The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-16 00:00:00


pronounced it so. But it requ
potent opinion ired I
on e has
arch to tell us that. It pr*
no Duke n
thee
same way se we prophesy a want o
obaliad, i
iiantaay from the juxtaposition of bright
intense scarlet, and crude blue. To those who: kinq
the principlesof proportion in such works, the res
was painfully apparent befpre the monster left its
matrix. The coming event east its shadow, before.
The inevitable failure was impressed on the committee
and sub-committee, not by artists only ; not merely
by the ill-used architect of tho arch ; not alone in
the caricatures of Punch ; but from the mouths of
Commissioners, Secretaries of State, Chancellors
of the Exchequer and Prime Ministers was the
warning given to the inexorable TRENCH and the im-
passive RuzLann. Never was deeper damnation
prospectively inflicted. The elevation never was an
experiment. The sub-cominittee insisted on what
they called an appeal to the public. They stipulated
for their three weeks martyrdom of ridicule. They
obtained it. Nothing less would satisfy them. They
longed for it, as a zealous Puritan occasionally did for
the pillory. But they have no right to call it
of the an
experiment. All who knew anythi Th
ng
matter, knew what the end must be. e
expense is the subscribers', not the public's.
If the former were determined to have up
nstead of
the real
man-mountain, in all his bulk of bronze, i
a dummy in papier-mache, or wicker work, it was
their own affair. They were fooling with their own
money, and we do not blame the Government for the
severe lesson "puthasllowed them to give themselves.
Besides, they themselves on the country." It
was only on condition of coming down, if condemned,
that the figure of fun was raised to his bad emi-
nence. TRENCH was allowed the three weeks for
his monster ; but, like the horses at neighbouring
what
Tat-
tersall's, it was only to stand "on trial." With
face, then, do the sub-committee, or their agents,
now come forward, with more or less impudence,
to argue that, being up, the Duke should re-
main up? Humpty-Dumpty, once down, could
not be got up again. But that is no reason why
Humpty-Dumpty, once up, may not be got down,
especially if
"All the Queen's bones
And all the Queen's um "
be substituted for Mr. GoDtNO'S team of twenty-four
and the sub-committee. The expense is the scaffold-
ing, and there it is in waiting. The Times speaks on
the subject with an ignorance, which can only be
described as stupendous.
"The horse and the rider," ears that Journal, " twentyseren feet
high ; the arch OD Constitution-hill is about slaty feet high, and yet
too low."
Now, the objection to the arch is precisely that it
is too high, viewed, as the Times regards it, as a
pedestal. But an arch is not a pedestal. When
figures are found on arches, they stand there as sur-
mounts only. They serve to complete the work, to
which they are subordinate as a part to a whole.
The pedestal, on the other hand, is subordinate to the

statue.
Whatever may be the defects or merits of the
statue, the former must needs be exaggerated, and the
latter concealed in its present position. It cannot be
fairly judged unless on a pedestal of about its own
height, length, and width. If it be a fine work, its
merits will not, when it is so placed, be mnrred by the
disproportion which at present exists between it and
the arch ; if a poor work, on the other hand, its de-
fects will no longer challenge and compel criticisms as
they do in its present site.
"We have got a statue without a pedestal," says
the Times, " and a pedestal without a statue." We
have, therefore, very naturally and simply put one
on the top of the other." Precisely, we hare, very
simply put one on the top of the other. In so doing
we have violated every principle of proportion, and
destroyed the effect of both pedestal (as the Times
calls the arch) and statue. When the sub-committee
made this very " simple" proposal, taste and
knowledge pointed out to them the dispropor-
tion that must ensue. They would not listen.
They asked to be allowed the experiment.
The Times attacked them. They braved the keen-
ness of its sarcasm and the weight of its raillery.
The permission they asked was granted. The statue
was set up. The Times bowed to the " accomplished
fact." Its recantation was premature. Competent
authority pronounced the monument monstrous, and
a verdict of " Guilty" was delivered, with the usual
addition of " you may stand down."
And now the Times complains of the Royal Aca-
demicians for not sooner pronouncing their judgment.
They had pronounced it in every way possible before
the trial took place. The sub-committee, in insisting
on the three weeks' elevation, knew that they were
braving enlightened opinion. They trusted to the
conservative instinct so much stronger in Englishmen
than the artistic one. They have calculated errone-
ously, but their courage has been rewarded by the
adhesion of the Times. Habeant secum. We wish
them joy of their defender, while they have him.
But the public must not allow themselves to be de-
luded. The expense is no fair objection to the remo-
val of the figure : it will fall on the subscribers, who
have guaranteed it, and not on the public. Neither
would the act imply any unworthy vacillation or
changeableness in the authorities. The figure was
erected against their wish, at the special desire of the
committee, and with the express promise that, if not
approved, it should be taken down.
Its continuance was conditional on its effect. The
statue does not fulfil its condition of pleasing. Can
the committee show good cause why they should not
fulfil theirs, of removing it ?
As to the objection from the difficulty of finding a
new site, it is null and void. The work cannot pos-
sibly be so ill placed as it is now. Its only chance of
impressing the public rests on its dimensions. These
may be appreciated on a properly proportioned pedes-
tal. At present they dwarf the arch without making
their own largeness apparent.
In short, take what ground we will, the nature of
such works in general; the proportions of this one in
particular; the claims of Mr. WYATT to have his
production fairly judged ; respect for the Duke
of WELLINGTON ; the express understanding be-
tween the committee and the government ; we can
see no excuse whatever for retaining the Duke in his
present anomalous site, but the very strongest rea-
sons for removing him from it with as little delay as
be.

WE announced on Saturday, that the results of the
experiments, made by the Government authorities,
on the newly-invented gun cotton, were such as
induced the Board of Ordnance to reject the proposal
for its use in the British Army. The various objec-
tions, indeed, which are found to its practical use, for
many purposes, are so great as not to be overcome.
Some of these are easily seen on comparing it with
gunpowder.
Without going into scientific details of the manu-
facture of gunpowder, or the philosophy of its com-
bustion, it is sufficient to remind the reader, that
gunpowder consists of a mixture of charcoal, nitre,
and sulphur; in other words, of combustible matter,
namely charcoal and sulphur, mixed with nitre, a
substance rich in oxygen, the great supporter of com-
bustion. The goodness of powder depends on the
perfection with which these ingredients are mixed,
and °lithe proportions of them which are employed.
When flied, the charcoal or carbon is instantaneously
burnt by the oxygen of the nitre, which converts
the charcoal into carbonic acid gas. The use of the
sulphur is merely to render the combustion of the
charcoal more rapid, because as sulphur is very in-
flatnmable, and, in burning, produces aflame, the heat
which is requisite to cause the combustion of the char-
coal is more rapidly spread through the whole mass
of gunpowder, than it could be, if there were no
sulphur. The force of gunpowder, when fired, de-
pends entirely on the sudden production of a large
bulk of gaseous matter from a comparatively small
quantity of solid gunpowder. This effect is wholly
produced by the decompasition of the nitric acid of