Chapter VI: Part 6

The small suburban villa represented in the plate is supposed to stand on a plot of ground with a frontage of 50 ft.; the construction is in brick and stucco, the small columns of the portico are of Bath stone. The plan shows a small hall _a_, the library _c_, 15 ft. by 14 ft., and on the right with a strong closet. The dining-room _e_, is 18 ft. by 15 ft., and on the left; the drawing-room _d_, is 23 ft. by 18 ft. There is a large commodious staircase _b_, and leading from it a small dressing-room _i_, and closet. This dressing-room might easily be made to contain a bath; the water for the bath in any one of the floors should always be heated by means of a close boiler attached to an ordinary kitchen-range. It is the most simple, economical, and efficient arrangement for that purpose, as no more fire than that used for cooking is required. The cold water is supplied from a cistern at the top of the house, and a continual circulation of the water between that and the boiler goes on, the hot water ascending, the cold descending. Pipes may be branched off from the ascending pipe, which leaves the top of the boiler, and taken to any part of the house, ensuring a supply of hot water to dressing-rooms, nurseries, &c. Instead of a boiler, a coil of iron or copper pipe is often used, rendering the circulation quicker and more effective. The one-pair plan of the suburban villa contains three large bedrooms, two dressing-rooms, and one invalid’s room entered from the staircase; to this room the closet could be attached. The staircase leads up to two large attics for the servants.

The section, p. 376, shows a portion of the front and back of the building, with the construction of the roof, the back wall not being carried so high as the front. This is done to give the building an imposing appearance from the road, a mode of construction very often carried out in suburban houses. The basement plan affords good accommodation; _f_ is the kitchen, 18 ft. by 15 ft., _g_ the scullery, _h_ the larder, _k_ the living room, _l_ the business office, with its separate entrance. The closet for the servants is external; the footman’s pantry and the wine cellar lead out of the staircase _b_; the coal cellar is under the portico. The house thus contains seventeen rooms; the cost of its erection would be 3260_l._ completely finished. A detail of the windows is given on a large scale at page 378.

The following is an elevation of the vane, the constructive detail of which is given in a former vignette. The character is Elizabethan, and designed from an example at Oxnead Hall, Norfolk.

_DESIGN No. 33._

A SUBURBAN VILLA.

This design is also one for a suburban villa, or a small country house, on a rather larger scale than the preceding. This villa, dressed with a plain Italian elevation, and of smaller dimensions as to plan, has been erected on several sites near London. The front of the present design was partly taken from a plate in “Nash’s Mansions,” at the request of a

gentleman who very much admired it, and who was anxious to have a semi-detached villa of the same character. The villa was therefore designed so that another could be placed by the side of it. The two gables form the centre, the chimney stack is between them on the roof; the front was to have a sunk area, topped by a Gothic balustrade, and as there were no principal rooms on the basement floor in the front of the house, this was easily given; the rooms at the back looked into the garden, and these had the ground in front of them sloped up.

The ground plan shows an entrance hall _a_, 14 ft. by 10 ft., with a commodious staircase _b_, 18 ft. by 12 ft., to the left. There was a closet to the right;

a lift from the basement could easily be obtained here. The study _c_, was about 16 ft. square, and was entered from the hall; the dining-room _e_, had a bay window, and was in the centre of the building; it measured 20 ft. square. The drawing-room _d_, was very large, being 31 ft. in length by 16 ft. in breadth, with a large window at each end; this was often considered objectionable, as the occupants of the room can always be seen from the opposite houses, but as this was intended for a semi-detached villa, windows could not be obtained at the side.

The one-pair plan contains one large and three small bedrooms, with a closet. Over the porch was placed a conservatory, and by its side the tower staircase led up to the attic. This contained four good-sized

bedrooms, each with a fireplace; there was a housemaid’s closet, and a place for the slate cistern to supply the lower part of the house with water; a small cistern on a higher level was placed on the roof of the tower. Another room could easily have been obtained on this floor, by continuing the passage at the housemaid’s closet through the centre room, and this was proposed, but it was objected to, as it could not be rendered light and airy. A second staircase,

from the attic to the basement, could have been formed in the tower, the two closets being placed in a similar position to the one on the first floor. The staircase in the tower led on to the roof. The section shows the height of the various rooms, there being no variation throughout the floors. It was intended to carry out

the style of the exterior in the interior--a medley between the Gothic and Elizabethan; the proprietor having a very large collection of old-fashioned carvings of various styles and dates, picked up at sales, or purchased in Wardour Street (at that time more celebrated for such antiquities than at present). The walls were to be covered with gilt leather and rich tapestries, and with this the architect did not intend to meddle, leaving it all to the taste and skill of the owner, although he has finished several interiors with such materials.

The basement plan shows the kitchen _f_, the scullery _g_, and larder _h_; _q_ is the wine cellar, and _j_ the butler’s pantry. Then there were two large rooms looking towards the garden, and these were unappropriated. The butler’s small pantry had a window looking into the side area; the servants’ door was on the staircase; the coal cellar was placed under the steps leading to the porch.

The building was to be constructed in brick and cement, with the porch and external balustrade in stone. The expense would have amounted to 4600_l._, or the double villa to 9000_l._

_DESIGN No. 34._

RIDING-HOUSE AND STABLING.

This collection of designs could hardly be complete without a group of stable buildings. To make such a group picturesque is extremely difficult,

and it is very seldom attempted. Such buildings mostly form a portion of the offices which are placed out of view, concealed by plantations or shrubbery, and generally at some distance from the mansion to which they appertain.

The present design, carried out in 1846 and 1848, was for some additional stabling to a baronial park, and it formed a conspicuous object. It stands on the

eastern side of a quadrangle, the larger stabling being on the west, the offices of the mansion on the north (see above), and on the south there was a terrace-walk overlooking the park. The block of buildings as represented in the plan, comprised a riding-house _a_, 62 ft. in length by 32 ft. in width, a four-stall stable _e_, 30 ft. in length, a loose box _b_, 13 ft. square, and the boiler room _d_. The dung pit _g_, into which the liquid manure from the stable was sent, was on a very low level, and had a cart road at its side. The coach-house between the riding-house and stable was 40 ft. in length by 20 ft. in breadth; it had a covered area in front 44 ft. in length, with a width of 13 ft., and a well and pump. The prospect tower _h_, as well as the tower _i_, had iron staircases, which led to the stud-groom’s sleeping room, two harness rooms, and the gallery of the riding-house.

The latter was erected first. It is in brick, with a circular-ribbed wooden roof, on the plan introduced by Phil. de l’Orme, whose well-known book was published in Paris in 1567. He introduced a construction for roofing that is both cheap and efficient, and one that while plenty of light and ventilation can be obtained, gives the largest space in the interior of the room.

The walls of the riding-house were two bricks thick, laid English bond. As the foundation rested on the stone no concrete was used, but the rock, which was on a steep incline, was levelled in step-like fashion, to receive the walls. Buttresses were placed where the circular ribs of the roof were situate; two lines of iron-hoop bond, 1 in. by 1/16 in., tarred and sanded were laid in all the walls, piers, and buttresses; there were 13 courses 2 lines in side walls, 16 courses 2 lines in gable walls, and 7 courses 2 lines in buttresses. The walls were covered with brick copings formed of two courses of moulded bricks cut to lengths and mitred, and set and jointed in cement to gable ends: the flaunches of the angle buttress were formed with stocks, the upper courses set and pointed in cement, and the angles of parapets cut and mitred to the same.

Ragstone moulded corbels were placed over the piers inside the building, from these the circular ribs sprung and into which they were stubbed. The roof was thus described in the specification:--The roof will be formed of circular ribs placed two and two, each 7½ inches apart, screwed and bolted together, each single rib to be in three thicknesses, the inner one of oak and to consist of twenty-six pieces of 1¼ inch deal and ten of 1¼ oak, each separate piece 1 foot in width, and to be as long as the scantling of the timber will allow, the ribs to be wrought and glued together, and at each joint to have two hard nails or ¾ inch screws having a good thread; the top and bottom edges of rib cut fair for linings, the side finished for paint. Cross pieces, 7½ by 2½ inches, twelve to each pair of ribs, the whole to be bolted together. To prevent the ribs from being at an unequal distance, the two outer ribs to be sunk half-an-inch at the places where the purlins notch in them.

The purlins, eight in number, to run the whole length of roof, notching in the rib arches. The purlins to be placed in pairs and to have small cross struts either notched into them or securely nailed to prevent them from buckling or twisting.

All the horizontal timbers of roof, such as the purlins, poll plate, sill, and heads of skylight, to run 9 inches in end walls, and to be cogged on template. Each purlin, if not in one piece, to be properly scarfed. An oak wall-plate, 9 in. by 6 in., was laid the whole length and width of the building, running 6 in. in the wall at angles, where it was pinned and lapped. The plate in the arch over the entrance formed the upper part of the railing in the gallery.

This plate served as the abutment for twenty-four oak braces or struts, each 7 in. by 4 in., placed in the lower portions of the roof on each side, each strut to be sub-tenoned either into purlin or cross piece between rib, and the whole to be securely fixed.

The framing to support curb or sill of skylights to be in one piece, to run over the wood arches, and to be securely fixed to purlin.

Each pair of circular ribs moneyed out 22_l._ 4_s._ 6_d._ The more modern French style of forming this kind of roof would have been by bent ribs composed of three ten-inch planks, 12 inches by 3, cut true at the saw-mill, jointed with glue, planed all round, chamfered to edges, with 20 half-inch bolts. These would have cost only 13_l._ 16_s._ 8_d._ each, but they would have caused considerable lateral pressure against the side walls.

The roof of the riding-house is correctly shown in the small view, p. 389, which serves also to show the section. Fig. 1 of the accompanying cut shows one

of the circular ribs, fig. 2 the section of the pair joined together, and fig. 3 the section of the more modern French method of bent ribs. A roof in this latter construction was put up by Mr. Charles Fowler, architect, at the sale-room, St. Paul’s Churchyard. The circular ribs of the roof were formed in three thicknesses of 1¼ deal, footed into iron sockets or corbels let into stone templates. As a precaution until the perfect set and settlement of the work, three of the roof-frames had iron tie-rods, which were removed when all fear of lateral thrust was over. A print of the room was given in the _Builder_.

The first construction described could be much improved, strengthened, and lightened by introducing an iron bar in lieu of the oak rib; and this has been done in several instances, resulting in the roofs standing well.

The chief portion of the bricks used in the construction of the riding-house were provided from the estate, and were carted on the ground for the use of the builder. His account came to 920_l._

The elevation of the stable shows the entrance to the coachhouse in the centre, between coupled columns. These were in iron, of slightly Elizabethan character as to style. Two gabled windows are on each side, one forming the entrance to the riding-house, the whole flanked by two towers; that on the left contained the staircase leading to the gallery of the riding-house seen in the view, the other is the prospect tower, overlooking the park. These buildings were commenced and finished in 1848. The builder had to take down the old coachhouse and stabling which stood upon the site, and was permitted to use the old materials as far as they would go; one roof was re-used. The cost of the new building was 1107_l._ The whole length was 95 ft. One of its principal features was the prospect tower, a view of which and

a representation of the back front is on p. 398; this was 60 ft. in height above the foundations.

An iron staircase led up to the small tower, which had a staircase leading to the roof or lead flat, upon which was a seat and flagstaff. The battlements of

this small tower and its doorway were constructed of ragstone. This turret was corbelled out from the building as seen in the view; its plan and that of the corbelling is given on p. 399. The corbels were two bricks in height, each course; the arch is covered with

a stone landing upon which the small turret stands. It has a lightning conductor. This, the three iron staircases, and the columns, cost 200_l._, which, however,

was included in the previously stated amount of 1107_l._

It was proposed to give the terrace-walk an ornamental stone. The balustrading and one of the bays of this balustrading are illustrated below.

_DESIGN No. 35._

A BACHELOR’S HOUSE.

This building was intended to have been erected on an estate in the neighbourhood of London, for the solicitor acting for the lessee, a builder who was erecting numerous first-class houses upon the property, and who required his solicitor to be often with him. The gentleman was a bachelor, and this was, for a time, to have been his private town dwelling. It was only to consist of a basement and ground floor, but the walls were to be made sufficiently thick to enable the structure to be carried upwards when the estate was fully covered, and the house would be required for a family.

The plan was arranged after the legal gentleman’s own directions: _a_ is the small entrance hall, leading to the inner hall, from which the living room _b_, and the picture gallery _f_, are gained; the gallery contained a choice collection of cabinet pictures, hunting subjects by a celebrated painter; _c_ is a small bedroom, which could be enclosed or shut off from the living room by a lifting-screen, worked somewhat similar to a lifting shutter. The screen was to be covered on the side next the living room with paintings; _d_ is the bath

room, _e_ the closet, _h_ is the dining-room with its lift, _i_, from the pantry in the basement; _j_ was a small iron staircase leading down to the stable, where some valuable hunters were to be kept. Under the dining-room was the coachhouse; no rooms were over the stabling. The servants’ entrance was in the area. The exterior of the building had a plain Gothic Tudor front.

* * * * *

The vignette shows a corbel in the French cut-wood style.

THE FIREPLACE.

FLUE CONSTRUCTION AND SMOKE PREVENTION.

An especial love for home comfort has always been an English characteristic. It has formed a species of national taste and pride even among our working classes. The constant changes of our climate are injurious to every class; the chief point of attraction in the English dwellings, during winter’s wet, cold, and fog, is centred in the fireplace. This has long been deemed the favoured spot where

“Social mirth
Exults and glows before the blazing hearth.”

The fireplace suits our climate; it is cheerful and attractive, but it gives its heat only by radiation. We are warmed on one side and chilled on the other, but neither the warmth nor the chill is too great to bear, and the occupant of the room can move into any temperature that suits him. In more northern climates the use of the fireplace would not be tolerated; there the cold is so excessive that an equal warmth must be diffused throughout the apartments, and flues in hollow walls, and closed stoves either in iron or brick are in the ascendant, as already mentioned in an earlier part of this work. But such means, by which the air is heated, and not merely warmed--and there is a great difference between warmed air and heated--would not be tolerated here. A puff of air from a closed stove caused by a back draught is not pleasant, and is very different from the honest puff of smoke from an English fireplace, that gives as a natural product of combustion, carbonic acid gas. But not one of these stoves, nor those that are called “smoke-consuming stoves,” make a good companionable fire--and this is not liked.

The common open fireplace has held its own, and will continue to hold its own, against the best-contrived stove that can be introduced in lieu of it. But it still remains to find such a construction as will remedy its serious defects. These are chiefly such as pertain to the flue; it is not to the stove that these belong, for that, thanks to our excellent makers, is quite perfect.

In our sluggish winter atmosphere the smoke leaves the open flue with tolerable certainty unless the flue is foul with soot; but when high winds prevail and the atmosphere is anything but sluggish, it teaches us the faults of the open flue, and volumes of smoke descend into our apartments. There are few occurrences in domestic life more vexatious and annoying than this; the numerous unsightly appendages in the form of cowls, turncaps, and windguards which appear alike on our houses, churches, and palaces, whilst they exhibit the ingenuity of our builders and workmen in remedying the trouble of smoky chimneys, demonstrate also the frequency of the misfortune.

When flues are carefully constructed, with the best modern improvements, and a due supply of air is admitted into the stove, a smoky chimney is an exception; still the flue forms only a simple open funnel for the passage of the smoke, and failures will inevitably often happen. A construction on a good principle should render these defects as trifling as possible. In our best houses--those constructed within the last twenty or thirty years--two kinds of the common brick flue are mostly in use. One is of the old-fashioned kind, having a section of 14 by 9 in., which was made originally of that size for the accommodation of the poor sweeping-boys. This is now retained only for the kitchen fire, which makes a large quantity of smoke, and for the rest of the fireplaces the flue known as “Cubitt’s” flue is employed, which has a diameter each way of 9 in. The author prefers the small flue, and always uses it in the buildings he has constructed. There are many persons who still maintain that the old-fashioned flue is the correct one, and it is still very generally used. There is an old saying about the proof of the pudding. In Belgrave Square, all the houses first designed and erected have the old-fashioned flue, and there are scarcely a dozen of the old chimney-pots left; all have been changed for tall-boys and other similar contrivances; one house has about 24 in one stack. No. 49, built by Cubitt about 35 years ago, and having the descending or sweeping flue, has the stacks exactly as at first constructed, with the exception only of a little doctoring to the kitchen flue. In the house opposite, No. 48, one of the first, the external stack alone, next the street, has no less than 17 tall-boys, two of which appear to be broken off. On the opposite side of the Square, in Chesham Place, is No. 38, built by Cubitt about 30 years; it has all the original stacks untouched.

The Cubitt flue can be recognised by the small peculiar cap on the chimney-pot, and several of these stacks remain in their original state. In Eaton Place and Eccleston Square, where this flue is used, the roofs tell the same story. In the first buildings erected by the author he used the large flue, and he now finds several specimens of chimney-doctoring on the roofs. In some large houses he lately erected at Queen’s Gate, in which the sweeping flue is used, there are several houses together without any disfigurement at all on the roof. He considers that the appearance of a tall-boy on one of them would be rather a proof that there was something wrong about the servants’ management of the fires, than an error in the construction of his flues.

A representation of this flue, and the manner of introducing it into a building, is here given. Fig. 1

represents a portion of the chimney-flue construction of a first-rate house; the lower chimney opening is in the basement, and above it are two others, one on the ground floor, and one on the first floor. It will be seen that there are three flues descending or taken down to the basement. The third flue belongs to the room on the second floor. The wall is two bricks thick, the flue 9 in. in diameter, and contained within the wall with no chimney-breast projecting. Fig. 2 is a plan of the flues on the ground floor, and fig. 3 of those on the first floor. Fig. 4 is a section of the fireplace opening; this is 3 ft. in height from the floor-line, the brickwork at top is splayed, and supported by an iron bar; these openings are always filled up with 4½ straight joint work, to be taken out when the mantelpiece is fixed. Fig. 5 is the chimney-pot and its cap, the latter opening at top 7 in. by 9 in. only; fig. 6 shows one of the sweeping doors, in which there are two to each descending flue. The latter three figures are twice the scale of the former. A plan and section of the chimney complete, with its marble mantel and stove, is given in figs. 7 and 8. The flue passes completely down at the back of the stove, the front is closed by an iron plate to a height of 2 ft. On this is fixed the moveable door or register, shut fully or partly over the flue when the stove is in use, and closed over the stove when the flue has to be swept. The arrows show the mode of admission of air to the front of the fire; it is brought through the

floor and two openings in the back hearth from the outside of the house. This is generally kept concealed,

and in order to ensure a supply of air to the stove the room should be kept completely closed.

To cause as full and perfect a combustion of the fuel as possible, a draught or current of the external air should be always admitted to the stove, and it could easily be placed under open management, so as to admit either a large or small supply of air, as required. Numerous patent processes to effect this are in use, but the most effective way of doing it is that shown in figs. 7 and 8: it is too simple for a patent.

Fig. 9 shows a method of admitting air above the architrave of the entrance door of the room. The opening is made about 2 ft. in length; this, after a little time, becomes marked by the blacklets coming in from the passage. The sweeping flue when the fire is lighted becomes very hot; the smoke ascends speedily and soon leaves it. The flue requires the stove to be formed expressly for it. Mr. Cubitt made the stoves only for his own houses, and the author had some difficulty at Queen’s Gate, in procuring stoves of the right pattern, for manufacturers prefer their own shop patterns, and some of these would have covered up half the descending flue. Those he used were supplied by Messrs. Feetham of Clifford Street, who are well acquainted with the use of the flue and stove. The flue is considered an excellent one; it is a builder’s flue, constructed solely of brick, and is certainly the best of the brick flues. The same attention was paid to it as was given to every part of Mr. Cubitt’s buildings. It may be asked, “Are there no other kinds of flues constructed of superior materials?” Yes, certainly there are; particular attention has often been paid to the flue. There is Hiort’s circular flue, formed in each course of four wedge-formed bricks. Mr. Hiort held a very important position; he was Treasurer of the office of Works at Whitehall, and his flue was extensively used in some of the Government buildings and the houses in Carlton Gardens. It did not bond well with the brickwork, so we have Mr. Moon’s improvement upon it. This was considered not sufficient, and another patent was taken out in 1844 by Messrs. Clark and Reed for its further improvement. The flue was an excellent one, but on Mr. Hiort’s retirement from the Government Board, it went out of use.

There is Seth Smith’s metallic chimney lining, which makes an excellent flue; the lining is a pipe of from 5 to 10 in. in diameter, built in the brickwork. About 150 of these flues are at the Pantechnicon. Mr. Smith announced his determination of never building any house above the value of 30_l._ per annum, without using them. They could be introduced, to form perfect linings to chimneys in buildings already erected, and allow the stack to be reduced in height, without having the unsightly appearance of contractions made above them. The drawback to the use of these tubes by builders was the price. Without any royalty, the 9 in. tube cost 3_s._ 4_d._ per ft. run, the curved tubes 4_s._ 3_d._, the starting tube 3_s._ 8_d._ The tubes were of the exact form of drain pipes, and they were cheaper, and as effectual.

If Mr. Smith’s metal tubes had been introduced into a large brick flue, they would have rendered the latter an efficient shaft for ventilating every room in its upward course, openings being made for the purpose at the upper part of the rooms. This mode of ventilation was applied to hospitals on a large scale by the late Mr. Jacob Perkins several years ago, with perfect success.

Denley’s flue, introduced in 1843, is believed to have been the precursor of that used by the late Mr. Thos. Cubitt at Belgravia and Pimlico, and there is a great resemblance between the two; but Mr. Denley’s flue has nothing like the simplicity nor ease of construction of Mr. Cubitt’s. The downward flues were merged into one at the basement, and all the soot and cinders were collected or thrown down into a fire-proof box, which must have stood out in the lower rooms, from which they had to be removed. The flues were swept from the roof, the register doors of the stoves being closed, and there was no provision for sweeping the flues between the basement and the stoves. Joined to his system for sweeping, was one of air flues which brought a current of air direct from the exterior of the house to each fireplace.

We have several flue systems which have ventilating flues in connexion with them. Boyd’s flue forms the wythes, or half-brick spaces between the flues, of iron plates, and the open spaces thus gained make ventilating passages. Mr. Doulton’s combined smoke and air flues are manufactured in terra-cotta, in three sizes; the air flues follow the line of the smoke flue, the passages being quite distinct, as in Mr. Boyd’s. The heat from the smoke flue causes a current in the air-flue which carries off the vitiated air admitted by openings near the ceiling. The common drain pipes and the glazed fire-clay pipes make good flues; the use of these pipe-flues has greatly increased during the last few years; they improve the draught, and clean easily. Flues for ventilation from rooms should, like Arnott’s ventilator, enter into the smoke or a hot ventilating flue. Arnott’s ventilator requires careful adjustment, to be balanced in such a way that it should stand closed on a calm day.

The superior patented flues, as they are of considerable cost, and take extra time in construction, are only used in the better class of buildings, or in those erected under the express direction of the owner. In speculative buildings they are never used. The time required for their construction beyond that of the common brick flue, being regarded by the builder as so much money lost.

The great desideratum in a flue is to make it pass off its smoke quickly, and this the small size flue effects more certainly than the larger one, as it warms sooner and keeps its heat longer.

An enthusiastic admirer of the descending or sweeping flue once told the author that with a good fire in the grate, if a kettle of water could be placed on the top of the chimney-cap the water would soon boil, even if the flue were fifty feet high. The flues constructed of metallic or earthenware casings retain also the heat longer, and keep hotter. It may be imagined that with these flues, and the large quantity of gas lamps in the streets, why the temperature of London should be always some degrees higher than that of the country. In winter snow may be seen in the suburban fields, but none is found in town.

Architects have often been blamed for not inventing a good system of flue-construction, not only for the prevention of smoke in our dwellings, but for the hindrance of its presence in the atmosphere. Several, and most excellent attempts, have been made for the former, but very few for the latter, which is one of far greater difficulty. Yet this is one that admits of a cure, great as the evil is. The chimney flue might be so improved as to effect a more certain and larger ventilation of our houses, without any addition of ventilation flues. The introduction of the French Mansard roof with us, one from a country where coal fires are not in use, renders it almost imperative for the chimneys belonging to such buildings to have a different construction, for chimneys when placed against a building or roof that overtops them, are sure, as they are at present made, to become smoky: the wind returning owing to the high construction, and descending in the flues. The following few designs are offered to cure these various evils.

Accepting as a fact that tall-boys, and the other iron and zinc constructions, are useful appendages, there can be no reason why they should be so used as to disfigure our buildings. Some of the finest specimens of architecture in the Metropolis serve only as pedestals to an ugly collection of cowls.

The author proposes to form the upper part of the flues in a building, for a length of about 15 to 20 feet, entirely of iron or other tubing, in square, round, or oblong sections, of a less diameter than the brick flues to which they are attached. This tubing is gathered up in groups, and carried out at an angle of 45° towards a centre stack: the tubes in direct contact with each other, having no brick wyths, except one or two to strengthen the stack.

It is obvious that if only one of the flues be in use, it would moderately warm those next to it; and if the whole of the flues of a building were constructed on this plan, and two or three were in use, such a power would be obtained as would effectually ventilate every room; the action would be continuous and imperceptible, and a fire could be lighted in any one without the risk of return smoke from a cold or damp flue.

Thus the heat now wasted in the atmosphere by the action of the common flue, would be partly retained and turned to use, and the draught of the flue very much improved.

This tubing could be readily introduced into either old or new buildings, as the introduction does not involve taking down more than twelve feet of the brickwork, measuring from the top of the coping. The tubes could never become sufficiently heated to be dangerous, and less brickwork would be required.

They might be made either of zinc or earthenware; cast-iron would be objectionable on account of its weight. It will be seen that they admit a better mode of sweeping than that now practised, and they could easily have some kind of capping to prevent down-draughts.

These “stack flues” should commence from the attic or upper storey of a building, at about six feet from the floor; sweeping doors should be placed beneath them, so as to give the sweep command of the flue beneath as well as above.

Each flue should be composed of three separate forms of tubing, by which the various directions and turns necessary for the construction might be obtained.

Fig. 10 gives the representation of the three forms; 1, is the first; this is placed directly over the brick

flue, and gathers it up to a size having an internal dimension of 6 + 4½. It is 21 inches in height. 2, the second piece, is on a curve; the top and bottom lines, if carried on, would form an angle of 45°; it is about 18 inches in height, and internal size 6 + 4½. The third, 3, is a straight piece, internal size 6 + 4½, the lengths various. Fig. 11 gives a plan of four flues and an elevation of the commencement of two. The sweeping doors are shown below. The flue without a door is the ventilating flue for the basement. The ease with which this tubing can be grouped is shown in fig. 12. The stack consists of five flues; the tube, 2, connects them together below, and

separates them above. The stack above the roof is 4 feet 9 inches in length.

Fig. 13 shows, in the upper plan, how the flue wall could be reduced in thickness, made a brick and a half only, with a two-brick block at each end; it contains coupled and tripled sets of tubes.

The middle plan shows nine flues grouped together, the centre being that belonging to the kitchen. The last plan shows a group of six in a two-and-a-half-brick wall; by the side of this are two flues of the common construction, 14 inches by 9, made of this

size to enable a boy to get up to the top and place his head out of the chimney-pot.

The tube 1, fig. 12, can have its position reversed, as shown in fig. 14; six flues can thus be grouped together, as shown in the third plan, fig. 13. The elevation of this stack is given in fig. 15.

For a covering to these tubes figs. 16 to 20 show ornamental pots and their sections. The only merit

in these may be that they are of a more ornamental character than any that have ever been introduced; they are formed of zinc, supported by a stout dwarf iron railing. The intention is to permit the smoke to escape in any direction, either upwards, sideways, or downwards, sheltering it as far as possible from any action of the wind, and rendering of little consequence whether the stack is high, low, unsheltered or

otherwise. If any sudden gust of wind take place and the smoke be driven back, the capping provides larger outlets for its escape than the small aperture of the flue itself; in other words, it is easier for the smoke to pass in any direction rather than return down the flue.

The stack flues are only, in fact, tall-boys boxed up and not put out in the cold, and it is presumed they would be sufficiently powerful, from their warmth, to ensure a good passing off of the smoke, and secure ventilation to the building.

A forced ventilation to our dwellings, in ever so slight a degree, is a matter of importance. By the proper construction of these proposed stack flues it is presumed that any amount of ventilating power, self-acting and continuous, could be obtained. Their introduction alone would be beneficial; combined with the flue pedestal, to be described, the tubes could be led into one general upward shaft; by either plan we should have some command over the smoke, while the roofs of our buildings might be made ornamental and picturesque. It would be a treatment of bituminous coal alike artistic and novel, surprising to foreigners and creditable to ourselves.

It remains to show how the open character of the flue could be taken away (this forms its chief evil), and how a chimney-stack may be formed without chimney-pots. The late Lord Palmerston, when Home Secretary, proposed the abolition of chimney-stacks, and the use of only one chimney-stalk for each separate dwelling. In 1856, a commission was appointed to inquire into the best modes of warming and ventilating the apartments of dwelling-houses and barracks. Their report, given to the General Board of Health, was published in 1857, and it afforded a section illustrating “the principle on which it was proposed to construct dwelling-houses.” There was only to be

one flue, and this of metal 10 inches in diameter, enclosed in a large brick flue, which was to serve for ventilation. In the metal flue were to be inserted the flues of the several fireplaces; these were placed back to back, and if the register doors of the stoves were open, a person in one room might both see and converse with another in the next; the music of a pianoforte in one room could be heard in them all; this construction was taken up through four storeys, there being eight fireplaces. For one fireplace alone it would have been perfect, but the smoke from the two kitchen fires would have been sufficient to have choked

the flue and caused the smoke to enter into the whole of the eight rooms.

The chimney-stack might possibly be lowered, and it certainly could be constructed without chimney-pots, but each separate flue must have its own outlet. A design for this, one that should take away the open character of the flue, and fit the stack, possibly for the Mansard roof, is here given.

In fig. 21, _a_ _a_ are the flues, delivering their smoke into a large ventilating flue, _b_. The warm smoke would induce a current of air to enter at _c_: any current will have a tendency to draw another with it, so that the smoke leaving the flues _c_ _c_ would be taken out at _d_ by the current of air at _c_.

This is the principle upon which all the best ventilating chimney-pots, tall-boys, and cowls are made, and it is a very sure one. The jet of steam in the funnel of the locomotive, drawing the smoke from the fire, and creating a draught, is adopted on the same principle.

In scientific language, the established law both of pneumatics and hydraulics is that when two currents of fluid matter passing in the same direction, but in separate channels, arrive at any point of confluence, the stronger current draws the other along in its course, and with a considerable portion of its own velocity. Thus the force of the wind, which checks in other instances the action of a chimney-draught, is made to produce a stronger draught, exactly in proportion to the violence with which it blows.

Returning to fig. 21, a current of air, instead of coming in at the opening _c_, might come in at _d_. It would then have a tendency to blow down the flues _a_ _a_: to prevent this, the opening _d_ could be closed, and an upright stalk placed at _e_,--this should have a downward shaft, a place for soot, and a sweeping door.

There is still another mode of treatment; fig. 22 represents the flues grouped, each with a separate ventilating flue, the smoke delivered being at the side of each.

The stack might be covered with zinc in the ornamental style with which that metal is now treated.

It is probable that if a stack on this principle was placed parallel to the side of one of these Mansard roofs, it would be secure from the ill-effects of any wind returning against it. The author will not vouch for its success, but it is offered here to the attention of architects and builders as an experiment worthy of trial.

It has been affirmed that the smoke of towns, however disagreeable it may be to the inhabitants, neutralizes the poisonous effect of the gases caused by sewers, &c. If it was possible wholly to remove carbon evolved by smoke, our towns would almost be uninhabitable, and they represent that any scheme for getting rid of smoke must be combined with one for getting rid of the exhalations from sewers at the same time. If the two evils were brought together, they would neutralize each other, and both could then be got rid of at one operation. The best scheme for this is a matter of important consideration, but few have been proposed.

It may be asked, what has a work on Picturesque Architecture to do with either smoke or sewer gases? The author in reply considers that buildings never will look picturesque while they are covered with great patches of soot. An eminent sculptor once affirmed that the statues of London were improved by their soot covering, because it made them stand boldly out against the sky. But those beautiful decorated smoke towers which stand on the roof of the Houses of Parliament, and which are as black as Erebus, look anything but pleasing, standing amidst the whiter front of the rest of the building. Besides, tall-boys are beginning to make their appearance on the roof under the Victoria tower, and these certainly form no part of the architecture, but appear monstrously ugly; consequently smoke and its abolition are clearly questions to be considered in relation to Picturesque Architecture.

A plan for removing smoke from the atmosphere of towns, and at the same time ventilating buildings and sewers, was proposed in 1849 by Mr. Flockton, surveyor to the town trustees of Sheffield,[F] a town as much begrimed with sooty smoke, only in a smaller way, as the Metropolis.

The proposal was, that under the footways along the side of every street and lane, flues should be constructed of sufficient capacity to carry off all the smoke and other atmospheric impurities, these flues all converging, upon a general plan, to tall shafts or chimneys at some distance from the town, and supplied with furnaces. These, when the fires were once ignited, would give a fire produced by the combustion of the inflammable gases accompanying the smoke, and which would burn spontaneously in a similar manner to the combustion of foul air from old shafts connected with coal mines. The combustion might be assisted by jets of coal gas, in a fire of coke.

In very large towns it would be necessary, Mr. Flockton added, to divide the whole into districts, and to erect towers in the centre of each, to which all the flues should converge. He published a plate, showing two large dwelling-houses, with a street between, the common sewer in the middle of the carriage way, and the smoke flues on each side under the footpaths, also showing the connexion between the sewer and flue. The alteration proposed to houses already erected consisted in converting ascending into descending flues; turning the smoke from the chimney-top into the latter, and from thence into the street flue. This operation would have necessitated the pulling down and rebuilding of the flue walls. The street smoke flues, in order to carry off the smoke from a few thousand chimneys, would require to have been made of a size even larger than the sewer itself. Provision must have been made for clearing out the soot, for the smoke would have been cooled and the soot would accumulate in large quantities in them.

The same scheme, with similar constructions, was proposed by a foreign gentleman, who took out a patent for it in 1850 (No. 13,061). His plan was a very grand one; he did not propose alterations in existing buildings, but pulled them down and gave designs for a new city.

A more practical plan was proposed about 1851 by Mr. Devey, a surveyor of Furnival’s Inn. A model of his invention was in the Great Exhibition of 1851, and it is described and an engraving given of it in the illustrated volumes published by the Royal Exhibition Commissioners at the close of the Exhibition. The model is now in the Museum at South Kensington. Mr. Devey’s plan was to make only one descending flue to each building, to which the flues at the top could be either connected or not, at pleasure; the descending flue was carried to the sewer in the middle of the street, and the action of this was to be assisted by the heat of the kitchen fire. He says, “The smoke would be drawn down by the current produced by exhaustion in the sewer, the action being assisted by the kitchen fire.” Mr. Devey did not propose to have furnace shafts, but depended entirely upon the sewer acting as an exhaust.

In this scheme the objections were, that one descending flue was not sufficient to carry off the smoke from several chimneys, and the sewer certainly would not act as an exhaust without its being connected with upright furnaces. Our sewers generally have ventilating openings which permit their odours to ascend into our streets. Soot would no doubt neutralize these odours--this, a paper in a late _Quarterly Review_ (April, 1866) admits. First, speaking of the sewer gases, the reviewer says: “These offensive gases have often engendered formidable diseases, and have, in several instances of late, been clearly shown to have caused the outbreak both of typhoid fever and cholera.” Of this the author has had proof during the outbreak of cholera in London in 1849. He was superintending the construction of a mass of buildings in one of the worst dwelling districts in London. This builder, who had just finished the erection of Harrington House, a description of which is given in this volume, died the first night of the outbreak in the greatest agony; he was a strong robust man; from one to three deaths took place in every house in the locality; a black flag was put up in the streets, and the foul fiend reigned for a while supreme. A large mass of the worst buildings have been cleared away, and model lodging-houses erected, but a considerable portion of the rotten old structures remain, the sewers are untouched, and the visitation of the cholera forgotten.

The _Quarterly Review_ says there is no reason why ordinary sewers should not be made to serve the double purpose of carrying off smoke and sewage at the same time, provided they were connected here and there with high shafts rendered powerfully expansive by furnaces; and adds, “sewage would be improved for agricultural purposes by admixture with soot, which is an excellent manure, and the noxious qualities of the sewer gases would be destroyed.” Whether soot would increase the value of sewage or decrease it, is a question for chemists to decide; a generally increasing opinion is, that our method of using sewage by liquefaction and sending it away, is a mistake, and renders it quite worthless, and that the system of dry earth-closets is more conformable to Nature’s laws.

The subject was taken up in 1857 by Mr. Peter Spence, of Manchester, a large alum manufacturer.[G] This gentleman states that the “blacks,” the horror of the Londoner, are guiltless of any deleterious effect to human health, as carbon is one of the most anti-putrescent of bodies, and while floating in the atmosphere over everything, arrest and destroy noxious and miasmatic vapours. Perfect freedom from smoke would, if accomplished, only increase the evil arising from the purely gaseous results of combustion. He proposed a system of _atmospheric_ or _gaseous sewage_, and the complete removal of all their gases to a safe distance from our towns. He would combine this gaseous sewage in such a form with town drainage as would bring all the liquid sewage into contact with the gases from our furnaces and house fires, the liquid sewage being kept from all surface drainage. The same liquid and fœtid mass of sewage he would concentrate in an innoxious form, to be converted, in a convenient place, where it might with perfect safety be manufactured into manure more valuable than the richest guano.