naving no other means of improving his architectural taste, than observing with attention the public buildings and street houses of the metropolis. The general idea that would be impressed on his mind, would probably be the necessity of using columns, wherever it was intended to convey the idea of architectural distinction. He would find columns of large dimensions employed in the porticoes of churches and other public buildings; of smaller dimensions, in porticoes to private houses; and of still smaller dimensions, or reduced to half or three-quarter columns, in shop fronts. Again, he would see detached square columns, supporting porticoes; and portions of square columns, under the name of pilasters, attached to the walls of all kinds of buildings; sometimes appearing to be supports to an entablature, as in the case of a returned pilaster at an angle; and at other times merely as ornaments, as in the case of double pilasters at the angles, with the corner of the wall projecting between them. From all this he would naturally conclude that there could be no good architecture without columns or pilasters. Seeing columns applied to every building, of every dimension, sometimes supporting an entablature, and at others only bearing the semblance of doing so; sometimes detached and free, the portico serving as a protection from the weather to the area of entrance underneath; and at other times attached, and affording neither shade nor protection; sometimes with their bases placed on the ground, and reaching to the entablature which crowns the building; sometimes reaching only to the height of 10 or 12 ft., and appearing to support a superincumbent wall of great height, and of a weight sufficient to crush them to the ground, if it had no other support than what was afforded by them; and at other times with their pedestals or bases over a shop front, showing nothing but glass as a foundation—he would farther conclude that the manner in which columns or pilasters were applied was a matter of no conse ́quence, and that the great object for him to aim at, was to contrive to introduce them on every occasion, when it was considered desirable to produce a superior description of building.

Now, supposing this carpenter turned architect or builder, and required to design a grand or elegant edifice, without being allowed to use either columns or pilasters, what would he do in such a case? He would, of course, be greatly at a loss, as, thus educated, he would have no idea of a grand or elegant building without these adjuncts. Suppose, however, that he ventured to compose a design, and that, after showing it to his employer, the latter should disapprove of it in point of taste; what arguments could he offer in its justification? It is clear that he could not refer to precedent, and also, that none of his rules would apply. If, therefore, he was without a knowledge of the fundamental principles of architectural composition, he would be totally lost.

We might proceed from the column to other parts of Grecian architecture, and show that a student, in similar circumstances, would have no better data on which to form his taste, with regard to the application of pediments, cornices, and other details. We might also suppose him living in any given city, where Grecian architecture was chiefly employed, at a time when some particular fashion in that architecture, as employed by the moderns, was prevalent; or when some great leading architect gave a tone to the public taste, and was everywhere imitated by artists in general employment. In either case he could only acquire a local or temporary taste, founded on what he had seen.

In like manner, we may suppose a carpenter, mason, or any other architectural student, living in a town where all the architecture was in the Gothic style, and that he was ignorant of every other; in this case he would be unable to separate the idea of grandeur and beauty from pointed arches, clustered columns, buttresses, pinnacles, and battlements. Ask him to design a building without these, and he would be equally at a loss with the architect whose ideas and rules were exclusively taken from examples in the Grecian style.

No one school, therefore, is sufficient to form a just taste in architecture. This can only be acquired by the comparison of different styles, and judging between them; and by separating what is peculiar or characteristic of each style, from what is general, and to be found in all styles. Thus far as to the mode of forming a just taste in architecture.

A correct taste in architecture always implies a reference to the details of some particular style. We could not properly speak of a correct taste in architecture generally; but it would be quite proper to speak of a just taste in that sense. A correct taste, being founded on details, is far more common than a just one; because it requires little more than an exertion of memory and recollection, in treasuring up and bringing forth the details of particular styles. There are many architects who excel in correctness in the particular style to which they have devoted their attention, who, if they were questioned as to general principles, would probably be unable to define one. A knowledge of details may be most readily and accurately acquired from engravings; but, for the practical man, most usefully by the admeasurement of the best examples. In either case, recourse must be had to historical and geographical knowledge, in order to determine what the best examples are.

Having shown that a just and correct taste for architecture, as a fine art, requires a knowledge of the architecture of all ages and countries, we shall next enquire whether a knowledge of the principles of architectural design and construction might not be attained by studying architecture historically. By the principles

of architectural design, without reference to any particular style, are to be understood those guides which direct the architect in adapting the interior of a building to the uses for which it is intended; and, in general, the fitness of all the means employed to the end proposed. By the principles of construction are understood those laws of geometry and of chemistry, on which depend the strength and durability of all buildings.

Now, to judge of the excellence of the design of a building, we must previously know its uses, in order to be able to estimate the skill by which the architect has contrived to adapt it to the purposes for which it was designed. As the uses of buildings vary in different countries, and in different ages, according to climate and civilisation, it is clear that no judgment can be formed of any given building, with regard to architectural design, without historical and geographical knowledge relatively to the uses of buildings.

A knowledge of the principles of construction, or, in other words, the science of building, certainly depends much less upon historical knowledge, than the departments of taste and design; but even here historical and geographical knowledge is of great use, by showing what has been done, and what has best stood the test of time.

It would appear, therefore, that the most natural, and consequently the most easy, mode of acquiring a just and correct taste in architecture, and of discovering the true or universal principles on which the art depends, will be to commence historically, and to examine as far as we are able, from books and other sources, the buildings of all ages and countries, in order to discover the general principles of architectural composition on which the effect of these buildings depends. It is in this way that we shall best be able to separate principles of general application from what are merely rules applicable to particular styles of architecture and states of society. On these general principles alone can be formed a just architectural taste, and to this must be joined a knowledge of the details of particular styles, to make that taste also a correct one.

ART. II. A descriptive Account, accompanied by Plans, Elevations, and Sections, of Hungerford New Market, recently built from the Designs of Charles Fowler, Esq., Architect. By Mr. J. ROBERTSON. It is worthy of remark, that the advantages derivable from the concentration of business which takes place in markets, and the facilities which they afford to purchasers and venders, by giving to the former an opportunity of procuring commodities at the cheapest rate, and to the latter the convenience of more

readily disposing of their goods, should, until lately, have been appreciated in a greater degree in all the countries on the Continent than in Great Britain. Before the year 1829, London, though one of the largest and most opulent cities in Europe, could boast of no other accommodations of this kind, than those afforded by Covent Garden old market, Hungerford old market, Carnaby Market, St. James's Market, &c., all of which were in a most dilapidated state; while, on the Continent, markets of great antiquity are to be found, bearing the stamp of much care and expense having been bestowed on them. Till lately, Edinburgh was as badly situated with regard to markets as London. The metropolis of Scotland, however, took the lead of that of England in regard to the erection of new markets, or the revival of old ones. The first improvement in this respect, in Edinburgh, was the erection of the market-place underneath, and adjacent to, the North Bridge. From the central situation of this market between the old and new towns, it afforded every facility to purchasers from all quarters; but, as the city became enlarged, the inhabitants of the western parts of the town found the distance to the North Bridge Market to be too great, and this led to the erection of a splendid new market at Stock Bridge. In like manner, the south side of the town became more extended, and a third new market, similar to Portman Market in London, was erected for the accommodation of the inhabitants of that part. The principal market in Edinburgh, for grandeur and elegance, is that at Stock Bridge. The lower part of the building is appropriated to the sale of butchers' meat, poultry, fish, &c.; and the gallery is chiefly set apart for fruiterers' shops, though partly occupied as a bazaar, &c. This market is, however, far inferior in elegance and extent to the two now erected in London, from the designs, and under the inspection, of Mr. Fowler. Indeed, there are not in this country, or in any other, markets equal in elegance or appropriateness to Covent Garden and Hungerford new markets. This last market I am now about to describe.

In the reign of Charles II., the site of Hungerford market was occupied by the town-house and gardens of the Hungerford family, and thence called Hungerford Inn; which, with the numerous other mansions of the nobility and gentry then in the vicinity, formed very conspicuous embellishments to the northern banks of the river. Sir Edward Hungerford, then proprietor of this estate, was induced to convert it into a market-place; and, in the year 1679, a charter was granted empowering him to do so. The market was therefore established by this authority in the 31st year of Charles II. The privilege granted was for the sale of all sorts of commodities, with the exception of malt, meal, and grain. Subsequently, however, the property fell into the

joint possession of Sir Stephen Fox and Sir Christopher Wren; and, in the year 1685, or the 1st of James II., an act was passed, authorising the sale in the market of those commodities which were formerly restricted. From the last-mentioned proprietors the estate passed into the family of Mr. Wise; from whose descendants it has been purchased by the present company. About ten or twelve years since, the dilapidated state of the old market led to serious thoughts about its revival or removal; and, in 1824-5, a company was formed, to raise a sufficient sum for substituting the present elegant and extensive premises, for those that were then only a nuisance to the neighbourhood. At this time, the old market may be considered to have fallen into disuse; and the few remains that were left to show that it was appropriated to such a purpose, were merely a range of inferior shops beneath a colonnade on the west side, and a building in the centre, which was formerly a lofty hall constituting the market-place, but, at this time, was subdivided into a number of tenements occupied as stabling, &c.

From the many difficulties which presented themselves to the revival of Hungerford Market, it was not until the year 1830 that an act was obtained incorporating the company for this purpose. It was then, however, commenced with spirit; and the embankments were begun in the same year. The expense of purchasing the ground of the Hungerford estate, and that adjoining, which was essential to the completion of the market, together with the cost of erecting the buildings, the quay in front, and the jetty for embarking and landing goods and passengers, amounted to 210,000l.; which sum has been raised in shares of 1007. each; and, from the calculations which have been made, and the returns already received, in the shape of rents, wharfage, warehouse dues, &c., it is considered that the subscribers will eventually realise a good return for the investment of their capital.

The works were commenced by embanking the shore, which, at this point, formed a deep recess, or bay, of a very irregular form, and was a place where a great deposit was formed of mud; the frontage is now carried out to a considerable extent, and in a line ranging with the current of the river.

The first stone of the new buildings was laid on the 18th of June, 1831, by the late Lord Dover; who, on this occasion, acted as Grand Master Mason; and the market was formally opened to the public on the 2d of July, 1833; so that very little more than two years were occupied in the erection of this great and magnificent work, which will remain a lasting monument to mark the enterprise of the company, and the superior talent of its distinguished architect.

The illustrative drawings (figs. 18. to 23.) are on too small a scale to convey a full idea of the grandeur of Hungerford Market ;