their nature will have been filled up, they will confess themselves enlightened, and feel that they possess something they did not possess before. If we can succeed in fixing one truth of religion well into a man's heart, it will strike there, and go on working its way and growing, until, through sheer importunity, it produces results. As a man who has a craving passion at work within him, or who is, as we say, possessed with an idea," is restless and unsatisfied unless he is doing something to gratify it, so let a man be possessed with a religious truth, and this, too, will, by the grace of God, work out its way into practical results.

66

It has been our business to speak of preaching as an art, but we do not pretend for a moment that a man has only to attend to certain rules, and to follow a certain system, and he will be sure of success. men's hearts is a much deeper and more difficult matter No, turning than this. Who can say what subtle influences are at work, who can tell on what it depends to be able to achieve so delicate an operation as to touch the heart of a man? Paul may plant, and Apollo may water, but it is God alone on whom depends the increase. preacher want to command success? He must be a man Does the of prayer. Preaching is not the power which moves men's hearts, but the preacher is an instrument for so doing in the hands of God. And prayer alone can bring down the grace of God. Every one remembers having heard of a certain preacher who, by his earnestness and eloquence, was the means of numberless conversions. On a particular occasion, when the effect of his sermon was more than usually apparent and astonishing, the cause of his success was revealed to him. "You think," it was said to him, "that all these conversions come from your great power, your fervour, your eloquence, but look! there in an obscure corner of the church is a poor creature whom no one regards, she is saying her beads, and offering up her prayers for the success of your sermon, and to this you owe it."

ART. II.-1. Some account of Domestic Architecture in England, from the Conquest to the End of the Thirteenth Century. By T. HUDSON TURNER. Oxford J. H. Parker, 1851.

2. Some account of Domestic Architecture in England, from Edward I. to Richard III. By the Editor of the " Glossary of Architecture." Oxford: J. H. Parker, 1853.

3. The National Miscellany, No. vi. Oct., 1853. Oxford J. H. Parker.

THE

HE last fifteen years have witnessed a progress in the study of medieval architecture which, as we look back upon it from the present day, is truly astonishing. The revival of the study has formed quite an era in the annals of England. But it is clear to the most casual observer that, for the most part, those individuals whose names are allied in our minds with this revival, have devoted themselves almost entirely to the strictly ecclesiastical portion of the subject, while the principles of domestic architecture, as they were recognized and applied during the middle ages, have been comparatively forgotten. There are few, perhaps, who will not at once acknowledge that the name of the late Mr. Pugin is an exception to our statement; but excepting Mr. Pugin himself, we believe that Mr. Hudson Turner was the first who pursued a systematic enquiry into the subject of English Domestic Architecture. The results of these inquiries he laid before the world in 1851 in the shape of a dissertation, which carried the subject down to the conclusion of the thirteenth century; and we had occasion at the time to speak in terms of considerable praise as to the manner in which he had executed his task. But soon after the publication, the author was cut off by consumption in the very prime of life, leaving a sad gap to be supplied in the field of archæological literature. It was Mr. Turner's intention, had his life been spared, to have followed his subject down to a much later period: and much as we regret his loss, we are happy to say that, in "the Editor of the Glos

*See Notice in Dublin Review, Sept., 1851, p. 288.

sary of Architecture," that is in Mr. J. H. Parker, of Oxford, has been found an individual in every way able and competent to carry on the work which was left unfinished by his friend. Accordingly, being fully acquainted with the intended plan which Mr. Turner had proposed to himself, from the fact that all along he had directed his labours, Mr. Parker has arranged and digested the few scattered materials relating to the fourteenth century, which were left by Mr. Turner in a very slight and imperfect state.

Prefixed to the former of these volumes, is a very valuable introduction by Mr. Turner, in which he gives us a brief but interesting account of the progress of Domestic Architecture in England from the earliest times: and though many of his inferences are conjectural, he has supplied us with a great amount of really valuable infor

mation.

Mr. Turner begins by ascribing to the ancient Roman occupants of our island, the first steps made by our countrymen in domestic architecture. The aboriginal Britons, it seems, though far more exposed to the inclemency of the skies than the inhabitants of the sunny plains of Italy, were wonderfully behind them in all the arts that appertain to refinement and civilization. Thus it was to the Roman Auxiliaries who once occupied our land that Britain owes the very first rudiments of house building. Nor were these Romans the flower of their country: far from it; "neither the wealth nor the climate of the country were such as to induce any extensive settlement of the more polished subjects of the Cæsars. A few merchants who had come from Belgium and Gaul, a few veterans who had become colonists, a few of the chief native inhabitants who had received the honour of citizenship and some tincture of southern civilization, together with the army itself, formed all that could strictly be termed the Roman, in contradistinction to the aboriginal popula tion."

What, then, were the features of the domestic buildings raised by the Romans in England? The various parts of a Roman house are familiar to all readers of antiquities; we have all of us read books by scores on Pompeii and Herculaneum; and, accordingly, no very great detail is necessary here. We are not, however, disposed to think much of the comfort of an ordinary Roman house, especially when

we learn that the small bed-chambers were built around the hall, and derived what little light they could, internally, from apertures opening into it; or if they had windows in the external wall, at all events had no glazing, nor even wooden shutters to keep off the wind and rain; in this case we do not wonder at finding that the atrium or hall was the general sitting-room and kitchen too of the family. And to judge from the outline of a private Roman house in England, fifteen centuries ago, as described by Mr. Turner, they must have fallen considerably short of those comfortable edifices with which we are familiar in the pages of Cicero and Pliny.

For an account of Domestic Architecture in London under the Romans, at a time when London was to Rome what Sydney is to London, we must refer our readers to a very interesting article in the "National Miscellany" of October last, entitled "Roman London," containing a fund of information which will amply repay the reader for his pains. Considering that, at the present day, Roman London lies beneath the present surface of the city at a depth of from nine to thirty feet, and that in order to arrive at a view of it we have only to "scrape off the thick stratum of dirt which intervenes between us and it," we may well wonder that so little is known of the condition of its private edifices, in the old days when "early Roman colonists associated what now is May-Fair, and the West end, with horrid visions of painted savages, chariots armed with scythes, and thick woods fitted only for ambuscades and Druidical orgies." The substance of what Mr. Turner says upon the subject is summed up in the following lines:

"Of domestic habitations within towns during the Roman dominion in this country, we know very little...... Ground not being so valuable as in Rome and other cities of the continent, we may conclude that the houses were generally built without an upper story, a contrivance which appears to have been originally suggested by the difficulty of accommodating an increased population within a limited area. Of the meaner classes of houses, as shops, for instance, we are left to form an idea from an inspection of the remains of such buildings in Pompeii."-p. v.

But the Romans passed away, and the Saxons came. Still the early Saxon period was one of incessant warfare, and besides, it is buried in fable: the only certain fact

relating to it is that it was an age unfavourable to the progress of the arts.

"If we turn," says Mr. Turner, "to the Sagas and other early records of the history and manners of the northern races, we fiud that the dwellings of their kings and chiefs consisted of only two apartments, and that sovereigus and their counsellors are described as sleeping in the same room. The habitations of the mass of people were wooden huts, rarely containing more than one room, in the centre of which the fire was kindled. Such was the style of domestic architecture which the Saxons would bring with them to this country; and in this fashion most of the houses were built dowu to the latest period of their dominion. To this method there was nothing repugnant in houses erected on the Roman plan, which they found on their arrival; and we may be pretty certain that wherever, in town or country, such houses existed in a habitable state, or capable of being made habitable, however rudely, they were occupied by the invaders. The Saxon chieftain would find better accommodation in a large Roman house, with its spacious atrium, than he had been wont to enjoy; and in its essential features the plan of the edifice did not vary from that of the rude habitation of his fatherland; but still there was the hall for feasting his numerous retainers, and more chambers for other domestic purposes. 3."—pp. vii. viii.

Owing to the badness of roads, and the loss of mechanical skill in the working of stone, it appears that such domestic buildings as were erected during the Saxon period were built of wood, which was very abundant in most parts of the island, and thatched with reeds or roofed with shingle. Still, as before-and as we shall see was the case to a much later period-the capacious ball was the sitting-room of the lord and his retainers, and served, as in the Roman times, for the purposes of the family kitchen, besides doing additional duty as the sleeping apartment, always of the "hearth-men," and sometimes of the lord himself. That the roofs of the houses were of thatch is a point which Mr. Turner establishes from various manuscripts, detailing the legends of the Saints, such as that of St. Swithin, by Lantfred, (a record belonging to the latter period of the ninth century) in which the houses of the persons to whom that saint appears are styled tuguria, or huts, a word which in classical writers at all events is never applied to any building of a higher class.* Some

* Thus Virgil, Ecl. i. 63. "Pauperis et tuguri congestum cespite culmen." It is thus that we can understand how Winchester, in