Remarks upon the proposed destruction of the tower of the Parish Church of St. John, Hampstead

by Sir George Gilbert Scott

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.