terly introduction to "Outlines of the Geology of England and Wales," with the view of inviting the geological student, truly observes, Although a competent knowledge of mineralogy is required to instruct the geological student in the nature of those materials as considered in themselves, and of Chemistry to enable him to understand their constitution, yet the number of mineral masses forming rocks of usual occurrence is so small, and the composition of those so simple, that a very limited knowledge of these sciences is sufficient for all introductory purposes as far as the general outlines of Geology are concerned. Siliceous, argillaceous, and calcareous masses (substances with which every one is familiar under the common names of sand, clay, and limestone,) constitute probably nine-tenths of these materials; and the compound rocks, forming the remaining tenth, consist principally of only four minerals, quartz, feldspar, mica, and hornblende. These great masses contain, dispersed in various manners through them, and in comparatively small quantities, all the other substances included in the mineral kingdom; and of these the various ores of the different metals are the most important. The Geologist must of course, as he proceeds in his inquiries, obtain a competent knowledge of all these substances; but this knowledge, which is the ultimate object of the mere mineralogist, is to the Geologist only a subordinate acquisition, and forms but the alphabet by which he endeavours to decypher the part of nature which he studies."

It is therefore highly consolatory both to the geological student as well as the miscellaneous class of readers of both sexes, to learn from such authority as the distinguished Geologist before mentioned, that much valuable information may be acquired relative to the structure of our Island, without undergoing an elaborate or laborious course of previous study. That, in short, every intelligent tourist may enhance the sources of his own gratification, and prove a valuable cicerone to his friends, by acquiring even a very moderate acquaintance with the mineral character and stratification of the district through which he is travelling,

either for amusement, for health, or for professional objects.

To the invalid the study of Geology also offers peculiar attractions. Debarred from the more laborious pursuits and objects of the tourist by infirmity of body, nothing can be a greater auxiliary to the benefits that may be reckoned upon from change of scene, and the contemplation of topographical beauties, than the investigation of those geological phenomena which present themselves in almost every part of our Island. The beautiful order and variety which is observable in the series, must be sufficient to satisfy every well-constituted mind that its arrangement could not have been (as some sceptical theorists have it) the work of mere chance, accident, or "nature." The design of an Omnipotent superintending power, or First Cause, pervades every portion of the terrestrial fabric; not less in the formation of the vast variety of strata which by their inclined position become elevated to the earth's surface, and thereby rendered available to the wants and enjoyments of man, than by the creation and sustenance of countless myriads of animated beings.

The invalid who resorts to the seashore in pursuit of health, would have additional motives for geological inquiry, from the peculiar facilities which nature presents in the many picturesque cliffs that form the bulwarks of our Island against the ravages of the ocean. Such scenery instinctively teaches us "to look through nature up to nature's God!" Even the casual visitor, in traversing those picturesque districts with which our Island abounds, should not, if he regards his own gratification, remain quite unacquainted with the distribution or locality of the geological series. It would betray a want of information discreditable to any well-educated person at the present day, to order a search for coal-beds, slate rocks, or granite, in the strata of the south-east counties of the kingdom; or to look for chalk among the primitive strata of the north-western counties. In a word, the tourist who totally disregards the Geological beauties of any given district, may be truly said to be incapable of duly appreciating its topographical beauties.

1832.]

Mr. URBAN,

THE origin of the Walls of the city

of Gloucester is of the remotest antiquity. The eastern and north-eastern part belonged most probably to the station placed there by the Romans. It is clear, from the account of Gildas, that the Britons, who derived the custom of walled towns from the Romans, afterwards kept them up. What is confirmatory that the walls of Gloucester have a Roman origin is, that according to the custom of that people,

.

As

"not to build a wall where there is a fortification of water," there was here a want of wall upon the side of the Severn and the Marshes. When Wul pher repaired the city, the walls were not probably neglected; at least it is certain that in the time of Alfred, cities were strongly walled and towered, to defend them from the Danes. towns without walls were not deemed safe places for the lodging of an army, it is not singular that William the Conqueror, besides instigating the erection of Gloucester Castle, should fortify the north-east and south sides with a strong embattled wall and gates. Kings, nobles, and all their followers, were expected personally to work at the reparation of walls in times of danger. The Roman equites did the same. In the murage of London, in the fifteenth century, the different trading companies took a share of the expense. Several writs of murage were issued during the reigns of Henry Ill. and the two first Edwards. In

17

that of the third Edward a well-forti

fied town had a castle and keep, a towered wall, and a double ditch; and in this æra, Thomas de Bradston, constable of the Castle, who died in 1360, was "the special meanes for walling of Gloucester town. The tolls or fee-farm-rents were then and subsequently applied to murage; and in the sixteenth century, the walls are noted by Leland to be strong and so continued till the demolition of them in 1662, with castles and other fortifications, on account of the mischief experienced from them during the civil war. The gates of our ancient cities, however, remained, and generally added much to the picturesque effect of the streets; but these have of late years for the most part given way to real or fancied improvement.

Many ancient bridges have also lately been destroyed, to make room for more convenient successors; and this improvement took place at Gloucester about 1809, when the Old West Bridge and Gate, shewn in the annexed view, (see Plate II.) were removed. The old bridge is supposed to have been built by Richard Walred in the reign of Henry II. At the end of bridges were generally guard-houses for soldiers. Of these, the chief at Gloucester was the West Gate. This was rebuilt in the reign of Henry VIII. and the custody of it was assigned to the porter of the senior Sheriff.

N. R. S.

Fosbroke's Hist. of Gloucester.

Of these three great writers, each was equally ambitious to be called the first historian of Britain. Each was equally sensible, too, of the difficulty of gaining the name to which he aspired; and equally resolute, persevering, and cautious, in the pursuit of it. Each knew that eminence in historical composition cannot be attained without much time and labour. Each was aware of the necessity of attention, not only to matter, but to style. Each

knew that facta dictis sunt exæquenda, that the manner of telling must be suited to what is told; that the noblest subject, and the finest thoughts, may be rendered unattractive or offensive by an inappropriate dress; and that which displeases the ear, as Quintilian remarks, does not easily find entrance into the mind. They were therefore equally studious to attain excellence in style; but as their tastes were different, they cultivated styles of different kinds, and selected different models for imitation. Hume studied the simple manner of writing, Robertson the dignified, and Gibbon the florid. Hume, in consequence, became the most pleasing writer, Robertson the most elevated, and Gibbon the most ornate.

The History of HUME is, I think, regarded by the majority of readers with more decided approbation than that of either of his rivals. Hume's merits in narration are very great. He was, as Hayley remarks, skilled to form a tale. His story is always equable, natural, and easy; he had the great art of saying just enough to satisfy, without satiating, his reader; he leaves him nothing to desire, and offends him with nothing superfluous. He knew what was to be noticed, and what to be omitted; he seizes only on the prominent points of his subject, and neglects whatever is not essential to it. He speaks always to the purpose; his transitions are never abrupt, his reflections never impertinent, and his digressions never tedious or unnecessary. Whatever he has to tell, he tells in the place where it is fittest to be told.

His style is remarkable for sweetness and ease, for perspicuity of phrase, and modulation of period. Such is its appearance of ease, that it might seem to have been formed without study or elaboration; yet we are assured by Lord Woodhouselee, who had perhaps better means of learning what Hume's studies of which himself has told us nothing, and of which but little has been ascertained—had been, than any other writer that has spoken of them, that it "was the cultivated fruit of long practice, and a sedulous attention to those models which he esteemed the best." Hume," adds his Lordship, was an admirer of simplicity and ease in composition, and he ap

pears to have bestowed his attention chiefly on the writers in whom those qualities are most conspicuous. He was partial to the French belles-lettres writers, and admired particularly the easy and familiar style of their moralists and critics, as Montagne, Charron, Rochefoucault, Bonhours, and Fontenelle; and his study of these authors, as well as his long residence in France, not only contributed to the formation of his style and manner of composition, but have given to his writings even a tincture of the French idiom. In his Essay on Simplicity and Refinement, he acknowledges his own particular taste, in the following observation, which he gives as one of the rules for attaining to good composition: "I shall deliver it," says he,

as a third observation, that we ought to be more on our guard against the excess of Refinement, than that of Simplicity; and that, because the former excess is both less beautiful and more dangerous than the latter." Among the English authors, Addison was the writer he most admired for his style; and he seems to have formed his own chiefly on the model, and on the writers whose characteristics were ease and familiarity, rather than elevation, or even correctness, as Shaftes bury and Temple.'

His attention to the French writers seems to have been given chiefly in the early part of his life, at or before the time when he wrote the works which are now called his Essays, whose style has much more resemblance to the French than that of his History. He, however, retained his favourable regard for French to a much later period; for he remarks, in his account of the reign of William I., that the mixture of French, which the Conqueror's regulations, and the inter- ' course of the invaders with the natives, introduced into the English tongue, composes the best part of our language.

That he formed the style of his History on the style of Addison, he that compares the two writers will find no great difficulty in believing; for he will see that the sentences of the one have a close resemblance in structure to those of the other. Hume's style, indeed, is more correct, and more full and verbose, than that of Addison but Addison may be easily supposed to have been Hume's master. Of

;