There are other classes of public buildings which are in a great degree peculiar to our own day, and whose existence is the result of the particular organization of our commercial and legislative transactions, as well as of the social habits which distinguish the present from any previous period in the history of human civilization. To this class belong banks, insurance-offices, club-houses, museums, public picturegalleries, and almost all classes of government-offices. The latter, it is true, have their types in the Maisons de Ville of continental towns, and in the Brolettos and the palaces of the dukes and podestas of the Italian cities, which were chiefly occupied by the offices of the legislature; but the extent to which such business has developed itself at the present day renders the buildings required for its transaction almost a new class.

The advocates of a new style of architecture suited to the nineteenth century have here a good card to play; and I am not disposed to join issue with them upon their general theory, but only as to the mode in which it is to be carried out. I freely admit that buildings whose uses and origin belong especially to our own day have, on that ground, a pre-eminent claim to be treated in a manner at once new and characteristic of the age which they represent. And I am as ready to admit that we shall be equally far from effecting this by binding ourselves closely to the style of the mediæval Hotel de Ville, the Roman Palazzo, or the palace (in nubibus) of Inigo Jones. Are we, then, to invent a spick-and-span new style to suit them? This involves two other questions :-first, Is it morally possible to invent such a style? secondly, Are these buildings to differ in their character from others of

their own age? My reply to both is in the negative. No age of the world has ever deliberately invented a new style, nor yet made use of a style for one class of buildings different from what it applies to others. If, then, my arguments as to style in general hold good, they avail equally for these as for any other class of buildings.

But, to go more closely into the matter,-is the fact that a commercial system, certain political institutions, or a particular phase of social civilization which originated in Europe during what are called the middle ages, or whose origin may be termed "Gothic," have happened so to develope themselves in modern times as to require structures of a somewhat new kind for the carrying out of their purposes,-is this fact, I would ask, any reason why the architecture of such structures, instead of being itself also a development of that which originated in these middle ages, should be copied from that of ancient Rome, with which these institutions have no historical association; or from the works of certain Italian architects of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, who saw fit to revive the architecture of a former world? Reason would point to a course the very reverse of this, and claim for such buildings a link of connection with the history of that family of nations from whose institutions they originate.

The same applies yet more strongly to royal palaces, and to the town mansions of the nobility. Surely those who govern a state, and take the lead in a social system the history of which is bound up in that of the middle ages, should glory in developing a style for their residences out of the architecture of those times, an architecture which has never been sur

passed for boldness, originality, and beauty, while readily shaping itself to new requirements, and susceptible of any degree of new refinement.

The construction upon a Gothic basis of a new pɑlatial style is a task at once truly noble and worthy of the efforts of a great age. The lovers of the beaten track will argue against it, that it is safer and wiser to follow out what has already been prepared to our hand, and that the palatial Italian being in possession, it is the part of prudence to let it so continue. The advocates of a new style will, on the other hand, object that we should be only repeating the error of the first classic revivers, and that if we wish our art to express the sentiments of our age, we must form it de novo for ourselves. To the first I would reply, that the Italian style has produced nothing new for many a long day-its highest efforts in modern times being merely a more implicit falling back upon the works of its originators; and the very fact that a palatial style based upon an English rather than a Roman foundation is in some degree a novelty and leaves scope to the invention, is a strong point in its favourbeing the very thing we want to throw new life into our art. To the latter class of objectors I would reply that, as I have before said, every development of art must have a foundation,-to attempt a pure invention is vain; and I appeal to them whether the foundation I propose is not both more consistent with reason and good feeling, and at the same time more calculated to produce the novelty which they desire, than any attempt to develope upon the worn-out style now in possession.

To generate such a palatial style as I desiderate, the primary qualification which is necessary is a noble

and elevated tone of mind. To attempt it as a mere effort of invention would be vain. Its chief characteristic being grandeur of sentiment, it demands of necessity the same on the part of its author. I have already insisted on this in speaking of the country mansions of the nobility, and what I have there stated as to the more material requisites of a noble structure has in a great degree anticipated what I have now to say as to the characteristics of a palatial style.. At the risk, however, of repetition, I will attempt to enumerate them.

The first may be said to be stateliness,-which may result from actual extent and elevation, from a noble simplicity of general form, and the avoiding of needless breaks and subdivisions; from the evident generosity and massiveness of the construction, from the boldness and strong character of the details, from breadth of surface, and the fearless use of a due proportion of unadorned wall-face; and, lastly, from a commanding outline, and well-studied proportions.

Secondly I would place beauty and refinement of the architectural detail; no form being admitted which has not been thoroughly studied, and sifted and purged from every crude, inelegant, and unrefined element; thus uniting boldness and massive character with perfection of form. In many recent attempts at originality this rule has been utterly neglected, and forms introduced for mere novelty's sake which are both barbarous and inelegant, and their proportions almost wholly neglected.

Among the features calculated to aid in giving a palatial character, I may instance the following:first, Porticoes, the design of which opens a wide field for novelty and freshness of invention, as applied to

Gothic architecture, and which seem essential to buildings of the highest order. Secondly, a more columnar style of decoration throughout the building than is usual in the established types. This will be found to have been very much the case with the domestic architecture of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, but we should do well to carry it out much further, as few things add so much to nobility of character. On this point I would draw attention to the wide distinction between a structural and a decorative column; and while suggesting that the latter should be made somewhat bolder than has hitherto been usual, would point out the danger of making them so large as to look structural; or, on the other hand, of making structural columns so small as to be confused with those which are merely decorative.

Thirdly I would place the use, when consistent with utility, of long ranges of covered arcading, not only on the lower story, but also above.

Here I would point out a great inconsistency in the Italian Renaissance buildings, particularly those of the description commonly called Palladian,-an inconsistency, as usual, especially singled out for imitation amongst ourselves;-I mean the confusion of the arcade or colonnade with the wall. An An open colonnade or arcade is one thing, and a very useful and ornamental one, a wall pierced with windows is quite another; but the Italian revivers and their followers, unwilling to rest satisfied with the beauties of one at a time, systematically lay one upon another, using the colonnade or arcade as a sort of veil hung over the face of a wall to hide its nakedness; or, in other words, they first design the building as if it were to be surrounded by an open peristyle or arcade, either of