|
|
|
 |
 |
|
The Restoration of a Church
in the [eighteen] Forties [at
Kingsclere]. By the Rev. R.T. FINCH, Vicar of
Kingsclere. The condition of the building is known from a
report made by Mr. Charles Pink, Surveyor, and dated September 16th, 1846. The
lead on the roof of the nave and transepts had become "by age cracked in
many places and very uneven." The wet was "continually getting
in," so that the boarding was "nearly rotten," and some of the
principal timbers in a state of decay; the lead for the most part was "past
reparation." It was necessary that all the stone coping to the gables
should be new because, as the report states:- It is become very defective,
and consequently the wet is admitted, and runs down the walls, keeping them
always in a damp state, and rotting the timbers, as for instance, see the
plates of the roof in the north-east comer of the north transept. In the nave, things were no better. One oak tie beam nearly over the south and north
entrances is rotten for four feet from the south end, and is not safe; a new
tie must be inserted in its place of Quebec oak. And again:- The north end of a beam near
the organ is decayed and requires to be strengthened with iron bars. The
ornamental panelling of the roof near the Queen's Arms, to be restored. The
stone battlements of the round tower are quite decayed: to be replaced by six
new ones of Bath stone. An inspection showed the roof of the
Kingsmill aisle to be "in a very dilapidated and almost unsafe
state." The report goes on to say:- Some of the tie beams and rafters are rotten at the
ends; the ridge piece is quite decayed, and the boarding is in a bad state . .
. .The roof should be new, as it is too flat. The late Mr. C. P. Darke, who was learning
farming at Kingsclere Farm (since called "Fox Grove," and
subsequently-shortly before the house became the residence of Mr. Wyndham
Portal-Kingsclere House"), in giving an account of his attendance at
Church in 1840-41, remarked on its dilapidated state, shewing how necessary it
was to take steps to preserve the building. The authorities, however, did not
begin to move till 1846. The chancel, for the fabric
of which Lord Bolton was responsible as Lay Rector, was evidently in much the
same state as the nave and transepts, for the initiative seems to have been
taken by Lord Bolton, acting through his relative, Mr. Orde, previously the
Rector of Winslade and Vicar of Kingsclere. A letter from the architect, Mr.
Thos. Hillyer. of Ryde, dated September 9th, 1847, tells us how he was
requested to come to Basingstoke to" receive instructions about repairing
the chancel of Kingsclere Church." This letter is addressed to the
Curate-in-Charge - Mr. Tanner - for the Vicar, Mr. Mitchell, was living at
Southsea owing to ill-health. Negotiations do not appear to have been much
hindered through the absence of the Vicar, for Mr. Tanner knew Kingsclere well,
and had been in residence since 1833. It is through letters addressed to him by
the architect that we learn about the proceedings. The Architect visited Hackwood Park Several
times in September. He then submitted plans to Lord Bolton, not merely in
respect to the transept, but for "a complete restoration." Evidently
he found a ready approval of his plans, for he writes, "Lady Bolton seems
very interested, and well disposed." The next month seems to have been
occupied with correspondence between the Architect, Mr. Drake one of the
Churchwardens of Kingsclere. and Mr. Orde. At length, on November 23rd, we hear
that Mr. Hillyer's plans for a perfect and worthy restoration of the
chancel" have been "approved at headquarters." Doubts are
expressed as to whether objection would be raised to the expense. "I do
not think there will by Lady Bolton" is the significant sentence which
follows. Kingsclere then had a friend at court of whom the present worshippers
in the Church should think with gratitude. Mr. Tanner must have been very busy in the
last month of 1847, for now a decision to restore the whole Church had been
arrived at, and the plaster was being stripped off in places under the
supervision of the Curate-in-Charge, preparatory to Mr. Hillyer's visit from
Ryde. In this way was discovered the remains of a Norman arch "below the
beam at the west end." Some of the Stones of this Norman arch are still
seen. In the Victoria County History of Hants (vol. iv, p.263) the
opinion is expressed that they are "of real twelfth century workmanship
removed apparently from elsewhere." Mr. Hillyer's letter shows that they
are part of an original west window. Mr. Tanner was requested to find if
"any traces of old weather molds" remained up the tower, the object
of the Architect being to raise the pitch of the roof so that it could run up
just under the sills of the small circular windows on the W. and E. of the
tower. The futility of trusting to an inexperienced assistant is seen now. The
roof of the Chancel runs not "just under the sills," but across the
lower part of the small windows!! But now a momentous day was drawing near,
January l0th, 1848, when the Vestry would "consider the report of the
Architect on the state of the Church, and determine on the sum to be
contributed towards the repairs required to be done." Mr. Hillyer writes
to Mr. Tanner, who is to preside, in virtue of his position as
Curate-in-charge, discussing what had best be said, and what best left unsaid.
He is evidently suffering from an attack of nerves, and at the same time
anxious that the proposals formulated through the wise heads of the parson and
himself should not be upset. He writes:- As we intend in the restoration to go on the destructive
principle and not the conservative (beyond the tower and Kingsmill aisle)
or eclectic. I am afraid it will alarm some of the sticklers for antiquity. Another fear obsessed him. It appears that
Mr. Orde was of an economical turn of mind, for Mr. Hillyer writes that he
fears he will "go on the saving plan "-always the dread of an
architect! The fateful day arrived, and at. a large
meeting in the Church the report of Mr. Hillyer was considered. Mr. Easton was
there on behalf of the Duke of Wellington, Mr. Lamb and Mr. Dewey represented
Lord Bolton; Mr. Orde also attended. The meeting separated after gifts
amounting to £850 had been promised, and a unanimous vote of £1000 on the
security of the church rates had been obtained. A committee was formed to
"superintend the restoration of the Church," namely, the
churchwardens, Mr. Drake and Mr. Platt the Rev. Jas. Tanner, the Rural Dean,
Mr. Pole, Rector of Wolverton, Mr. Holding, Mr. Easton, and Mr Dewey. It
is this committee with which the Architect had now to deal. By this time he had
made up his mind as to his recommendations, e.g.: - I should proceed on the
conservative course in the nave, and complete the transepts in the Early
Decorated. The west front must then be taken down and rebuilt, and the entire
windows of the small characters as now." Mr. Hillyer writes on the 11th to say how
pleased he was with what had been done at Vestry, and "to find such a
capital Committee appointed." But, poor man, he was singing a different song
even before the first meeting of the Committee on the 18th!!! By the 12th the
feeling of the members had been reported to Ryde by Mr. Tanner, and it gave
great concern. The question' at issue were the use to be made of the Kingsmill
aisle and the height of the pewing. Mr. Dewey seems to have been the chief
offender as regards opinions about pewing, and the Architect remarks that his
ideas "will equal ant times of the Puritans." Mr. Hillyer was
also in favour of using the Kingsmill aisle for seating the congregation
instead of shutting it off (as indeed was done) by a glazed partition. Even
before the Committee had met, Mr. Hillyer is indulging in the vain hope that he
will be given :- If the Committee will leave
the matter in my hands I will undertake to make the Church comfortable without
violating architectural propriety or committing errors which in these times of
improved taste would entail odium on all concerned. Upon
the Committee meeting on January 18th, the claim of the parish, in opposition
to Mr. Kingsmill to the ownership of "the aisle, called Kingsmill's
aisle," was definitely asserted. Hence we do name of the Squire of
Sydmonton among the subscribers! At their meeting on February 7th the influence
of the Puritanical Mr. Dewey is seen, for it was decided "the pews to be
all closed, and of the height of 4ft. by 2ft. 9in.. in width, and of foreign
plain oak." A
controversy now arose about the position of the organ. The Architect was of
opinion "that the situation in the south transept is the best for the
organ." The authority of Lord Bolton had to be invoked against those who
wished to place it in the chancel. There also developed considerable difference
of opinion between the Architect and the Committee about the size of the
gallery, and the Architect remarks in sorrow, "I am afraid very low Church
ideas exist in some of the Committee" (February 24th, 1848). Such fears
were not groundless, for on the 28th the Committee decided to have closed pews
not only in the nave, but also in both transepts, but of different heights. It
was also ordered "that the Kingsmill aisle should be screened off instead
of partitioned at the westernmost arch in the same way as the chancel is
separated from the aisle." March had not far advanced before the
Committee had so grievously vexed the righteous soul of Mr. Hillyer that the
interference of the Archdeacon was invoked. The Curate-in-Charge received, on
March 4th, the appeal "to listen to the Archdeacon as setting at rest any
further suggestions that may be made, or I shall never get done." We hear nothing of the Vicar, who vas resting
all this time at Southsea; he was brought back for burial on February 26th,
1849; and accordingly the Archdeacon was called upon to put the Committee right
where the Architect thought they were wrong. The Archdeacon did not do all that
was expected of him, for Mr. Hillyer writes, "I wish he had condemned a
gallery and high pews." Indeed, Mr. Hillyer ad to fall back upon the two
clerics on the Committee as his only support. He writes, "I do really rely
on you and Mr. Pole doing all you can to make the restoration as free from
criticism as possible. By trying for what I suggest you are violating no part
of the rubric or leaning to the tractarians" March 4th). We do not know how much the
lay embers of the Committee knew of these efforts of the Architect, but they
were in vain. Neither the Archdeacon, the Rural Dean, or the Curate-in-Charge
could exercise a restraining influence on the five lay members of the Committee
of seven. The Architect seems to have finally given up the hope of getting his
own way towards the end of March, it he writes on the 25th:- The matter of blocking up the arch and the position,
etc., of the font I shall leave in the hands of the Committee. I regret the
want of perception of the beautiful that exists in some parties. With a final wail over the pewing~ he
concludes his letter The pews in the tower I suppose must be 4ft., or
shall we run the risk of keeping them 2ft. 10in. high? The lay majority on the Committee continued
to attend the meetings very regularly, and the clerical minority learnt the
truth of Mr. Birrells recent cruel words - "minorities must suffer." Acts of vandalism proceeded apace, e.g.,
on April 28th it was ordered that "the east window in the north transept
be stopped up." This is one of the most interesting windows (Early
English) in the Church. It has only recently been opened again and the mullions
restored The late Rector of Pangbourne, Mr. Finch, perceived its beauty, and
started the project with a donation of £10. As the spring of 1848 advanced, the work at
Kingsclere Church proceeded in earnest. The Curate-in-Charge continued his
correspondence with the. Architect. From this it is seen that no provision had
been made in the contract for the removal or protection of the monuments. This
was a source of anxiety to Mr. Tanner. The magnificent alabaster tomb to the
memory of Sir Henry and Lady Bridget Kingsmill escaped injury except that the
sword lying by Sir Henry's side was broken. He also notices the charming effect
when the workmen had removed an old screen, and the arch opening from the
transept into the Kingsmill aisle was no longer blocked up. But the Committee
was obdurate, and the Architect had to design another screen!! The
Curate-in-Charge was a busy man that spring, for letters from Ryde show that
the Architect expected him to act as a sort of Clerk of the Works. He is
exhorted to superintend in these words I shall feel obliged if you will look and see the
flints are taken out full six inches, and the walls well wet while they are
rebuilding it (May 19th 1848). How Mr. Tanner could attend to the duties of
a large parish, comprising as it did at that time Sydmonton, Ecchinswell, and
Kingsclere, while the Church was being restored passes our understanding Meanwhile the Committee met every month to
sign cheques for the contractor and issue directions. On June 26th
the following decision is recorded: That the interior of the eastern arch of the south
transept be filled with a glazed parclose to the same height as the chancel. At this meeting another
'effort was made to obtain some concession to the Architect's views about the
pewing, and we see the result from the minutes:- It was directed that the
pews in the nave should be 2ft. 10in. instead of 2ft. 9in.; and the pews in the
transepts should be 3ft. 9in. instead of 4ft., and that such latter range do
extend as far as the projection of the tower piers. The remainder of the space
under the tower set apart for sittings as per plan to be fitted with movable
benches, low, with close backs." This was indeed a concession, for the doors
of the pews up to 1847 measured 5ff. 1lin. One is still used in the belfry.
Three more meetings of the Committee were held during 1848, when various
matters were dealt with - the entrances to the vaults, the position of the
font, prayer desk, and pulpit, the "ridge lead on the nave and
transepts," and "the position of the mural tablets." We are not
surprised, having regard to the absence of the Architect at Ryde, and
necessarily inefficient assistance of his improvised Clerk of the Works at
Kingsclere, a busy clergyman with many responsibilities, that by the end of
November the Committee were having trouble with the contractor. It is reported
that it was necessary to give notice to him "of his liability to a;
penalty of £100, and the other responsibilities attendant on the non-performance
of the contract" (November 27th). At this meeting it was resolved that the rim of the western arch be restored as per
the Architect's estimate of £7. 8s. and that six ventilators be introduced as
required." The winter of 1848 sped away and still the work at theChurch had not
been finished. However, on .January 8th, 1849, the contractor, Mr. Balding
"attended the Committee, and engaged to complete the whole of the works
contained in his contract, and the several additions thereto on the first day March
next." In February additional donations were announced. Among these is the
following:-"Wyndham Portal Esqre., decorations and additions to the
Lanthorn, £30." His grandson, Sir William Portal, Bart., last year went t
expense of renovating this work. March 5th the contractor is a the carpet"
for not fulfilling his contract.. The winter of 1847-1848 was a very wet one,
but at the next meeting (April 2nd) it was found possible to fix upon May 15th
as the day "for the opening of the Church." Great must have been the
hurry to be ready for this auspicious event, for as late as May 7th a letter
was sent to Mr. Hillyer. "The Committee," it states, "wish your
attention to the following points:- 1.The non-completion ot the
font. 2.-The
non-completion of the heating apparatus. 3.-The
benches not finished. 4.-The
Communion Table and chairs. 5.-The
weather vane. 6.-The
rail in front of the gallery. 7.-Handle,
etc., inside of the door in the chancel aisle. 8.-The decalogue not
completed." Difficulties such as these were
overcome or passed over, and the Church was duly re-opened with great
rejoicings on Tuesday, May 15th, 1849, after an .expenditure, exclusive of the
chancel, off £2,726. 6s. 10d. We of the present day do not
share to the full in these rejoicings. Some of us are "sticklers for
antiquity." We mourn the loss of the old W. doorway and window of the
Perpendicular Period, and of the lancet windows giving much needed light at the
E. end of the nave. The porches of both N. and S. doors of the nave have gone,
and even the Norman doorway on the S. side is covered in. The failure to
preserve the monuments in the N. transept and memorial slabs in the chancel
invokes displeasure. The encaustic tiles were mostly thrown away. It has taken
the present incumbent many years to get together a collection, of varied
design, dug up in various places. Those of the parishioners
who are interested in preserving the building from decay look back with regret
to the Architect's disuse of tie beams for his new roof. The roof has since
spread, and rests upon the flint casing which he built round the old rabble
walls. In using the old mullions for ties the casing was not properly keyed to
these walls. On the S. side of the nave the casing is coming away from the
wall, and some day will come down with a run. The nave roof has recently been
tied together with iron rods to prevent its further spreading. The lead on the
roof is in tar too large strips. When the Diocesan Architect visited the Church
he said the lead must all be taken off and relaid. It often leaks, and
repeatedly slips, the weight tearing-through the nails. The plaster used inside
the building is of an inferior quality. Its blotchy appearance spoilt the
appearance of the church until recently, when a colour-wash, recommended by
Professor Lethaby, was adopted. Not only inferior workmanship, but inferior
material was used when casing the Church with flint. As a consequence, last
year the damp was penetrating through the tower wall, 3ft. thick, on the south
side. Successful
constructional achievement can hardly be expected when we remember that
Mr. Hillyer was a very busy man (he restored or built over forty Churches), and
he had no Clerk of the Works except the parson, who had no practical knowledge,
and could not superintend the work as well as serve a large parish. The
Committee were very diligent, and had a keen sense of their responsibility. Mr.
Drake was present at every one of the twenty-two meetings, Mr. Pole and Mr.
Holding only missed one meeting, Mr. Tanner and Mr. Dewey were only absent
twice. Mr. Platt had a long way to come from his farm at Canon Heath, and so
missed seven meetings. Mr. Easton, with his many duties as agent to the Duke of
Wellington, could not attend very regularly. Our sympathy is with these gentlemen,
because they suffered from the neglect of their forefathers, who had allowed
the Church to fall into the state described by Mr. Pink. Had Canon 85, which
regulates the duties of Church-wardens, been obeyed, beautiful windows,
doorways, and timbers of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries would not have
become ruinous, and regarded as beyond reparation in 1848. The moral of the
preceding pages seems to be this: The Churchwardens are, in justice, bound to
effect the requisite repairs, however slight and trifling they may be: for the
practice, unfortunately but too common, of leaving this to be done in a future
year is most reprehensible and unjust, as it must ultimately increase the cost
of repairs, and throw on the parishioners of a future period a burden which
ought to be borne by the parishioners of the current year" (Prideaux,
p.82). . A. T. Finch. Kingsclere
Vicarage, July, 1914. N.B.-In spite of all the imperfections of the
restoration in 1848, Kingsclere Church remains one of the most interesting and
imposing structures in Hampshire. |