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
