Palladio has also made the same observation: "Moreover the ancient Basilicæ had their Porticos on the inside, as may be perceived by our draughts; and the modern ones, on the contrary, either have no porticos at all, or they have them on the outside to- wards the square or open place[1]." And again: "but we, neglecting the Porticos surrounding the temples, build our churches very like the ancient Basilica's, or Courts of Justice, in which (as we said) the Porticos were made within the building, as we do now in our churches[2]."
The pillars and arches now standing in the church of Melbourne, and in a very perfect state, do necessarily imply the originality of side-ailes; but in the churches which Bede and the other ancient writers have described, as quoted by Mr. Bentham, no mention is made of either pillars, arches, or side-ailes; we therefore ought not, with Mr. Bentham, to admit they had any, from the explanation only of those buildings containing a porticus within the body, which he has mistaken to be in the north or south ailes; whereas there appears by his own account, aided by ancient incontestable proofs, that the Porticus was a portion of the west end of these early built churches. There can be no great presumption in concluding that the plans of the churches so described more resembled that of the ancient church at Dunwich beforementioned.
Having thus far endeavoured to prove Mr. Bentham's error, we shall close the attempt with a description of what yet remains unnoticed in this curious church of Melbourne.
The external walls of the side-ailes of Melbourne church being more exposed to the weather, would consequently require more frequent reparation, and the fashion of larger windows was adopted
as
