ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealander, Volume 9, Issue 776, 21 September 1853, Page 3

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the New-Zealaxdeb. Sir, —My letter of the 2nd instant, commenting upon the designs for Government House, furnished by Mr. Wood, and Messrs. Heaphy and Baber, lias elicited from those gentlemen two letters in reply, which they perhaps regard as satisfactory nnd’conclusive answers to my strictures. It would not be worth while to advert again to this subject merely for the purpose of shewing that I do not consider these answers satisfactory or to the purpose, but as the generality of readers, unacquainted with the technical details of the profession, may conceive that the writers of these letters have not only refuted my objections hut proved that I betrayed my own ignorance in raising them, I feel it due to. myself to offer a few additional remarks. The inference to be drawn from Mr. Wood’s letter is, that with his plans before me 1 either through ignorance or by design misstated facts. And Messrs. Heaphy and Baber implied that I was not only mistaken in my conception of their plan, but that in the execution of my own design, X had been guilty of greater errors than those which i pointed out in their’s. Admitting the superior knowledge of these gentlemen, perhaps it may* not be deemed egotistical in one whose early days were exclusively devoted to the study and practice of his profession, under circumstances of rare advantage, who at the age of 19 years superintended the erection of Carlton Hall, a building covering more than an acre of ground, and who, at. a subsequent period, under Sir Edward Blore, superintended the improvements at Buckingham and Lambeth Palaces, beside designing and completing many other public and private buildings in various parts of Europe; if he lays claim to at least as much knowledge as would serve to shield him from the imputation of ignorant criticism. Messrs. Heaphy and Baber may ho glad, though surprised, to learn that none of the buildings just referred to have yet fallen down or exhibited any symptoms of instability notwithstanding the singular fact that some of them contain those hanging partitions and extraovdinar}” chiinnies, winch Messrs. Heaphy and Baber object to in •“ A.d referendum” and “ Conge d’ dire” but which they do not appear to understand, Messrs. Heaphy and Baber in their haste to cipose what they imagined to he errors in my

plans, have altogether failed tu remove the ohject on urged against their’s. I did not pretend to affirm that “ any carpenter in the colony would profess himself unable to frame a joist of such a length” (30 feet), &c.; but I said that joists 30 feet long, and one foot deep,"as si own on Messrs. Heaphy and Baber’s plan, would he subject' to great deflection and that the result would be destruction to the ceilings, &c. If Messrs. H. and B. intended to frame the floor they should have shown it on the plan ; but they indicated simply a joist 30 feet long by 12 inches deep.

With reference to the partitions I would merely observe that it is contrary to every principle of art for one truss to rest upon another, which in Messrs. Heaphy and Baber’s plan appears to be inevitable. Thirty feet is a considerable space, perhaps greater than they have been accustomed to deal with.

Mr. Wood, in his reply, regrets that “I should have been inaccurate in my statement ot facts.” If he refers to my letter again, he will see that I expressed myself in guarded terms. I said, “In Mr. Wood’s plan the portion of the hall and staircase between the columns appears to be 70 feet long ; over this space he apparently intends throwing two girders,” &c. Air. Wood does not deny this to be a correct description of his drawing, but says “ the space over which I intended the girders to be thrown is 31 feet, not 70 feet,” &c.

Mr. Wood might be under the impression that I spoke without precaution, not understanding what I was doing ; but when a plan is before me I can generally manage to describe it pretty accurately, and in this instance I was purposely cautious in my remarks, because I foresaw the possibility—though I would not have admitted the probability on any other testimony—of Air. Wood’s falling into a greater error than the one I alluded to by depending upon a tenon to support one end of his girders. Coupling the tenor ofhis reply to my former strictures with the drawings, I am now obliged to conclude that he has adopted the more objectionable plan, for if he had purposed throwing in transverse girders on any other principle, they would, or ought to have been, shown on the transverse section. I would not, however, have either of the gentlemen alluded to impute my criticisms to any motive beyond that of a desire to prevent the misspending of public money, and 1 should not have again referred to the subject, had 1 been assured that the majority of those who read my strictures and the replies would be capable, as practical men, of judging for themselves whether I knew what I was about when I raised these objections, and if the plans I inspected justified me in raising them.

If, by what I have said, the Government authorities should be induced to act with caution, and take care not only that the adopted plan is feasible and good, but that the architect who undertakes to erect the building is made responsible for its stability, my object will be gained. In taking final leave of this subject, as 1 shall not again resume it, allow me, sir, to thank you forycur indulgence and remain. Your obedient servant, William Masox. Tamaki, Sept. 13th, 18.53.