in the Gothic revival. A beautiful design for a church entirely of iron has recently been published. by the Ecclesiological Society, shewing that quite a new version of the beauties of a Gothic interior might be obtained by the use of wrought iron for its entire construction. Mr. Skidmore, so well known for his skill in iron and brass-work, as well as in the use of the precious metals, has since written to that Society a very interesting letter, pressing the use of iron largely as a matter, not of economy, but of principle,— as being pre-eminently the material of our own day, -and urges, on that ground, that we should be more thoroughly acting up to the spirit of the builders of the middle ages by its adoption, than by limiting ourselves to timber and stone. He has since stated his view, in an extended form, in a Paper read at a public meeting of that Society, to which I beg to call special attention.

There can be no doubt that the iron roof is susceptible of exquisite beauty, and is peculiarly adapted to treatment suited to our style; and I would strongly urge attention to this subject. It is not, perhaps, suitable to every class of building, but to many more, probably, than it has yet been applied to; and certainly is capable of infinitely greater beauty than it has yet attained. Metallic construction is the great development of our age, and it speaks ill for the taste of our architects that they have done so little to render it beautiful.

I commend this task, then, to the special care of the architects engaged in our revival. The classic architects have greatly neglected it,-it is for us to

b One of the greatest difficulties attendant upon iron construction is its tendency to condensation of moisture.

add the charm of beauty to what is at present but crude, unadorned construction.

I ought, while on this subject, to add a few words upon fire-proof construction. Its importance no one can for a moment dispute, and there can be no doubt that it is destined to become far more general than at present, and to attain far greater perfection. The way in which it will affect the questions of which I have treated, is chiefly in its forbidding the use of wood in ceilings, and thus rendering the development of ornamented plaster, which I have recommended for this purpose, absolutely necessary, as about the only system of decoration at our disposal. It will become a question whether the iron beams can, even in a building of a finished character, be allowed to be exposed. If they are so, they must certainly be more highly finished than any I have yet seen; but as brass has been most successfully introduced as a constructive material, or for decorating construction,-as in the new Museum at Berlin,-there can be no reason why iron should not be so. This will add another to my classes of ceilings, i. e. ceilings with ornamental wrought-iron beams, (perhaps decorated with brass,) and the interstices filled in with diaper, or other ornamental work in plaster, perhaps with stone or terracotta cornices. I would also suggest, whether porcelain may not be brought in to heighten the effect.

CHAPTER VI.

COUNTRY AND TOWN.

GOD

No. I.-BUILDINGS IN THE COUNTRY.

OD made the country, and man made the town," -and perhaps the highest tribute ever offered to Gothic architecture, (not excepting that of Romney the painter, who said that Grecian architecture was the production of glorious men, but Gothic architecture that of gods,) is that involuntarily paid it by our opponents when they argue that, though our style, no doubt, agrees well with rural scenery and accompaniments, they are convinced that it is quite out of harmony when used in our towns!

I can conceive of no better test of the works of man, than their harmony with the works of God. Whether in morals or in taste, these are the great standards set before us. If, then, either our conduct or our works of art appear in any degree to bear this test, and, cæteris paribus, to shew some harmony, however humble, some community of sentiment, however distant, with these glorious examples; or, to say the least, if the contrast, or want of harmony they present, is less jarring, less painful, than that displayed by other conduct or other works; just so far may they be judged to be, in their humble way, morally right, or correct in taste: nor is the inference in any degree

weakened by their removal from immediate juxtaposition with the standards by which they have been judged.

The continued presence of the standard is in no degree necessary to the truth of the result. That which, on comparison with the works of Nature, has been proved best to harmonize with them, continues to be the best when separated from them. To suppose it otherwise would be unphilosophical; but the notion of our opponents, that because a style harmonizes well with natural objects, it becomes ipso facto objectionable in their absence, is one of the most palpable absurdities ever broached: as well might it be argued, that because a man has taken a high degree at the University, he is unfitted for the church or the bar, or that success in ecclesiastical architecture is fatal to the claims of an architect to be engaged on secular works.

I have something more, however, to say on this point. The argument I am using not only renders harmless the weapons of our adversaries, but it turns their point against themselves. Let it not be thought that they bring their objections dishonestly,-far from it: they see that Gothic buildings in the country are harmonious in their effect, and most unwillingly, yet honestly, admit that the style is suitable to rural positions. They see, however, that, when used in towns as they now are, a certain degree of discord arises, and—the wish being father to the thoughtthey jump to the conclusion that it is unsuitable to

towns.

It needs little argument to shew the fallacy of this conclusion: Gothic architecture having been tried by the one true test-its harmony with the works of

I

Nature-is proved to be good and noble; but when placed among the modern works of man, the harmony ceases. The conclusion, then, is inevitable, that the fault lies not in the style, but in the company in which it is placed, which stands self-condemned by its discordance with a style which is in harmony with the only true standard; and that the practical lesson to be deduced from it is, that we must lose no time in reforming the character of our towns, by the introduction of the greatest possible quantity of that architecture which has borne the test of nature, so that our towns, though made by man, may not be needlessly discordant with the country, which was made by God.

While, however, I advocate uniformity of style, whether in town or country, I do not for a moment desire an identity in its application. It is one of the most striking characteristics of the works of Nature, that she suits each thoroughly to its position, though a uniformity of principle runs through the whole. We must follow her in this as well as in her other perfections; and the style we advocate stands pre-eminent in its success in doing so. I boldly assert, that no style of architecture which the world has ever produced has shewn a tithe of this elasticity in adapting itself to every circumstance, position, and material. It is its greatest and most striking characteristic. I shall have to advert to this repeatedly, and will at present confine myself to the case in hand; and I need do little more than ask the student of Gothic architecture whether, charming as it always is amid rural scenery, he has ever found this to be its exclusive characteristic? On the contrary, he must ever have found its noblest creations in crowded cities; and it seems to have delighted in compensating for the ab