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.