THAT we live in a Church-building age is made manifest in the foregoing
pages. Of the fifty-three Churches and Chapels in Kensington, fifteen
have been erected and opened within the last five years; sixteen others
within ten years; and in all within the past twenty years there have been
no less than forty-three erections. Five Churches and Chapels are over
twenty years of age, three over thirty, and two have stood for a
century,—and still remain. The old St. Mary Abbotts has succumbed to the
weight of years, and a new and splendid fabric has just taken its place.
A half a million of money is represented in these structures, by far the
larger half of which has been raised and expected within the last decade.
Whatever the verdict of posterity may be upon these buildings from an
artistic point of view, it will not hesitate to accord the high merit of
distinguished energy and liberality. As to Architecture, some few of
these erections embody and will hand down to future times examples of the
improved taste of our day; but for the most part they have been erected
under pressure of urgent necessity, arising from the rapid and
overwhelming outflow of population towards the western suburbs. The
question has been all along how places could be erected with sufficient
speed to save new communities from habitual forgetfulness of the Sabbath
and public worship for the mere want of places in which to assemble.
Never has been in the past, never probably will be in time to come, an
extensive suburban area like this so rapidly covered with habitations of
men and all the concomitants of our social life. So recently as 1845,
when the Church of St. John was erected on the crest of Notting-hill, the
eye ranged from that eminence north and west only over open fields, and
it was thought at the time that the Church had been placed too far in the
country. Yet St. John’s now stands in the centre as it were of a vast
city, the unbroken lines of which stretch around and away for miles. St.
John’s would never now be thought or spoken of as “in the fields” any
more than St. Paul’s, Knightsbridge, or St. Mary’s, Paddington. The same
is true of many other Churches first erected on the border-land; and it
is not until we realize the extraordinary rapidity with which this mighty
change has been wrought, that we can understand the comparative hurry in
which some of the Churches have been built; but in most cases they are
substantial buildings, and offer scope for further decoration and filling
up of the Architect’s original designs as opportunity offers.
The province and purpose of the Temporary Iron Church has been most
marked in Kensington. There are but few exceptions to the rule that, as
to the later erections Iron has been the pioneer of stone or brick. It
is utilized for the first formation of districts and sub-parishes, and
for the collection of congregations. The young clergyman settles himself
down to a new locality, puts up the Temporary Church at a small cost,—in
the midst of bricks and lime, heaps, and scaffolding all around; the
houses, however, are soon completed and occupied, and in two or three
years he feels himself strong enough to turn his attention seriously to a
permanent erection, and in many cases in an incredibly short time the
work is accomplished, and the useful Iron friend is sold or hired out to
some brother minister who wishes to imitate the process in another place.
Of course the Iron Church comes in for its share of contempt from the
fastidious. It is “dingy-looking,” unattractive in every architectural
respect, and denounced with its so-called “_tin-kettle_” bell as a
disfigurement to the neighbourhood, and offensive to the ear. But it
does a good work notwithstanding, and ought to be highly prized and
respected for its work’s sake. There are, moreover, instances in which
some of the objectionable features can be got over, and, at least, the
interior of the Iron Church be made elegant and inviting. The nicest
individual ought to feel pleased with an interior like that of St. John
the Baptist’s Church in Holland-road; where Mr. Edmeston, the Architect,
has displayed a taste and contrivance which almost impose on one the idea
that he is in a well-built permanent Church instead of a temporary one.
He had previously exhibited great taste in his treatment of the interior
of St. Peter’s Notting-hill, which is considered one of the most
beautiful in London; and with a far inferior subject at St. John the
Baptist’s has not been wanting to himself. Indeed, we could scarcely
have believed that so good general effect could have been wrought out
between iron walls. The people at that Church can well be content with
their lot for some little time to come, should it not yet be convenient
to build in a more costly and enduring style.
We are glad to be able to supply in these pages views of a number of the
principal Churches and Chapels, which will give the reader a better idea
of the state of Church Architecture among us than any pen and ink
description without their aid. To begin with the new parish Church; both
the exterior and interior are seen as reduced for this work from larger
drawings, by permission of the Architect, Mr. G. G. Scott, by Mr. Avery,
the photographer, of the Ladbroke-road. They make beautiful pictures,
and show an edifice which, when all complete, will be in every way worthy
of the Court Suburb. We have also a capital drawing of the old
Church—_In Memoriam_—taken expressly for the “Index,” that it might not
be quite lost sight of amidst the superior splendour of the modern
temple. And to complete the series, Messrs. Hill and Son, of the
Euston-road, have enabled us to introduce a woodcut of the magnificent
new organ they are building for the Church, and whose tones will be heard
at the opening in a few weeks’ time. These illustrations of themselves
would have been sufficient to give unusual interest to the work; but we
are favoured with many more. Kensington Churches, as a whole, are so
fairly and fully illustrated, that nearly every style of building is seen
that has hitherto obtained among us. St. Peter’s, Onslow-gardens,
through the esteemed favour of the founder and patron, C. J. Freake,
Esq., shows a fine interior as well as neat exterior; and St. Jude’s,
South Kensington, the same—only in the latter case the spire represented
is not yet built. St. Paul’s, Onslow-square, is a specimen of plain
unambitious gothic, in great measure purposely so, as according with the
order of things instituted there; but partly, also, from the necessity
existing at the time for making haste with the work. St. Mark’s,
Notting-hill, is an example of another kind, and by the kindness of the
Rev. E. K. Kendall, the Vicar, we are enabled to introduce an excellent
engraving. Mr. Keeling has here displayed professional skill and
freedom,—as also in St. George’s, Campden-hill. The picturesque effect
both in outline and detail is boldly sought, and successfully obtained;
and we have a good view of the exterior. Mr. Varley’s Tabernacle, as
will be seen, is putting on a very improved countenance, under the hands
of Messrs. Habershon and Pite, and from being utterly devoid of
attraction, will be henceforth recognized as an ornament to the
neighbourhood. The beautiful Church of St. Barnabas, one of the very
best specimens of Ecclesiastical Architecture in the parish, together
with its useful appendage the “Church House,” are seen by favour of the
Rev. Dr. Hessey, who has kindly supplied the blocks for the purpose. The
“Church House” is capable of being converted at any convenient time into
a building of greater parochial importance; and, in fact, considering the
popularity of the Church in that immediate neighbourhood under the good
influence of Dr. Hessey, the time may not be far distant.
Through the good offices of Mr. Bridgnell, of Warwick-gardens, we have an
engraving Wesleyan Chapel there. It is the nearest neighbour of Dr.
Hessey’s Church, and one of the best productions of Mr. W. Pocock, who is
a popular Architect in Wesleyan circles. He has here produced a Chapel,
or rather a Church, which, for architectural expression and cheapness
combined, may compare with any thing we have seen. Nothing has struck us
more in this review of our Churches than the unaccountable difference in
the _mere cost_ of production. In Kensington we can point to Chapels and
Churches that have cost the promoters nearly as much again as the
Warwick-gardens Wesleyan Chapel cost, and are barely half so large,
commodious, or beautiful. In this matter there surely must be an open
path to improvement. It is painful even to think that £8000 and £10,000
are expended upon places inferior in every respect to others that cost
about half the sum. It is good for people who are thinking of building
to take this fact into consideration. If they desire to have superb
structures, and are prepared to pay for them, let them take care they
have full value for their money; if otherwise, and they have only
moderate means, still let them get as much as their funds can procure.