6

formation of the national mind. But only æsthetically considered, as regards the exterior, the English method, fairly 'weighed, will be found more satisfactory. French cathedrals always appear short externally, and their enormous roofs over'power and crush everything below them. The French archi'tects never could obtain the beautiful skyline, or give value to 'the towers, as the English invariably did,'-from the enormous height which their towers would have required to aspire to, to balance the immense elevation which the main building had already attained.

The central spire at Amiens is as high as that of Salisbury, but it is reduced by its position to a mere pinnacle. The towers at the west end of Amiens, though higher than those of York, are buried in the roof and totally overpowered.'

Yet further,

'A great charm of English cathedrals is their repose of outline. A French cathedral is surrounded by a multitude of pinnacles, flying buttresses, and other expedients to keep the building from falling. It is true that these objects were made ornamental; but though it is vicious to conceal construction, it is bad architecture to let the devices of construction predominate over the actual outline of the main building itself. Not only does it suggest weakness, but it produces a flutter and perplexity that never is nor can be satisfactory.'

'Among the differences between the French and English architects there is none more remarkable than the feeling for the picturesque that always guided the latter, while it can hardly be traced in the works of our continental neighbours. The variety of plan and outline is the more obvious manifestation of this good taste, as far as the building itself is concerned, but it is even more remarkable in the choice of the site and the arrangement of the accessories. Nothing, for instance, can be more commandingly placed than Durham and Lincoln,-nothing more beautiful than even the lowly situations of Wells and Salisbury.-Almost all our cathedrals retain spots of green and alleys of tall trees, which, grouping so pleasingly with the towers and spires, give such value and beauty to the architecture. As a general rule, they stand in the very outskirts of the town, either overlooking it from a height, or nestled down on the banks of some little streamlet of pure water. French cathedrals, on the other hand, always stand in the market place in the very centre of the town, with no grass plot in front-too often surrounded by shops and hovels, built up even against their very walls,' which abominations seem never to have been objected to.'

We might perhaps find a few exceptions to this sweeping assertion. There is considerable beauty in the position of Notre Dame at Avignon; there was more, before modern bad taste had improved the summit of the Rocher des Domns-yet nothing can take from it its charm of purple sunsets and gleams of light flashing far along the winding reaches of the mighty river, winding down between that panorama of receding ranges of hills to the strange delta of the Camargue. There must have been much in that of the cathedral of Avranches-including

the opening sweep of the widening bay, and the S. Michel in the distance. There is much quiet and repose in the little drowsy square before S. Martin at Tours; and more in the deserted grass-grown open space before Chartres, when, in the gloaming, the deep-toned bell sounds for the Ave Maria, and the scanty congregation is crossing it-to kneel and pray in the dim choir, darkened, even at that hour, rather with the rich hues of the painted glass than by the deepening shades of the dying day. Yet, in the main, we accept Mr. Fergusson's dictum. It is one result and one only of that love of nature which has always been a main instinct of the national character of Englishmen. To this was added, in the best periods of English Gothic, quite as careful an adaptation of the building to the character and entourage of the site as ever was the case in the corresponding ages of Grecian or Roman art. Compare the average of our coast churches with those inland. Again, the churches of the Fens with those of Oxfordshire or sunny Kent. Compare the lofty beacon-like towers of many of those that stand on the cliffs, their rough walls defying the rugged blasts that buffet them, with those sacred edifices which, among pleasant pastures and gentle streams, subside into what might be almost termed an agricultural style; or again, with the rocklike structures contrasting so keenly with the levels of marshland. See again, how in cities, either by a further modification, or by the sacred precinct-' that hallowed temenos' that surrounds it the shrine attracts the attention, and asserts the right to be a refuge to the harassed and a beacon to the wandering and weary, as much among the thronging surges of human life as on the foam-lashed shore of the wailing sea.

We cannot close Mr. Fergusson's book without noticing the extraordinary number of illustrations, and the care with which they are selected and engraved. The same good judgment has suggested the employment of that scale to which they are drawn in every practicable case. The dates and marked periods of history placed at the headings of the chapters, are also of much service. Alike by the student of architecture and the traveller these volumes will be prized, affording the means of reference to other styles whilst on the spot, and memoranda which will greatly assist the recollection whilst at home.

From the general aperçu which Mr. Fergusson has given of the art, we have learnt that certainly the architectural styles followed by Grecian and Roman-and, most probably, those practised by Gothic architects-reached their greatest glories in the land, not of their birth, but of their adoption; as we find some plants rendered more vigorous by transplantation. So it may

be that re-integrated Gothic may yet rise with renovated power among us. But this will not be by a process of servile copying merely necessary to the student, but annihilative to the intellect of the matured man. Details of mouldings, proportions of the mass, are but the language in which the architect must learn to speak-he must learn the language indeed, grammatically, and by heart, but the application of the words must not be a mere effort of the memory. Discretion of speech is more than eloquence; and to speak agreeably to him with whom we deal, is more than to speak in good words or good ' order.' We must not merely ask council of the ancient time what is best, but also of the latter time what is fittest' before we can expect to begin to renovate the architecture of England.

71

ART. III.-1. Memoirs of the Right Honourable Sir Robert Peel, Bart. M.P. &c. Published by the Trustees of his Papers, EARL STANHOPE and Right Hon. EDWARD CARDWELL. Parts I. and II. 1856-57.

2. Memoirs of Sir Robert Peel. By M. GUIZOT. 1857.

THE predilections and the antipathies with which the violence of party interests inevitably obscures a just conception of the characters of public men, so long as they are directly associated with the politics of the hour, have now ceased to maintain their conflicting disguise over the reputation of the statesman who figured prominently during nearly forty years of our own age, and whose policy served largely to originate the contemporary history of this country. The peculiar uncertainty of the lights and shades which have fallen upon the character of Sir Robert Peel, has probably arisen from the convictions or prejudices of those who may neither have closely distinguished between his circumstances and his acts, nor have clearly appreciated the considerations which time had itself imperceptibly introduced into questions upon which it was his lot to decide. It has probably been the fate of no other statesman who has been compelled to recant, on two successive and vital questions, the cardinal professions of his life, to be compelled, in the capacity of leader of the House of Commons, to carry into actual legislation the policy he had theoretically opposed, and to be pursued with equal prejudice and with equal clamour.

Charges of political inconsistency, such as those by which it has been commonly attempted to test the foresight of the late Sir Robert Peel, are of all others the most fertile of declamation and the least frequently submitted to analysis. They are just those charges which are usually originated to suit the purposes of party electioneering, and which are afterwards caught up and conscientiously sustained by the astute and logical intellects which preside over the administration of justice at quarter sessions. When, however, it is borne in mind that the public character of Sir Robert Peel can hardly be determined with accuracy apart from the question of his policy in reference to Catholic Emancipation and the repeal of the Corn Laws, it becomes especially necessary to determine the just tests of consistency, as applied to those questions. It might be fairly

thought that either an alleged breach of fidelity to party obligations, or the abstract fact of nonconformity to measures previously sanctioned and approved, was in itself by much too vague and flimsy a basis even to ground a charge of inconsistency. Yet it is by much more on loose declamation such as this, than upon any clear or accurate reasoning, that the enemies of Sir Robert Peel have relied for the establishment of their position. Let us consider, then, for a moment, the force of such arguments.

Perhaps nothing, in the first place, can be more difficult to define, than the positive extent of party obligations; and it is obviously impossible to determine so abstract a question by any community of intelligent opinion. But it is clear, at least, that nothing had been more vague and indeterminate than the actual relations of the Tory party themselves with their successive leaders during the thirty years previous to the emancipation of the Roman Catholics. While that question remained, both in peace and in war, the vital point of hostility between the Whig and Tory camps, the Tories committed their fortunes indiscriminately to the advocates and to the opponents of religious concessions. After continuing to acknowledge the leadership of Mr. Pitt during six years after his avowal of the justice of emancipation, they transferred their confidence, on the death of that minister, successively to the Duke of Portland and Mr. Perceval, who were both, in a greater or less degree, opposed to the policy of the Whigs. They next acknowledged the associated leadership of the Earl of Liverpool and Viscount Castlereagh—a happy compromise, which secured them one advocate of concession, and one supporter of the existing laws. They then permitted Mr. Canning-more explicit on this question even than Lord Castlereagh-to be their organ in the House of Commons during four sessions. When, therefore, a process of exhaustion had left Mr. Peel the most eminent debater in their ranks, it was obvious that their recognition of his leadership could scarcely be affected by any special consideration of his views on the Roman Catholic question. And the fact that the Tories had so long supported administrations resting, so far as this question was concerned, on the double basis of latitudinarianism and inactivity, appeared to imply that that which was an open. question in the Cabinet was also an open question in the ranks of the party itself.

In the second place, the deduction of political inconsistency from the bare fact of a renunciation of former measures, is one of those arguments which is only applicable when we ascend to the highest questions of morality and truth. If the question in dispute were one of abolishing the Christian