With such conflicting opinions as to the origin of the style, it is not to be expected that there should be any agree ment as to Ni hat European country was the first to adopt it. The honour has been claimed for Euglatrd, France. and Ger many : the claim has been made for• England by Sir Henry Englefield and Horace Walpole ; but although the buildings of the style are to be found in this country in great number and variety, and are, on the w hole, of greater purity, and in our opinion, of superior excellence, to those on the continent, still more satislitctorr evidence has been elicited in favour of the latter. The late I lope, in his historical Essay on Architecture, has produced much able a•ginnent in favour of Germany ; whilst \Vetter, a writer of that country-, contends that priority of date, as regards the adoption and development of the style, properly belongs to France. The claim has been made for Italy, but there seems to be little evidence to favour such an opinion; and Mr. Gaily Knight, in his elaborate work on the ecclesiastical architecture of that country, gives good reason for disregarding it.
Notwithstanding the variety and antagonism of the opinions which have been started upon the subject, it is possible that more than one of them may be partially correct, because a variety of circumstances may have contributed more or less towards the same end ; but we must confess that the changeof style has not as yet been sufficiently accounted for. Whether the question will ever be determined beyond dispute, may fairly be questioned ; nor do we know that any substantial advan tage would be gained thereby. It is true, we are every day advancing to a more perfect knowledge of the style, and, in the course of our inquiries, some unexpected light may be thrown upon the subject ; but be this as it may, it is certain that it will be much more advantageous to continue our practical study of the style, than to turn aside fur the mere purpose of speculating on its origin.