Remarks upon the proposed destruction of the tower of the Parish Church of St. John, HampsteadScott, George Gilbert, Sir
History
Remarks upon the proposed destruction of the tower of the Parish Church of St. John, Hampstead
Scott, George Gilbert, Sir
Church architecture -- England -- London; St. John's Parish Church (Hampstead, London, England)
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.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account