We have been thus diffuse on the different styles of laying out grounds, in order to show the distinctive character of each; and that each has its peculiar uses and beauties. Since the introduction of the modern or irregular style of laying out grounds, it has been customary to consider that style only as exclusively beautiful; and the geometrical style as unnatural and altogether in bad taste. In consequence of this opinion pervading, we may say, all ranks, and being found in all books that mention gardening as an art of taste, we see constant attempts made to introduce the irregular manner of planting, and serpentine lines, in places where they are altogether unsuitable. For example, it is not uncommon, in the suburbs of London, to find a garden, or a public square, with the boundary fence in a straight line, and parallel to it a serpentine gravel walk. If the reader has understood the remarks in this and the preceding pages, he will feel and comprehend the utter want of harmony which exists between the straight line and the serpentine line, independently of the impossibility of walking with comfort, when, at every five or six steps, the walk makes a turn; and where the turns, for some distance before the eye, may be all seen at once.

For such scenes, and for all small gardens, bordered by straight lines, the ancient or geometrical style is unquestionably the best; and as a proof that this is the case, it may be mentioned, that all small gardens are laid out in this style involuntarily, by those who have no preconceived ideas on the subject, doubtless from an innate feeling that it is the most suitable to the boundary fence. Another class of persons, who know just enough of gardening to be aware that there are two styles, and who have been accustomed to hear the ancient style decried by all the authors who have written or even touched on gardening since the time of Horace Walpole, look at the straight walks of their small walled gardens as deformities; and regret that they cannot, for want of room, indulge in that style which alone they have been taught to esteem as beautiful. Such ideas are entirely the result of prejudice in favour of opinions expressed by men considered as authorities, and who, at the time they wrote, were so much captivated by the novelty of the irregular style, that they could not allow themselves to do justice to any other.

Hence, they condemned the geometric or regular manner, without stopping to enquire into its merits, or, in their admiration of the modern style, being able to separate what was merely the effect of novelty, from what was due to its permanent characteristics, If what we hare said on this subject has been understood by the reader, ha will consider the ancient style as equal in point of merit to the modern one, and possessing quite as much claim to be called natural, and in good taste, as it does. In fact, the geometric style may be said to be the more natural of the two; since the first indications which children and rude nations give of buildings, sculpture, gardening, or any other ornamental or mixed art, are always marked by regularity, or some disposition of the materials which shows the object produced to be the work of man, and not the result of nature.

63. As general rules it may safely be laid down, that whenever a piece of ground to be laid out as a garden is small, and bounded by straight lines, the geometrical style is that which ought to be employed; that when the ground is to be laid out as a garden is large, it may be laid out in any style, or partly in the regular, and partly in the irregular styles; and that where the surface of the ground is varied, their regular style is most suitable; while the geometrical style should be preferred when the surface is even or flat With respect to those modifications of the natural or irregular style which we have described as the picturesque, gardenesque, and rustic, or rural, the first, as it requires least labour in the management, is best adapted for grounds of considerable extent; the second is more suitable for those persons who are botanists, rather than general admirers of scenery, because it is best calculated for displaying the individual beauty of trees and plants, and the high order and keeping of lawns, walks, etc.; and the third for persons of a romantic or sentimental turn of mind, who delight in surrounding themselves win scenery associated with a station in life strongly opposed to that in which they are really placed; or to attract attention by producing a striking contrast to refined and artistical scenery, whether in the irregular or geometric styles.

64. In addition to those principles which are common to architecture and landscape gardening, there are some which are peculiar to each. These, it must be at once obvious, are very different in the two arts; since, in the one, vis. architecture, the artist has to operate with inanimate matter, in conse-quenoe of which his productions are most perfect the moment after they are finished; while, in the other, he has to operate with materials which live and grow, and the effect of which depends on time and future management.

Permanence may be said to be the principle which is peculiarly characteristic of architecture, and which leads to all the various subordinate principles and rules taught by the art of building; such as stability of position, durability of materials, strength of construction, etc.

Progress may be said to be the peculiar principle which is characteristic of landscape-gardening, and which leads to all the subordinate principles and rules which regulate gardening as an art of culture. Among these are, providing for growth, by suiting the trees to soil, situation, and climate; providing for their future increase in sise, by thinning and pruning; providing for all the various points of culture and management; and providing for removal and decay, by the introduction or substitution of young plants.

Every natural change which takes effect on an architectural structure after it is completed, may be considered as a step in its progress to decay; while every natural change in a garden, after it it completed, and up to a certain point, is a step in its progress to maturity. It is the business of the architect, therefore, to bring his work as near to perfection as he can himself, and to construct it so that it may remain as long as possible without change; while it is that of the landscape-gardener to form his plan and execute it in such a manner, as that it may admit of all those future alterations, such as the removal of trees by thinning, altering their shapes or sizes, pruning, etc, which the progress of trees and shrubs generally, and the growth and habit of particular kinds, will require.