106 THE BUILDING NEWS. Se Fes. 9, 1872.
pared to hear instantly and repeatedly that
their conditions were impracticable, and to
hear it without being moved in the least from
their determination. The only difficulty in
having such conditions complied with is the
difficulty of getting men to think ; and with-
out thought, unfortunately, neither good art
nor much else that is good can possibly be
obtained. Ifa higher standard both of archi-
tecture and of convenience were set up by
the promoters of chapel-building, a higher
point of excellence would very soon be
reached, It is forthe interest of architectural
progress, and for the interest, moreover, of
every architect who deserves the name, that
a high standard should be insisted on, and such
a one the conditions above-named would
easily supply. How many of the designers
whose names now figure in the ‘‘ Year Book”
would then continue to appear there, it is
difficult to say. .We would fain hope that
there is more in some of them than can be
supposed from their works, and that they
only want the stimulus of necessity to make
them surpass themselves. Nonconformists,
however, are not bound down to these familiar
names. In the ‘Year Book” for 1872 we
already note several fresh ones. Amongst
our old acquaintances we may observe that
even Mr. Pritchett has produced part of a
new design, having so far adopted the prin-
ciples we have always tried to advocate, as to
make a conspicuous feature of his gallery
staircase. With a loftier and less crowded
tower, and, perhaps, a somewhat shorter
spire, his Holywell Green Church would be,
at least externally, above the average of his
designs. Within, it has the stereotyped rows
of nave piers, and, we may safely conclude,
all their usual consequences.
The proposed Oakhill Congregational
Church, by Mr. Lewis Banks, illustrates the
totally unnecessary way in which columns
are often employed, to forward the vain am-
bition of making a small building look like
alarge one. A first glance at the view gave
us the impression of a something approach-
ing the dimensions of a cathedral: there is a
nave with broad aisles, a polygonal transept,
and a circular apse of seyen bays, not to
speak of a lofty-looking tower with side and
centre buttresses to each face. We turned
to the description, and found the total length
to be 60ft. 9in., and the number of sittings, in-
cluding those in a singers’ gallery, to be 260.
If this is not building, as Mr. Ruskin says, like
frogs and mice, we do not know what is. One
step more in this direction and we shall see
somebody making a duplicate of Wren’s first
model for S. Paul's, as the neatest thing for
a small congregation. ‘This, as every one
knows who has seen it at the South Kensing-
ton Museum, will allow six or seven people to
squeeze into it, while it would look even more
imposing on paper than the pocket-chapel at
Oakhill. What possible excuse can there be
for dividing a room that will only seat 260
into a nave and aisles, and not by stone
columns either, which, if they are inconvenient,
may be beautiful, but, as in this case, by
wretched iron props? Weshouldrecommend
Mr. Banks, before it is too late, to compare
his elevations, scale for scale, we will not say
with those of Alby or Gerona cathedrals, but
with those of any ordinary-sized church by
Mr. Street or Mr. Brooks. ‘‘ This Oakhill
miniature,” we are told in the ‘‘ Year Book,”
“will be an ornament tothe neighbourhood.”
In what way it will be so, itis hard to discover ;
it will be too big for a chimney ornament,
and far too dwarfish for one of any other kind.
The Congregational Church at Dedham,
Essex, by Messrs. Sulman and Rhodes, is one
of those in which the maximum of accommo-
dation hashad to be provided at the minimum
of cost. Such examples, when, as this does,
they avoid vulgarity, cannot be very severely
criticised. The general shape here is not
pleasing, butit is to be remembered there are
extenuating circumstances. To have narrowed
and lengthened the plan would vastly have
improved the proportions ; but it may be that
_this, however, is partly owing to the fact that
the nature of the site did not allow of this. As an alternative, it might have been wise to omit the tower and spend the money in raising the walls; but though the omission would have been no loss, the saving of expense would have been but small. A more satis- factory design by the same architects is that of the little chapel at Birdbush, in Wiltshire. It seats 250 people for less than £850, and judging from the exterior view, is a quiet, unassuming, and creditable little work. , The chimneys remind us, perhaps rather too, for- cibly, of Mx. Pritchard ; but, after all for simple structures in rural districts, Mr. Pritchard is one of the safest guides to follow. At White- haven Chapel Mr. Lewis Banks has accom- plished something of a feat in chapel build- ing, and has combined all the ugliness of the old-fashioned meeting-house with more than all the inconvenience of the regu- lation Gothic church. This inconvenience, it is true, chiefly affects the Sunday School children, and, of course, as they cannot resent their treatment, it does not matter how they are used. In the present case they are ranged round the area in galleries, with such an array of piers and columns before them that we question if one in ten of them can see the minister. Our experience of inconvenient arrangements has not been small, but we never met with any- thing like this before. TLow many columns, in the whole may be planted in front of these galleries we do not know, but only as far as the internal view extends, there are twenty massive piers of brick or masonry, seventy-two shafts attached to these piers, and /orty detached shafts carrying arches, all standing before the seats meant for the Sunday School children! A greater mockery than to talk of those poor children being present at the service cannot be conceived, and in common humanity, we hope the teachers will make them comfortable, and encourage them to pass the hours of their imprisonmentin sleep. The internal dimensions of the chapel, with more than twenty piers, and with at least a hundred and twelve shafts to support a range of arches, are 77it. by 45it.! The area Seats are raised after the manner of an amphitheatre, and are curved in parts to make them face the pulpit. ‘ This arrange- ment of seating,” the description informs us, “is thought to produce a sympathetic feeling of union in worship ;” which it very likely may, if we merely assume that the object of all this united worship is the preacher. The whole thing centres in him ; he is the beginning and the end of it ; and if such an arrangement produces any feeling or sets forth any fact, it is the factthat worship, in its higher sense, never entered into the minds of those who devised it. There were two or three lingering examples of the old mouldy-looking Classic meeting- house amongst the Congregational Chapels of the year, such as Tollington Park, by Messrs. Searle, and Wheeler-street, Birmingham, superintended (not designed) by Mr. Ingall. But we have had to do with these depressing productions in former years; and as they neyer change, to have criticised one is to have criticised them all. We turn to the Wesleyan Chapel Report; though,for want of space, we must dismiss it briefly. Mr. Ellison’s Chapel, at Leigh, is one of those which suffer from a | plague of side gables. The upper stage of the tower is mere ‘ carpenter’s Gothic ;” but the window tracery and some of the other details are fair—for Mr. Ellison. Inside, translating the flowery language of the de- scription into ordinary English, we gather that it has the usual iron clothes-props by way of nave piers; whereupon our desire to know more of it becomes exceedingly faint. Mr. Lauder’s Chapel, at New Cross, looks, in the view, alarming, and eyen impossible ; its architect or its draughtsman has not yet | mastered the rudiments of perspective. We
will do him the justice to point out that his buildings are really not half so outrageous as might be supposed. We come upon asimple and pleasing little design, in Clent Chapel, by Mr. Hoole; and it is noticeable, both amongst Wesleyans and Independents, that their smallest buildings are often the most traly architectural. The fact is, with narrow proportions and a one-span roof, the architect escapes nearly all his difficulties. He may not have originality enough to solve the problem of accommodating a large congrega- tion in a convenient and artistic way, but any one can devise a small, simple, and unbroken apartment. Still, there is a tasteful way, and there is a vulgar way, of dealing with the simp- lest matters, and Mr. Hoole deserves commen- dation for having chosen the former. Canton Chapel, by Messrs. Habershon and Pite, and Oxford Place Chapel, Doncaster, present no evidences of thought or points of interest, while the Chesterfield Chapel is so much like fifty others of the box-and-portico pattern, that we doubt if the very people who paid for it would know its view from theirs. Southport Chapel, by Mellor and Sutton, reminds us of old times; such attempts at a Gothic turret used to be the rule, though happily they are now becoming the exception. So, likewise, are those at making a narrow front to a wide building, which in Denton Chapel Mr. Ford attempts with no better success than that with which the departing generation of chapel- architects have attempted it before him. We may conclude as we began, by saying that there certainly is some improvement manifest in the external design of Nonconformist struc- tures ; but this will be gained too dearly if it is gained at the cost of internal excellence. There is no reason whatever why it should be; all that is wanted is to set architects to think; and this they should have to do, if our influence extended to the committees for which they work. eens “DIRECTIONS TO BUILDERS.” (Continued from page 49.) UR anonymous author, as we before ob- served, has employed the term ‘ builders” in the very widest sense, and seems to have been considerately anxious that no class or profession should fee! hurt by being omitted from his list. Having, therefore, instructed the client in the duties of his position, he commences his next paragraph with
- DIRECTIONS TO THE ARCHITECT.
““ You are to understand that I advise each person to his own good, and, therefore, if my directions to you shall be in any wise incon- sistent with those I gave to the client, or shall give to the contractor or the workmen, you are not to blame me but to consider that your interests are opposite. Each of you is to do the best he can for himself, which is much more reasonable than to do the best he can for the building. If it should ever come to a choice which must suffer, yourselves or this inanimate lump of bricks and mortar, I hope you will always have wisdom enough to decide that it shall not be you. A man is a much greater work of art than a house, and you are not to sacrifice the greater to the less. With this proviso I come to your special business as an architect. There is a foolish notion abroad that it is your oflice to planand arrange your buildings according to the end for which they are designed, and tohave them , so built that they may be strong and sightly. You cannot too suddenly get rid of this idea, which is so different from that of your brother architects in general that they will hardly admit you of their profession if you entertain, or at least if you publicly profess it. It is a principle, séttled by common consent, that you must follow the ancients in the shape and main disposition of your building; though there are two opinions, hereafter to be treated of, as to whether it is also necessary to follow have noticed this willow-pattern-plate sort of | them in its minor parts and details. This treatment in Mr. Lauder’s views before, and | excellent principle, as you will soon discover,
