the defect we have noticed in the windows of the nave.

It is fair

to explain that our cut of the tower of this church happens to be the most incorrect thing in our whole series. In Mr. Smith's drawing, the south wall of the tower stands quite clear of the body; our artist has also inadvertently deprived one of the corner buttresses of a third of its height, and diminished the size and elevation of the lower window in the tower.

We need scarcely stop to consider this heavy building, with its tower surrounded on three sides by the body of the church, its bastion-like buttresses, and as solid pinnacles; its accumulation of what was intended for ornament in the front, and nakedness and meagreness of the sides and east end.

"St. Matthews.-This church was erected by private subscription, on a site given for the purpose. It was consecrated on the festival of St. Matthew, 1835 is a district church, comprising, under the care of its resident minister, a population of about 1400 souls, heretofore very distant from their parish churches. The architecture is modern Gothic, and the fabric forms a central and pleasing object at the junction of the vales of Stonehouse and Redborough, being a well-propor

tioned tower, with pinnacles. The interior is divided into three aisles by light columns.'

A large school-room and eligible parsonage and endowment has all been added by the munificence of Colonel Daubeney and others.

Here is, as usual, a Grecian temple, with a mere coating or rather veil of Gothic work thrown over it. The base of the

tower is almost hidden in the body, and the chancel is internally only a shallow recess. In the case of the latter, the architect, finding he had to give a Gothic effect to a broad and low gable end, and knowing no window that would answer his purpose, has endeavoured to effect it by introducing three of unequal size under a gable. Now, we hold that windows of one daie may be multiplied under one gable to any number, as in the "Five Sisters" at York; and in the east end of the Lady Chapel at Hereford, as in fact they constitute one window; but a window of two or more "daies" is in fact a system or combination of lancet windows, and must be regarded as so complete as not to allow of more than one being introduced when unity seems required, as in a portion of wall included under the space of one gable.

The architect, in the present instance, has given plurality where unity is above all required, viz. the east end of the church, and on the other hand, where we look for the idea of succession and plurality, viz. in the side view of the church, he has with equal impropriety recurred to the idea of unity, by making the two extreme compartments differ from the rest, and slightly project, so as to form two uniform wings. The side thus becomes a front, and the attention is drawn to its centre (which is only a centre architecturally), instead of being just slightly arrested by a porch at the south-west, or north-west, and then carried upwards without further interruption to the east end.

So far from it being a desirable object to balance a projection or door at the west end of the north or south elevations; we should say, that even if a door is found to be necessary at the eastern extremity of the sides, it ought to be made comparatively insignificant. Few things interfere with the Catholic plan of Churches, with the Catholic style of architecture, and with the picturesque effect of any style whatever, more than the notion of making every side of a building a uniform front. We are aware that strength is gained by breaking the line of the wall, every corner being virtually a buttress; but if that must be done, let the ins and outs be so arranged as to avoid uniformity rather than seek it. The building before us is not so flagrant an instance of this fault as many others, especially the new churches about the metropolis, some of which are quite quadrifrontal, i. e. presenting to every aspect a complete uniform façade. We consider that the balanced uniformity of the side view of St. George's at Windsor, is a symptom of degeneracy in the architecture of that gorgeous

structure.

The new chapels of Sheepscombe and Slad, with schools and parsonages, in the parish of Painswick, were also built by private

munificence, in the midst of poor populations. "The former contains $50. The latter was consecrated in October, 1834. It contains a very handsome Gothic stone font, presented by a benevolent lady; has a gallery extending along the north side, and will contain about 300 persons. Sheepscome exhibits, considering its small dimensions, a very fair allowance of improprieties. The ornamental features are all brought to the front: the south side, which comes into our drawing, with its sheds, chimnies, and long flight of steps, is evidently meant to be overlooked by the indulgent spectator. The pretty minaret which oddly surmounts the west entrance, is neither a tower nor a turret, having the shape of one and the dimensions of

the other. In the interior, the west end must present the usual meeting house arrangement of a door and a window on each side, all included under the span of one roof. Slad Church, with its battlements, its gable divided

into steps, the projections instead of buttresses at the corners, the three windows in the west front ranged according to the angle of the roof, and the centre one rising from the door-way, appears to be a still less graceful and regular struc

ture.

As the nature of our subject has required us to exhibit the least interesting part of Mr. Smith's work, we feel bound, in taking leave of him, to express our admiration of his drawings of the old churches, and of his representations of the scenery of all.

Nothing can be fairer than the design of Mr. Hamilton's publication, and his statement of the reasons which have suggested it. He complains that many of the churches built throughout the country within the last few years "are almost entirely destitute of the ecclesiastical character and quiet soberness beautifully exemplified in the features even of the most simple of the old religious edifices." Foremost in the causes to which he ascribes this unfortunate result," he notices

"The almost uncontrolled management of the edifice being committed to men annually changed, and commonly chosen without refeNO. LII.-OCT. 1839.

K K

rence to their qualifications for this part of their office. We may, without imputation," continues Mr. Hamilton, "presume the churchwarden to be desirous of avoiding, or at least of transferring to a successor, au outlay pressing, perhaps heavily, both on himself and on those whom be represents; and it is therefore not to be wondered at, that frequently mean structures have been reared, and persons have been elevated by the churchwardens to the architect's office, who would done themselves and their employers credit in the operative department, but whose misfortune it has been, from a principle of (mistaken) economy, to be injudiciously raised to a higher responsibility."-p. 3.

We quite agree with Mr. Hamilton, that many of those who have had to do with the building of churches, whether as architects, or as their employers and thus their judges and controllers, have proved themselves sadly unfit for that responsibility; but we suspect that, as a question of fact, clergymen and committees of gentlemen have had more to do with the matter than the poor churchwardens, at least in rural districts. These officers, so respectable and useful in their way, are seldom the originators of new churches, and are much too sensible of their want of architectural judgment to think of choosing plans, and overseeing an architect. Their betters unfortunately are not always so modest. It is a prevailing opinion, that though in most subjects a little information and practice is essential to a correct taste,-that no one is a good judge of a horse or a dog, a musical composition, or any piece of manufacture, without some study and experience, yet that any one of liberal education and with just eye enough to lay out a garden or furnish a parlour, must needs be also competent to superintend the building of a church. Other tastes must be sought with labour, and even then be acquired by few; but this is supposed to come of itself without asking.

Mr. Hamilton is perhaps nearer the truth, when he observes that 66 one reason for his complaint is the fact that many churches have been designed without sufficient reference to the locality and circumstances." Unecclesiastical plans and proportions, he says, whose uncouthness has been but ill disguised by tawdry decoration in the architect's original designs, have been stripped for cheapness sake of that shallow disguise by rural committees, and set up in naked deformity. Yet who will deny that even when the professional man has had his full swing, the building is often painfully at variance with our notion of a village church,utterly devoid of simplicity and genuineness?

The object of the work before us is "to take a middle position, and to offer something which might occupy a place in Parochial Church Architecture, equally removed from expensive ornament rising into exuberance, and excessive plainness, degenerating into

deformity." It is a collection of mere hints: the author makes no pretence to accuracy either in designs or estimates; and "has chosen an easy perspective style in preference to elaborate and less graceful geometrical elevations." The drawings, therefore, as he confesses, would be perfectly useless in the hands of a builder, if any should wish to build a church after any of them, which we cannot recommend. It is evident the author is under one fundamental error as to Gothic architecture, which has rendered his labour vain; he is not aware that it is an exact science. "Grecian sketches," he says with most amusing simplicity, "have been excluded, partly because they require a submission to the rules of art, which has been already disclaimed." There cannot be a greater mistake. Gothic architecture appears less formal and less regular than its ancient rival, only because it embraces more elements of calculation,-because it has more forms and rules of art. Gothic sketches without "submission to the rules of art," are like an attempt to persuade men of the truth of mathematical theorems by probable reasons, to oppose a skilful general without knowing anything of the art of war, or to preach without a pretence of theological learning. He who pretends to design a Gothic church, cannot escape submission to the rules of art; except, as the legend says, the architect of Cologne Cathedral did, by the use of preternatural agency. As might be expected from this extraordinary confession, the drawings before us are full of absurdities.

Yet the leading idea of Mr. H.'s suggestions is very sound and good. His main object is to substitute picturesqueness of form and grouping, for expensive and unsuitable decoration, the bane of modern churches. Thus he describes the modern country church as "externally only an insipid and alternate repetition of window and buttress, unrelieved by any of the bold projections essential to the beauty of an edifice, and presenting internally a chilly-looking enclosure glaring with light and whitewash." But the idea of his book, so good in itself, is most strangely followed up.

He studies not variety but eccentricity of arrangement. Some of the least unaccountable of his combinations, are apparently borrowed from the irregular groups presented by old churches that have been increased and altered from age to age without regard to the original plan. Now, as we have above observed, nothing can be so picturesque, nothing has so strong an impress of antiquity, as a venerable pile, overgrown with aisles, porches, chantries, and chancels, almost hiding the original nave, and far surpassing it in proportions and decoration. Yet this cannot be imitated. We cannot make, at the word of command, by rule