Rat itll 
135 
place to which the original belonged. Finally, the fabric, with all 
the evidences of its later history removed, though with a few of 
those of its earlier history, in fortunate cases, recovered— 
transformed here into a fabric—avowedly new, there into one 
professedly the model of its former self—is made ready for its new 
fittings, and receives them in the shape of open seating, machine- 
carved, in stained deal, with Gothic finials ; a new pulpit, carved 
in a proper Gothic taste, of Bath or Caen stone; subscription 
windows in stained glass of the most approved modern medizval 
design ; a smooth laid floor, with richly patterned tiles for the 
chancel ; new Gothic altar-rails in brass ; a fine reredos, if sub 
scribers have again been liberal, of marble or alabaster and mosaic 
in place of the old Ten Commandments ; a new altar and rich 
embroidered altar-cloth ; new iron gas-fittings, save the mark of 
Gothic colouring and design, and all the rest of the proper 
and approved appointments.” 
These observations may be taken to sum up the leading 
allegations of an indictment against that destructive restoration 
which became so general when the success of the Gothic revival 
was established, that Sir Gilbert Scott, the acknowledged chief of 
the Anglo-Goths, the creator, in fact, of the modern Frankenstein 
which has since appalled and bewildered its constructors, published 
from time to time a series of manifestoes—the first dated as far 
back as 1841—against the course of Vandalism, which had, as he 
said, justly made the very word “restoration” a byeword and a 
_ reproach, and had robbed England of a large portion of her 
“antiquities.” I could refer to many extracts from Sir Gilbert 
Scott’s writings, all expressing, at great length, the same censures 
and same sentiments at various periods, but I will give you a few 
extracts, sufficient only to establish my point. I have already cited 
the passage of 1841, and here is another :—“I have long and most 
painfully felt that the modern system of radical restoration is doing 
more towards the destruction of ancient art than the ravings of 
fanaticism, or the follies of churchwardens have succeeded in 
effecting. The existence and authenticity of these invaluable relics 
is invaded on both sides.” Then, in 1873, he says :—“ Our old 
