664 PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION HB. 
Besides the body of the church which accommodates the 
congregation, I am frequently asked to provide a chancel, 
a porch, a vestry, and a belfry. With these accessories, it 
must be self-evident that even the amount of £350 is 
sufficiently low to tax the ingenuity of any architect who 
may desire to produce a creditable structure. 
Because a building must be erected cheaply. it does not 
of necessity follow that it should be absolutely hideous, 
much less does it require that the construction should be 
at variance with the accepted Jaws of science. 
There is a kind of parsimony which borders on the 
ridiculous. Beyond: a certai limit, the cost of efficient 
construction cannot be reduced, and that spurious economy 
which would strain the bounds of possibilities. 1s, in effect, 
_ the most unmitigated extravagance. This kind of cheap- 
ness is not legitimate; it is incompatible with art, and there- 
fore no honest architect could carry out a commission on 
these conditions. 
Even where sound construction is required at the lowest 
possible cost, I urge architects—in the interests of art—to 
decide whether or not they can afford to give the time 
such a building requires, before they accept the responsi- 
bility of preparing designs. It isa well-known fact in actual 
practice, that the more economically a building has to be 
erected, the more labour, thought, and time must be ex- 
pended on the scheme by the architect. It is often far 
easier to carry out a liberally appointed building where 
cost is not a very important object, than to design an 
economical structure where the architect is hampered at 
every turn through want of funds. 
In the first instance, however, the architect gets adequate 
remuneration for his work, but in the second case he does 
not receive a fair monetary return for his labour. Whilst 
he is scheming and planning to save his clients money, he is 
also working hard to cut down his own commission. 
I have pleasure in submitting to you a few designs for 
cheap wooden churches which I have from time to time 
carried out. I do not pretend that any of these structures 
are perfect; nobody, indeed, is more conscious of their 
shortcomings than the author. I know, however, that many 
of them are not exactly as they would have been had I been 
allowed to carry out my own dreams of structural beauty. 
The stern realities of actual practice are most potent in 
vapourising the ideal. Difficulties of site, difficulties of 
available meterials and workmanship, want of funds, the 
preconceived ideas and prejudices of employers, are all very 
real facts. Indeed, an architect scarcely ever has the 
