permitted to interfere, in any degree, with the efficiency with which the structure provides for, and carries out, the primary object of its erection, whatever that may chance to be.

No class of building is so completely the result of necessity as our houses,-our existence is dependent upon them, and health, comfort, and convenience demand that they should be constructed with all possible regard to the demands of our nature, and the customs and necessities of the state of society in which we are placed.

We may superadd taste to any extent, but if it interferes with any of these primary requirements, it (just so far) defeats the objects for which domestic buildings are erected, and becomes a nuisance instead of luxury. It follows, that no style of architecture is good for anything which demands that utility should in any degree be sacrificed to taste. It has consequently been, in all ages, the aim of good architecture not only to add beauty to utility, but, so far as possible, to make it grow out of, and result from, the uses and construction of the various parts of the building, -an object which becomes doubly urgent in those buildings on which our life, health, happiness and convenience, are in so great a degree dependent.

Now I boldly assert that no style of architecture has so directly derived its characteristics from utility as that which I am advocating; that no style is capable of adding so much that is beautiful and pleasurable, not only without reducing, but as arising out of its uses, as this; and that no style is equally capable of adapting itself to varied requirements, or of enlisting in its service the inventions, materials, and ideas which are introduced by the advance of social improvement.

If we so misuse it as to make it reject these progressive improvements, or clash with reasonable requirements, it is our own fault, and we prove thereby, not the inapplicability of our architecture, but our own individual incapacity or want of practice in the use of it.

While making these remarks, however, let me not be misunderstood. I am free to admit that in changing from the style of art in which we have been brought up, and which we found ready to our hand, it is not to be expected that everything will come right of itself, without thought and study. When we consider the enormous social changes which have taken place, the greatest wonder is that pointed architecture is found so easily to adapt itself to our wants, not that we make mistakes in the use of it.

The fourth hindrance to our success has been the error of considering church architecture as essentially distinct from that for secular purposes,-which has in a great degree deprived our domestic buildings of the advantage of the study which has of late years been devoted to our ancient architecture.

It is impossible for any one to study the domestic works of the middle ages, without also studying their ecclesiastical remains. Their style is identical, though the application of it is varied to suit the differing uses to which it is directed. The majority of the remains of our ancient styles are ecclesiastical; and apart from these, the styles cannot be studied. To suppose, then, that an architect can understand our old domestic styles without understanding ecclesiastical architecture, or that the knowledge of the latter clashes with that of the former, is a manifest absurdity. Yet, in the face of this, it has become the custom to talk of

a church architect as if he could understand nothing but churches, though, in all probability, he was drilled into all the practical routine of house-building before he ever touched a church, and though he may since have given the most deep and earnest thought to the application of pointed architecture to secular purposes. The only persons who can build good Gothic houses are those who understand Gothic architecture, and who earnestly aim at its perfect adaptation to the necessities of our age; and if they understand church architecture also, so much the better.

This divorce of secular from ecclesiastical architecture is a fancy of only the last few years. It was never heard of in former days; but in our day it is especially absurd, so far as it applies to houses in the pointed styles, inasmuch as these styles can only be understood by those who have studied church architecture. Much of our modern church architecture, it is true, is contemptible enough; but the practice I am combating has led to the production of multitudes of the vilest abortions which can be conceived, under the name of Gothic houses, and which have done more to bring the cause into contempt than all other adverse influences put together.

To recapitulate, then,-I would urge, as the primary steps to the success of our movement, that we should, first, guard severely against architectural masquerading in all its guises, and make our buildings assume the form which honestly belongs to them; secondly, that we should adhere strictly to unity of aim in point of style, while we make that style assume varied character suited to the uses and position in which we employ it; that we should fearlessly bend our architecture to the uses of our buildings and the require

ments of our age, instead of endeavouring to bend them to our architecture; and fourthly, that all who aspire to a share in this great revival should first make themselves masters of the style they aim to revive, even at the risk of being dubbed "church architects."

No feature in domestic architecture requires more

consideration than the window. To give the requisite amount of light, without unduly cutting up the wall; to admit air when you want it, without admitting wind and wet, which you do not want; to have free scope for viewing external objects, without needlessly exposing your rooms from the exterior; and to do all this in such a way as will add beauty and character to your building, both within and without, are important objects to be aimed at in any style.

It has been very much the fashion to assert that a Gothic house must be defective in these particulars; indeed, our assailants have made this one of their strong points, and have put together a string of terms, such as "dark rooms," "dark monkish buildings," "dark passages," &c., &c., which they use whenever the subject is alluded to: and, so much are people who do not look into things for themselves misled by these stock terms, that one frequently hears persons, not otherwise unfavourable to Gothic architecture, coolly say that they think, in a country like ours, where light is scarce, the Italian style is preferable, as affording greater facilities for its admission! Under