Remarks upon the proposed destruction of the tower of the Parish Church of St. John, Hampstead

Will you permit me to address to you, and through you to others, some remarks upon the subject of the Restoration of our Parish Church.

Such a request needs I think no apology. As a parishioner I cannot be indifferent to such a question. As an architect, whose attention has been directed professionally to the subject for more than two years, I may fairly ask a hearing. Did I need a further excuse the address at the head of this letter would supply it. Living as I do, and, please God, shall do for many years, almost under the shade of the Parish Church, and having it before my eyes continually, I have every opportunity of coming to a clear opinion upon the matter, and every motive to form a sound one.

The movement of public opinion which issued in the invitation to certain architects to submit in competition designs for the restoration of the building had two sources.

The existing arrangements of the church are not in accordance with the improved ecclesiastical taste of the present day. The high pews which encumber the interior, the galleries which disfigure its really fine proportions, the cramped space about the holy table, the unsightly reading desk, the absence of any proper chancel, and of any conveniences for a well-conducted choir, shock the taste and offend the judgment of all well-informed churchmen. It is probable however that this feeling would have failed to produce a general movement in favour of restoration had it not been aided by a fact, the force of which was apparent to every one. I allude of course to the settlement of the Tower which had become serious as early as 1829.

In that year Messrs. Vulliamy, Hardwick & Good were called in to report upon the state of the Tower. Other reports were made in 1861, 1864, 1866 and 1868. The cracks which the subsidence of the Tower caused in those parts of the church which abut upon it, occasioned naturally considerable alarm, and the opinion became general that before long it would be necessary to take down the Tower to avoid a catastrophe.

The scheme proposed early in 1872, for the “alteration and possibly enlargement of the Parish Church,” was the result of these two distinct impulses.

The course which was adopted reflects great credit upon the Trustees. Instead of resorting to an open competition, three architects were invited to send in designs, and a proper remuneration was offered for the services of the unsuccessful competitors. The Trustees deserve the thanks of the profession and of the public for so straightforward and honourable a course. The scheme submitted to the competing architects involved three conditions: first, the need of improvement in the arrangements of the church; secondly, the necessity of taking down the Tower, assumed to be in a dangerous state; and thirdly, a limit of expenditure fixed at £6500. For this sum it was required that a new Tower and spire should be erected, and a proper chancel be added to the existing nave terminating in an apse.

I cannot forbear in passing to remark upon the good taste shown in the suggestion, contained in the instructions to the architects, that the new tower should occupy a central position over the new chancel. Such a proposal shows a sound appreciation of the capabilities of the existing church and a regard for its surroundings, which augurs well for the future of the building. I am astonished to find that one of the competitors should have disregarded so judicious a suggestion.

I propose now to examine the three conditions which, as I have said, are assumed in the scheme of the trustees, and I shall endeavour to show that one of them is unfounded, and that two of them are mutually inconsistent.

Of the necessity for an improvement in the arrangements of the church no one can be more thoroughly convinced than myself. In spite of the care with which the services have been for many years conducted, the attendance at our Parish Church has always been a duty rather than a pleasure. The inconvenience of the principal entrances to the church, placed as they are close to the very communion rails; the extreme difficulty of kneeling in the high and narrow pews in which seat-holders are now impounded; the position of the choir in the western gallery, in rear, instead of in face, of the congregation; the lofty reading desk, from which the prayers seem to be preached rather than prayed; the cramped space about the holy table by which the celebration of the Communion is rendered most inconvenient; the galleries which disfigure the interior, and destroy the sense of the oneness of the whole congregation; these and other defects are too obvious to need enforcing here. The Trustees have wisely recognised their existence and their scheme is a proposal to remove them. In this every member of the congregation will heartily support them.

It is to the second point involved in their proposals that I wish to draw the attention of the parishioners—the assumed dangerous condition of the Tower.

The Tower was erected with the church about a century and a quarter ago, and is not only of very good proportions but is remarkably well built. There is not a symptom of failure in it from top to bottom. Careful and repeated examinations of it have convinced me that it is as sound as a bell throughout, and that at the present time it is in every respect in as good condition as when it was first completed. Any person who takes the trouble to examine the building may see for himself that the cracks, which appear in the eastern part of the church, are not in the Tower itself, but only in the walls that abut upon it. They are simply the result of the greater weight of the Tower, which has caused it to subside to a certain extent, and so to crack the walls of the church, and of the staircases, which being lighter, have undergone no settlement.

The Tower has settled, but it has done so in one block. No better proof could be given of the excellent workmanship and capital condition of the tower, than the fact that its subsidence has caused no fracture whatever, in the fabric of the tower itself. The settlement is due to an exceptional cause, the decay of the planking on which its foundation are laid, but every old tower in the country has undergone similar movement from analogous causes. These movements may not be so obvious to the unprofessional eye because, having generally occurred within a century or so of the erection of the towers, the cracks which they caused have long since been made good. Subsidences of this kind come to an end after a certain time, the foundations take a solid bearing and no further movement from this cause can then arise. The great tower of St. Nicholas church in Hamburg, upon the erection of which my father has been engaged for twenty years, though it is not yet completed, and though it stands upon one of the finest masses of concrete ever put in, has already subsided more than six inches. Our Hampstead tower has gone down something less than three inches. I need scarcely say that it is not proposed to pull down the tower of St. Nicholas on account of its six inches subsidence. Why then should our Hampstead church be condemned.

The Tower is of excellent proportion and outline. It is a very interesting and characteristic example of its date, and forms with the adjacent buildings in Church Row an almost unique group of 18th century architecture, of the greatest interest not only to the architect and the artist, but also to every person of taste and discrimination. No reason exists for its removal which would not condemn to destruction half the old churches in the country. To pull it down would be an act of needless vandalism. It is associated with the earliest recollections of those who, like myself, have known Hampstead from their childhood, and it is the one public building of any antiquity which our township possesses. To do away with it is to destroy a piece of good work which, if left to itself, will endure for centuries, and to incur the perfectly needless and heavy expense of erecting a new tower.

The cause of the settlement of the Tower is, as I have stated, the decay of the timber planking upon which its foundations are laid. This has taken place to a greater extent upon the west side than upon the east. The consequence of this has been to give the Tower a slight inclination westward. In 1868, Mr. Hesketh and my father were instructed by the Trustees to examine the foundations. They found that the planking had entirely perished upon the western side, and that the foundations in this part rested upon the natural soil, which is a compact loam. Upon the eastern side a thickness of 2½ inches of planking still remained, only partially decayed. The report which the architects made at that time stated, that it was probable that the planking under the eastern side would gradually perish, and that as this took place the Tower would settle down upon the eastern side until it rested upon the loam. The perpendicular position would thus be gradually restored, and no further movement would then occur. I have recently plumbed the Tower myself, and I find that this conjecture is borne out by the result of my measurements. The inclination of the Tower westward has decreased from seven inches in 1868 to from four to five inches at the present time, thus affording a proof of the soundness of the conclusion arrived at by Mr. Heskett and my father six years ago. I give in a tabular form the results of the observations made upon the Tower at different dates, by which it will be seen that the inclination of the Tower has decreased steadily since 1829. {7}

1829 1861 1864 1866 1868 1874 Inclination westward in 10″ 6⅝″ 7¼″ 7¼″ 7″ 4¼″ to 5″ height of 78 feet Excess of subsidence on 2½″ 1⅝″ 1¾″ full 1¾″ full 1¾″ 1⅛″ to 1¼″ west side over that on east, causing the westward inclination

It will appear from this that from 1¼″ to 1⅛″ thickness of planking remains still undecayed under the eastern foundations. At the present rate of movement, therefore, the decay will be complete in about six years time. The Tower will then have resumed its perpendicular position, and no further settlement need be anticipated. Even at the present time the inclination is less than the amount of the set-off of the Tower, without taking into account the spreading of the foundations. The top of the Tower, therefore, stands well within its base, and the apprehension of any sort of danger is absolutely unfounded.

There exists, therefore, no excuse whatever for destroying our Tower.

The second point to which I wish to draw attention is the important one of expense.

The proposals of the Trustees are quite inconsistent with the limit of expenditure which they have fixed.

The scheme which has been put forward includes not only a new Tower, but also a new chancel, terminating in an apse,—the addition of transepts—the removal or extensive modification of the galleries—the erection of new staircases, and convenient vestries for clergy and choir—the construction of proper covered approaches—the reseating of the whole of the church—the decoration of the interior, and a re-arrangement of the warming and gas-lighting. To suppose that this grand scheme can be carried out for £6500, “including professional and other charges,” at the present price of work in the building trades is simply absurd. It reminds one of a story told of the late Mr. Pugin. A Roman Catholic Bishop is said to have written to the architect, ordering designs for a cathedral complete in every respect, and furnished with all the necessary paraphernalia of worship, which the bishop was careful to particularise. The total cost was not to exceed two thousand pounds, but the bishop stated that he did not expect the completion of the two western towers to be included in this amount. Mr. Pugin’s reply was to this effect, “My dear Lord Bishop,—Make it guineas and have the towers.” The present proposal is almost as absurd to anyone who knows the price of building work at the present time. If a perfectly substantial tower is to be destroyed it will be an absolute duty to replace it by one of higher character, and larger proportions, the cost of which could not fall short of £4000, and would probably reach a much higher figure. To carry out properly the scheme of the Trustees, a sum would be required which would be nearer £12,000 than £6000.