so rarely can the system of counterpoise approach anything like perfection in these buildings; nor indeed is it actually necessary that it should. Could it be proved to be so, then indeed would the whole system be defective in principle. It is as well, however, to keep in mind that it has these peculiarities, and that they may become, under some circumstances, serious drawbacks to the adoption of the pointed styles. The liability to alter in form is the same in all systems of construction; but it is far greater in the medieval than in other systems, as has been exemplified in, perhaps, two out of three of the many productions of that period which still exist.* One great recom

On the assumption that the practical development of the medieval system of construction was perfect, the whole theory of buttresses becomes involved in mystery. We are not now endeavouring to make out a case against Pointed Architecture, and therefore will not complain of buttresses being out of place in situations where they are obviously only ornamental, as in stall and screen-work, &c. If one uniform system had been acted upon we might reasonably have expected to find every oblique pressure on the walls counteracted by a proportionate abutment. In chancels without aisles, where the side walls have to carry a spandrilled roof, they are found to be quite as often without buttresses as with them, and we have seen instances in which, to all appearance, they are placed where they are not wanted, and omitted where they might be of service. Sometimes an abutment seems to be unnecessarily massive; and again, at other times, positively insufficient for its work. How often a buttress occurs at an angle of a building when the side is altogether without one. Surely if one was really required at the angle, it would be doubly so on the flank. Take fifty mediæval churches in their alphabetical order, and we will venture to maintain that it would be difficult to establish from them any satisfactory theory of buttressing, either with respect to their relative height and width, the thickness of their walls, or even date of erection; more particularly if we are to take them all as exemplifications of one uniform system of construction. Perhaps the most striking instances of what we cannot but regard as the capricious mode of applying buttresses, are to be found in towers. These have them, or they have them not, whether they are covered with spires or not: nor does the relative thickness of the walls appear in all instances to regulate this. A small slender spire that rests its base on the inner side of the tower walls, will, perhaps, have them double buttressed at the angles; while one which is more massive, and more obtuse, and spreads at its base to the very outer edge of the tower walls, will, perhaps, have none whatever. Supposing a spire to be circular at its base, like a dome, instead of polygonal, its usual form, the three lowermost courses of stone, if the material were good, and the joints of each course properly crossed in the course above it, would, taking friction into the account, act as a tie to the whole superstructure, and even to the tower on which it rested. Indeed, each succeeding course helps to tie the others, as the eye follows them downwards from the apex. Nor does the octagonal form of most spires cause them to deviate materially from this law, as may be noticed in some early English spires, where their alternate faces actually overhang the wall by about half their thickness. The system of counterpoise, therefore, can hardly be applied to these instances, otherwise than as it gives a firm base to a lofty superstructure. Of course it were an easy task, if we select our own examples, to build up by their medium almost any theory we may fancy ought to be maintained; but as far as our own investigations have carried us, we have come to the conclusion, that as regards buttresses, and indeed abutments generally, whether in the wall, or external to it, there could have been no fixed principles relating to them, generally recognised as such. Their abutments were usually sufficient for what they had to resist; often more than sufficient; too often unhappily the reverse of being sufficient, or only just enough to maintain a counteraction, and they have in consequence suffered from the effects of time. Abundance of material rather than ingenuity of construction is what is most observable both in the wood-work and the masonry of that period; and when, for appearance sake, it became an object to use the smallest quantity that was sufficient for stability, the skill of the architects, it must be confessed, was often exerted in a wonderful degree, but they sometimes approached to the verge of absolute danger, as the experience of succeeding ages has proved.

mendation in favour of it, is its massiveness-the strength that it has through sheer weight. Were it not for this property, a lofty narrow building, like Westminster Abbey, would be seriously affected by storms of wind taking it on the flank: even churches of greater proportionate width might suffer from this cause, were lightness of construction carried out to too great an extent. A church is not like a house, which though it may be built with thin and lofty walls, yet receives great strength from the floors and partitions within. We do not forget the destruction of certain methodist preaching houses, one having its front blown inwards, and another unroofed, during a hurricane. Such buildings, hideous as they usually are in appearance, and absolutely deficient in the quantity (often, no doubt, defective in the quality also) of the materials of which they are constructed, are no criterion of the probable disadvantages of the system we advocate. For the advantages of Romanesque, or rather of results learned from Romanesque, over the styles now usually adopted, our readers are referred to the articles on this subject which appeared in our magazine last year. Let the style be what it will, we think the age ought to have one which, if it must not take into its system all modern improvements, may at least be an expression of itself, and be sufficient, in some measure, to meet the spiritual wants of our increased and increasing population.

The following diagrams are taken from two articles in the Encyclopædia Britannica, under the titles of Carpentry and Roof.

Fig. 1. is one of the trusses of the original roof of St. Paul's, Covent Garden, by the architect, Inigo Jones. This roof was destroyed by fire, and the present one, fig. 4, put in place of the other, in 1796.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2. is the celebrated roof of the Theatre at Oxford, by

Sir Christopher Wren.

Fig. 2.

"The span between walls is seventy-five feet. This is accounted a very ingenious and singular performance. The middle part of it is almost unchangeable in its form; but from this circumstance it does not distribute the horizontal thrust with the same regularity as the usual construction. The horizontal thrust on the tie-beam is about twice the weight of the roof, and is withstood by an iron strap below the beam, which stretches the whole width of the building in the form of a rope, making part of the ornament of the ceiling."

Fig. 3. is the roof of the chapel of Greenwich Hospital.

"The trusses are seven feet apart, and the whole is covered with lead, the boarding being supported by horizontal ledges of six by four inches. This is a beautiful roof, and contains less timber than most of its dimensions. The parts are all disposed with great judgment. Perhaps the iron rod is unnecessary, but it adds great stiffness to the whole."

Fig. 4. The present roof of St. Paul's, Covent Garden.

"The trusses are about ten feet six inches apart. This roof far exceeds the original one put up by Inigo Jones. One of its trusses contains 198 feet of timber. One of the old roof had 273, but had many inactive timbers, and others ill-disposed,

The internal truss, F. C. F., is admirably contrived for supporting the exterior rafters, without any pressure on the far projecting ends of the tie-beam. The former roof had bent them greatly, so as to appear ungraceful."

The difference of the pitch between the diagrams, representing the old and new roof, does not appear to be taken notice of by the

writer.

Fig. 5. "The roof of the Birmingham Theatre, constructed by Mr. George Saunders. The span is eighty feet clear, and the trusses are ten feet apart."

"This is a fine specimen of British carpentry, and is one of the boldest and lightest roofs in Europe."

Mandement de S. E. Mgr. le Cardinal de Bonald sur la Dévotion à la Sainte Vierge, et en particulier sur le Culte de l'Immaculée Conception. Lyons: de l'Imprimerie d'Antoine Perisse, Imp. de N. S. P. le Pape et de S. E. Mgr. le Cardinal-Archevêque. 1842. THOUGH we prefix this comprehensive title to the remarks we have to offer, we are far from supposing that one short paper can exhaust so great a subject. Continental Romanism is a system so vast, so complicated, so curiously mixed up of good and evil, that it would require much more space than we can spare, and much more knowledge than we can pretend to possess, in order to present it to the reader in its full and accurate proportions. Our present purpose is to say no good of it. Lest, therefore, we should be thought to take a narrow and one-sided view, we shall premise a few remarks on its favourable and honourable characteristics.

nor a

Now, in the first place, we cannot withhold our tribute of admiration to the noble christian virtues so often displayed by the religious orders. Easy, comfortable gentlemen, who roll through Europe in luxurious carriages, looking down contemptuously on monkish asceticism and austerity, and talkative young ladies, who make themselves merry at the expense of silent and secluded nuns,―are, of all persons in the world, precisely those with whom we have least sympathy. It is not merely that we feel a farmer's gratitude towards the agricultural Cistercians, to whom St. Bernard said, "Believe me, you will find more lessons in the woods than in books; trees and stones will teach you what you cannot learn from masters :"scholar's gratitude towards the rich and aristocratic Benedictines, though we cannot speak without enthusiasm of the congregation of St. Maur. We confess a certain partiality for the wandering Franciscans, even the Capuchins; albeit we do not forget what rough work they did for the Jesuits, in the times that succeeded the Reformation. In regard to the Jesuits themselves, so justly feared and suspected, is there not much truth in what was said of them in the Quarterly Review, more than twenty years ago: "They were [are] an order of men of whom, considering them at different times and in different countries, it would hardly be possible to speak worse or better than they deserved, so heinous were their misdeeds, and so great were their virtues?"* But it is not to our point to recur to the mediæval orders, or to those which were elicited (as it were) by Protestantism. We refer rather to the institutions of St. Vincent de Paul; for these grew up in the midst of Continental Romanism in its modern, settled, and Tridentine form. Who can gainsay the christianlike devotedness of the Sisters of Charity? and what have we to show in comparison? We will use the remarks made at

* Quarterly Review, vol. xxvi. Jan. 1822. At that time eight years had not elapsed since their restoration, and they had attracted comparatively little notice.