In general, however, the spandrils do not extend beyond the purlin. We may take as an example the roof of the nave of All-Saints' church, Stamford. It has to cover a considerable space, the distance between the walls being twenty-three feet.

From a slight deviation from the original form, perceptible in some of the principals, it would appear that there the spandrils serve, as it were, to help out the length of the beam, rather than to combine with it the form and use of an arch. If the latter were the case, it would act as a powerful lever against the walls to thrust them outwards. But this, if we may so say, is the proper office of the spandril, and therefore the wall should always, in these cases, be of sufficient thickness to resist the thrust. In the chancel of this church, that office seems in a fair way of being performed. There, the pitch of the roof is much higher than in that of the nave, and the span less by seven feet, yet it has been found necessary to furnish the principals with an abundant supply of iron bolts and plates, and to connect the side walls near the east window with an iron tie.

But if the spandril does not combine with the beam above it the form and purpose of an arch, it is in the wrong place to stiffen it merely. A better arrangement may be seen in the chapel on the south side of the chancel. The space covered is, as in the last example, only sixteen feet, which is not much; but the beam does its work effectually.

It

In the chancel roof of Cherry-Hinton church, Cambridgeshire, the beams are constructed on this principle, on a much larger scale. is in the middle of the beam, not at the ends, that the greatest substance is required. In the majority of instances, however, whether with or without spandrils, the principle of construction seems to be the simple one of connecting the side walls to each other by strong beams, and crossing them with others so arranged, as to carry the entire covering of the building. There is no attempt at mechanical contrivance. The principle of the modern trussbeam seems to have been unknown* to the architects of those days. They made no attempt to place each piece in such a manner that it might act to the greatest advantage, that its dimensions would admit of. The strain upon it was mostly in a transverse direction, not in that of its length. But the waste of material is, perhaps, more than compensated, by what is gained through its depressed form, and the capability of oak to resist lateral pressure.

As far as decoration is concerned, the interior may be made very beautiful, at a comparatively trifling cost; trifling, when we take into the account the quantity of timber and workmanship to make an equally handsome high pitched roof, and the increased thickness of the walls to aid the abutment. But such roofs are usually too flat for blue slate, and lead is too expensive an article for modern church builders. But if lead of sufficient thickness be found impracticable, on the ground of expense, zinc has the advantage of being both lighter and cheaper, considering the thickness sufficient to form a covering; and its temper and ductility are better known now than when it was first brought into use.

The flat roof has not been a favourite of late years, owing to the rage for early English, the prevalence of which seems to have been, and to continue to be, almost universal. Perhaps some persons may be bold enough to suggest the possibility of this roof being as suitable to early English, as are the roofs now usually placed upon such buildings. Many, perhaps most of the early English churches that remain, are covered with them, and what kind of roof they might have had originally seems difficult to determine.

In Rickman it is stated (and he still continues to be an authority in these matters) that "there do not appear to be any early English wooden roofs, which can clearly be distinguished as such." The south transept of Castor church, near Peterborough, is early English, with a high pitched roof, very possibly the original one;† but it may

To whatever age the introduction of the truss-beam may belong, it will be admitted that the general character of roofs constructed before the sixteenth century, would lead us to the above conclusion. Even the tie-beam, as such, does not appear to have been thought of any great advantage.

We speak of this roof from recollection. It was one of those called by Britton, in his Architectural Dictionary, a compass roof. The whole of this church is very interesting, and will repay the trouble of a visit. The greater portion of it is Norman, but with the exception of that of the south transept, the roofs are, if we remember

be doubted whether an architect could be found who would be willing to copy it; and it is unlike any of the productions of the present age. Mr. Rickman, though he mentions this church in his Northamptonshire list, could not have visited it. In many a village church of that period, the low pitched roof harmonizes well with the massive Romanesque-like character of its masonry; and we can scarcely fancy the internal view would be improved by its having a new open roof substituted for the old one. However, such examples of the architecture of the thirteenth century are never copied now-a-days, be the church to be built great or small. Nothing but fragments of Beverley or Westminster will satisfy the age in which we live. The miniature cathedral has superseded the rectangular box with which we were contented ten years ago, and will, in its turn, it is to be hoped, give place to something as different ten years hence. Of all the styles of pointed architecture, that of Westminster Abbey may justly be considered as the most complete; and perhaps for that very reason, it is the worst to follow, unless we are prepared to use it in all its glory, with its noble and graceful proportions mounting upwards from base to boss. It is the last of all to bear mutilation. Much is said in these days of the importance of producing a fine development of the style, but this appears to be forgotten when the building is to be covered in. From a pier of elegant, and at the same time sufficiently massive proportions, flanked with four graceful detached and banded shafts, capped with the most correctly copied foliage-from such a pier, there spring arches which carry a meagre clerestory wall, from the top of which rises a roof, made after the fashion of those of the fifteenth century; a style of roof, moreover, which was far more common for halls than for churches: every thing in character till you are half way up the pier arches, when you are gradually prepared for the disappointment of not finding a splendid vault, crowning a building, which in many respects might be worthy of it.

Whatever may be the improvement which the attentive study of the principles of pointed architecture has produced within the last few years, it can scarcely be said to have extended to roofs. Much ingenuity may have been displayed in some cases, and very successful copying in others, but hitherto, early English in the hands of the moderns may be said to have irly withstood every effort to make it accommodate itself harmoniously to an open roof. The later the style of pointed architecture, the more does the timber roof become it. It seems almost a question whether the peculiarities of the

correctly, all of perpendicular date. The author of the Glossary of Architectural Terms, speaks of early English roofs, as though there were some still existing, and he instances Old Shoreham church, Sussex. He may be, and probably is right, but we have not heard of any attempt being made to investigate the question, with a view to building roofs in the true early English style, whatever that may be.

This may, however, be partly attributed to the comparatively smaller width of

perpendicular style would not, in many cases, lead us to prefer wood to stone, for the internal covering, especially where the form of the depressed arch is predominant. Almost every pattern of timber roof which antiquity presents to our notice, has been applied to buildings of that age; and with those who profess an adherence to principles, this should be a powerful argument in favour of the perpendicular style. The examples of it are most numerous, from the cathedral to the humble village church; and it is certainly the most manageable of all the styles.

We now come to the modern trussed roof. It might be interesting to trace the progress which this kind of roof made, from its origin to the present time, when it is exhibited, in every conceivable form, and of every available material, especially in railroad architecture. But a few examples are all which will be required to illustrate our subject. A question may here be asked, which involves principles belonging to architecture generally, and may, therefore, very well affect particulars; namely, whether it be right to exclude from church architecture, every useful discovery or invention, whether in the materials or construction, or in the method of applying them to the purposes of building, which the experience of three centuries may have brought about.

And this suggests another, somewhat more practical-whether it be not as objectionable even on the ground of architectural propriety, in an eminently constructive department, such as that of the roof, to try how much useless timber we can put into a building by way of ornament, as to endeavour to ascertain the smallest quantity that will be sufficient for the purpose, and build accordingly. The question may be put in a variety of ways, but whatever be the proper answer, it cannot be denied that the system lately introduced, of copying the old high pitched open roof, requires that we should increase the solidity of our walls, merely to make them bear a heavier description of roof! If this be really necessary, must it not serve as an argument against the use of a style that requires such a sacrifice ?*

But to return to the tie-beamed roof. The principle of the flattened timber roof is here brought into operation, only with this difference, that in the place of a solid beam in one length, we have a beam formed of many pieces, and the ingenuity of the builder is exercised in placing these pieces to most advantage. It becomes in fact a large piece of frame-work. The whole beam thus constructed is technically termed a truss-beam. These are made to rest upon the

* It has been said that the average increase of the population of the whole kingdom, is one thousand a day! This is unhappily not so far from the truth as some will perhaps suppose. But set down the increase at only half that, what are our means to meet the demand for more churches? We recommend this to the serious consideration of those who profess, and whose real object, we doubt not, is to build churches to the honour and glory of Almighty God. But see further, Christian Remembrancer, vol. v. page 89, and vol. iv. page 265. Article, "Styles of Church Architecture."

walls at intervals, and so to bear up the covering laid upon them. The comparative strength and lightness of this kind of roof is enormous, and when contrasted with the old open roof, the difference of weight between them appears almost incredible. Take, for example, one section of Westminster hall and one of the theatre at Birmingham; the span of the latter, clear, between walls, is eighty feet. Compare the weight of the material of the latter with that of the former, and it is as nothing; not to mention the light upright walls of the one and the bulging buttressed abutments of the other. It is not here recommended, God forbid! to substitute in all cases, and in every particular, the former for the latter; but only, that by bringing these matters before the notice of amateurs, they may see what an amazing mechanical power they are spurning from that architecture, which ought to be, were it possible, perfect in every point of view. The truss-beam can be accommodated to any pitch, from the highest, to one which is not much steeper than the flattened roof of the fifteenth century. In favour of the old roofs, it may, however, be observed (as regards their constructive features, and not taking the appearance of either into account,) that they are better able to contend against neglect and other casualties, than the modern trussed roofs. The former owe their strength to the solidity and profusion of their parts; the latter to the form and position of theirs, on which every thing must depend. But as the one could be repaired as casily as the other, the old roof has no very decided superiority over the modern in this respect. Again; in churches with aisles, the thrust of the old high-pitched roof can be partially brought down within a few feet of the aisle roofs, which contribute greatly to increase the abutment required, and render a lighter wall sufficient. But these are small gains for the cost. No provision is made against the contingencies of defective masonry, settlements, insufficient abutments, and the like. The walls, instead of being held together as they would be by the modern truss-beam, are in continual danger of being pushed outwards, should any part of the building, which helps to form the abutment, fail. This is not the case with the old flattened roof, which, if constructed of sound well-seasoned oak, of sufficient scantling, would bid fair to last as long as the materials of which it is formed are capable of lasting. For small churches having aisles, it might still be found a convenient form of roof; and in the hands of an architect of genius and real taste, might serve to exemplify the capabilities of the later Tudor style. In large churches, the truss-beam might take the place of the massive oak-beam, and the inclination be thereby made sufficient to enable slate to be used instead of lead. Much would depend upon the taste and skill of the architect, in making his roof harmonize with the rest of the building. In nine churches out of ten which are now in progress, it becomes almost impracticable to cover the nave or the chancel with the old flattened roof: in these instances, therefore, the truss-beam might take the place of the old solid beam, and the attention of the architect would then be directed towards making it both effective