Architecture And Archæology.

important thing , and it is not for us to decide Avhether it is right or wrong . If the age demands warming ancl ventilation , ive must give ifc them . Now , let us compare ivifch this medieval and earlier congregations . The warming of churches may be considered , I suppose , in the first place , quite a modern luxury ; next , as to seats , in the basilicas there were certainly no fixed

seats fcxcepfc for the clergy—the congregation , whether standing or kneeling , arranged themselves round three sides oi' tho choir . Kb one ivould then place himself by choice immediately behind a column , a defect unfortunately unavoidable in a modern aisled church with fixed scats . In our medieval churches , on the other hand , distinct hearing of fche services ivas a matter of no particular moment , as

the loss of a syllable or two of an iiiiknoivn tongue could not interfere ivith the devotions of the faithful , and sermons did not form a regular part of the sendee as they do Avith us . JSTOW , I am far from wishing in large churches to abandon aisles ancl substitute a large nave under one roof , for I quite agree with our President in his remarks last Monday , that ' the form of nave and aisles , ivhich is halloivcd

by so many centuries' use in the Christian church , is also the most convenient for the decent and reverent celebration of our services , for hearing ancl for economy of space , or rather cubic content-. There is , howcA'or , one defect in our system of aisles Avhich AVO arc bound to remedy as far as we can , namely , the obstruction of view caused by the columns . I am aAvare that many architects think this

practically nothing , but I have tried the experiment many times myself , and can , therefore , assert that in an ordinary aisled church there must always be a large proportion of sittings cut off from the view of either altar , reading-desk , or pulpit . The effect is practically very disagreeable , and , to my mind , inconsistent ivith the

conscientious carrying out of the principles AVO profess . It appears to me that there are only tivo ways of overcoming the defect—one by no longer employing fixed seats , the other by diminishing the columns to such a diameter Uia 6 the slightest movement of the head of anyone placed behind it will bring the minister into full vieiv . The largest diameter Avhich can bo employed to effect this is from 1 ) to 10 and 11 inches . NOAV , ifc is obvious that such columns

can be safely obtained by the employment of a material ivhich has long been used Avithout scruple for similar ivork in every modern building , bufc a church—I allude , of course , to iron . There seems to be an extraordinary feeling afloat against an iron column as unecclesiastical and ugly , J ^ OAA * , to say it is unecclesiastical is nothing more nor less than narrow-minded prejudice ; and to say ifc is ugly is to

acknowledge our oivn shortcomings in having left it so so long . In defiance of art critics the civil engineer has long decided thafc ifc is good construction ; and it is hi gh time for the architect to take ifc in hand ancl make it good arfc . I believe a check has been given to progress in this really grand and almost noiv field of design , artistically speaking , by the solemn denunciations levelled asrainst the use of iron in

aremteefcure ( except as a tie ) by an eminent authority a- few yea-rs ago . The argument gravely advanced in support of his views—namely , thafc ive find no mention of iron architecture in the Bible—might as ivell be used against stained glass in decoration . Whatever may have been the cause , it is a fact that church architects , until quite lately , bave appeared to bo ashamed of the use of iron as a constructive

material . In cases where ifc has been used for columns , ifc has usually been from motives of economy , and instances are nofc wanting ( happily no recent ones ) where it has been neatly painted and sanded in imitation of stone . If used at all , the material should , of course , be treated as what it is , and I cannot doubt that , if properly handled and elaborated , iron columns may be made beautiful and attractive features

in church architecture . It may bo thought a ven * o-reat innovation to gain but a small advantage , but there is a true principle involved in it . I do not see Avhy an iron column ( which cannot have less to do with our ritual than a stone one ) should be thought unecclesiastical , nor ii'hy it need be ugly ; nor do I like to hear distinctly useful ancl convenient materials and modes of construction objected to simply on grounds of precedent ancl association . One objection I have heard raised against them is the bad proportion tbey

would bear to the superincumbent walls , but this again I believe to be , according to true principles , simply a question of association . In using a new material in a neiv position AVO must create UGAV feelings of association for ourselves . If a few good examples Avere erected , people ivould soon begin to get used to the proportion , and to like the thing as undoubtedly right and full of purpose .

Before leaving the question of association I haA * e a fewwords to say about church warming . As I just now remarked , we find that this is a most important point , and . nothing disgusts a congregation so much as finding themselves in a cold , draughty , or ill-ventilated church , where the ladies cough all the winter and faint all tho summer . You need not fear that I am now going to enter into any

discussion of the best means of warming and ventilation . I merely wish to point out that we , perhaps , oftener than . ' necessary increase our difficulties , and impair the perfectness of the system adopted , by thinking it right to hide away as much as possible all the paraphernalia of chimneys , & o . " For instance , I want a chimney for a vestry and onetor the warming apparatus ; but I am afraid of making a good stack and carrying them to the proper height , lest any one should tell me I havo given my church too domestic a character . One-lit I not rather to consider that AA'hen ive

insist on introducing domestic comforts into our churches , thai fact must , under an intelligent architect , come oufc distinctl y in the character ofthe building ? Our congregations cannot be provided properly and truthfully with tlie comforts ancl luxuries of home without paying for ifc by the disfigurement—if ifc be a disfigurement—of their churches ivifch domesticfeatures .

The next consideration , convenience of hearing , has just been so fully discussed by our President in his admirable paper that there is little left for mc to say . I also agree Avith his remarks on the acoustics of churches , and I Avas particularly satisfied with the opinion he expressed as to open roofs and lofty naves , contrasted with a IOAV proportion and boarded ceilings , as completely coinciding with my own

convictions on the subject , based on observation and comparison of many buildings . "Wc must recollect that in making observations on the acoustic qualities of churches , it is nofc sufficient to go yourself once and try boiv you can hear at any particular parfc , as there may be many disturbing causes acting afc different times ; one of the best tests is , Avhether ifc is AA'hat the clergy

call an easy church . Inquire of a feiv clergymen who have done duty there what they think of it in this respect , and 3 * ou ivill form a truer estimate of its qualities than if you ask half the congregation . I believe ifc is little known how many clergymen ' s health is seriously impaired bj * having to do duti ' , day after day , in a difficult church . It therefore becomes , not only a epicstion of convenience to the congregation , but of health and comfort , in maii 3 * cases , to the clerg 3 * man . Ifc noiv only remains for me to touch upon one

requirement as to the musical arrangements of a church—and here let me say that though it can scarcely perhaps be expected of a church architect that he should be a musician , yet be should make ifc his business to understand something ofthe construction of the instruments used in a church . An oro-an , the most beautiful of instruments AA'hen in tune , is one of the most disagreeable when neglected , and evei' 3 * one should

knoiv how sensitive it is to damp and draughts , in order to guard against this in his arrangements for the reception of the instrument . If there is a choir the organ should always be placed close to them , and the proper place for ifc is either in a side aisle of the chancel or in an organ-chamber builfc expressly for it , which is better . The effect of the instrument will be much enhanced and it will be kept in better

tune _ if the walls are lined with boarding on battens , and if nofc in a gallery , it should always be raised on a platform some feet from the floor . The worst place for the organ on every account is in the west gallery , if there is one , and I believe organs are never now placed there in neiv churches . Of course , I don't , contemplate fche possibility in these days of an organ appearing over the altar . In small village churches , ivhere " an organ can seldom be tuned , I think myself thafc an harmonium is much preferable ; it has the advantage of not getting out of tune , and though ifc has always