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

by Sir George Gilbert Scott

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.