to speak more hopefully than it is the fashion to do in some quarters. Undue depreciation

is as little clever or original as undue laudation, while it is, if possible, even easier. No man is more conscious than I am of the infinite amount of lost opportunities which have to be made up in London, or of the ineffectual manner in which these opportunities have too often been taken in hand. But of late years, at all events, London has been shaping itself into that form of beauty, of which alone, from many reasons, foremost of them our civil liberty, she is at present capable-the beauty I mean of picturesque variety. We know how under different political circumstances foreign cities are forfeiting their old picturesqueness in order to don the aspect of official regularity. London, on the other hand, is growing out of an irregularity of plan in which, speaking generally, there was no architectural character into one in which irregularity has become picturesque. Of course a vast number of the new London buildings will not stand criticism. But in which of the large old picturesque cities do we find the majority of the houses really good architectural composition? It is the ensemble and not alone the merit of each component which gives the general effect to cities, such as Bruges or Amsterdam.

The first feeling of the stranger, who comes unexpectedly upon the sumptuous palaces, which are for example growing up in that dingy and narrow thoroughfare Lombard Street, is probably regret that they should have been dropped down into a corner, which seems to preclude the appreciation of their merits. On second thoughts he may, however, pluck consolation from the reflection that it was in narrow thoroughfares like Lombard Street that the buildings which give their fame to cities, such as Verona or Genoa, were planted, and that the picturesqueness which the traveller finds to admire in them is in no little degree enhanced, whether truly or in imagination, I do not now concern myself to ask, by the narrowness and irregularity of the ancient streets of these cities. Perhaps in coming time, when London shall house by house have been rebuilt, as we are now rebuilding it, and when a little of the mellowing of time shall have passed over those buildings, the curious traveller from the antipodes may visit London, not to sit upon the broken arch of London Bridge, but to drink in notions of old world picturesqueness from the houses of Lombard Street and Mincing Lane.

In what I have been saying I have confined myself mainly to the developement of domestic architecture upon existing lines of streets. If, for example, I were to speculate upon the razzias and rebuildings which follow on the importation of railroad termini into the heart of the town, I should engage you in a maze of conjecture of which I feel that I have no time to seek the clue. The architectural future of the Thames Quay is a problem which ought to fill us with anxiety: the material advantage of the great enterprise is beyond a peradventure, the artistic gain which may be made of it, remains to be gauged. It is a curious reminiscence that when the Thames Quay was first advocated in the House of Commons some forty years ago by Sir Frederick Trench- —a name to be always had in honour for the courageous and constant zeal with which its possessor continued to advocate an improvement which he was not destined to see completed-it should have been opposed by Sir Robert Peel in the interest of the streets running down to the Thames, and supported by Lord Palmerston. Were I to enter upon the new phase through which religious art is passing in London, as well as elsewhere, I should have still more to say, which, however, I think it is better not to say. Were I further to talk of that feeling of respect for the ancient monuments of the metropolis, which has prompted so general a restoration of them, my anticipation of London's architectural worth would be still further enhanced. The epoch which witnesses simultaneously the decoration of St. Paul's, of Westminster Abbey, and of the under-croft of St. Stephen's Chapel, the restoration of the Tower, and Guildhall, of the Temple, Austin Friars, and St. Bartholomew's Churches, and the Savoy Chapel, and the resurrection of Charing Cross, is one in which the spirit of reverence for old forms of beauty must be abroad.

Next year the Archæological Institute holds its congress in London. It is well that we should be able to meet it with a confident spirit in a city which has not been untrue to its inheritance of ancient

с

buildings. The pursuits of this society are to a great extent parallel with our own, and I am sure we shall cordially welcome a gathering of which a main object is the complete investigation of the monuments of architectural antiquity in and around London.

I have been the more anxious to invite your attention to the architectural condition of London, because next session will in all probability decide whether the capital is to be enriched with a great public building of undoubted excellence, or afflicted with one of costly mediocrity. The nation is going to rebuild its Law Courts, and mass them in one pile. I do not now question the site selected. This is, according to the modern phrase, an accomplished fact, and it is enough to say that the area chosen is one well suited for a magnificent and commodious structure. I say nothing, though I might say much about the method to be adopted in selecting the architect. I do not claim to dictate the style, for I trust that whatever style may be chosen, architectural truth will not be sacrificed. If the building is to be classical, classical must not be interpreted to mean a modern house, with floors below, and chimney pots above, ill concealed by barricades of pillars, fencing off light and air from the unhappy occupants. If it is to be Gothic, Gothic must not be handled as the style which enforces narrow casements and diamond panes, turrets that lead to no where, and gurgoyles that spout no water. Under any condition we claim a building which shall tell the tale of its own destination, and indicate the puissance of the nation in whose behalf it has been raised. We claim-what Manchester, out of merely a county's resources, has so generously provided—a palace in which the disposition of parts and the ornamentation spring from the destined use; in which the law courts and the great hall shall stand out from the general structure; in which the corridors shall be lofty and wide, the staircases easy and dignified, the subsidiary chambers many and accessible; acoustics, light, and warmth, and ventilation all well attended to, and after all these utilitarian requirements have been satisfied, in which proportion and material shall all be of the choicest; in which form and colour, sculpture and painting, shall combine to beautify the pile and leave it a living chronicle of the great growth of that sublime spectacle-the world's wonder and envy-English law, fearlessly and solemnly administered by English judges without spite and without favour, unbiassed by Crown or mob, or armed battalion. If the building shall fall short of this ideal, great will be the scandal and the misfortune, on whomsoever's back may lie the blame of the miscarriage.

If it were only for the proximate erection of the Palace of Justice, next season would be an important one to us. But in this age of changeful activity it is not needful to look to any one incident as the text on which to preach more vigilance, greater exertion. We are all proud of our Institute; we all acknowledge its importance; we all are conscious of what it has done, and of what it might do which it has not done. Let all of us then, laying aside self-seeking and mutual jealousy, sloth and fear, unite with one heart, cheerfully and magnanimously to promote the best interests of architecture as a science and as an art, and to build up this Institute as a guarantee to ourselves and to the world that architects shall respect and the public acknowledge the just claims and genuine character of that science and that art.

PROFESSOR DONALDSON, Past-President, rose and said: After the manner in which the President's discourse had been received by those present, he should not presume to offer one word in eulogy of the various topics introduced, of the manner in which they had been treated, or of the interest they possessed in the minds of those who had listened to them. The President had handled the several subjects in a broad and distinct way, with much instruction to the members, and he doubted not it would be to all a stimulus through the coming session to carry out the principles so ably laid down. There were one or two matters which he (Prof. Donaldson) regarded as of peculiar importance, on which he would venture

to say a very few words, particularly on the subject of Architecture in reference to Science and scientific associations, and Architecture in reference to Art, and its connexion with art institutions. In the first place the President had alluded to engineers, so called, as essentially forming a part of the architectural body. That was quite true. The difference between the two professional bodies had arisen from various circumstances, but the science of engineering had taken so large a development, and assumed so much importance in the present day, that it was thought worthy and just to those who cultivated that special branch of science, that they should be recognised as of a distinct class, worthy of the attention of the public, and which should be called by a separate term. The term "architect" was honorably recognised by engineers. They found that naval architecture formed a portion of the establishment of the Admiralty. There was in existence an Institute of Naval Architects, showing that the science of conception, the science of invention and combination of parts, was one of very high value, and sufficient for them to claim the title of Naval Architects. It had long been his feeling to combine in the architectural body all who had produced works having reference to architectural beauty, in size of architectural importance, or which possessed any architectural sentiment at all; and from the very origin of this Institute he had been desirous to get in, as members, those engineers who had erected buildings, which might be called monumental edifices. They might be defective in one part or other, in the mass or in detail; but still there were large masses of railway stations, magazines in the dockyards, and workshops in the Government establishments which evinced considerable architectural ability. The buildings erected by Sir John Rennie in Plymouth dockyard, in particular, might be referred to as being of a fine architectural character, and if left as fragments of a past century, would be looked upon as remarkable erections of the period. Therefore, whether it was engineering in the civil service-whether marine engineering or military engineering-whatever it might be, to them the name ought to be worthy, and the question they should ask themselves was, "Has that man produced an architectural work worthy of placing him in the position of being a member of this Institute?" Away with jealousy as to terms! They should recognise that man as worthy who had done a worthy work! There was another consideration to which the President had called attention, that was with reference to the Royal Academy especially. It was to him (Prof. Donaldson) matter of deep regret that architects had not sufficiently looked upon their position as artists, and that they should wish to disassociate themselves, so much as they had done, from the Royal Academy. When a young man he passed three years in the schools of the Royal Academy. It was a very happy period of his life. He formed connections and associations then, and he believed gained knowledge in art from being connected with young men of that period, who had since distinguished themselves as painters and sculptors. It was therefore, in his opinion, most desirable that the young members of their profession should, by associating in their studies with painters and sculptors, and in an atmosphere of art acquire knowledge as artists, beyond mere technical knowledge as architects. He felt that the Royal Academy was to be regarded as an academia artis, where art should be taught in its very highest culture. In this Institute they encouraged the study of architecture, and gave premiums and rewards for drawings of designs, but they had no pretensions as a school to teach students how to compose, how to draw, and how to improve themselves as artists. The meetings of the Institute were periodically held, and the students had the privilege of having practical papers read, and also the discussions that took place upon them; but an academia artis they certainly were not. It was most desirable, as the President had said, that they should, if possible, draw to them and associate themselves with members of other kindred bodies, as the best means by which the young members could raise themselves to the heights of their profession. He quite adopted the views of the President, that they should consider those two subjects in the view he had expressed in his address, and he was sure their own profession and that of the engineers would be great gainers thereby. Another subject mentioned by the