It must be confessed that of the Chinese chairs, those which are most reminiscent of window latticework are the least acceptable. That is perhaps because we associate these rectangular interlacing forms with glazing, and so find them more congruous to the doors of china cabinets and bookcases than to the backs of chairs. Some again are too suggestive of the conventional shape of a flash of lightning with their thin zigzag strips. As a general criticism upon these chairs, I may remark that, though the outer shape of the back is as thick and strong as in other chairs, the lattice filling-in usually gives the impression of being too thin and open to stand the pressure of the sitter's back. This fragility is probably much more apparent than real; but a thin design, even though it may not actually be weak, should not even be weak-looking. The same criticism may be made of many of the Heppelwhite and Sheraton chairs, though the writer has good reason to know that a very slender-looking Sheraton chair is not nearly so tender as might be imagined.

In those cases, however, where Chippendale has varied the lattice with pagoda-roof and other wider shapes, the design may be generally said to be the better for it.

It may seem a considerable leap from the Chinese to the Gothic; but the truth is, that as Chippendale's Chinese was very much of St. Martin's Lane, so also is his Gothic. As the one comes from the same place as the other, the two are often mighty similar. Sometimes one may even be thankful to the designer that he has stated at the bottom of the page which is which. I have before me four 'chairs, Gothic design, showing various styles for legs.' What do I find ? First, that the upright rectangular general shape of leg is to be considered quite as Gothic as it is Chinese. Secondly, that the terminal shape, reminiscent of Louis XIV., is to be taken as suitable for Chinese and also for Gothic. Thirdly, that the straight leg pierced with open work is equally applicable to chairs of Eastern or Western inspiration. Fourthly, that the C-curve and the rocaille work or coquillage, which is employed to vary the Chinese chair, is equally at home in the Gothic production. Fifthly, the thin latticed backs of so-called Gothic chairs are often nearly as angular in pattern as the Chinese lattice backs. The Gothic lattice, however, is made up of two contrasting motives, an angular straight-lined ' mesh' being intermingled with a curved mesh - formed, this last, of opposing C-curves, it may be.

The only radical difference that I can discover between the general shape of the Chinese and Gothic chairs, is that in the former, as I have observed above, Chippendale does not allow himself a cabriole or curved leg. In the Gothic chair, that, and even rocaille work, is quite admissible, just as also in his upholstered 'French chairs' there is no harm apparently in using the straight leg and Chinese frets. The Chinese chair with raised centre-piece in the upper back-rail, has its counterpart in a Gothic chair with an extremely similar shape. In fact, we can predicate almost anything about either style. Only we must not go so far as to expect the cabriole leg and Gothic crockets and pinnacles upon the Chinese chair. When we remind ourselves once more of the astonishing miscellany of the pavilions at Vauxhall, we must give Chippendale credit for having attained at least to this extent of purism, that he did not borrow his Chinese forms from some Gothic parish church. The converse proposition, I fear, we cannot sustain.

His Gothic lattice too closely resembles Chippendale's Chinese inventions.