fire, and by the fall of the roof; and it appears that, after a lapse of ten years, that single edifice still remained unfinished.

William of Malmsbury relates, it is true, as he heard it from others, according to the custom of his age, a miraculous story, how a beam for the roof of the Church, which, in building it, had been cut too short, was by miracle lengthened, so as to fit the place; and how, notwithstanding the two fires before mentioned, it had escaped destruction. But such eccasional instances of credulity, which occur in the writings of authors of the early ages, have never been held with men of the best sense and judgment a sufficient reason for rejecting their testimony as to positive facts. Malmsbury's credulity, therefore, as to the pretended miracle does not impeach his veracity as to the two fires, which are positive historical facts; and it should

seem as if he conceived that the rest of the roof of the Church had been consumed in both conflagrations, as otherwise, the escape of that beam would not have been, as he evidently thought it, miraculous. Of the authenticity of this proof, as fully esta blishing the fact of the two fires, no intelligent reader can, I am fully convinced, have any doubt.

It is impossible to conceive that the whole Monastery should have been, as William of Malmsbury expressly says it was, twice consumed, and yet, which he does not notice, that the Church, adjoining as it did the other buildings, could have escaped, especially as its roof was of timber covered with lead. The Cathedral of Canterbury, covered in like manner with a roof of timber and lead, caught fire in 1174, from the sparks arising from the flames which destroyed some adjoining houses; and it is evident that the effect of the fire, and the falling of the roof, would, in the case of Malmsbury, as it did in that of Canterbury, require that the arches, and perhaps some of the pillars, should have been rebuilt. Be sides, Mr. Carter himself admits, p. 322, that the third or upper story of the Malmsbury specimen is an uddition done in the reign of Edward the Third; so that that part of the building is certainly not in its original state. Certainly, therefore, the probability is, that in that Church, as well as in the Cathedral of Canterbury, a

great portion of the internal part, including the nave, was re-erected, at least as to the arches, and all above them; and for the reasons abovementioned, and some others which will be here given, it is likely that these parts, with the exception of those noticed by Mr. Carter, are of the age of Edward the Confessor, who is generally spoken of in the early historians by the appellation of King Edward only, and who died in 1065.

The early Historians speak of the Church of Westminster erected by this King, as being constructed in a new mode or style of building, which was afterwards copied by many persous; and it is conceived that the use of Pointed arches in the nave of Malmsbury, together with the above circumstance as to Westminster Abbey, and that of the fire in the reign of one of the Edwards, even though it is not specified which of them it was; fairly justify the conclusion, that the destruction took place in the reign of Edward the Confessor, and not in that of any other King of the same

name.

In consequence of a repair now going on, I cannot have access to many of my books; but I remember to have seen in some work, and I think it was in Mr. Carter's now publishing, an engraving of part of the nave of Malmsbury, with the date 675, given as the time of its erection. I was always fully persuaded it was not so old, for which reason I forbore to notice it in my own book; and the facts before-mentioned, relating to it, fully shew I was right in my opinion. Surely the error into which in this instance Mr. Carter has fallen, is a sufficient justification of the necessity for consulting books-a mode of instruction which none affect to despise, but such as are equally unacquainted with their contents, their value, their use, and their intention.

The Author of the letter-press to the Antiquarian Society's publication of the Cathedral of Durham has expressed himself in the following terms, face to the Third Edition of the "Esas they appear in a note in the Presays on Gothic Architecture," p. 3.

"There is very little doubt that the light and elegant style of building, whose principal and characteristic feature is the high Pointed arch, struck from two centres, was invented in this Country. It is certain that it was here brought to

This passage, which is here given as it stands in the place above referred to, evidently contains in the last sentence a grammatical inaccuracy, which I think it incumbent on me thus to notice, that my adversaries, if they should be told of it by any person, may not say that I had not perceived it. It should not be "substituted to," but substituted for. In another part of it there is also a similar error, in using the word "adds," instead of add; but that is supposed an error of the press.

For the first assertion, as to the invention of Gothic Architecture in England, no authority or adequate reason is given. The improvement of an art is no ground for characterizing it by the name of the place where it was improved; it ought to receive its name from that where it was invented. Nor is the circumstance of its having received improvement in any one place, had that improvement been, as it was not in the present instance, exclusively confined to that spot, any evidence of its having been invented in the same place or country. Of the traditions which this Author mentions I was before aware; but they amount to no more than this, that such a building was erected by the English-meaning, in fact, nothing further than that it was built while the English were in possession of the place, as they were, at times, of different parts of France. They do not imply that the artists were English; nor has the name of one English architect ever been mention ed as employed on these erections. After all it is certain, as can be proved by evidence, that even the buildings here alluded to are those of a late date; and the Abbey of Clugny erected from the design of Gunzo, a monk of that endowment, is greatly prior to any of them.

have always been allowed and recommended as the surest guides for the ascertainment of truth, should succeed in his attempt. The opinions of all the ablest and most intelligent men on the subject are decidedly against him; the number of his opponents is daily increasing; and the sentiments of the before-mentioned persons are daily gaining ground with all who choose to consider the subject. These opinions are supported by additional facts, which have since been discovered, and by others which are perpetually rising into notice; while Mr. Carter's adherents, on the contrary, are not at present known to exceed four in number. He himself, and your correspondent "An Architect," who is his principal adherent, and adopts only Mr. Carter's opinions, evidently never had either of them the advantage of a liberal education, which alone could qualify them to decide on the subject; and they have consequently shewn themselves incompetent judges. The second of his advocates, whom I forbear at present to name, there is every reason to con- clude from circumstances not a man of education; and he, too, is apparently a copier of Mr. Carter's sentiments. The opinion of the third has been already answered in this letter; and the sentiments of Dr. Milner, the fourth, have been refuted by me in the book itself, by the production of an earlier instance of an erection in France.

Having now completed my intention, which I should have been glad to have effected within a narrower compass, had that been possible; I shall here conclude in the words of Ulpian, a celebrated Lawyer, who was also tutor and secretary to the Emperor Alexander Severus. The Reader will have no difficulty in applying them; and I here give a translation, for the benefit of my adversaries. "Lata vel latior culpa est crassa et supina et dissoluta negligentia, et proxime ad dolum accedens: item non intelligere quod omnes intelligunt." In English thus, "A great or still greater fault is gross and supine and unrestrained negligence, and very nearly approaching to fraud: so it is also not to understand what all understand.”

Your humble Servant,

JOHN SIDNEY HAWKINS.
Mr.