especially with the unbuttressed belfry-stage, has rather an effect of bareness. The belfry-windows are double. Of smaller and plainer examples I might make a long list; complete steeples from the ground occur at Broughton and Aldwinkle S. Peter's, the latter one of the best; at Brigstock and Brixworth the spire and belfry-stage are additions or reconstructions, while at Bozeat, and probably elsewhere, the spire alone is an addition to an earlier tower.

The use of the broach was so confirmed in this district, that it is actually found in several Perpendicular examples. Stanion is a most striking instance. Its immense height and double belfry-windows recall the effect of Irchester, but it derives a character quite peculiar to itself from the arrangement of its buttresses. From the castern face they are entirely absent; to the west they are double, and set at some distance from the angles. Brampton, a church which I have not seen, is also mentioned as a good Perpendicular broach, and there is another of inferior character at Kelmarsh.

But while the use of the broach continued thus long, approaches to the antagonist form may be discovered very early. The most genuine examples of transition from the true broach to the parapeted form with which I am acquainted, we shall soon have to consider, when we come to the spires of Leicestershire. But Northamptonshire contains several examples of an analogous stage. The true broach cannot well be combined with the parapet; but the timber-form, such as we have seen at Crick and Etton, easily may; in fact, this is the usual form of parapeted spires, the parapet only concealing the treatment of the angles. Several spires of early Decorated, or even Early English date, have spires of this form with a parapet (or a cornice so strongly marked as to have the effect of a parapet), but not concealing the angles. Instances occur at Grafton Underwood, Castor, Denford, and Woodford; in the two latter cases with pinnacles. Such is also the case in the strange spire at Piddington, as far as the base is concerned; the change in its design, which can be hardly made intelligible without a drawing, is, as far as my experience goes, unique. This church is in the tower country, being the only example of a broach, or anything approximating to one, which I have seen in that district.

The late Decorated and Perpendicular spires, of course, usually spring from within a parapet; a form which, in its highest developement, far exceeds the best broaches, but which requires much more skill to produce a satisfactory effect. The poorest kind, in which the spire springs altogether unconnectedly from the centre of a flat parapet, without so much as a battlement or pinnacles, is not usual in this district; I only remember an insignificant, though crocketed, example at Southwick. The battlement without pinnacles is common enough both in the spire country, and in the scattered examples, mostly of far less merit, to be found in the other part of the county. These last are commonly low spires added to ordinary towers, from which they might just as well have been absent, as far as any unity of design is concerned. The north has several examples of somewhat more pretensions; Geddington has one, perhaps, altogether as satisfactory as any steeple of

this class can be; the tower is very well proportioned, with a row of quatrefoils below the battlement, and in its general contour, its double belfry-windows and flat buttresses, strongly recalls the type of Marston Trussel. At Glinton is a steeple of no great beauty, but remarkable for the concave sides of the spire, and its immense height in comparison with the tower.

Of the equally common class, which only differs from the last in the addition of angular pinnacles, often of no great consequence, there are also many examples of very different degrees of merit. Passing by smaller and less important instances, I may mention Kingsthorpe as an example of great height, though the composition is tame and ordinary. Even the now destroyed crocketed spire at Braunston, though worthy of mention as by far the tallest in its neighbourhood, would not have claimed any conspicuous rank in the more favoured parts of the county. Of much greater merit to my mind, though less lofty, is S. Sepulchre, in Northampton, though one could wish it had some other vocation than to destroy the outline of a round church. The immense projection of the diagonal buttresses, and their numerous stages, are well known; nothing can be more effective, and I am not sure that the destruction of the pinnacles was not-though probably unwittingly-in keeping with their character. The staircase-turret also is good. The best spires of this kind which I know in the north are Cransley and Islip, which may be fairly compared together, having nearly the same outline, and the flat buttress being found in both. The details, however, differ considerably, and the double belfry-window at Cransley renders its upper portion as superior to that of Islip, as the latter surpasses it in the composition of its lower stages. The former circumstance renders the effect of the tower at Cransley very nearly identical with that at Marston Trussel. At Islip we may remark the constant use of an ogee label, which is employed almost throughout the church, even where one would have least looked for it, over the pier-arches. The spire at Islip has an advantage in being crocketed, which is certainly desirable in a steeple of this class.

Of the most magnificent arrangement of all, Northamptonshire has, to the best of my knowledge, no example; that, I mean, in which the spire rises from the centre of a vast cluster of pinnacles, for an instance of which I need only point to our own S. Mary's. But it contains several noble steeples of the class which may fairly claim to rank next to it, that in which the spire is connected with the pinnacles by flyingbuttresses. This treatment preserves the pyramidal outline, and that artistic connection between the tower and spire which is apt to be lost in the classes which we have just been considering. Of this class the type is Rushden, a steeple unsurpassable both for composition and detail. The belfry-stage, with its double windows and flat buttresses, its rows of quatrefoils, and open parapet, is inimitable, and the proportions of the whole are admirably conceived. Even Higham itself cannot compete with it, though the comparison is hardly fair when we consider the reconstruction which the latter has undergone. But the difference of style at Higham between the Early English tower and the Decorated spire renders it a less perfect whole; the spire itself is

Both

less graceful, as its sides are somewhat convex; and the tower, though a most valuable study of detail, cannot at any time have approached to the perfect symmetry of its rival. Easton Mawdit has a steeple of the same class, but much smaller and plainer, and the absence of buttresses from the belfry-stage renders the whole somewhat meagre. To these we must add by far the two finest spires to be found in the southern division of the county. Every one knows the most graceful spire of King's Sutton; and as far as the spire alone is concerned, it might almost compete with Rushden itself. The height attained, and the justness and elegance of proportion preserved, are wonderful. But the tower considered by itself, is hardly satisfactory; the diagonal buttresses are of very shallow projection, and the belfry-stage, with its square-headed windows, is unquestionably bare. The tower is, in this respect, very like its neighbour at Aynhoe, and regarded without reference to the spire, is certainly not improved by its increased lightness of proportion. And it is hardly judicious for so very lofty a composition to be engaged, as it can never really be regarded as part of a front. The other is at Middleton Cheney, where the tower is of a more ordinary character, and presents nothing remarkable besides its superb western portal, one of the finest Perpendicular examples that I have ever seen. The spire is very lofty, but plain, while that at Kings Sutton is crocketed. these spires have a band, but not very conspicuous, at about half their height. They also agree in an arrangement of pinnacles which I do not remember to have seen elsewhere; besides the usual angular ones, there is an inner range connected with the spire by flying buttresses; at Kings Sutton flying buttresses again unite these to the angular pinnacles. This produces a very rich effect, approaching in some small degree to the arrangement of S. Mary's: but at Middleton Cheney this second range is absent. Alongside of these I may rank another class which (though to my mind very inferior) contains some of the tallest and most enriched steeples in the county. In these, instead of pinnacles and flying buttresses, the angles of the tower are finished with embattled turrets; the parapet being generally pierced with oylet-holes, and the whole having rather a military air. This sort of parapet is found in some other cases, as in the tower of Little Addington, and the octagon at Irthlingborough; and also at Spratton, and the otherwise very fine spire at Finedon. At Byfield, in the southern part of the county, we find the turrets without the oylets. This is a tall tower with a fine western doorway, and one or two other good points, but of no great composition, and spoiled by flat-headed belfry-windows. The type comes out in its full splendour in the two well-known spires of Kettering and Oundle; both agree in the character of the parapet and the turrets set on at the corners without any connection with the lower part. In other respects they differ a good deal both from each other, and from other Northamptonshire towers; both have a great extent of panelling, which, as we have seen, is by no means an usual feature in the district. At Kettering there are two very distinct stages above the roof; one of panelling, the upper with three belfry-windows, without much connection; but at Oundle the whole upper part of the tower consists of one panelled mass, of which the belfry-windows are

simply a certain portion pierced, much in the same way as in some of the best steeples in the west.

The Leicestershire spires are, on the whole, decidedly inferior to those of Northamptonshire. The broach, indeed, is common, and excellent examples occur at Gaddesby, at Oadby, an admirable specimen. of the shorter and thicker kind, at Barkby, which is remarkable for its panelled bands, and above all, at Market Harborough, which must certainly be allowed to surpass any in Northamptonshire. The very lofty tower batters, and displays an excellent belfry-stage with double windows, flat buttresses and rich panelling; the spire, shorter in proportion than many others, is crocketed. But most of the Leicestershire spires are inferior both in elevation and design; the later ones usually rise unconnectedly from the centre of an embattled tower with or without pinnacles, and are seldom of any very great height, with a few fine exceptions, as Queniborough, and S. Mary's and S. Martin's, in Leicester. Numerous examples occur at Frisby, Asfordby, Brooksby, Knighton, Earls Shilton, and elsewhere. But the most interesting, though not the most beautiful class, of spires in this county, are those which illustrate the transition between the two principal forms. One or two examples, as Aylestone and Hoby, occur of the type of spire which we have seen in Northamptonshire at Denford and Woodford, the square-based broach rising within a parapet. At Blaby we have the real broach, with very small squinches, similarly treated; and at Gilmorton is one of the most extraordinary spires I have ever seen; from within a battlement there rises a broach, remarkable for the extreme convexity both of its own lines and those of its squinches. This seems quite unnatural; the natural development leads us from the spire at Blaby to the plain parapet which we see at the two spires at Wigston-one of them as good a steeple as such an arrangement will allow--and from thence to the ordinary battlemented form. I must also not omit that this county contains at least one example of the Perpendicular broach, namely at South Kilworth, on the Northamptonshire border.

I have already mentioned, that with a few exceptions-exceptions however, including Heckington and Sleaford-I am not personally acquainted with the Lincolnshire churches. I have however, cast my eye through Mr. Lewin's work on the district of Holland, to see how far the spires for which it is so famous, present any resemblance to those of Northamptonshire. As far as I can thus judge, I should say that the Lincolnshire spires have more individual and less local character than their neighbours, and that it would be much less easy to classify them. The broach is less common; double buttresses, often pedimented, are continually found running up the whole height there. We have seen that in Northamptonshire and Leicestershire the projecting buttress, except it be diagonal, and, indeed, often then, usually terminates under the belfry-stage. And between a pair of these buttresses it is not uncommon to find a staircase-turret introduced in a somewhat awkward manner.

(To be continued.)

4

111

MR. RUSKIN'S SEVEN LAMPS OF ARCHITECTURE. The Seven Lamps of Architecture. By JOHN RUSKIN, Author of "Modern Painters." London: Smith, Elder, and Co. 1849. THIS remarkable contribution to the literature of art deserved an even earlier notice. Mr. Ruskin is already well known as a critic in painting. The present volume is an application of some of his favourite principles to the mistress art of Architecture. We may well say of him, Nihil tetigit quod non ornavit. We welcome the aid of his eloquent and earnest pen in our own more peculiar department; for we are sure that, however much we may differ from him, there will yet be much to learn from his high-toned standard of taste, his perception of the real dignity of art, his abhorrence of the sordid and unreal.

66

The title is fanciful. The Lamps of Architecture denote the laws some constant, general, and irrefragable laws of right," (p. 3,) "based upon man's nature, not upon his knowledge,❞—which ought to be the guides of every effort made, as in every department of human action, so especially in architecture. These lamps-or laws-are the principles of Sacrifice, of Truth, of Power, of Beauty, of Life, of Memory, and of Obedience: and the embossed covers of the volume bear in seven circles, the words, Religio, Observantia, Auctoritas, Fides, Obedientia, Memoria, and Spiritus. After distinguishing broadly between Architecture and Building, Mr. Ruskin classes the former into five heads, the Devotional, Memorial, Civil, Military, and Domestic. The Lamp of Sacrifice has most to do with the two first classes, being "that spirit, which offers for such works precious things, simply because they are precious; not as being necessary to the building, but as an offering, surrendering, and sacrifice of what is to ourselves desirable." (p. 9.) How truly may Mr. Ruskin complain that this feeling is in general wanting among modern church-builders : he goes so far as sarcastically to choose as its best definition, the negative one, that it is "the opposite of the prevalent feeling of modern times, which desires to produce the largest results at the least cost.' We need not say that we thoroughly agree with him in lamenting the general absence of a true sense of the duty of giving of our best to God's service. This has been one of our most common themes for years; and we wish that every one might read Mr. Ruskin's energetic enforcement of this duty. He has, perhaps, less clearly perceived-at least, he has not so clearly expressed-the correlative truth that the meanest and least costly, where it is really the poor man's best, is even more acceptable to Almighty GoD than the costly offerings of the rich.

The following passage is a forcible answer to "an objection as frequent as feeble," (p. 15,) which is often brought against our own exertions.

"Do the people need place to pray, and calls to hear His word? Then it is no time for smoothing pillars or carving pulpits; let us have enough first of walls and roofs. Do the people need teaching from house to house, and