of adhering strictly to the ancient practice of using constructive forms only when and where required for useful purposes, has not been sufficiently dwelt upon; and as I most sincerely believe, were we to follow ancient example, and use columns, arches, entablatures, and pediments, only when necessary for useful construction, we should sooner arrive at excellence in architectural design. I have come here, not seeking to amuse you with evidence in favour of or against the Egyptian or the Greek origin of the Doric column; nor to consider whether the Corinthian capital was suggested by that accidental occurrence, romantically associated with the untimely death of a Greek maiden, or grew out of the sportive exuberance of tutored invention; nor whether the Caryatides owe their existence to the promptings of vindictive or devotional feeling; but having carefully considered the subject, to state to you freely those reasons which have induced me to believe, that the great difference between ancient and modern Architecture, and the great hindrance to our improvement in architectural practice, will be found in our almost total disregard of that which constituted the controlling principle in olden times, viz. - USEFULNESS.

When the Egyptian architect designed his column in imitation of the palm tree, and ornamented it with representations of the lotos and the papyrus, did he do so that he might place it against a wall-an idle decorative feature? No; he invented that form for useful purposes-as a support for the roof of his temple, and also to serve as an imperishable record of the doings of his sovereign, thereby adding another volume to the written history of his country. When ancient Grecian architects constructed temples, did they erect columns to support idle architraves, friezes, and cornices, or construct the latter to shade and shelter stereotyped conventional carvings, in no way associated with the

purposes of the building? No; porticoes, colonnades, and pediments being in their time necessarily required, they used columns and entablatures for useful construction, and designed projecting cornices to shelter and shade sculptures associated with the heathen worship—the purpose of the building. They constructed pediments, not only to aid in the formation of roofs, but to suit the requirements of a people, commanded by their laws, and impelled by their religious feelings, to record with the iron pen of the sculptor the history of their heroes and their devotion to their deities. They placed their temples-the habitations of their gods -above the surface of the surrounding ground, not as we do, purely for effect, but in accordance with their sense of devotional duty. Thus every act had a consistent objectevery form a useful purpose; and the fitness of individual parts commands our admiration no less than that grandeur and beauty of the whole as shadowed down to us in history. Equally guided by useful considerations were ancient Gothic architects. Amid all the wonderful and unwearying variety of their works no idle form found a place. Every arch, every column, and every corbel, were truthfully necessary, and so used by those who, conscious of their creative power, sought not the aid of that truthless copyism which has always, wherever practised, led to the ruin of true constructive science. Thus the Romans, when they borrowed the forms of Grecian art for merely decorative purposes, failed to seize the genius of invention, and under the guidance of plagiarism, were led to construct edifices, the remains of which still testify to the truth of the proposition for which I am here to contend-that Architecture, to become great, must be useful and truthful. Our instinctive love of ornament will naturally create a desire for decoration, but constructive forms cannot, consistently with the true character of con

structive science, be used for idle ornamentation. Architecture, when so treated, does not rise above the level of an imitative or scenic art. Lest this assertion should lead you to misunderstand the drift of this paper, however, I must state, before proceeding farther, that my object is not to find fault with the use of ornament, nor to blame the making of individual features as ornamental as these can be made, consistently with their fitness for constructive duties, but to the practice of copying and using ancient useful forms for entirely useless purposes; and while I thus endeavour to explain my views, I beg you will bear with me, and understand I do not desire offensively to dictate, but simply to direct your attention, and entreat your serious consideration to what I believe to be the difference between the Architecture of ancient and modern times. Should I be found wrong in the estimate I have formed of this difference, I shall gladly admit my error. At the same time, while I say this, I must in candour tell you, I do not at this moment feel that I am wrong. If I had had any doubts on the subject, I should certainly have remained at home until I had, at least to my own satisfaction, removed them. Therefore, being thus strongly impressed with the notion of being in the right, I trust you will not expect I should, merely to save myself from the charge of dogmatism, every now and then apologize for unhesitatingly stating my opinions; more especially as I understand, the main object of our meeting here is, that we may be heard fairly while expressing freely our individual ideas concerning Architecture.

The consideration of usefulness as a controlling principle, appears to me to be as necessary to the architect as is the study of nature to the painter. He who makes an elevation according to rules, regardless of the useful requirements of a building, and afterwards arranges the interior accommoda

tion to suit the exterior design, is no more likely to become a truly great architect than he who paints without consulting nature can be other than a manufacturer of conventionalisms in painting. I assert farther, that it is not more difficult for a painter to represent nature truthfully than for an architect to combine grandeur, variety, and quaint beauty of form with useful accommodation and perfect consistency between exterior and interior design. I do not mean by this, however, that a house ought to have indicated on the exterior every feature of the interior arrangement; but that no attempt should be made to produce variety or beauty of design by useless excrescences, no matter what forms such excrescences assume, whether that of buttresses, turrets, or balconies; in short, no form for which a useful constructive necessity cannot be shown ought to appear. And I venture to say, were architects to consider it reconcileable with professional dignity to show a reasonable necessity -a fitness for useful purposes for each and every form they construct, we should have less difficulty than we now have in arriving at a true knowledge of their respective merits; for I believe, unless a man is possessed of rare constructive talents, combined with a feeling for the beautiful in form, he cannot be an architect in a true sense. Any person possessing ordinary capabilities, may decorate that which would otherwise be a plain building by arranging copies of one or of all the five orders; and by assorting slavish imitations of Gothic features, he may live to fill a whole district with Gothic-masked castles, cathedrals, and parish churches; but to use those ancient forms properly, that is, only when and where required for useful purposes, must be the work of a mind beyond mediocrity. As well might we expect to make a man a poet and a novelist, by setting him for three or four years to copy the works of Sir Walter Scott,

as that any young man, taken from school, and made to copy copies of ancient buildings for three or four years, will at the expiry of his apprenticeship be qualified to perform the duties of an architect. Yet we do think so; at least, we act as if we really believed nothing more were necessary than thus acquiring a knowledge of the handwriting of the art, and going through this copying ceremony.

Still we do not profess to consider Architecture a copying trade. We theorize about it as being a pursuit far beyond and above the control of common sense. In theory, we cannot bring ourselves to connect Architecture with house building, I mean, we appear to consider the art of designing edifices degraded in proportion as it becomes associated with useful accommodation. We have got fixed ideas regarding the fixed proportions of the five orders, and somewhat vague notions concerning Gothic-clustered columns, arches, and corbels, and seem to believe the art of arranging those forms either picturesquely or classically, irrespective of constructive necessity, the paramount duty of an architect. We appear to view lath and plaster groined arches, that spring from off lath and plaster corbels, successful and meritorious efforts of constructive genius; and notwithstanding we are fully aware that Gothic forms owe not their characteristic excellence to any adherence to the like arbitrary rules as those which govern Grecian design, we measure and mould every old example, and award praise to Gothic architects (modern socalled) according to the extent of similitude their columns and the contour of their mouldings bear to ancient models.

Farther, by way of showing that consistency between exterior forms and interior requirements occupies but little of our attention, do we not consider an oblong building, having a line of purely ornamental columns placed on each side, and a useless portico adorning each end, a noble ex