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

by Sir George Gilbert Scott

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.