The Ecclesiological Society's Debate on French Restoration. 213 bells is always inviting,) the more there will be assembled to tempt and to draw off to the public house. Or it may be, in a rural parish, some necessary work has been deferred for the sake of joining in the morning peal, and so the time for getting ready for Church is taken up, and the service is not attended. In those parts of England where it is the regular custom to ring a certain time before the service, (as in the North and the Midlands,) it is notorious that few, if any, of the ringers form part of the congregation. On the contrary, when the clergyman walks into the church, they walk out; perhaps, after a long peal, they think they are not quite in a fit trim to appear among their neighbours, though little ashamed to be seen retreating. Surely, therefore, it is the best plan not to allow any ringing for any person or thing on Sundays excepting indeed on the early mornings of Festivals. In proof of the evil of which I am now speaking, I once received a letter from the son of one of the ringers in my then parish, in which he implored me to use my influence and authority to put a stop to Sunday ringing, recounting in his letter the evil and misery he had witnessed in his father's family, all which had resulted from this practice, and that by my so doing, I should prevent a multitude of sins, and save not one, but many souls from eternal misery. Another old and most respectable scientific ringer, in the Midlands, has very lately written to me, in which he deplores Sunday ringing. He says, "For thirty years and more I have attended the steeple at leisure times, and regularly, inside the church, seldom missed twice on the Sabbath. I have always shown a good example to the ringers. Years back I was tempted to ring one or two long peals on a Sunday, but it has always been a great sting to my conscience." Hoping that much good will be promoted by the publication of the foregoing, I am, yours truly, H. T. ELLACOMBE, M.A., Rectory, Clyst S. George, July 1, 1861. THE ECCLESIOLOGICAL SOCIETY'S DEBATE ON FRENCH RESTORATION. To the Editor of the Ecclesiologist. SIR,-Permit me to make a few remarks on the debate upon the "Destructive character of modern French Restoration," by the leading members of the Ecclesiological Society, which took place in Conduit Street, in the month of June. The writer cannot help thinking that a feeling of disappointment must predominate in the minds of all who advocate the conservative principle in church restoration, when they read the report on this oc 214 The Ecclesiological Society's Debate on French Restoration. casion. It was agreed that the destructive principle was rife in both countries, but that if our neighbours were bad, we were not much better. A beneficial result "may" perhaps arise from the mere ventilation of the question, but all external demonstration being abnegated, we have no guarantee that the evil will not continue. Mr. Parker deprecated interference as he observed, "while our principal buildings might be dealt with by the public, in France all cathedrals and public buildings were under the control of government architects, and no one could injure or destroy them, except with the consent of government architects." But does not the whole gist of the question lie in this admission, which proves that the imperial government is cognizable of and accountable for all these inroads upon sound taste and right feeling? If so, "move" the government and you "remove" the evil. The writer does not presume to say in what manner this should be done, but we are warranted in believing from past experience in “other matters," that a remonstrance or memorial from the Institute of British Architects would probably produce an effect. But then we are assured that we are nearly as bad as our neighbours. Perhaps so, but as the chairman, Mr. Beresford Hope, well observed, "where would there be any criticism or censorship in art or literature if no one criticized his neighbours, till he was conscious of self-perfection?" And we are reminded by Mr. Parker that "our principal buildings are dealt with by the public." If so, they must too frequently be treated according to the whim and caprice of individuals, and the only marvel, therefore, is that a good taste should so generally prevail, thanks to the fact that our churches are cared for by the clergy, and not as in France by the municipality. In fact the parish priest is perfectly aware that the building "in no sense" appertains to him. In it he performs the various offices, but he can have no "local" attachments which would lead him to take pleasure in its due renovation. And it may be fairly asked, could the demolition of such a church as that of S. Gilles at Caen, (where the work of destruction is proceeding in full vigour) have taken place in this country without meeting with the strongest opposition? The inhabitants of any town would hardly have permitted one of their principal churches to be thus demolished without a stout and probably an effectual outcry against the sacrilege. But where actual destruction does not take place we see the "ominous boarding" put up in token that 46 execution is to be done" upon the kings and bishops that adorn the west front of many a cathedral. Mr. Beresford Hope was surely right, therefore, in alluding to the remarkable recklessness with which architects carried out the work of destruction under the name of renovation in France, occasioned by the want of anything like an architectural feeling among the clergy and laity. In England they heard of odd cases of scraping which were very much to be deplored, but generally there was a strong feeling in favour of proper architecture. If there was anything in a building unusually barbarous the press was down upon it; the country generally now knew styles and dates of churches, and the public press was up to the architecture of the buildings, and upon occasions gave full architectural details of them." It does appear not a little surprising that those remarks, so perfectly just, should have been without effect in removing the "extreme caution" amounting to" timidity" of the various speakers who addressed the meeting. Mr. White found no seconder in his proposal of a "mutual discussion between the French architects and the members of the Society, as to the best mode of restoring and preserving the monuments of art." There is no reason that we should depreciate our neighbours, who have built such magnificent churches, and whose specimens of ancient stained glass are perhaps the finest that Europe can produce. But the whole of church restoration in France is a Napoleonic idea. "Everything in Paris is new. The buildings of ancient kings, princes, and bishops, proud memorials many of them of monarchies, republics, now engulfed in the Parisian maelstrom, are everywhere vanishing from the earth. Some are levelled with the ground, others by a more cruel fate linger under the hand of the 'restorer.' The difference between the two is analogous to that between dying by the guillotine, and dying amid the torments of Ravaillac or Damiens." There is no public opinion, no general taste for the preservation of ancient monuments, the clergy are powerless, the people careless, the government reckless. Destruction and "pretended" conservation stalk through the length and breadth of the land. And yet "we" are "silent" who might without offence induce something of that thoughtful spirit of conservation, which would at least check this annihilation of sacred art. I remain, Sir, &c. A MEMBER OF THE OXFORD ARCHITECTURAL S. MATTHIAS, STOKE NEWINGTON. To the Editor of the Ecclesiologist. DEAR SIR,-Since your visit to this church about the time of its consecration, most of the aisle windows have been filled with stained glass. It will be remembered that the height of the aisles was sacrificed to the clerestory, and that their windows, which are of a peculiar pointed form, are divided into three lights, with alternately a four-foil or eightfoil in the head, and such as you justly described, Ecclesiologist, 1853, p. 267, as tracery of a very ungraceful kind. The glass-painter has rendered the peculiarity of the windows still more conspicuous. His general plan is to place a group in the head, and a full-length saint in each outer light with his head jammed into the foliation of the tracery, while a large space under his feet, as well as the whole centre light, is filled with grisaille and pattern glass. The vacancy beneath the saints' feet makes it appear as though they had all received martyrdom by means of "sus. per coll.," giving a rather incorrect idea of the facts. Nor is his work more creditable than the design. The colours are generally poor, and much wanting in depth, though pieces here and there are good; often very deficient in positive colour, and not always well combined. The faces, with a few exceptions, are bad in drawing and worse in colour. The glass is so thin that the wire screen shows through, and would spoil them if possible. The subjects are as follows: North, 1, Our LORD's Resurrection ; SS. Peter and John, and the three Maries; 2. The Entry into Jerusalem on an ass followed by a crowd with palms; SS. Stephen and (?) Thomas; 3. Our LORD seated, apparently refusing the presentation of two fishes by a lad in very tight pantaloons; below, a multitude standing and sitting; but what the design signifies is difficult to say. South, 1. The washing of our LORD's feet; below, S. John the Baptist and Mary Magdalene; 2. The Last Supper, very unsuccessful in the arrangement of colour, if such an idea occurred to the designer; below, four saints, perhaps the Evangelists; 3. The Agony in the Garden, derived from an ancient source; below, SS. Peter and Paul. West, 1. The adoration by the kings and the shepherds; the central group of the Holy Child on the Blessed Virgin's knee, formal-almost Byzantine-but otherwise it is the best window in the church; 2. The Crucifixion, with SS. Mary and John; the rood, compressed into a narrow light, is necessarily much distorted. You criticized the glass in the east window (p. 269) but I can assure you it is far superior, in every respect, to what has since been added. I am not one of the ruthless critics who delight in flaying their victims, and I should probably have refrained from my present ungrateful task, but am roused to undertake it in consequence of a project for filling-in the great west window by the same persons as the aisle windows. Now, the west window boasts the peculiarity of a massive buttress occupying the centre, based upon the point of a doorway, and supporting nothing; your description (p. 268) is as graphic as accurate. The authorities of the church desire it to be a model one, as it is to a certain extent in ritual, and yet with a singular inconsistency encourage the insertion (at an excessive cost) of this miserable stained glass, which would hardly satisfy the deacons of an "advanced" Little Bethel; and actually propose to collect and appropriate £360 for glass for the hideous west window. I sincerely hope that the designs may be laid before your committee previously to the work being commenced, so that something very different from the present windows may result. July, 1861. I am, dear Sir, Yours truly, A. H. [We admit this communication out of respect to our correspondent, whom we believe to be well qualified to speak of the matter. It is some time since we paid a critical visit to this church, so that we are unable to speak from personal knowledge.-ED.] 217 THE RESTORATION OF BRISTOL CATHEDRAL. To the Editor of the Ecclesiologist. SIR, It may be worth while, though it will afford you no pleasure, to give you some idea of the alterations that have taken place (under the name of "restoration") at Bristol Cathedral. The plan of the building is doubtless familiar to you, and the old arrangement of seats, organ-screen, and sanctuary. The altar was formerly considerably raised above the nave: it is now lowered to one step only. This alteration was effected, it is said, to bring the base of one of the monuments on the north side into view; but it appears to me that this base has had to be increased, in consequence, by the introduction of a new chamfer: at all events, it has been extended more than was necessary or correct; and the bases of the three arches along the lower part of the east wall, (of late post-reformation date, which have been retained, and are, to say the truth, more satisfactory than the present new work,) have been elongated too in the most awkward manner. The sedilia have been restored. The sanctuary alone has been repaved the pattern and materials are such as would disgrace a railway-station, or the show-room of a cheap lath and plaster warehouse; there is no footpace, but the whole space from the one step which goes across the entrance to the sanctuary, is laid with plain white, yellow, brown, and blue or green tiles, in mere draughtboard arrangement, and without any pattern tiles. By the way, some eight or nine months ago, while the work was going on, I recollect seeing two or three heaps of old encaustic tiles, lying in the choir; may I ask what has become of these? why have they not been re-used or preserved for sacred purposes? The choir monuments have been scraped completely, with the usual results. The modern renovator appears to have been unable to comprehend the foot of one of the angels holding up the mitred head of an abbot or bishop, and has taken away the instep and produced a sort of fringe for the toes. There was a great talk about the Dean's intention to have one of these monuments coloured up again "at his own expense entirely" after its scraping. This was done, (though I have good authority for saying not without questions being asked as to the names of "what the abbot had on," and a display of utter ignorance of common ecclesiology), but the figure came out far richer and gaudier than the Dean had ever contemplated: so the paint was ordered to be removed, and thus the sculpture has had a second dose of the tool. The stalls have been retained with the addition of a row of new desks supposed to tally with the old, but the springings of the tracery placed at different levels. The choir it appears are to be placed at the extreme west end of the stalls. The organ is in the north side under the arches into side chapels; the old Jacobean work being in the main preserved— a luxury when compared with the new choir organ. Two bays of the choir westward of stalls are unaccounted for; but VOL. XXII, EE |