CHU

158

CHU

poses, the more costly in the furniture of a church, but weshall here confine ourselves to the ornamental iron-work, usedfor hinges, locks, bars, and such like, many beautiful speci-mens of which are preserved to us in our old churches. Wemust, at starting, lay down, as a rule, that iron, for thesepurposes, should be wrought, not cast; the latter class ofiron-work is always a failure. These ornaments should not bepainted, but, to preserve them from rust, it is recommendedthat they be dipped when red-hot in grease, and left to cool;the same purpose will be answered by coating them withsome incorrosive metal.

Of style .—The best style for adoption in parish-churchesis undoubtedly the Decorated, from the middle of the thir-teenth to the middle of the fourteenth century. During thisperiod Christian art was at its perfection, and soon afterbegan to lose its character for genuine simplicity; the intro-duction of the depressed arch, and the excessive embellish-ment of the later style, was the commencement of its down-ward course. We would not, however, confine the architectto a single style; Early English is well adapted for largechurches, and may occasionally be made available for smallerones, while Perpendicular is appropriately employed forchurches in cities and large towns, sometimes even withgreater advantage than Decorated, which is particularly thecase when a church, being closely surrounded with otherbuildings, requires large windows on those sides which aremore open to the light. For the generality of churches, how-ever, the Decorated is by far the most suitable, it is equallyadapted for a plain, as for a more highly-finished structure,and has a natural grace which ensures its perfection, in what-ever situation it be placed; it will admit of the highest elabo-ration, so far at least as is consistent with purity, or of theplainest construction, without sacrificing any of its inherentbeauties ; on the other hand, the Perpendicular style must behighly enriched, or otherwise it will appear meagre, and istherefore unsuitable, except for an expensive edifice. We havesaid nothing of Norman, but we must not pass it over insilence ; it is decidedly not so appropriate as any of the above-mentioned styles for parish-churches, and yet we should besorry to see it entirely discarded ; it must not be recom-mended, but it has its peculiar beauties, which doubtless willalways secure to it some share of public favour.

Of the plan .—The amount of money at the disposal of thearchitect, as it determines the material to be employed, willlikewise, to a certain extent, govern the size, and thereforeI the plan and arrangement of the building. The ground-plani will also depend, in a great measure, on the site allotted forthe building. For very small churches, the best arrangementis the most simple, viz.; that of the parallelogram, dividedinto nave and chancel, which division need not be shown onthe exterior, although it is very desirable that it should beso, and in this case the chancel is marked by its smallerdimensions in height and breadth ; the chancel should alwaysbe separated from the nave in the interior by an open screenof wood-work, as also by being elevated on one or more steps.An important and inexpensive addition may be made to thisplan in the shape of a porch, which may be either of wood orstone, and should be placed, unless there be any strong reasonto the contrary, towards the western end of the south side.A further improvement will consist in the erection of a bell-turret, or gable, either on the western gable, or on thatbetween the nave and chancel; this again need not be expen-sive, in some cases it may be made of wood, in which mate-rial we have a sufiiciency of ancient examples ; but it is best,of course, of stone; of whichever material it be constructed,it always forms a very marked and beautiful feature in a smallchurch. We should be rejoiced to see a larger number of

such small structures as the above erected at the present J>when all seem to aim at an edifice of much greater p£ e tsions, even though they have, it may be, scarcely sufhcifunds for the erection of one of the more simple structin an efficient manner. Towers placed between the navechancel are not unfrequent in some parts of England.

If accommodation for a larger number of worshipp erS ^required, one or more aisles must be added to the nave. ^nave with two aisles is the perfect form, but both aisles _not be built at the same time, unless the number of thegregation require it, and there are ample funds for it®tion. At the same time, never build only one aisle to ^sake of appearing extraordinary, nor unless there >® eintention of erecting a corresponding one at some 1period; for this reason, when a single aisle is adopted, l e ,opposite wall of the nave be built with arches of c ° nS ece s'tion, so that when the second aisle is added, it may h e R r ^\ 1 issary only to remove the masonry between the arches. ^last method might be adopted with advantage in 411 jtclass of churches. We may remark here, once for all* * rC ljis by no means necessary that the opposite sides of a cshould exactly correspond.

This last is the most eligible form of structure for ° r #I1 dchurches, to contain, say from two hundred person® e( jupwards. For churches of this capacity the first-men^ i 3

form is not adapted, as, when so large accommoui^--^ aI1required, you would be compelled to extend the naVinconvenient breadth; twenty-five feet is the greatest nV 6 !sion allowable in a small church without aisles; w ^ eI1 . 0 th® 1

...- -j -e---> - , . ra ti<> * 9

of the nave in the proportion of two to five, but'this

not fixed, it varies in different examples. _ y

If still greater accommodation be required, W ^ th e .

obtained by continuing the aisles on one or both s '^ eS , nSe schancel, from which they should be shut off by P arC aii®open work; but this addition is not a desirable ® ’ c t > 3should be adopted only in such places as the arc M9 ini I1 ‘’

- ' ' ° " eft

OllUUIU L/C tiuupicu. Ulll^ 111 OIU/U piabCO ll3

cramped for room. A more legitimate method of 0

_ a . ~._.* 1 1 - 1 „^«nVlTlff ^ n

tof!I'ln 3 ’fit

Tfi°:

f iH

greater space in general instances is by annexingwhich should open into the church by a lofty ar cthough not essential to a church, forms one otstriking and picturesque features, and when the lD ®j ie o^' eiadmit of it, should never be omitted; though, on t®

hand, the essentials should in no case be s aCobtain it. _ . 0 of 1 ’

Of the position of the tower .—The standard situa 1 yej;

tower is at the west end of the nave, although there ^ (1^many exceptions to this position, amongst whic . j 0 gi c jfollowing, instances of which are given by the Eco e pJ ^Society:—west end of either aisle; middle or ea ^, ^ s ec° a jeither aisle; north or south of chancel; north ®* < ^ e / ) _ t yestnorth aisle; north or south side of nave; nort ^south-west angle of nave; north-east or south-e aS ^ tb e ^middle of nave and western end of the chancel-

positions are allowable, when circumstances req uir ® t j L iiHto be so placed; as a general rule, however, ^ A 1advisable to retain it at the west end of the na r .time architects restricted themselves entirely , <rP b ehowever more eligible any other situation might

now, on the contrary, it is the exception to see \j 0 winf5' vj

this position. We think both at fault, the former °p or tli e . s t ]jS

arrangement too closely, simply it would appear 0 ‘of preserving an exact correspondence in hot g . '' ±e>building, even at the risk of losing other advan t j, e Sthe latter seek out extraordinary positions mere ,f gtU'P .^ilof their novelty, and for the purpose of exci i jpt®The nature and shape of the ground, as well as

to' v <f</