CHURCH BUILDING.
That we live in a Church-building age is made manifest in the foregoing pages. Of the fifty-three Churches and Chapels in Kensington, fifteen have been erected and opened within the last five years; sixteen others within ten years; and in all within the past twenty years there have been no less than forty-three erections. Five Churches and Chapels are over twenty years of age, three over thirty, and two have stood for a century,—and still remain. The old St. Mary Abbotts has succumbed to the weight of years, and a new and splendid fabric has just taken its place. A half a million of money is represented in these structures, by far the larger half of which has been raised and expected within the last decade. Whatever the verdict of posterity may be upon these buildings from an artistic point of view, it will not hesitate to accord the high merit of distinguished energy and liberality. As to Architecture, some few of these erections embody and will hand down to future times examples of the improved taste of our day; but for the most part they have been erected under pressure of urgent necessity, arising from the rapid and overwhelming outflow of population towards the western suburbs. The question has been all along how places could be erected with sufficient speed to save new communities from habitual forgetfulness of the Sabbath and public worship for the mere want of places in which to assemble. Never has been in the past, never probably will be in time to come, an extensive suburban area like this so rapidly covered with habitations of men and all the concomitants of our social life. So recently as 1845, when the Church of St. John was erected on the crest of Notting-hill, the eye ranged from that eminence north and west only over open fields, and it was thought at the time that the Church had been placed too far in the country. Yet St. John’s now stands in the centre as it were of a vast city, the unbroken lines of which stretch around and away for miles. St. John’s would never now be thought or spoken of as “in the fields” any more than St. Paul’s, Knightsbridge, or St. Mary’s, Paddington. The same is true of many other Churches first erected on the border-land; and it is not until we realize the extraordinary rapidity with which this mighty change has been wrought, that we can understand the comparative hurry in which some of the Churches have been built; but in most cases they are substantial buildings, and offer scope for further decoration and filling up of the Architect’s original designs as opportunity offers.
The province and purpose of the Temporary Iron Church has been most marked in Kensington. There are but few exceptions to the rule that, as to the later erections Iron has been the pioneer of stone or brick. It is utilized for the first formation of districts and sub-parishes, and for the collection of congregations. The young clergyman settles himself down to a new locality, puts up the Temporary Church at a small cost,—in the midst of bricks and lime, heaps, and scaffolding all around; the houses, however, are soon completed and occupied, and in two or three years he feels himself strong enough to turn his attention seriously to a permanent erection, and in many cases in an incredibly short time the work is accomplished, and the useful Iron friend is sold or hired out to some brother minister who wishes to imitate the process in another place. Of course the Iron Church comes in for its share of contempt from the fastidious. It is “dingy-looking,” unattractive in every architectural respect, and denounced with its so-called “tin-kettle” bell as a disfigurement to the neighbourhood, and offensive to the ear. But it does a good work notwithstanding, and ought to be highly prized and respected for its work’s sake. There are, moreover, instances in which some of the objectionable features can be got over, and, at least, the interior of the Iron Church be made elegant and inviting. The nicest individual ought to feel pleased with an interior like that of St. John the Baptist’s Church in Holland-road; where Mr. Edmeston, the Architect, has displayed a taste and contrivance which almost impose on one the idea that he is in a well-built permanent Church instead of a temporary one. He had previously exhibited great taste in his treatment of the interior of St. Peter’s Notting-hill, which is considered one of the most beautiful in London; and with a far inferior subject at St. John the Baptist’s has not been wanting to himself. Indeed, we could scarcely have believed that so good general effect could have been wrought out between iron walls. The people at that Church can well be content with their lot for some little time to come, should it not yet be convenient to build in a more costly and enduring style.
We are glad to be able to supply in these pages views of a number of the principal Churches and Chapels, which will give the reader a better idea of the state of Church Architecture among us than any pen and ink description without their aid. To begin with the new parish Church; both the exterior and interior are seen as reduced for this work from larger drawings, by permission of the Architect, Mr. G. G. Scott, by Mr. Avery, the photographer, of the Ladbroke-road. They make beautiful pictures, and show an edifice which, when all complete, will be in every way worthy of the Court Suburb. We have also a capital drawing of the old Church—In Memoriam—taken expressly for the “Index,” that it might not be quite lost sight of amidst the superior splendour of the modern temple. And to complete the series, Messrs. Hill and Son, of the Euston-road, have enabled us to introduce a woodcut of the magnificent new organ they are building for the Church, and whose tones will be heard at the opening in a few weeks’ time. These illustrations of themselves would have been sufficient to give unusual interest to the work; but we are favoured with many more. Kensington Churches, as a whole, are so fairly and fully illustrated, that nearly every style of building is seen that has hitherto obtained among us. St. Peter’s, Onslow-gardens, through the esteemed favour of the founder and patron, C. J. Freake, Esq., shows a fine interior as well as neat exterior; and St. Jude’s, South Kensington, the same—only in the latter case the spire represented is not yet built. St. Paul’s, Onslow-square, is a specimen of plain unambitious gothic, in great measure purposely so, as according with the order of things instituted there; but partly, also, from the necessity existing at the time for making haste with the work. St. Mark’s, Notting-hill, is an example of another kind, and by the kindness of the Rev. E. K. Kendall, the Vicar, we are enabled to introduce an excellent engraving. Mr. Keeling has here displayed professional skill and freedom,—as also in St. George’s, Campden-hill. The picturesque effect both in outline and detail is boldly sought, and successfully obtained; and we have a good view of the exterior. Mr. Varley’s Tabernacle, as will be seen, is putting on a very improved countenance, under the hands of Messrs. Habershon and Pite, and from being utterly devoid of attraction, will be henceforth recognized as an ornament to the neighbourhood. The beautiful Church of St. Barnabas, one of the very best specimens of Ecclesiastical Architecture in the parish, together with its useful appendage the “Church House,” are seen by favour of the Rev. Dr. Hessey, who has kindly supplied the blocks for the purpose. The “Church House” is capable of being converted at any convenient time into a building of greater parochial importance; and, in fact, considering the popularity of the Church in that immediate neighbourhood under the good influence of Dr. Hessey, the time may not be far distant.
Through the good offices of Mr. Bridgnell, of Warwick-gardens, we have an engraving Wesleyan Chapel there. It is the nearest neighbour of Dr. Hessey’s Church, and one of the best productions of Mr. W. Pocock, who is a popular Architect in Wesleyan circles. He has here produced a Chapel, or rather a Church, which, for architectural expression and cheapness combined, may compare with any thing we have seen. Nothing has struck us more in this review of our Churches than the unaccountable difference in the mere cost of production. In Kensington we can point to Chapels and Churches that have cost the promoters nearly as much again as the Warwick-gardens Wesleyan Chapel cost, and are barely half so large, commodious, or beautiful. In this matter there surely must be an open path to improvement. It is painful even to think that £8000 and £10,000 are expended upon places inferior in every respect to others that cost about half the sum. It is good for people who are thinking of building to take this fact into consideration. If they desire to have superb structures, and are prepared to pay for them, let them take care they have full value for their money; if otherwise, and they have only moderate means, still let them get as much as their funds can procure.