Were our Tower an old Gothic one, even of the least interesting date, the proposal to sweep it away would be scouted at once as utter barbarism. Those whose attention is directed to architecture and art know very well, that such work as the last two centuries produced, has an interest and a value only second to that of the earlier styles. There is a great movement of artistic feeling in favour of the architecture of the reigns of Queen Anne and the earlier Georges, and it would be quite intolerable that our Parish, which is so full of the associations of that period, and the home of so many artists and men of taste, should distinguish itself by an act of stupidity which would really be quite behind the age. It is common enough to hear people say “how ugly the Parish Church is,” “what frightful windows,” “how unecclesiastical,” “just like a meeting-house,” &c. &c. To combat the prejudices of mere ignorance is always a difficult task, and such views are in reality nothing else. They are the opinions of average common-place, rendered plausible only by constant repetition. The only portion of the church which can fairly be called ugly, is the exterior of the western transept, erected within our own memory. The rest of the exterior is plain, only because the architect, having a limited sum at his command, wisely determined to spend the greatest portion of it upon his interior. There would be no difficulty in embellishing the exterior with suitable architectural enrichments, if it be desired, and I think that some improvement might be effected in the parapet of the tower. But the interior is really stately, and a person who does not see how vastly superior its effect is, to that of the generality of our new churches in dignity and refinement, must be singularly deficient in artistic discrimination. The notion that a church must necessarily be Gothic, is a mere caricature of that reasonable admiration for mediæval work, which is felt by all men of taste. It is only a shallow mind which, because it prefers Westminster Abbey, is blind to the merits of St. Paul’s. I yield to no one in my love of mediæval art, but I recognise the merits of the really good work of all schools, and I simply cannot understand the dull and stupid prejudice which could propose to destroy an interesting and dignified building, and “to do away with an historical and artistic landmark, in order to substitute for it a church which would be undistinguishable from the crowd of common-place which this century is producing.” I have so great confidence in the sound sense of the Trustees, and in the affection of Hampstead people for the associations of our old Parish Church, that I feel sure it only needs that the facts should be put clearly before them, to ensure the adoption of a judiciously conservative course.