the material differed; wood not abounding now in Ireland as then in England. This description however seems to have been intended for the interior, that strong country, west of Canterbury, where the resistance was effectual to stop the polished invader's march, and compel him to take a course nearer the Thames: for the people of the coast, communicating more with foreigners, he says, were more civilized, and not unacquainted with arts. Generous as he was, and humane, in comparison of many other renowned Roman conquerors, yet no doubt his invasion contributed to make the Britons, as the poet, who fled before him at Pharsalia, has described them, 'hospitibus feros.' What he avoided to report, the cotemporary geographer has declared, that many thousands were dragged away in chains to the slavemarkets of Rome. Where the Britons knew not the Romans, but were in habit of communication with strangers who came to trade and not to conquer, they were, according to a historian of the same age, remarked for courteousness and hospitality. In those western parts the domestic buildings may have gained early something of Phenician character, and afterward of Carthaginian and Massilian Greek, from the people who successively held the principal trade there.

Yet, after all, whether the injuries of the Romans were greater than our warlike and divided

forefathers were disposed and accustomed to do one another, and whether the balance, even including what followed after Julius's time, was in good or evil, we have too little means for calcu lation to make any positive decision reasonable. What, for our purpose, occurs to observe is, that, beyond question, in the architecture of the country, great improvement resulted. Proconsuls, and sometimes emperors, residing here, huts and cabins and wigwams would no longer serve. The whole country, from the southern channel to the northern mountains, being under one government, administered according to that now emphatically styled the Civil Law, many individuals would hold large property, in a security inviting liberal ex-pence on liberal enjoyments. The style of architecture then would be that of the Roman empire; varying in small matters, as varieties of climate and circumstances, would admonish. The splen dor of the buildings, in this country, remains to be gathered principally from the pavements preserved by the ruins of superstructure thrown on them. Of the superstructures themselves little of any kind, and nothing of great value, has escaped the successive devastations of following barbarian invaders, Picts, Saxons, and Danes.

But whatever, among the hostilities of centuries, may have been the destruction of buildings. evidences enough, to my mind, appear, that neither

Saxons nor Danes (congenial people, and barba rians with regard to the arts) were such barbarians. as some of our historians have chosen to represent them. The universally admired system of law and polity, which we owe to them, might indeed alone suffice to prove it. Among many other things to this purpose deserving notice, which our historians have either overlooked, or, as not to their purpose, rejected, is what that invaluable record known by the name of Doomsday Book, recently given to the public by the care of Parliament, has laid open to us. Hume, quoting that record, which he had opportunity to consult, though not then published, has enjoyed the remark that, at the time of the Norman conquest, the towns of England were small, and their population contemptible. But he has omitted the information, which the same record largely furnishes, that the country was fully peopled. It is indeed remarkable how few hamlets in England do not, in their names, carry evidence of an antiquity up to the Saxon times, and some even beyond; and it is not a little farther remarkable how large a proportion of them is found stated in Doomsday, as then occupied by the husbandman.

The habits and fancies and institutions of our Saxon forefathers evidently did not lead them to delight in towns. The country was divided into small hamlet lordships, and the proprietors lived

on their estates. The disposition of the people, and the policy of the government seem equally to have bent this way. Nevertheless that government, with great defects, founded on a wise and mild system, encouraged and even honored trade, Very remarkable proof of this is furnished by that law of Athelstan, inacting, that a merchant, who had made three long sea-voyages on his own account, should have the rank of Theyn. Another law you know, of the same prince, gives the same honor to a yeoman, who could purchase five hides. of land, and, with such property, had a house with a kitchen, a hall, a chapel, and a bell.

Here we have, not indeed a picture, yet an interesting sketch, of the kind of house esteemed, in those days, requisite for a country-gentleman. For curiosity we might be glad to have a geometrical plan and upright, with the addition of the bedrooms and other appendages, and a sample of the furniture. But we should satisfy ourselves that what we have is more than will be found, of other parts of Europe, or

that age, in many perhaps in any.

LETTER XXIX.

Domestic Architecture.-Towns.

THE matter, with which I concluded my last letter, offers a point whence to begin tracing the English country-gentleman's house. But towns, and of course most the greatest towns, afford the greatest opportunities for the architect; not only as they must have public buildings, not only as they are the great scenes of civil architecture, but also as they are the great scenes of domestic building, inasmuch as accumulation makes great

ness.

But the accumulation of family dwellings, in towns, is not generally favorable to design in architecture. Here and there a house of superior magnificence may adorn a city but the mass must be composed of inferior houses; and the accumulation of these, within a limited space, necessary in such cities as London and Paris and many far inferior to them, is very adverse to effect in architecture. Such houses must be connected in streets: convenience must be consulted for each house separately; and if architectonic effect is sought, it must result, not from each, but from many combined. In streets then, whether of shophouses, or of dwellings for the mass of wealthier inhabitants, the disadvantage is similar to that