FOOTNOTES.

REMARKS
UPON
THE PROPOSED
DESTRUCTION OF THE TOWER OF
THE PARISH CHURCH,

26, Church Row,
Hampstead.
May 1st, 1874.

My Dear Mr. Vicar,

Will you permit me to address to you, and through you to others, some remarks upon the subject of the Restoration of our Parish Church.

Such a request needs I think no apology.  As a parishioner I cannot be indifferent to such a question.  As an architect, whose attention has been directed professionally to the subject for more than two years, I may fairly ask a hearing.  Did I need a further excuse the address at the head of this letter would supply it.  Living as I do, and, please God, shall do for many years, almost under the shade of the Parish Church, and having it before my eyes continually, I have every opportunity of coming to a clear opinion upon the matter, and every motive to form a sound one.

The movement of public opinion which issued in the invitation to certain architects to submit in competition designs for the restoration of the building had two sources.

The existing arrangements of the church are not in accordance with the improved ecclesiastical taste of the present day.  The high pews which encumber the interior, the galleries which disfigure its really fine proportions, the cramped space about the holy table, the unsightly reading desk, the absence of any proper chancel, and of any conveniences for a well-conducted choir, shock the taste and offend the judgment of all well-informed churchmen.  It is probable however that this feeling would have failed to produce a general movement in favour of restoration had it not been aided by a fact, the force of which was apparent to every one.  I allude of course to the settlement of the Tower which had become serious as early as 1829.

In that year Messrs. Vulliamy, Hardwick & Good were called in to report upon the state of the Tower.  Other reports were made in 1861, 1864, 1866 and 1868.  The cracks which the subsidence of the Tower caused in those parts of the church which abut upon it, occasioned naturally considerable alarm, and the opinion became general that before long it would be necessary to take down the Tower to avoid a catastrophe.

The scheme proposed early in 1872, for the “alteration and possibly enlargement of the Parish Church,” was the result of these two distinct impulses.

The course which was adopted reflects great credit upon the Trustees.  Instead of resorting to an open competition, three architects were invited to send in designs, and a proper remuneration was offered for the services of the unsuccessful competitors.  The Trustees deserve the thanks of the profession and of the public for so straightforward and honourable a course.  The scheme submitted to the competing architects involved three conditions: first, the need of improvement in the arrangements of the church; secondly, the necessity of taking down the Tower, assumed to be in a dangerous state; and thirdly, a limit of expenditure fixed at £6500.  For this sum it was required that a new Tower and spire should be erected, and a proper chancel be added to the existing nave terminating in an apse.

I cannot forbear in passing to remark upon the good taste shown in the suggestion, contained in the instructions to the architects, that the new tower should occupy a central position over the new chancel.  Such a proposal shows a sound appreciation of the capabilities of the existing church and a regard for its surroundings, which augurs well for the future of the building.  I am astonished to find that one of the competitors should have disregarded so judicious a suggestion.

I propose now to examine the three conditions which, as I have said, are assumed in the scheme of the trustees, and I shall endeavour to show that one of them is unfounded, and that two of them are mutually inconsistent.

Of the necessity for an improvement in the arrangements of the church no one can be more thoroughly convinced than myself.  In spite of the care with which the services have been for many years conducted, the attendance at our Parish Church has always been a duty rather than a pleasure.  The inconvenience of the principal entrances to the church, placed as they are close to the very communion rails; the extreme difficulty of kneeling in the high and narrow pews in which seat-holders are now impounded; the position of the choir in the western gallery, in rear, instead of in face, of the congregation; the lofty reading desk, from which the prayers seem to be preached rather than prayed; the cramped space about the holy table by which the celebration of the Communion is rendered most inconvenient; the galleries which disfigure the interior, and destroy the sense of the oneness of the whole congregation; these and other defects are too obvious to need enforcing here.  The Trustees have wisely recognised their existence and their scheme is a proposal to remove them.  In this every member of the congregation will heartily support them.

It is to the second point involved in their proposals that I wish to draw the attention of the parishioners—the assumed dangerous condition of the Tower.

The Tower was erected with the church about a century and a quarter ago, and is not only of very good proportions but is remarkably well built.  There is not a symptom of failure in it from top to bottom.  Careful and repeated examinations of it have convinced me that it is as sound as a bell throughout, and that at the present time it is in every respect in as good condition as when it was first completed.  Any person who takes the trouble to examine the building may see for himself that the cracks, which appear in the eastern part of the church, are not in the Tower itself, but only in the walls that abut upon it.  They are simply the result of the greater weight of the Tower, which has caused it to subside to a certain extent, and so to crack the walls of the church, and of the staircases, which being lighter, have undergone no settlement.

The Tower has settled, but it has done so in one block.  No better proof could be given of the excellent workmanship and capital condition of the tower, than the fact that its subsidence has caused no fracture whatever, in the fabric of the tower itself.  The settlement is due to an exceptional cause, the decay of the planking on which its foundation are laid, but every old tower in the country has undergone similar movement from analogous causes.  These movements may not be so obvious to the unprofessional eye because, having generally occurred within a century or so of the erection of the towers, the cracks which they caused have long since been made good.  Subsidences of this kind come to an end after a certain time, the foundations take a solid bearing and no further movement from this cause can then arise.  The great tower of St. Nicholas church in Hamburg, upon the erection of which my father has been engaged for twenty years, though it is not yet completed, and though it stands upon one of the finest masses of concrete ever put in, has already subsided more than six inches.  Our Hampstead tower has gone down something less than three inches.  I need scarcely say that it is not proposed to pull down the tower of St. Nicholas on account of its six inches subsidence.  Why then should our Hampstead church be condemned.

The Tower is of excellent proportion and outline.  It is a very interesting and characteristic example of its date, and forms with the adjacent buildings in Church Row an almost unique group of 18th century architecture, of the greatest interest not only to the architect and the artist, but also to every person of taste and discrimination.  No reason exists for its removal which would not condemn to destruction half the old churches in the country.  To pull it down would be an act of needless vandalism.  It is associated with the earliest recollections of those who, like myself, have known Hampstead from their childhood, and it is the one public building of any antiquity which our township possesses.  To do away with it is to destroy a piece of good work which, if left to itself, will endure for centuries, and to incur the perfectly needless and heavy expense of erecting a new tower.

The cause of the settlement of the Tower is, as I have stated, the decay of the timber planking upon which its foundations are laid.  This has taken place to a greater extent upon the west side than upon the east.  The consequence of this has been to give the Tower a slight inclination westward.  In 1868, Mr. Hesketh and my father were instructed by the Trustees to examine the foundations.  They found that the planking had entirely perished upon the western side, and that the foundations in this part rested upon the natural soil, which is a compact loam.  Upon the eastern side a thickness of 2½ inches of planking still remained, only partially decayed.  The report which the architects made at that time stated, that it was probable that the planking under the eastern side would gradually perish, and that as this took place the Tower would settle down upon the eastern side until it rested upon the loam.  The perpendicular position would thus be gradually restored, and no further movement would then occur.  I have recently plumbed the Tower myself, and I find that this conjecture is borne out by the result of my measurements.  The inclination of the Tower westward has decreased from seven inches in 1868 to from four to five inches at the present time, thus affording a proof of the soundness of the conclusion arrived at by Mr. Heskett and my father six years ago.  I give in a tabular form the results of the observations made upon the Tower at different dates, by which it will be seen that the inclination of the Tower has decreased steadily since 1829. [7]

It will appear from this that from 1¼″ to 1⅛″ thickness of planking remains still undecayed under the eastern foundations.  At the present rate of movement, therefore, the decay will be complete in about six years time.  The Tower will then have resumed its perpendicular position, and no further settlement need be anticipated.  Even at the present time the inclination is less than the amount of the set-off of the Tower, without taking into account the spreading of the foundations.  The top of the Tower, therefore, stands well within its base, and the apprehension of any sort of danger is absolutely unfounded.

There exists, therefore, no excuse whatever for destroying our Tower.

The second point to which I wish to draw attention is the important one of expense.

The proposals of the Trustees are quite inconsistent with the limit of expenditure which they have fixed.

The scheme which has been put forward includes not only a new Tower, but also a new chancel, terminating in an apse,—the addition of transepts—the removal or extensive modification of the galleries—the erection of new staircases, and convenient vestries for clergy and choir—the construction of proper covered approaches—the reseating of the whole of the church—the decoration of the interior, and a re-arrangement of the warming and gas-lighting.  To suppose that this grand scheme can be carried out for £6500, “including professional and other charges,” at the present price of work in the building trades is simply absurd.  It reminds one of a story told of the late Mr. Pugin.  A Roman Catholic Bishop is said to have written to the architect, ordering designs for a cathedral complete in every respect, and furnished with all the necessary paraphernalia of worship, which the bishop was careful to particularise.  The total cost was not to exceed two thousand pounds, but the bishop stated that he did not expect the completion of the two western towers to be included in this amount.  Mr. Pugin’s reply was to this effect, “My dear Lord Bishop,—Make it guineas and have the towers.”  The present proposal is almost as absurd to anyone who knows the price of building work at the present time.  If a perfectly substantial tower is to be destroyed it will be an absolute duty to replace it by one of higher character, and larger proportions, the cost of which could not fall short of £4000, and would probably reach a much higher figure.  To carry out properly the scheme of the Trustees, a sum would be required which would be nearer £12,000 than £6000.

Is it fair to saddle the Parish with such an expenditure, the greater part of which is entirely needless?  For the really necessary alterations of our church, the funds which the Trustees have at their disposal will suffice, if judiciously laid out.  Should more be really needed, the parishioners will not be backward in supporting so good a work.  But it seems very unfair to us, to force upon us a scheme, which involves a perfectly unnecessary outlay, a very large proportion of which will have to be met by the voluntary contributions of the parishioners.  What is really required we shall all, I am sure, be willing to contribute to, but we ought not to be asked to provide large sums to carry out works which are quite unnecessary, and which those of us, whose knowledge and taste give them a right to an opinion, would sincerely deplore.

Were our Tower an old Gothic one, even of the least interesting date, the proposal to sweep it away would be scouted at once as utter barbarism.  Those whose attention is directed to architecture and art know very well, that such work as the last two centuries produced, has an interest and a value only second to that of the earlier styles.  There is a great movement of artistic feeling in favour of the architecture of the reigns of Queen Anne and the earlier Georges, and it would be quite intolerable that our Parish, which is so full of the associations of that period, and the home of so many artists and men of taste, should distinguish itself by an act of stupidity which would really be quite behind the age.

It is common enough to hear people say “how ugly the Parish Church is,” “what frightful windows,” “how unecclesiastical,” “just like a meeting-house,” &c. &c.  To combat the prejudices of mere ignorance is always a difficult task, and such views are in reality nothing else.  They are the opinions of average common-place, rendered plausible only by constant repetition.  The only portion of the church which can fairly be called ugly, is the exterior of the western transept, erected within our own memory.  The rest of the exterior is plain, only because the architect, having a limited sum at his command, wisely determined to spend the greatest portion of it upon his interior.  There would be no difficulty in embellishing the exterior with suitable architectural enrichments, if it be desired, and I think that some improvement might be effected in the parapet of the tower.  But the interior is really stately, and a person who does not see how vastly superior its effect is, to that of the generality of our new churches in dignity and refinement, must be singularly deficient in artistic discrimination.  The notion that a church must necessarily be Gothic, is a mere caricature of that reasonable admiration for mediÆval work, which is felt by all men of taste.  It is only a shallow mind which, because it prefers Westminster Abbey, is blind to the merits of St. Paul’s.  I yield to no one in my love of mediÆval art, but I recognise the merits of the really good work of all schools, and I simply cannot understand the dull and stupid prejudice which could propose to destroy an interesting and dignified building, and “to do away with an historical and artistic landmark, in order to substitute for it a church which would be undistinguishable from the crowd of common-place which this century is producing.”

I have so great confidence in the sound sense of the Trustees, and in the affection of Hampstead people for the associations of our old Parish Church, that I feel sure it only needs that the facts should be put clearly before them, to ensure the adoption of a judiciously conservative course.

There is one simple and sufficiently obvious plan by which the requirements of the case may be satisfactorily met.  It is most desirable to secure a properly arranged chancel.  To do this without loss of accommodation the church must be enlarged, but instead of adding to it toward the east, involving, as this does, the destruction of the Tower, and the costly expenditure of erecting a new one, the obvious thing is to extend it westward.

There is ample space for such an enlargement, and there are at least two modes in which this may well be carried out.

The simplest is to remove the galleries, or at least a portion of them, and to form a chancel by screening off the two eastern bays of the present nave, or even three if desired.  Many of our finest ancient churches has their chancels arranged upon this system.  I may mention, as well known examples, the churches of Grantham and Newark, and the noble church of St. Michael at Coventry.

To provide for the loss of accommodation involved in the removal of the galleries and the formation of a proper chancel, the nave should be extended westward.  It will be found that the addition of a second western transept of the same size as the present one would give the required number of seats, and if thought desirable, a western aisle, or narthex, might be added beyond the new transept, giving an opportunity for a Baptistry in its correct position, and of effective design.

This plan has the great advantage of interfering to the smallest possible extent with existing graves.  A certain portion of the ground required for this extension is already occupied by a terrace, and the fall of the ground is such, that the whole of the new work might be built on arches, or upon vaults enclosing the few interments which occur in that part of the church-yard.  If more room be required, the existing transept might be extended some 10 feet, north and south, without any interference with graves, and the new building would be widened by the same amount.

This question of graves seems to me of the utmost importance, and it has not, apparently received the attention which it deserves.  This consideration, by itself, is fatal to the plan of an eastward extension of the church, the ground to the east of the building being perfectly full of interments.

I have said that it might be necessary to retain a portion at least of the existing galleries.  I confess I should greatly deplore this necessity, and I doubt whether it really exists.

The population of the district attached to the Parish Church is about 7500.  The accommodation of the present church is nominally 1600, and this was the number which the competing architects were directed to provide for in their plans.  The actual accommodation of the church is, however, very much below this figure, and I do not believe that it ever really seats more than from 1200 to 1300.  Such a number at any rate is amply sufficient for the needs of the district, and this number could easily be provided for by the plan of extension which I have suggested, without any galleries whatever.  I need scarcely insist upon the great advantage to the proportions of the building and to the comfort of the congregation, which would be secured by the removal of all the galleries.

Such a scheme as I have indicated may be carried out thoroughly well for the sum which the Trustees have at their disposal, and there would still be a margin left for such decorations and improvements as are needed in the body of the existing church.  Should funds be unexpectedly forthcoming for the erection of a really handsome tower, no finer position could be desired, than the centre of the west front of the addition which I have proposed.  The fall of the ground would give extraordinary dignity to a tower so placed.  It would have a most striking effect from Frognal, and the view of it on approaching Hampstead from the west, seen, as it would be, in conjunction with the existing eastern tower, would be something quite unusually fine.  Anyone possessing the sense of architectural effect, will see at once the great dignity and picturesqueness of such a group.  A tower worthy of such a position is no doubt beyond the means of the Trustees, but it would afford a fine opportunity for the private munificence of some one or more of our wealthy parishioners.

If precedents be desired for such an arrangement of two towers, they will be found in Ely Cathedral, at Swaffham, and at Fakenham.  I may add that the organ would be placed in one of the aisles immediately behind the choir seats.

This plan it will be observed utilises the whole of the existing building, whereas that which has received the approval of the Trustees retains little of it beside the modern western transept.

If those who are anxious for proper chancel arrangements should be dissatisfied with a Quire marked off by screens, there is another mode of extending the Church, by which a constructional chancel and the fashionable apse may be obtained.  I am, so far, however, from sympathising with this feeling, that in large town churches I distinctly prefer what may be termed the Basilican arrangement.  I consider that a chancel distinguished by a proper number of steps and by screens behind the stalls, is far preferable, in a town church, to one formed in the construction of the building, involving as this does massive piers, obstructive to sight and sound.  With a chancel constructed as the Trustees propose, the great majority of persons seated in the aisles will see little or nothing of the choir.  I consider this a very serious defect.  If the congregation is to sing with the choir, as we all desire, it is of the greatest importance that we should be able to see as well as hear.  For the real uses of a modern church the interior cannot be too unobstructed, and it seems to me a retrograde movement to attempt to convert a church, which, but for the galleries, is singularly open and thoroughly congregational, into one in which at least one third of the people would not see nearly so well as they do at present.

Should, however, the opposite view unfortunately prevail, and a “constructional chancel” and an “apsidal termination” be decided on, there is no difficulty at all in providing for them upon the principle of a westward extension.

I should propose in this case simply to reverse the church, and to place the new chancel and apse at the west end.  The tower would thus remain as it is, but I should advise that a central entrance should be formed through it, where the present vestry is.  A second tower might be erected if funds allow, over the new chancel, with all the advantages of position upon which I have already dwelt in describing the former plan.  Spacious vestries might be formed at the side of the new chancel, or if preferred, below it, for which the fall of the ground and the ascent to the chancel would give ample height.  A very fine effect might be obtained by ascending to the chancel in the centre and descending on either side to the vestries below.

The only possible objection to this plan is one rather of prejudice than of knowledge.  It is thought by some persons that it is “incorrect” to place the holy table at the west end of a church instead of at the east.  Now it is a singular fact, known to every ecclesiologist, that although from the earliest times churches have always been built east and west, yet the eastern position of the holy table is of late introduction.  The primitive arrangement, as exhibited in the Basilicas, places the holy table almost universally at the western end of the church, and the minister stood upon its western side facing the congregation.  Not only does this arrangement prevail in St. Peter’s, [13] and in almost all the other Basilicas at Rome, including the exceedingly early church recently brought to light beneath the Basilica of San Clemente, but it is found also, without I believe an exception, in the churches discovered in Eastern Syria by the Count de VoguÈ, the greater portion of which are earlier than the reign of Constantine.  It is the arrangement of the church of the Holy Sepulchre, and it must be considered to be the original type adopted by the Christian church before mediÆval developments had interfered with the primitive idea.  A tradition of it still remains in many of the great German churches, which have a Quire and a High Altar at both ends of the church.  To come nearer home, there is at least one church in this parish built upon this plan.

It would be difficult to find an objection to so venerable a tradition, but some persons, not very conversant with such matters, have a fancy of their own, that the graves in a church yard point toward the holy table, and upon this ground they object to its removal westward.

A moment’s consideration will show that those graves which lie to the east of the church point away from the table, and that those in the extreme south of the church-yard can hardly be said to be directed towards the sanctuary, which is situated far to the north of them.

The eastward direction of graves has nothing whatever to do with the position of the chancel.  It originated from a belief, which prevailed in very early times, that in His second Advent, our Lord would appear from the East, an opinion curiously enough founded upon the text of Matthew xxiv. 27. [14]  Whatever may be the value of this belief the custom is venerable, and no one would wish to interfere with it, but it has nothing whatever to do with the position of the chancel and holy table.  Indeed I ought to apologise, Mr. Vicar, for taking up time in the exposure of so obvious a blunder.

This plan, without the second tower, would not be more expensive than the first one which I have described.  It meets the requirements of the case, provided the apse is a sine qua non, exceedingly well, and would provide all the accommodation which is really needed, without the retention of the galleries, and at a very moderate cost.  It has the further advantage of retaining the present approach to the church from the east, which, both from the lie of the ground, and the position of the chief part of our population, is the easiest and the most natural.

I have now, I trust, succeeded in showing that the necessity for destroying our Tower, and with it a great portion of the present church, is purely imaginary.  There are, as I have explained, at least two methods, by which all that the Parish desires may be provided without this sacrifice, and for the money which the Trustees actually see their way to raise.  I have also explained that the luxury, for so it is, of a handsome tower capable of holding a fine peal of bells, may very well be obtained upon either of these plans.  Indeed the architectural effect of a church with two towers, as I have suggested, would be unusually fine, and either scheme would give a dignity to our church, beyond its real dimensions, and not unworthy of its admirable position.  I have only to add, that in either case the exterior of the nave should be enriched with a balustrade, with proper architraves to the windows, and with pilasters between them. [15]  Such a treatment would make the exterior worthy of the interior, and would in itself raise the whole character of the building at a very moderate expense.

There is yet one other suggestion which I have to make before I conclude.

Should funds be available, from some unexpected source, it may be a question whether it would not be better to erect an entirely new church, upon a new and more convenient site.  I should myself incline very strongly to this view, in the case I have supposed.

It would be impossible to erect a large and handsome new church upon the site of the present one, without a most deplorable interference with numbers of interments, many of them of comparatively recent date.  The site too is not sufficiently central for the district now attached to the church, and it would not be difficult to find one in every way more suitable.

In this case the old church would remain as a very serviceable chapel of ease.  The galleries might be removed, the pews cut down, and proper chancel arrangements introduced at a very small cost.  We should thus be spared the loss of the associations which cling about our old church, and the convenience of an increasing population would be amply provided for.

This is too much, perhaps, to hope for.  I will only say that such a proposal, provided only it included the preservation of the present church, would have, I feel sure, the cordial support of the parishioners.

I must apologise, Mr. Vicar, for the length to which this letter has extended.  I could not in a shorter space, express fully and clearly my views upon a subject which interests me beyond expression.  These views are the result of more than two years consideration of the question by one who has the building before his eyes every day, and is one of the congregation who worship in it.  I am anxious beyond measure to divert the Parish from an act of vandalism, which it has been led to contemplate, mainly I believe from an erroneous opinion as to the condition of the present Tower.

As a professional man, I assert, as I have already done, that there are no grounds whatever for pulling down our Tower.  Such an act would be an outrage on good taste, and a wanton waste of public money.

I have the honour to be,

My dear Sir,
Your faithful servant,
GEORGE GILBERT SCOTT.

To the Rev^d. Sherrard B. Burnaby,
            Vicar of Hampstead.

Printed by J. Hewetson, 5, High Street, Hampstead.