have economized to the utmost the limited space at the architect's disposal.

The Museum Court has not even the secondary utilities of those in palaces and colleges, for it is not merely inaccessible but almost invisible; it was indeed entirely so until two glass panels were inserted about 5 feet from the floor in a massive door, which before offered visage de bois at the further end of the great hall, through which loopholes men of ordinary and women of extraordinary stature and of unusual curiosity may obtain a glimpse (which we never did till within the last six months) of two sad-looking grass plots, and three of the four severe hewn-stone façades that form its sides. It is not visible from any accessible window of the edifice, and in fact its existence was as utterly unknown to ourselves, though frequent visitors to the Museum, as the courts of Nineveh were before the discoveries of Layard. But there it is; and having been by special indulgence permitted to enter it, it certainly struck us as one of the most unexpected sights which the Museum affords. Very considerable differences of opinion as to its effect exist, however, as we find, amongst the few who have seen it. Mr. Fergusson says

6

By some it is supposed to be beautiful-but others think it cold, lean, and wretched-as all courts are, more or less, in our climate, and especially a pure Greek court as this professes to be.'-(30.)

Others, not less critical, and no better disposed towards the Museum in general, see the court with more favouring eyes. An ingenious writer in The Times (29th September, 1852) pronounces it one of the grandest things in London:' but adds:

'It is, however, never seen except by such curious persons as choose to walk up to the glazed door opposite the chief entrance and peep in to see what they can.'

We do not altogether agree with either of these judgments— its architectural aspect is severe indeed, as Mr. Fergusson seems to admit a Greek court ought to be, but it is not lean and wretched. Nor can we, on the other hand, call it the grandest thing in London-for we remember nothing of its kind in London but the court of Somerset House, to which it is inferior in size, and, as we think, in architectural effect; it can hardly, however, be denied that it is impressive, and even grand, in its naked severity. But, whatever its sides may be, its surface now constitutes its chief interest. How can it be made available to the exigencies of the Museum?

Museum? Mr. Fergusson leads the way, by proposing to construct in its centre a building for a reading-room, of about 175 feet by 105 feet-a structure which, says he,

< though it would of course interfere with the effect which the architect wished to produce when he designed the court, would not do so, I conceive, to any material extent—as it would be only 30 feet high, while the buildings around it are more than double that height; so that the capitals and columns would be seen over it, and a space of 60 feet would be left all round between the two buildings, which is amply sufficient for the effect of a façade of the same height.'-58.

This passage is a curious one to have fallen from the pen of so fastidious an architectural critic; and we shall say a few words on it, because our objections to Mr. Fergusson's proposition apply equally, or indeed still more, to another plan for occupying the court, which it seems, much to our astonishment, the Trustees have adopted and recommended to the Treasury.

In the first place, we are startled at Mr. Fergusson's assertion that an erection as big as a church-an incumbrance 175 feet long, 105 feet wide, and 30 feet high-would not interfere with the effect of the Court in any material degree.' Of all the various awkwardnesses, disproportions, and anomalies, which Mr. Fergusson complains of in all the other public buildings of London, nothing, we will venture to assert, would at all equal this. Such an edifice in that place may be advisable or not-that we shall discuss hereafter-but to say that it will not interfere to any material extent with the effect the architect of the court wished to produce, only shows with what indulgence the severest critic will contemplate his own ideas. Secondly, he informs us that it is amply sufficient for the effect of any architectural building to be seen from a distance equal to its own height—a position so untenable that he himself had just before thought it necessary to say that the architectural effect of the court would not be materially injured because the capitals and columns of the present façades would be seen over the new building--meaning, of course, from the extreme point of view that the court affords-which is five or six times the height of the object. His third assertion, however, is still more unfortunate than either of the others— since, besides the paradox of asserting that the effect of an architectural façade is not impaired if you can catch sight of its attic story, the supposed fact is impossible in rerum naturâ—for there is no spot in the court in which the capitals and columns could be seen over the proposed building-as our readers will perceive by this diagram formed on Mr. Fergusson's own data, which, though, from minute circumstances not worth mentioning, they

do

do not exactly agree with other measurements, are still sufficiently approximate for his purpose and for ours :

Mr. Fergusson's practical proposition may, we say, be right or wrong, but (to use a new-fangled word of which he is very fond) his aesthetic reasons appear to us singularly unfortunate. Its principle, however, has been taken up-as it appears from one of the Parliamentary plans-by Mr. Panizzi (the active and intelligent librarian), who professes not to discuss the architectural question, but whose laudable zeal to find space for his Books and his Readers induced him to imagine a very ingenious scheme for occupying the court with a kind of panopticon reading-room and library. This would certainly, considered per se, be an admirable addition to the printed book department-but it would be, in our opinion, not merely out of keeping with the rest of the edifice, but seriously injurious to it. Mr. Panizzi's suggestive sketch has, it seems, been with some variations adopted by Mr. Smirke, the present architect of the Museum, and by the Trustees submitted to the approbation of the Treasury. This readiness to sacrifice so important a feature of a building for which he must feel a fraternal interest is creditable to Mr. Smirke's candour, and we think that his having for a moment admitted such a suggestion is a strong proof both of the exigencies of the Museum and the difficulty of supplying them.

But if we can praise the candour of Mr. Smirke's proposition, we cannot applaud either the taste or judgment of his design. We are reluctant, as we have said, to raise idle questions of tastebut in this case, when it seems we are menaced with an amendment which is, in every point of view, infinitely worse than any existing evil, or than all put together, we deem it our duty to state shortly the reasons of our protest against any such, as we think, monstrous scheme. We can appreciate and sympathise with Mr. Panizzi's anxiety for book-room-Vous êtes orfèvre, Maitre Josse - but we confess we are surprised at an architect's con

currence.

currence. In the first place, this plan proposes to occupy twice as much of the court in height, and four times as much in area, as even Mr. Fergusson's proposition. In fact, the height is to be, in the centre, the full height of the existing buildings; and the utter obscuration of the principal and lower floors is only, and still imperfectly, obviated by sloping off the central mass into four circles of gradually diminishing cupola-roofs, supported on iron pillars, and all-centre and circles-partaking of the arabesque character-so that the published design looks as if a gigantic birdcage were to be let down into the Court of the Museum. We need say nothing of the ridiculous incongruity of architectural aspects implied in such a design. The disposal of the area seems, if possible, worse. It occupies the whole surface of the court, except a 'cartway 8 feet wide,' which is to be preserved all round between the new and the old building. A cartway!-where by no possibility could any cart ever arrive any more than into the choir of St. Paul's. This pretended cartway seems to us no more than a device to conceal one of the radical defects of the whole scheme-namely, the further darkening the lower story; but 8 feet is but a miserable compensation for the total area of which it is to be deprived. For the same purpose of preserving some degree, not of the light, but of the darkness visible' of the lower floor, this plan breaks up the surface of the area into three or four levels.

We wish we could have exhibited a copy of this singular design, but, besides the strange deficiency of a scale to work by, which the Blue Book does not afford us, the birdcage itself is of such minute and complicated construction that it could not be intelligibly copied within the size of our page. If ever executed, we venture to predict that the montrosity will excite more surprise than all the sphinxes of Egypt or the winged bulls of Nineveh.

In short, architecturally considered, this scheme seems infinitely the most exceptionable of any we have ever seen; but it nevertheless was, as we understand the papers, so warmly adopted by the Trustees, that on the 5th of June last-the very day the plans bear date-they transmitted them to the Treasury, with an urgent request that the Government should obtain from Parliament, before the close of the then far-advanced Session, the means of commencing the works (p. 34). The Government did not, and no Government, we trust, ever will, sanction any such scheme, modestly estimated at 56,000l.

We therefore consider all the plans yet produced for the utilization of the central court as not merely indefensible on the score of good taste, but altogether inadequate to the general difficulties of the case, and likely to leave in every department-except that of

the

the printed books-as much reasonable cause of complaint as now exists.

What then is to be done? Are we to purchase-according to an alternative plan also submitted to the Treasury by the Trustees and Mr. Smirke-one whole side of Montague-street, consisting of twelve houses, and half a side of Russell-square, over which we are to extend some additional offsets of the Museum?-a scheme that, it is obvious from the plan in the Parliamentary papers, of which the following is a reduced sketch, must