1R44.] 



THE CIVIL liNCINEKR AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



441 



preacliers to behold. We cannot follow old proportions. Then, we 

 say, adopt ;i style in wliicli you can [do what ?'\ Do not abuse ancient 

 designs, &c." 



As far as we can understand this curiously-worded passage, it 

 tacitly admits the expediency of adapting ecclesiastical architecture 

 to our present wants — a principle absolutely the reverse of that so 

 earnestly advocated in these papers at their comniencenient. 11 then, 

 a year or two have coniertod the Camden Society .so far, that they 

 now contradict their own primary dogmas, may we not luipe that at 

 no distant period, they will apply tin- principle which thry have ad- 

 mitted, and allow that it is well that a Protestant congregalion should 

 be so placed as to hear the minister as well as sec him, and that it is 

 not well, while our churches are already too small to contain even a 

 fraction of the population, while so large a proportion of the people 

 are suffering from spiritual starvatinn, are practically without a Sab- 

 bath, and never participate in the most ordinary rites of a Christian 

 land that one-third of the existing church room should be taken 

 away to satisfy a controverted antiquarian tenet. 



We cannot better conclude these remarks on cliancels and their 

 uses, than with the following quotations from the paper under review. 

 The restoration of the rood-screen being determined upon, the 

 writers proceed : — 



" Assuming it impossible to restore rood-lofts — wo shall get as 

 near as we can to the old position, by reading the epistle and the 

 gospel on the eastern side of the rood-screen. And there will be this 

 practical advantage gained, that the jieople will belter hear icliat as 

 being addrtssed to tliem it is proptr that they should hear, namely, the 

 epistle and gospel. [It is of no consequence whether the people hear 

 the rest of the service.] We do indeed hope that the time will come 

 when he that evangelizeth may again, as in ancient days, get him up 

 into the high mountains." 



That our readers may comprehend tlie dark sublimity of the above 

 passage, we mav inform them that the latter part of it refers to the 

 known Catholic custom of reading the gospel from an elevated place. 

 And here we leave the subject, with this simple question — If these 

 be the uses to which chancels are to be applied, had we not better 

 have no chancels at all ? 



We have not time to consider so fully as we hoped to have done, 

 some other favourite doctrines of the Camden Society. We had in- 

 tended, for instance, to have controverted their assertion, that gal- 

 leries are wholly ina<lmissible in churches. We cannot give more 

 than a mere outline of the course of argument which we should have 

 pursued. That the galleries at present seen in most cliurches are 

 hideous deformities cannot be denied. They disfigure the architec- 

 tural beauty, and llienfore diminish the fitness and true worth of sa- 

 cred buildings, by cutting in half the shafts of pillars and the windows 

 which were built to light an unbroken space. But, as we have befi.re 

 hinted, a distinguishing feature of pointed architecture is what mav 

 be termed, for want of a belter word, its adaptability, that is the 

 facility with which it may be applied under new circumstances and 

 to nevv purposes. It therefore is by no means certain, whatever may 

 be the detects of existing galleries, that in new churches galleries 

 cannot be constructed without offending true taste and architeclur.d 

 propriety. Indeed, we may observe, that our cathedrals themselves 

 suggest all the essential constituents of galleries in their beautifid 

 triforia. 



The number of the " Ecelesiologist" for August, commences wilh 

 a cheerful chapter on church-yards. The following are said to be 

 " the chief requisites of a well-furnished (!) church-yard :" — 



" A low stout fence of stone, lych-gate, a church-yard cross, a yew 

 tree, and a well." The object of some of these ariicks of f urn it are 

 may not be obvious at first — the latter especially puzzled us nut a 

 little — however here is the explanation: — 



" Their use is to supply water for holy baptism, and for the neces- 

 sary purposes of the church, and likewise to afford refreshment to the 

 weary pilgrim. In iome cases the water i» iaid to have worked medi- 

 cinal or miraculous cures." 



Were they true cures? 



Two or three pages further on we are treated to some speculations 

 on the warming of churches; the ideas have certainly the merit of 

 novelty, h'irst, " cast-iron stoves are inadmissible." The reason fur 

 drawing invidious distinctions between cast and wrought iron is not 

 assigned; the effects of the former, however, are stated to be "to 

 stitie the sickly, scorch the strong, amuse the irreverent, and distract 

 and unutterably disgust all who have the least sense of Catholic pro- 

 priety." We never remember to have read a more incoherent sen- 

 tence. .Some nice inventions are offered as substitutes for east-iron 

 stoves; but the suggestions are made with evident reluctance, for 

 " our religious forefathers required no artificial warmth. Moderns 

 will make themselves comfortable in church." The first contrivance 



is an 0|)en brazier to be used " only on the coldest days," or " lighted 

 for an hour or two before service, and afterwards extinguished." 

 The great merit of this plan, it is stated, would be that the congre- 

 gation would get a good view of the fire ; though how they are to do 

 so if the fire be extinguished before service, we do not clearly com- 

 prehend. 



" It is well known that the look of a fire is almost as comforting as 

 its actual warmth. Indeed, we have known instances in which old 

 ladies declared themselves warmed by the sight of stoves, which on 

 enquiry were found to contain no fuel at all." — p. 130. 



Are the writers here alluding apologetically to themselves? 



The next plan is to have " a simple ring of iron, say one of the size 

 anil kind which encircles a coach wheel," laid on the pavement and 

 filled " wilh a bushel of hot coals from a furnace." This is one of the 

 most comfortable plans we ever heard of; we confess, however, a pre- 

 judice in favour of heating by steam or hot water. 



On a cold raw wintry day — say during a sudden thaw after a severe 

 frost, when the snow lies in smooth half melted patches on the ground, 

 and a high east wind is roaring and rumbling about the old church 

 tower, there must be somelhing extremely exhilirating, not to say 

 healthful, in sitting for two hours cheered by a dist.mt " simple ring, 

 &c.," with feet damped by snow-water resting on a stone pavement. 

 But " moderns will make themselves comfortable at church." 



The grand recipe of all, however, the master device, is reserved for 

 the last ; it is — daily service, which is said to be sufficient of itself to 

 render churches perfectly warm and comfortable. Concerning which 

 substitute for the handiwork of Rippon and Burton, we will merely 

 ask the Ecclesiolngists whether they ever, when freshmen, attended 

 the daily morning service in their college chapels during winter. 



If we examine seriously the causes which have induced the gentle- 

 men who "do" the "Ecelesiologist" to utter such absurdities on the 

 subject of warming churches, we shall find the basis of their views to 

 be two- fold. Dislike of innovation is the first reason for trying to 

 supersede the various beautiful contrivances which have been invented 

 from time to time for w;irming large buildings by steam, hot water, 

 or hot air conveyed by pipes. But we have already shewn that this 

 periodical itself admits the principle that change of requin-meuts in 

 buildings justifies corresponding adaptations of structure. This con- 

 cession is made in the chapter on lancet architecture. But, even had 

 no such concession been previously made, might we not fairly consider 

 it virlu illy granted in the very paper under consideration, lor to what 

 else can we attribute the suggestion of ohj/ stove apparatus whatever, 

 in com|)liance with the modern desire (founded undoubtedly on the 

 most rational principles,) for increased warmth and ventilation. We 

 may, therefore, fairly consider the first argument disposed of on the 

 ground of inconsistency, as well as for causes already noticed in dis- 

 cussing the doctrim; of architectural immutabilily. 



The second reason of the " Ecelesiologist" in the present case ap- 

 pears to be, that the flue-pipes and stoves will, if unconcealed, be in- 

 jurious to architectural effect, and if concealed, will violate the canon 

 so strongly, and for the most part correctly, insisted upon by the Cam- 

 den Society — that all imitative materiaU-, deceptive concealment, and 

 all illusive artifices are injurious to the dignity of architecture. We 

 assent cordially to this opinion in the form in which we have expressed 

 it; but we hold that it is not concealment merely, but rfecf^/Zw con- 

 cealment, which constitutes the real offence against correct taste. In 

 a palace it would be ridiculous and intolerable to place in a conspi- 

 cuous position the kitchens, cellars and sculleries; and surely the 

 architect would not be open to the imputation of deception who kept 

 these offices simply out of view. In the same way, pipes for convey- 

 ance of heat are perfectly allowable in churches, even when so ar- 

 ranged as not to be visible to the congregation. The real architec- 

 tural offence would consist in making those jiipes resemble shafts of 

 pillars, muUions, or mouldings, or in sinking them into the walls and 

 painting them over to imitate stone or wood. We therefore come 

 to the conclusion that the above convenient methods of diffusing heat 

 may be employed in churches, without offending the severest rules of 

 architectural criticism, provided the metal pipes be so arranged as to 

 perform their office successfully without being offensively prominent. 



We must, however, content ourselves with these brief and imper- 

 fect considerations of some of the doctrines of the Camden Society. 

 We have not space here to explain our views adequately and fairly, 

 but we must hope to have hereafter an opportunity of amplifying and 

 supporting them. For the present we take leave of this society with 

 a sincere acknowledgment of the benefits they have conferred on 

 architecture by labouring for its reformation. But while we cordially 

 sympathise with their labours, we cannot but regret that they them- 

 selves have done so much to render their own knowledge and talents 

 ineffective. They have shewn a disposition for severe criticism — but 

 that might arise fronr honest zeal; they often display flippancy —but 



