Page:The first report, etc., of the Lichfield Society.djvu/26

22 suggestion that might come from this Society, however valuable it might be.

Now, Sir, in looking at our duties, I apprehend we shall not quarrel with architects as to the style of design, we care not whether it be Norman, Early English, Decorated, or Perpendicular, or a combination to obtain picturesque effect, and which I, myself, advocate; but I trust, Sir, we shall bestir ourselves in matters of detail: the proportion of parts, the form and depth of mouldings, the extent and application of its decoration, both to the exterior and interior, the material to be employed, and the general construction of the whole. I trust this will be its legitimate course, and unless this Society is qualified to perform the task we shall fail in the object we seek.

Now, as to the expense of a good substantial church worthy to be classed with our ancient examples. In these days everything appears to be done by the Rule of Three. If my friend in Cheshire built a church to contain five hundred persons for £1000, what will your friend in Staffordshire build a church for, to contain one thousand persons? Why, Sir, the answer would be, £2000, or £2 per sitting.—Diocesan Church Building Societies make their grants (if I mistake not) on this principle. In the course of my practice I have been taunted in this particular, though I have never yet seen a church completed at that rate per sitting. It has generally happened, either from the ignorance of the architect, or the cunning of the builder, these cheap churches, meagre as they are in design, have seldom been completed for less than £3 per sitting; and unless the price of material and labour is reduced to a much greater extent than I expect, we must go on a more liberal scale—say £4 per sitting, and if a tower £5 per sitting: this is the minimum of calculation in the most favourable locality.

This position may be somewhat startling, yet I think it may be met with advantage in another way. I would ask, did our ancestors complete their churches as we now see them at any one period? Certainly not. An anaylzation of parts shews clearly that centuries have rolled on from the commencement to the completion. I will give one example, St. Michael's Church, Lichfield, which I am now restoring, under the auspices of Mr. Greene, and although he is present I will say, one of the most valuable Members of this Society, and to whom (going a little out of the path) a debt of gratitude is due from every sound Churchman in that parish, for the very spirited manner in which he is carrying out his taste and feeling in the restoration of that church, and at a great expense from his private purse.

The original church consisted of a nave and chancel in Early English,