tracery in the south transept aisle; but Mr. Dobson says there is no panel tracery at all in that portion of the transept. North should, I believe, be read for south, to make the statement in the article correct; but the existence, or non-existence, of trefoil arches and panel tracery in another part of the edifice is really quite beside the question raised by the critics who say that the new arcade is not in keeping with anything in the rest of the choir.

I do not know why, (except for his love of travel) Mr. Dobson should have gone to the distant Highland incongruities of Dunkeld for an example of the combination of features of later development with architecture in the styles which, in England, we should call Transition and First-Pointed. At Dunkeld, where the arches of the triforium are, although round-headed, divided by mullions inclosing trefoils, a similar arcade might be in harmony; but Scottish ecclesiastical architecture is full of peculiarities which Mr. Dobson, I am sure, would not think of imitating in such a choir as that of Hexham-a very model of FirstPointed work.

Whether the piers in the choir have round or elliptical shafts is wholly immaterial. I believe the statement in the article is correct; but the gravamen of the complaint made in your pages and those of the Builder and the Critic against the new work at the east end, is wholly unaffected by the form of the piers and their capitals, the complaint being that it is an eclectic composition unlike and of later period than anything in the church.

I rejoice that "the restoration of the transept and the completion of the roof and other parts of the choir" are at length in contemplation. The committee of Hexham Restorers boasted, I thought, of the completion of the choir, and Mr. Dobson in his letter desires that he may not be thought responsible for what has been done in the interior generally; but I hope we are to understand from his present intimation, that Mr. Beaumont will repair such part of the mischief perpetrated by the committee as may not be wholly irreparable.

I am, Sir,

Yours faithfully,

THE WRITER OF THE ARTICLE.

P.S.-I may be allowed to remind your readers that they will find some very interesting particulars descriptive of the historical glories of Hexham Abbey Church and of its disgraceful state in 1847, in an article intitled, "An Ecclesiological Pilgrimage to Hexham and Lindisfarne," which appeared in Vol. VIII. of the Ecclesiologist (New Series. Vol. V.)

VOL. XXII.

MODERN ARCHITECTURE.

To the Editor of the Ecclesiologist.

DEAR MR. EDITOR,-I should not venture to trespass further on the attention of your readers, had not "A. H." rather misquoted than quoted me in regard to arch-mouldings. I did not speak of mouldings in a general way, as quoted, but of the "deep cuttings" to which he had before alluded.

We must be careful, in decorating our arch, to distinguish between a timber arch and a stone one. These deep and repeated mouldings along the curve exactly express the fibrous nature of wood; but a stone arch is essentially different. It is composed of a series of voussoirs, and should in its decoration acknowledge the fact. If every voussoir is of a different colour to its neighbours, it may perhaps be said to puff its construction; but when it is loaded with mouldings and deep hollows along its curve, it undoubtedly conceals it. Mouldings, however, which are sufficiently simple not to lead the eye away from the joints of the voussoirs, (which I may term the characteristic of the arch,) are in no way impure or unsuitable to a stone arch. Perhaps "A. H." may not be inclined to allow the use of timber arches at all; but in vaulting and other kinds of roofing they do exist, in "our own insular style," and so we must consider their decoration, whether we choose to admit them in modern work or not. And, for my own part, I certainly feel that there are circumstances and places in which they may be legitimately employed.

"A. H." complains that I accuse him of advocating copyism, this copyism being confined to our own insular precedents; and then proceeds to return the compliment, and accuses me of advocating the same, only on a more magnificent scale, and with the special field of Italy for art depredations. Now, before a man can be considered able to design a thing for himself, it is evident that he should be master of his subject; but the subject of Gothic architecture is not confined to England. It has features rare here and common abroad; and it shows principles abroad which are not, to any great extent, exhibited here. For instance, the Italians, under their warm sky, have a peculiar delicacy in their details, which rather contrasts with the energetic roughness of the North. France, again, gives us many lovely features which we seldom see in England. Now, is a man to study these, and learn nothing from them? Is he to look upon them with a mere archæological view, as features which, not being common in old English work, he is to study only to avoid, though they are in perfect harmony with. Gothic art? Or is he to study in all countries where various forms of Gothic flourished, and having thus laid hold of the broad principles of the art, which enabled it to adapt itself to every requirement and every country of Western Europe, proceed to design for himself whatever he may have the opportunity to do? Undoubtedly "A. H." may have seen failures similar to the "cross-breeds" he speaks of; but we must not

on that account forsake our principle. It is one of Mr. Ruskin's maxims, and, I believe, a true one,-that "we must not lower our aim, that we may more surely enjoy the complacency of success;" and, to limit our study and practice to English art, would assuredly be lowering our aim. (I say study here; for it is no use studying a thing merely to avoid it.)

As "A. H." loves colour, he will undoubtedly acknowledge that it is a very delicate matter to deal with; and the failures he speaks of are instances of it. But there is one point he should not overlook when he is struck with the brightness of colour in a new building, viz., that it will tone down with age: so long as the colours harmonise, and contrasts are good, only too brilliant, time will effect a cure, though of course time will do nothing to amend bad arrangements. I mention this, for I know that it is very often overlooked; and it is a very essential point to be considered, when any judgment is passed on new work. I am, yours, &c.,

W. M. F.

BRISBANE CATHEDRAL.

We have the pleasure of presenting our readers with the plan, elevation, and section of the cathedral which Mr. Burges has designed for the city of Brisbane, which, as every one knows, is both the capital of the new colony of Queensland, on the east coast of Australia, and the see of its Bishop. These designs are so self-explanatory, that we hardly feel ourselves called upon to detain our readers with any description of their architectural features; nevertheless we must point out the skill with which Mr. Burges has met the case of a new English

cathedral in a semi-tropical climate such as Queensland is, standing as it does to the north of New South Wales. The church, it will at once be remarked, is semi-speluncar in its character, while the architect has carried it out in that solid and massive early French which is his style of predilection.

The coved roof deserves particular attention. But the master-stroke of the interior, is the bold and original combination of clerestory and triforium, and the distribution of the window bays in the apse, which are so deep as almost to give the effect of a procession path. Indeed the draughtsman of an engraving of the interior of the cathedral, which appeared not long since in one of the building journals, seems to have believed that this feature really existed in the church. It is at first sight obvious that this building cannot be carried out in its integrity without a sufficient outlay. But it is a design which can in various ways be executed in part; and as Brisbane, though now we suppose little more than a village of shanties, will, if it follows the example of other Australian capitals, soon become a populous city, it is greatly to be hoped that no ill-judged economy may lead to the substitution of some cheap and inferior design, capable indeed of being run up cheap, but unworthy in the long-run to be the cathedral of a rich city and an important diocese. We have had enough at Colombo and Adelaide of the substitution of second-best for satisfactory cathedral churches, not to desire the repetition of the unfortunate experiment.

The dimensions of the proposed cathedral are (taken within the walls), length, 170 ft. 8 in.; distance between centres of nave columns, 31 ft. 4 in.; distance between the walls in the interior of the aisles, 62 ft. 4 in., of which each aisle counts for 15 ft. 4 in. The height of the aisles to the underside of the vaulting is 20 ft. 8 in., from the floor to the wall plate of the nave 42 ft., to the ridge piers 68 ft. 9 in., and to the underside of the coved boarding 58 ft., while the altitude of the saddle-back steeple to the top of the cross is 120 feet. It is of course quite possible to substitute a spire for the saddle-back. The walls are 4 feet thick on account of the hot climate. The aisles are vaulted, and the coved roof of the nave is not only an æsthetic advantage, but possesses the practical utility of enclosing a volume of air and thus mitigating the heat, while the triforial passage which gives access to all the windows permits of mats or curtains being hung up at need, while the lights themselves are small. Gurgoyles have been adopted to carry off the water, as less liable than pipes to get out of order.

Mr. Burges proposes, in imitation of Nôtre Dame at Paris, that hereafter statues of our greatest kings and queens should decorate the west end in order to keep alive the connection of Queensland and England. Inside the screen work is to be open grills, allowing sight and sound; and by a quaint but piquant symbolism the pulpit is to stand on dogs, whom it will be recollected that Durandus brings forward as typical of good preachers.