frivolous; and, under the head of Retrospective Criticism, we will allow every article which appears in the work to be critically examined, provided that no personalities are introduced, and that the criticism is never couched in offensive language.

For the execution of this plan, we rely on the cooperation of our readers generally, and more especially on that of such practical and amateur architects as take the same views of the subject as ourselves; that is to say, who are desirous of improving society generally in architectural knowledge and taste. Indeed, our object will be, in a great degree, to induce our readers to instruct one another; and for this purpose we invite all of them, and especially young architects, to become writers. There is scarcely any person who has a thorough knowledge of the art or trade which he practises, who could not write about it, if he were to try; and our experience, in the course of the nine years during which we have conducted the Gardener's Magazine, justifies us in asserting, that by far the most valuable contributions to practical arts and trades are likely to be made by men engaged in them; and by pupils, apprentices, and journeymen, as well as by masters. The same views are also confirmed by the success of that useful and most judiciously conducted work, the Mechanics' Magazine, which, directly and indirectly, has effected more for the mechanics throughout Britain than any other publication. In the course of conducting the Gardener's Magazine, we have seen the great advantage that journeymen gardeners have procured to themselves by becoming writers; the habits of thinking and reasoning which they have attained on subjects generally, and the power of expressing themselves with facility and accuracy in conversation, and, above all, in that most important part of every man's social duty, letter-writing. There is no more certain mode by which one man can judge of the mind of another than by his letters; and no man can write a letter who could not also write an article for a Magazine if he were to make the attempt. We invite, then, not only architects, builders, surveyors, and amateurs, but artisans, journeymen, and apprentices, of all the different arts and trades above mentioned as more immediately connected with Architecture, to become our correspondents. Let them not hesitate from any doubts as to their style; facts are what we want, and, in whatever form we receive them, they are always valuable. Independently of the endless variety of subjects suited to Original Communications, there will seldom be found a Number of this Magazine which does not contain a query that some reader may be able to answer, and also facts or reasonings, by ourselves or others, which are open to discussion under the head of Retrospective Criticism. There is probably no reader who could not communicate some news for our Miscellaneous Department; for example, of build

ings projected, or carried into execution in his immediate neighbourhood; new articles of furniture, or modes of furnishing, which he has seen; new modes of warming and ventilating; or improvements in public roads, bridges, gates, or architectural fences. Let every reader, therefore, in this manner cooperate with us in eliciting and diffusing architectural knowledge and taste. The principal means of effecting the improvement of any class of society is by inducing its members to think, and the most ready mode of exciting thought in ourselves is by reading the thoughts of others similarly circumstanced.

Having now explained the objects of this Magazine; enumerated the different classes to whom it is addressed, and from whom we expect cooperation; having laid down our plan; and, finally, having stated the principles by which we mean to be guided in carrying that plan into execution, we shall proceed to lay before our readers such communications as have been sent us: not doubting but that, as our work becomes more generally known, and our contributors increase, every succeeding Number will be rendered more and more interesting.

ORIGINAL COMMUNICATIONS.

ART. I. On the present State of the Professions of Architect and Surveyor, and of the Building Trade, in England. By SCRUTATOR.

Sir,

I REJOICE that the Architect and Surveyor are at length to have a Periodical devoted to them. It is time they had, for never was such a publication so much required by the profession as at present; and I am confident that it will lead to the reformation of many abuses now existing among Architects, Surveyors, and Builders. It will tend to eradicate many false notions, and to correct many bad practices; and will, I hope, restore the profession to the station it formerly held in society. I am sorry to say that architects and surveyors do not now obtain that confidence with the public that they ought to have, and I think this confidence can only be restored by free discussion in such a periodical as you propose. We find that those classes which have periodicals devoted to them, have very greatly improved their knowledge and their respectability, and have had instilled into them an amicable understanding among themselves: for instance, witness what that excellent periodical the Mechanics' Magazine has done. This magazine was the principal cause of Mechanics' Institutions being formed, not only in London, but all over England, and it opened a wide field for communicating know

ledge: it has tended to make the mechanic respected by his superiors; and has mainly contributed to make him looked upon as equal in knowledge to the aristocracy, upon whom he is gaining ground daily. In like manner, that spirited and excellent periodical the Lancet has tended to eradicate abuses in the medical profession; and the Legal Observer has done wonders even among the lawyers. If, then, these periodicals have effected so much good, it is to be hoped that yours will lead to the same results; and, if it do not, I am sure it will not be the fault of its conductor, who, I feel convinced, if he meets with support, will grapple with and expose the abuses of the profession; as well as exert himself " to improve and extend architectural taste and knowledge." If my humble exertions can be of any benefit, they are at your service; and, on the supposition that they will be acceptable, I will at once make a few remarks that are deserving of the serious attention of the members of the profession.

The first thing I shall notice is that disgraceful mode of giving evidence in courts of justice, which has made the very name of a surveyor a laughing-stock for the legal profession; his evidence in a court of law is looked upon in the same light as that of a horse-jockey in a horse cause; and can we be surprised at it, when similar evidence to the following is constantly given?

Plaintiff A and defendant B are at issue upon an account for works executed. The witnesses of A state that the work is done in a very superior manner: one witness swears that the work is fairly worth 15447.; and another witness, to support him, swears the fair value is 1630l. Then come the defendant's witnesses, who state that the work is very badly executed, and done in a very improper manner: one of them asserts that the outside value of the plaintiff's work is 9301., and another surveyor says he makes the value 9357. Now, what are the judge and jury, who know no more about a building account than a boy of seven years old, to do in such a case? They are surprised and astonished that respectable men can be so very wide in their values; and what is the result? Why, they take the several amounts as given in evidence, add them together, and divide the amount by the number of witnesses: accordingly, the result in the above case would be, that a verdict would be given for 12571. Now, let architects and surveyors reflect upon this disgraceful mode of giving evidence (and they know too well that what I have stated is pretty near the truth), and ask themselves whether it is not time that something should be done to redeem the character of their profession?

Again, do we not find it frequently the case, that gentlemen have such an antipathy to the name of a surveyor, that, if the builder were to mention to his employer that he was about to engage a surveyor to measure the works executed, he would

immediately give offence; consequently, the builder is obliged to introduce the surveyor into the building by stealth. Nor can any one be surprised at it, when we witness the extortionate charges made by some surveyors, whom I shall here style custom surveyors. This is the manner in which they proceed: two surveyors meet to make out an account of certain works done. We will suppose the account that they have to settle is a plumber's bill. The first article is 18 cwt. of milled lead : the plumber's surveyor requires 25s. per cwt.; the surveyor for the opposite party remonstrates, and points out to him that the prime cost was 15s.; the other replies that 25s. is the customary price, and that he cannot take less. To convince his opponent, he opens an old measuring-book, and shows that 25s. has been charged in an account that he settled on behalf of Mr. Getall with Mr. Easy the surveyor, some years before; and he again repeats that it is the custom to charge 25s., and that he cannot deviate from it. In the same way; he charges 1s. per foot for pipe that only cost 4d., and 1s. per lb. for solder that only cost 5d.; and so he goes on in the same ratio with all other articles in the bill. After charging so extortionately for the time and materials for making a joint to a pipe, he has the conscience to ask, in addition, 2s. 6d. for that joint, though he cannot tell why he does so, except that it is the custom, &c. The consequence of all this is, that the surveyor for the opposite party, if he have any conscience, cannot settle the account, and it is referred to the lawyers; it is then carried into a court of justice, where it is decided in a similar manner to that which I have before described.

Can it be a matter of surprise that there should be so little measuring, when the charges are made out in the way I have stated? As a remedy, I would recommend every person intending to build to have the work done by contract. I would contract even for a dog-kennel, until these custom surveyors are brought to their senses. This, I think, they soon will be; for, in consequence of the manner of proceeding which I have described, they are employed less and less every day.

Another great error, in valuing builders' work, is, that the surveyors too frequently charge but one price, whether the work be done well or ill, and that they pay no regard to the prime cost, or to the mode of payment. The latter ought to be taken into serious consideration; for, if the work be paid for as it proceeds, it will enable the builder to purchase his materials with cash, and thus generally 10 per cent cheaper in the market, than if he had to obtain them on credit. On the other hand, if the work be not paid for till some time after it is finished, a considerable increase ought to be allowed, for the disadvantages of being obliged to purchase on credit, and for the use of the ready money necessarily laid out in workmen's wages. Something, also,

should be allowed for risk, as builders are liable to have bad debts as well as other tradesmen.

Having said thus much respecting surveyors, I will now allude to one or two abuses that have lately been introduced among architects. It is now the fashion among some of the principal architects, not to allow the builder to employ a surveyor to measure his work, but to insist upon the builder leaving it entirely to the architect's clerk, or to a surveyor named by him. Every practical surveyor must at once see the evil consequences of this mode of proceeding; because he must know, that, even with the greatest caution, and with the utmost rectitude of intention, mistakes will creep in, if only one surveyor is employed: even the simple circumstance of omitting to double or treble a dimension, may make some hundreds of pounds' difference. It is this species of error that causes so great a difference in estimates for work to be performed: and frequently have I known this to be the case. I recollect certain estimates that were made for building a church, and the difference was very great between the two lowest; the parties compared books, and it was discovered that in the lowest the amount of the gallery had not been doubled: every other part was taken by both parties as accurately as could be required. What is most disgraceful in the modern practice alluded to is, that the architect's clerk or surveyor frequently charges the builder a commission for measuring; or, what is equally bad, he gets the tradesman to repair or paint his house, or to execute some other job, which the latter is obliged to do to keep himself in favour; the architect, at the same time, not forgetting to charge his employer with his commission for measuring.

Another disgraceful practice, which is either owing to ignorance or knavery, is, that some architects deceive their employers, by making very pretty and attractive drawings, and reporting that the expense of carrying these into execution will be about half or two thirds of what it actually turns out to be. In this way they obtain the sanction of their employer to commence building; and when the accounts are sent in, the employer finds himself involved too frequently in ruinous expenses. The builder, in such cases, often gets into disgrace, and is either obliged to commence an action to obtain his rights (because the architect has the knavery, in order to screen his ignorance, to say that the builder's bill is a most exorbitant one), or to have his bill cut down so low, that he is left a loser instead of a gainer, after labouring hard for 12 or 18 months. To remedy this evil, I would advise the parties intending to build, to contract with the architect for his commission, as well as with the builder for his work. This might be done in the following manner :- If the architect reports that the building will amount to 2000l., his