666 PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION H. 
The scale of our ordinary wooden churches is not 
sufficiently extensive to admit of any unnecessary multi- 
- plication of architectural features, and I strongly recom- 
mend that accessory accommcdation shall wherever 
practicable be so utilised as to increase and not diminish the 
scale of the structure. 
This idea has induced me in some instances to place 
the vestry at the end of chanéel behind the altar; and,in 
my judgment, a distinct gain has been thereby effected, not 
only inthe outside and inside appearance of the building, 
but also in economy. I have employed this arrangement 
both in Anglican and Roman Catholic churches, and the 
only complaint I have received is that when members 
of the congregation use the vestry, as they are sometimes 
compelled to do, there is no-means of getting from the 
church to the vestry without crossing the length of the 
chancel. This is considered to be undesirable. 
When the vestry is placed in this position, the floor is 
fixed a few steps below the floor line of chancel. A low 
screen hides the occupants of vestry, but this screen is not 
sufficiently high to hide the east window. The vista down 
the building is thus lengthened, and, according to a well- 
know artistic truism, the picturesqueness of the interior 
is heightened by the partial obstruction which the screen 
offers. 
I have also come to the conclusion that it is not advisable 
to make the roof of chancel lower than the line of main 
roof if the size of the building is small. This may be a 
matter of choice, and, of course, circumstances alter cases ; 
but, generally speaking, I fancy the results are more satis- 
factory where the ridge-line is level, besides which the break 
of level means more expense, less space, and a more fussy 
outline. 
The main point to bear in mind when designing a 
wooden church is to see that the ornament and construction 
used is absolutely suited to the material which is being 
employed. All imitation of purely stone construction 
should be rigidly shunned. 
A pointed arch carried out in timber is a miserable sham. 
It does not make the design any truer to the historic style 
it parodies, but stamps the-building as the work of an 
idealess copyist fit only to perpetuate that abominable 
debasement of honest construction known as “ Carpenter’s 
Gothie.”’ 
The deception deceives on one—it has not even the merit 
of being beautiful but even if it was, the wooden arch 
should be condemned, because such a construction is 
