Page:The Building News and Engineering Journal, Volume 22, 1872.djvu/500

 478 THE BUILDING NEWS. June 14, 1872. and one of them was promoted from being clerk of the works to be Lord High Chancellor of England. This did not look as if the architects belonged to an inferior order in society. Another had left behind a sketch book, showing the construction of parts of this building, but there is not a line in it which does not show that he was at least as much an architect as any of us understand by the term. I daresay such men may have added to their knowledge skill as workmen, but this did not detract from their power as artists. The question has been raised whether we, as architects, not being in the modern sense workmen, are to give over our profession into the hands of the masons and carpenters of the day. Even were we disposed to do so, and even if a clear case were made out that we ought to do so, unfor- tunately what we know of our workmen does not give us much encouragement to take that course. (Hear, bear.) The fact is that the circumstances of our day are entirely different to those of the days of the great Medieval builders. We must do what all sensible men have done at all periods of the world’s history—accommodate ourselves thoroughly to the circumstances under which we are placed, and make the very best of those circumstances. We should make the best use of the facilities at our command, and set our faces like a flint against the degrading customs and follies of our day, but we should not attempt to alter that which is not within our reach. Itis also our duty to make ourselves as perfect in our art as we can by diligent study. One valuable means of perfecting our knowledge of architecture is by measuring, sketching, and study- ing over and over again such buildings as those we have now around us, till we have mastered their principles, and have thoroughly imbued our minds with the character of their detail. If we do this with anything like system we shall do. We ought at least to attempt it. Some of us have done so. with more or less success. Unhappily, we cannot afford to be so polite as to shut our eyes to facts. There is a residuum of architects who pay no atten- tion whatever to the cultivation of their artistic powers: who are architects only in name, and whose works are a disgrace to the architectural works of the nation. These men are to be found all over the country. They fill London and our provincial towns, and, worst of all, the beautiful country, with buildings of a most degrading character. If the writers in reviews and newspapers would decline to receive this miserable overflow of barbarism and ugliness, they would do much more good than by directing their philippics against the works of the truest and most artistic of our architects. (Cheers.) If, however, those among us who are true artists are to be sacrificed for the good of our art—like the Chinese potter who is said to have thrown himself into his furnace as a propitiatory sacrifice to ensure the success of his work—we must be content; though I hope, if we are to be sacrificed, our work will not pass into the hands of that residuum of so-called architects to which I have referred, nor indeed, into the hands of any mere workmen. There is an ad- mirable race of young architects coming up—men not much known and very little patronised by the public, but men who are following up heart and soul the work which their predecessors have at- tempted—the revival of Gothic architecture in this country; and whether we are allowed to go on to the natural end of our term, or whether we are to be sacrificed at the behest of newspapers and reviews, I hope it will be to the school of rising architects I have mentioned that our works will be committed, for then we shall have hope for the future. But we must not be content with this. We must try to enable our workmen to improve also, and to become more fitted for their work than they are now. (Hear, hear.) ‘There is now among them an amount of ignorance—unconscious ignorance—which is degrad- ing to them and disgraceful to ourselves. It is for us, besides improving ourselves, to do everything we can to improve the education of those upon whose skill we have to depend for carrying out our designs, and I think that as we shall do best for our own culture by studying such buildings as these, we shall be doing the best for our workmen by inducing them to study them in like manner as we do ourselves. (Applause.) Mr. Scott concluded by pointing out some of the most salient points in the restoration of the new Chapter House. Mr. Srreer, in proposing a yote of thanks to Mr. Scott for his interesting address, said that the lecturer had spoken with something like regret at the absence of any record of the names of the architects who had built that minster. He (the speaker) was pleased to say, however, that there was every pro- bability of a grateful record being handed down to posterity of the man who had saved the Chapter House in which they were then assembled. That work was absolutely Mr, Scott’s, in the sense of his discovery of the great interest it possessed and the extreme care he had taken to trace the old work, and, finally, in lending the influence of his great name to enable the Government to obtain the necessary funds from Parliament for the restoration of the work as far as it had yet gone. It was not yet completed, but some day he hoped to have the satisfaction of seeing the windows filled with glass of a little better kind than that at present filling them. So much having been done, and so successfully, he hoped the money necessary for the completion of this really noble work would not be grudged. Sir Water Stirure seconded the motion in highly complimentary terms. Mr. Scorr having acknowledged the compliment, the meeting became conversational in character, Mr. Burges, Mr. Street, Mr. Waterhouse, Mr. Pain, and other gentlemen asking various questions as to particular features of the Chapter House, Mr. Scott courteously replying. Mr. Scott then conducted the party to the recently-exposed-to-view remains of S. Catherine's Chapel, which was the infirmary chapel. The existing part of the old hall of the infirmary was next visited, and shortly afterwards Mr. Scott took leave of the party, which was next conducted by Mr. Coad and Mr. Wright (clerk of the works) up to the triforium ; on to the roof of the Chapter House—the peculiar construction of which was explained by Mr, Coad; between the roof and vaulting of Henry VII.’s Chapel, where the construc- tion of the fan-groining was examined and eagerly discussed; below again into the erypt of the Chapter House; into the Chapels of S. Edmund and §8. Nicholas; and into Henry VII.’s Chapel—the tomb of that monarch by Torregiano attracting much atten- tion. The company, after spending some time in inspecting the shrine and chapel of the Confessor, visited other parts of the building, and did not leave until about four o'clock, having spent four or five hours in a very pleasant and, it is to be assumed, profitable manner. EVENING MEETING.—ARCHITECTURAL ART.—COMPETITIONS. The Sectional Meeting, nominally devoted to architectural art, took place at Conduit-street on Wednesday evening at eight o'clock, Sir M. Digby Wyatt in the chair, but by far the greater portion of the time of the meeting, which lasted till near eleven o'clock, was devoted to the subject of com- petitions. CHAIRMAN’S SPEECH.—ARCHITECTS AND THEIR CRITICS, The CuarrMan said: Gentlemen, it is not often that we London architects have the opportunity of rubbing ourselves and sharpening our wits against the keen intellects of our country brethren. It is more, perhaps, in consideration of architectural art than questions of architectural practice only that this really useful instigation of one another’s brains is to be desired in our professional life. The sub- jects which are to engage our attention to-night are ‘“Modern Church Architecture in Scotland,” and “Competitions.” On both of these I have no doubt that the paper and documents which will be laid before you will be of extreme interest, and will engage your serious attention. I do not intend by any lengthened remarks to delay you at all from proceeding to address yourselves to these questions, but I desire, before you commence with those sub- jects, to call attention for one moment, not so much to the abuse of us as a profession which is so very freely indulged in by the public and the press—for as to this point I think my brother on Monday evening did ample justice—but I wish to say a few words in vindication of us from what I think is a very un- fair prejudice against us. This prejudice consists in the supposition that we, as a profession, lag a little, if not a great way, behind other professions. This is a very general impression throughout the country, and comparisons are frequent and invidious as to our position in relation to foreign architects of the present day, or to our own architects of the past. Now, nobody who thinks for a moment what our daily duties are, what numerous and varying ques- tions and conditions we have to consider, and what our position is in relation to general education and to the march of civilisation, can fail to see that our whole intellectual powers must be most actively exercised. (Hear, hear.) The whole economy of the nineteenth century is an economy of the most complex kind, involving not only questions of science, questions of prudence, and questions of combinations of art methods, but other questions which fifty years ago were never thought of. We have in the present day an architect called upon to design decorations for a cathedral on a very large scale, whereas formerly a painter would have been called in. Our duties have become more multifarious with the pro- gress of civilisation, I am not aware that anybody who considers that we are engaged in the reconstruc- tion of large cities; that we have so great a demand made upon us for church architecture; that so much has been done and is being done in the restoration of ecclesiastical and other structures throughout the country; and that there have been built a large number of lunatic asylums, hospitals, schools, &c., rendered necessary by the growth of civilisation in this nineteenth century, and which are the growths of comparatively recent years—I say, considering all these things, I am not aware that architects have in the slightest degree failed in doing what they have been called upon by the public to do. I think that the more our real position is known to the public, the more we stand before the world—and, above all, stand together—the more will the position which we occupy beesteemed and valued. (Applause.) I have now great pleasure in calling upon Mr. Honeyman to read his paper on modern Scottish ecclesiastical architecture. Mr. Joun Honeyman, of Glasgow, then read the following paper :— ON MODERN SCOTTISH ECCLESIASTICAL ARCHITECTURE, We cannot intelligently consider the rise and pro- gress of church art apart from church history. In Scotland, as we shall find, the principal events in the history of the Church had a most important bearing on the art of the country. First of all, the character of the Reformation, the uncompromising spirit of op- position and hatred to anything which has been as- sociated with Popery which distinguished the Reformers, led to the almost total annihilation of the Medieval churches. These were the ‘ nests,” redolent not of sanctity but superstition, so peculiarly obnoxious to Knox and his followers, and they weremercilessly doomed to destruction ; and now, unlike your more fortunate country, Scotland is almost destitute of Medieval parish churches. This deplorable and exaggerated iconoclasm was, of course, but the natural product of the reaction from old abuses on men of strong convictions and determined will; but the austerity and contempt for all external accessories then inculeated stamped the Presbyterian Church of Scotland with a character which is re- cognisable even now, and which necessarily affected and still affects the architecture of her buildings in aremarkable manner. The early churches, often built from the ruins (the rub/e of the ruins chiefly) of their beautiful predecessors, were not only ugly but uncomfortable—on principle, I presame—and these peculiarities were lovingly adhered to, with few exceptions, till avery recent period. The exceptions occurred chiefly in the larger towns, and as might be expected in the circumstances, the first churches erected with any pretension to architectural character were not Gothic. If, as the Reformers apparently believed, the architecture was potent to propagate the infection of idolatry, their successors seemed to prefer the idolatry of Greece and Rome to that of Christendom, or perhaps they wisely concluded that there would be less risk from contact with a style which could claim so little vital connection withits ancient source. It may be noted in passing, however, that during the period of the Classic revival, the Presbyterians were not alone in their preference for churches in the Classic style, of which there are so many well-known examples here, and it may be fairly questioned whether, after all (having regard to the special requirements of the building), the Classic style is not absolutely the most suitable for a Presbyterian place of worship. Before referring more particularly to these require- ments, it will be necessary to glance rapidly at some of the more recent events which have chiefly con- tributed to foster a spirit of liberality in matters ecclesiastical unknown to former generations of Presbyterians. Addressing as I now do an English audience, I may assume, I think, that you do not know much about the Church of Scotland, and still less, probably, about the churches of Scotland. Let me explain, then, that besides the Church of Scot- land—the Established Church—there are two large bodies of Presbyterians—the Tree Church and the United Presbyterian Church—besides some smaller bodies holding doctrines in all essential particulars identical, and differing only in their relation to the civil power. Their forms of worship are alike, and their requirements, therefore, in the shape of eccle- siastical buildings are precisely similar. Mostof the secessions from the Church of Scotiand have had their origin in differences of opinion regarding patronage and the connection between Church and State. These have led to the formation of the United Presbyterian Chureh, which originated in 1733. Its adherents are entirely opposed on principle to State patronage, or even State aid. They are “voluntaries” pure and simple. The Free Church occupies asomewhat different position. It came into existence in 1843, and was the result of a disruption