dicious system of restoration, but it can seldom be perfectly carried out in spirit, if even in the letter, without the constant co-operation of the clergyman. The practical workman detests restoration, and will always destroy and renew rather than preserve and restore, so that an antagonistic influence ought always to be at hand." We rejoice to find an architect, highly eminent in his profession, and of much practical experience, thus assigning to the parochial clergy a powerful influence for good in the great work of church restoration. The real value of the clergyman's support and assistance to the architect in the restoration of a church we can fully appreciate, and venture to express our confident hope that in this important sphere of usefulness the clergy never will be found wanting.

The" Miscellaneous Remarks," which Mr. Scott has appended to his paper on church restoration, comprise three short essays, on the "Claims of Romanists (as such) upon Pointed Architecture;" on "The choice of a style for present adoption;" and on "The adaptation of ancient churches to our present ritual," with some highly interesting notes. Upon the two first named of these essays we must be content to observe, that in them the author most conclusively vindicates Gothic architecture from any essential Romanism in its character, and that he shews, by a very satisfactory process of reasoning, that the geometrical period of the Gothic style, ranging from about A.D. 1260 to A.D. 1330, affords the best and most worthy type for present adoption and use. "The style we have thus arrived at," concludes Mr. Scott, "seems to unite the grandeur and effective detail of the earlier days of Pointed Architecture with the completeness of later works; and I should be well content for it to be taken as the nucleus of future developments, though I would not allow its ideal perfection to preclude us from giving varied expression to our buildings by occasionally emulating the sterner sentiment of earlier or the softer beauties of later times, nor to prevent our availing ourselves of those many useful and beautiful appliances which we can learn alone by studying our architecture in its latest stages.

All of these belong, as I have before said, to the great stock or treasury of Christian art; it is our part to use them as best we can, but it may be reserved for our successors to weave them into a harmonious whole." (p. 110).

A few judicious remarks here follow upon the important, but somewhat dangerous, and, as it must be feared, as yet premature, subject of future architectural developments. Having shewn that "no development is to be attained otherwise than through the medium of a perfect knowledge and appreciation of Pointed Architecture as it has already existed," Mr. Scott sets forth the following as forming "the legitimate objects to be hoped for from development" in the matter of Gothic Architecture: 1. The perfect adaptation of the style to the altered ecclesiastical requirements of our own day. 2. Its adaptation also to different climates and to the usages of other countries, and more particularly to the varied circumstances of the British colonies; for, as Mr. Scott so well and so truthfully remarks, "the style should be essentially one, but it should possess an elasticity which would render it suitable to the most varied external conditions." 3. The amalgamation of all which is really beautifully and intrinsically valuable in the developments of Gothic art hitherto attained, and of which the stone-wrought memorials yet remain in the midst of us. And, 4, the infusion of real life and present existence into the subsidiary arts, so as to cause our architectural and monumental sculpture, stained glass, &c., while in themselves worthy productions of artistic genius, to harmonise absolutely with the sentiment and feeling of true Gothic art.

"It is obvious," says Mr. Scott, in his remaining essay," that, in refitting our churches, we must have our own ritual and our own necessities in view; and, while we make correct ecclesiastical arrangement our leading object, we must not be prevented by a morbid feeling for antiquity from applying to existing uses those parts whose original intention has become obsolete." We are here brought into contact with a question the most delicate, and perhaps the most difficult

of adjustment, as it is certainly the most important, in the entire range of ecclesiology. To expatiate upon the importance of consistency between a church and its services, between the material fabric of a religious edifice and the ritual in use by those who worship within its walls, is altogether needless; it would be, indeed, but to produce a series of truisms. Our churches must be strictly consistent with the very spirit of our church services. Now we are prepared to maintain that this consistency is not only an essential element of Gothic architecture, but also that our ancient churches themselves, as they have come down to us, are for the most part, in all important particulars, strictly thus consistent. In other words, we consider the adaptation of our ancient churches to our present ritual to be a matter attended with but few real difficulties, certainly with none of any formidable magnitude, provided it be conducted in a right spirit. In determining what may be this right spirit, therefore, whatsoever serious difficulty and delicacy may be attached to the subject appears to be comprehended. We believe that if we set about the matter as English churchmen we do set about it in a right spirit, and consequently in such a spirit as will ensure success. A true English churchman is of necessity an admirer and a lover of Gothic architecture; but there is no necessity whatever for his associating Gothic architecture with the Church of Rome. Gothic architecture is the architecture of the Church-of the Christian Church; it is no more to be identified with the Roman branch of the Church Catholic than is sound churchmanship amongst ourselves to be evidenced by an imitation of or an approximation to Romish errors. It has been a sort of fashion to Romanise Gothic art, and to impute to those who cherish it a Romanising tendency; but this is to degrade our most noble art by stripping it of its real catholicity; it is to allege on the part of faithful Gothic architects and lovers of Gothic architecture motives which are in direct opposition to their true feelings and principles, and also by giving indirect yet decided encouragement to the present dishonoured condition of our churches, to dishonour and to do posi

tive injury to the cause of vital Christianity itself. There may, indeed, be some who "have been led by their love of medieval architecture to a sickly favouring of the errors of the days in which it flourished;" but, in the matter of church architecture, with such persons we have no kind of sympathy. And we venture to assert the same of Mr. Scott, and of the enlightened and devotedly zealous church restorer to whom Mr. Scott inscribes his volume, and also of a thousand others. We maintain the cause of Gothic architecture because we feel that it is Christian art; we advocate the faithful restoration of our ancient churches because we are persuaded that we thus are true, and thus declare ourselves to be true, to that pure faith which, as members of the Church of England, we have the high privilege to hold. As English churchmen then, we would both restore our ancient churches, and would build up new churches for our vastly multiplied population. Let either work be done by us in the self-same spirit, as both the old edifices when restored and the new ones when erected, are to be identical in use and object. It will thus be discovered that, in order to adapt our ancient churches to our own ritual, we shall very rarely have to do more than make certain alterations in their arrangements, while in the erection of new churches, these altered arrangements would, as a matter of course, be included in the original design. As Mr. Scott truly remarks, "the distinction between the architecture of a church and its arrangements is manifest. In the case of our ancient churches the one is purely Christian, while the other may, like the ritual of the Church of Rome itself, though retaining in its leading forms the primitive type of the early Church, have overlaid it with extraneous appendages unknown to the primitive Church, and discarded by our own. The omission of such features, however, leaves the beauty of the architecture unimpaired." (p. 48.) And here we may not pass unnoticed the fact, that the alterations and omissions thus to be made will be found to be comparatively very few in number, and such also as scarcely in any respect affect the architecture of a

church properly so called, or its leading forms as a building. Still, correct ecclesiastical arrangement correct, that is, in its adaptation to our ritual —is no less our object in our churches, than the preservation in them of Gothic truth. In thus speaking of church-arrangement let us not be misunderstood. We speak of our ritual as it is, both in its spirit and in its letter-as it is in the full comprehensiveness of its pure and beautiful fervour; and to this we would have the arrangement of our churches correctly adapted. And so, on the other hand, in strict accordance with such correct arrangement of our sacred edifices should be the general administration of the services of the Church: they, to be true to themselves, should be removed alike from all superstitions and delusive vanities on the one hand, and on the other hand from that cold unattractiveness which is a direct departing from the spirit of our ritual, and so becomes a chief cause of the great falling away from our communion.

Our space will not permit us to do more than touch very slightly upon practical details. We cannot, however, forbear to point out one particular with respect to matters of detail, in which it will be well to observe a distinction between the restoration of ancient churches and the erection of new ones: we refer to certain architectural features in ancient churches, such as sedilia and piscina, for which we have no use, but which we shall feel bound to preserve as works of Gothic art; but in erecting new churches we are equally bound to omit these now useless accessories. In the case of our ancient churches we may all adopt Mr. Scott's rule, and "lay it down as the leading object we should aim at, that the greatest amount of correct ecclesiastical arrangement, and the most perfect adaptation of our churches to the requirements of our reformed ritual, should be attained at the smallest practicable sacrifice of what is valuable or beautiful in the original features of the fabric:" and on the very same principle in every member and accessory of our new churches we must study to combine the exact requirements of our ritual with the most faithful and perfect architectural development.

The chief difficulty with church restorers and architects appears to be in the present correct adaptation of chancels. Here we regret to differ from our author; and that, in not the less degree, because he seems to waver in his own view, under the influence of medieval association. We hope, notwithstanding, that Mr. Scott will be induced to take his stand with us, and, as an English Churchman, will form his final decision upon the object, use, and consequent arrangement of our chancels. He will thus be led to the conclusion that we can admit no rule which could restrict the use of the chancel to persons ministering in the congregation, whether clergy or choristers: by us the chancel is provided for the celebration of the most solemn rite of our religion; we regard it as appropriated for a special purpose, but not at all to certain personages. As towards the western entrance of our churches we place the font, and about it provide suitable accommodation for those who may attend at the administration of one sacrament, thus forming a baptistry, so also for the due celebration of the other sacrament we have the chancel towards the east, after the ancient habit; and this would be felt to be not the exceptional, but the true and proper use of the chancel, if there were (as doubtless there was intended to be) a weekly communion, and more particularly if professing Christians were generally to fulfil their duty, and to become more regular communicants. In cases of unusual assemblages of the clergy, such as visitations and confirmations, the chancel might be appropriately appointed for their use: but this would be an exception to the ordinary practice, and could scarcely be reckoned as one of the objects for which chancels are constructed. Another exceptional use of chancels occurs when they are occupied by a part of the congregation during the ordinary services: we would use the chancel (as we would the baptistry) for this purpose in such churches only as render this arrangement necessary, in order to provide sufficient and suitable space for the worshippers.

In arranging the naves of our churches we would always place the members of the choir (and we would

a nation which, on the instant, in obedience to the natural promptings of good and generous feeling, can lay aside all enmity, and unite, as one man, in the determination to do whatever can best evince the gratitude which, in spite of minor disagreements, a free people will always feel and show towards those who serve them, as Sir Robert Peel has done, with an honourable and independent faithfulness?— But to the purpose which we have more immediately in hand.

Robert Ward was the sixth son and eighth child of John Ward, a Spanish merchant resident at Gibraltar. His mother, whose maiden name was Rebecca Raphael, was a lady of Jewish extraction. Robert was born in Mount Street, on the 19th March, 1765, on a visit paid by his parents to London. His early boyhood was passed at Gibraltar, where the attractive precocity of his childish talent in recitation procured him the attention of the lady of the Governor. Her warm and affectionate interest supplied in part and for a time the loss of his mother, which he was called upon to undergo ere he had the sense to know the greatness of such a bereavement. When about eight years of age he was sent to England for education, and we catch our earliest glimpse of him in the recollection of a lady still living, who describes him on his arrival in this country as dressed in a coat and vest (the coat and vest of a little boy!) of pompadour colour, silk stockings, Spanish leather shoes, and a cocked hat.

The venerable reminiscent, who was then a girl a little older than himself, was accosted by him with the inquiry whether she had read Shakspere, and whether she did not delight in Macbeth?

His first school was one kept by a Mr. Macfarlane at Walthamstow, the same person who was afterwards a violent republican, and was killed in the riots at the Middlesex election in 1806. At Walthamstow he had the subsequent Mr. Justice Allan Park for his school-fellow. He now enlarged his studies from Shakspere to Pope; laid out his first half-guinea at Cuthell's book-stall in Middle Row, in the purchase of a copy of the edition of Pope of 1777, in ten small volumes; and in

order to peruse them uninterrupted by the boisterous tumult of the playground ascended the highest trees in the neighbourhood, and there, rocked in his airy cradle, imbibed from the pages of our great classic a taste for stately poetry and the "politer prose."

From Walthamstow Ward was transferred to Christ Church, Oxford. Of his residence there his friendly biographer can find no other traces than his lasting admiration for Cyril Jackson, his friendship for Sturges Bourne, and the less durable but still long-continuing embarrassment of a number of debts. From Oxford he removed to the Inner Temple, but before he was called to the bar was obliged to discontinue his legal studies and have recourse to the baths of Barèges to get rid of an alarming tendency to a stiffness in the kneejoint. His cure was complete, but was effected at the risk of his life, for there chanced to be in France at that time another person of the name of Ward who had been sentenced to the guillotine, but had escaped. At the height of the revolutionary fervour all Wards were alike. Robert was arrested. He was found guilty of wearing a coat and waistcoat of the same colour as his namesake. Such a circumstance amply satisfied the judicial evidence of the reign of terror. He was sent off to Paris to be guillotined, and only escaped, he tells us, by their catching the real traitor, whereupon the sentence against himself was commuted into a happy banishment from the territories of the glorious republic.

Returning to England, dressed in the truest Parisian mode, but by no means in love with republican institutions, he was called to the bar on the 18th of June, 1790, and was shortly afterwards thrown by "a lucky chance" into the way of William Pitt. Walking through Bell Yard his attention was attracted by a revolutionary placard exhibited in the window of a patriotic watchmaker. Ward entered the shop, got into discussion with the man, and related his own experience of republican justice and what he had observed of the tender-mercies of revolutionary functionaries. Struck with the difference between practice and theory, the sturdy Englishman not only yielded up his democratical