ON THE PERPENDICULAR OF SOMERSET. öl 
fault; that is, by bringing the staircase turret into promi- 
nence, and erowning it with a single large pinnacle, rising 
above all the rest, so as, I imagine, to exempt this class 
from the extreme severity of Mr. Ruskin’s censure. The 
same division into stages is preserved as in the former 
type. 
Towers of this class differ much more widely among 
themselves than those of the former, among which we 
may observe a similarity approaching, in many instances, 
almost to identity. This is the prevailing tower in the 
eity of Bristol, and in a smaller and plainer form, it seems 
common also in the adjoining part of Gloucestershire. Its 
grandest specimen is of course the magnificent tower of St. 
Stephen’s, which however must quite stand by itself. This 
tower is remarkable for having »sthetically dispensed with 
buttresses, those which it has having so slight a projection 
as hardly at all to influence the general effect. It has 
indeed almost the appearance of a Gothic version of the old 
Italian campanile.. However this may be, its idea, which 
is one quite peculiar to itself, though it may not altogether 
approve itself to our preconceived notions, must be allowed 
to be, in point of fact, magnificently worked out. I may 
remark however that one commendation which I have 
always bestowed upon this steeple is, I find, undeserved, 
at least by its orginal condition. At present it is remark- 
able for the absence of top-heaviness, when we consider 
that it is entirely square, without any receding ofany kind. 
But I find that the present parapet is not a truereproduction 
of its predecessor; the old one had domical turrets, more 
like Thornbury, and also small projeeting pinnacles, with 
flying-buttresses at the angles. This last feature is found 
in some very splendid towers, but I can never bring myself 
to admire it, as it certainly gives an appearance of inse- 
G3 
