142 
R.A., who carries—as from his high reputation he deservedly 
should—great weight amongst the modern school, and he was 
good enough to say: “ Perhaps the best thing that has been said 
on the subject this evening fell from Mr. Bentinck [here is the 
report, that you may satisfy yourselves that I am reading what was 
actually said], who said that whether an anachronism should be 
preserved or swept away depended entirely on whether it was in 
itself a good or a bad work of art. But, unfortunately, to decide 
between what is good and what is bad is the question, and it is 
here that the difficulty lies. On this matter of the Canterbury 
stalls, for instance, there are evidently two opinions. I myself 
decidedly hold Mr. Bentinck’s view, that they should be preserved. 
The reason why the new Society sets its face against a restoration, 
is because they fear that the enthusiasm of the restorer might 
remove that which is in itself valuable, although it may be an 
anachronism in regard to style.” 
Now, if discussion had stopped here, the principles asserted 
by Mr. Street and Mr. Poynter, as experts, and by myself, as a 
humble inexpert, might have been taken to command the assent 
of the majority of those present; but immediately after Mr. 
Poynter had concluded, Sir Edmund Beckett—well known as a 
voluminous writer on architecture—entered the arena. His observ- 
ations will not, I think, add to his reputation as a critic, but for 
my present purpose it is fortunate he made them, because I am 
now enabled to place before you with tolerable clearness the main 
issue which arises out of this vo and anéi restoration controversy, 
and which, in my view, should control the action of those who 
have the power of the purse. Sir Edmund Beckett said: “I am 
not so familiar with Canterbury Cathedral as Mr. Bentinck, but I 
should not advocate the keeping of Italian work in a Gothic build- 
ing unless it was something very exceptionally good. Mr. Bentinck 
said he would lay down the principle of keeping everything 
‘that was good ;’ but when you turn this principle into practice 
we have to answer the question—What is good? That is just 
where people differ; and this shows the folly of attempting to 
settle these things by principles.” And further on Sir Edmund 
