CHURCH, LONDON.

BY J. P. ST. AUBYN, FELLOW.

Read at the Ordinary General Meeting of the Royal Institute of British Architects, May 16th, 1864.

I BELIEVE the first attempt at restoration at the Temple Church was in 1825-27, when some buildings, which stood on the south side of the Round Church, and were incorporated with the Chapel of St. Ann, were removed, and the chapel destroyed to the level of the ground. It was then, I believe, that the rubble face of the south side of the Round Church was cut away, and the Bath-stone ashlar and a parapet substituted. Other repairs were also done at this time to the interior.

The second restoration, which was very extensive, comprised the whole of the church excepting the north side, or one-half of the exterior of the Round Church and a considerable part of the porch. You all know the extent of these repairs, and doubtless have heard of their cost.* The late, or third restoration, embraces only the repairs of the north side of the Round Church, the re-roofing of the clerestory, and the external repairs of the porch.

The few observations I have to address to you will be devoted to pointing out some of the peculiarities and features that have been brought to light during the progress of these last-mentioned works; in which Professor Sydney Smirke, R.A., acted as Architect to the Society of the Inner, and myself in the same capacity to that of the Middle Temple.

After frequent meetings and negociations between the members of the "two Temples," the Benchers agreed to adopt my suggestions and to remove the whole of the buildings standing on the east side of Inner Temple Lane, and to throw open the principal part of the space so cleared.

This done, the melancholy state of this part of the church was apparent. The soil had accumulated about six feet, and all sorts of disfigurements and mutilations were shown to have been committed on the building.

A heavy brick parapet surmounted the table course of the eaves, and within this was a lead gutter. The first operation, of course, was to excavate the ground to its original level, and so to ascertain the extent of the repairs necessary to be undertaken.

This was done. A photograph taken at the time shows the state of the walls tolerably well. The buttresses and their sets-off were much mutilated, and all the dressed work of fire, or Reigate, stone had quite perished; but the other stone-work, apparently of coarse oolite, had stood very well.

The north arch of the porch, the only one of the three not tampered with, was in a very shattered and almost falling condition; but, by great care, we were able to preserve it, as well as the north-west pier and the ancient groining which covered one-half of the porch.

The first point in the restoration was to decide as to the finish of the roof at the eaves. I had little doubt, from the result of investigation, that, when first designed, the roof had hanging or dripping eaves; a parapet, therefore, as adopted in 1825, on the south side, was, in my opinion, à mistake. A stone gutter was then proposed; but this was open to the same objection as the parapet, viz., that it was adding something on the walls, for which there was no existing authority. An iron or lead gutter, resting on the table course, was then suggested; and the result is the cast lead gutter which you now see.

Full notices of these are to be found in Addison's History of the Temple Church, 1842; Billing's Architectural Illustrations, 1838, and an Account of the Temple Church, by Sydney Smirke, F.S.A., in "Weale's Quarterly Papers," vol. ii., 1844, to which latter a variety of illustrations of decorations, woodwork of stalls, &c., is appended.

E E

The buttress sets-off were the next difficulty. The eastern one is quite different in profile from the other two, and appears to have been re-built on the top of the plinth course of the original buttress, about the beginning of the last century. The two remaining buttresses had been much mutilated; but, by a very careful examination, stone by stone, of the overlaying parts, as they were removed, I think we can state with tolerable certainty that the original profile has been reproduced.

I should here mention that the front faces of these buttresses are not in a right line, but curved, and form parts of the arcs of circles, the centre of which coincides with the centre of the Round Church itself. This is necessary, in order that the buttress face may unite with the curve of the table course at

the eaves.

The restoration of the remaining features of this portion of the work was comparatively easy; a bit here and a fragment in another place giving sufficient data whereby to complete the wanting parts. As I have said before, the Reigate stone, whether in ashlar or otherwise, was very much perished: this we have replaced with Bath stone. The nook shafts, which had all disappeared, have been replaced with red Mansfield stone. The caps of these shafts are curious, and very similar to those of the arcades running round the inside of the Round Church under the windows. The bases are uncommon in form, the profile being very flat. The walling is of rough Kentish rag stone, in irregular or random courses. This has been made good, as nearly as possible to harmonize with the old work; and, although abundant proof remains to show that the whole external face of this walling was covered with a thin coat of plaster, filling in the hollows and just covering the surface of the rough stone, still we have not been bold enough to re-adopt this mode of finishing the surface of the walls; but the pointing, which has been substituted for it, will not prevent the more ancient mode of finish, should it at any time be considered desirable to revert to it.

On the walls are tracings of the mason's marks found on the outer surface of some of the stones.

I need hardly mention that the ashlar was all shaped and worked with the stone-axe. mode of dressing we have adopted in all the new work, and the modern "drag" has not been used.

This

I now come to the porch, the date of which, as far as I know, has not been ascertained: it is certainly later than the round church of 1185. This is clearly ascertained by the existence of the foundations of what would be the two western radiating buttresses, and by the top course of each of these buttresses still remaining under the eaves-course. A further proof also occurs in the breaking off of the plinth; that of the porch being quite different from that of the round church, against which it abuts. I venture to think it occupies a date between that of the round and of the square church; and I am inclined to agree with what is conjectured by Britton in his account, given in his Architectural Antiquities, viz.: "That the exterior walls of the round church, with the great western door, are the remains of the original building of 1185, but the six clustered shafts within, with the superincumbent arches, are of later date." Now, I think it may be safely asserted that even this part of the church is earlier than the square church, from which it differs in detail, as well as in the shape of the arches; and I conclude that the porch and the arcade of the round church are of one and the same date. I propose, therefore, as I have said, to place the porch between 1185 (the known date of a part, at least, of the round church) and 1240, the date of the square church; but very soon after the earlier period. This opinion might be subject to confirmation or otherwise if the outer wall could be stripped; but I have not had an opportunity of verifying my theory by this test.

The wheel window could not have been part of the original design of the west front; and, the ornaments on this so closely resemble those of the capitals of the porch, and the caps to both are so nearly alike in form and character, that I assign the insertion of the window to the same date as

the porch. Great care appears to have been taken to keep down the roof of the porch so as not to obscure the light to the window. The stone vaulting is for this purpose finished in a very peculiar way; the outer face or back of the vaulting did not follow the same curve as the under face, but was straight; that is, the back is formed sloping, like a roof, and on this was laid the boarding (to carry a lead roof), as evidenced by the impress of the boards still remaining on the mortar.

roof was kept very low, and it does not obstruct the light to the window.

By this means the

The drawing shows the state of the north arch of the porch. Sufficient was found to indicate very nearly the exact form of this front; the dip of the string is peculiar, and, I fancy, gives an apparent height to the gable, which it wants. I am sorry, therefore, I was not allowed to repeat the same arrangement on the other side. The parapet is conjectural, although there is evidence to show that one did exist.

The base of the porch buttress was found to exist as high as the top of the plinth. So far the restoration of the buttresses is complete: but as to the sets off and their height we have nothing to guide us. The bases and caps are peculiar in design. Observe the folds in the one, and the extreme flatness of the other. The wheel window is curious and beautiful; observe the cusps, caps, and bases; and the mode of fitting the work together, with a wedge piece between each voussoir. On each stone of the enclosing circle a centre line was scratched, which would show, I think, that the shape of each stone was drawn on the flat and then cut to the lines, instead of using a templet or mould, as is the modern practice.

This part of the church being finished, it was determined to remove the parapet on the clerestory, or upper Round, and to substitute a lead gutter, as on the aisle, and to roof it with a steep cone, at an angle of sixty-five degrees, rising to a total height of 105 feet from the ground to the top of the lead knop; the iron work, with cock, is 11 feet more. Inner Temple Lane now presents a far different

aspect than when enclosed by high buildings on each side. A desirable object still remains to be accomplished, viz., the lowering of the surface of the lane by a somewhat sharper descent, thereby freeing the porch on its west side, as its present buried look detracts much from its appearance.

When the accumulated soil was removed, the stone coffins, which you see in the photograph and also on the plan, were discovered; but, I am sorry to say, in a very mutilated state. Very few were at all perfect, and all had been opened and filled up with rubbish and human bones. The coffins have been patched merely to keep them together, no attempt having been made to amalgamate the "repairs" with the ancient work; and, upon consideration, it was thought better to allow them to remain on the surface of the ground at the levels at which they were found, and where they may be now seen. The bones and rubbish in the coffins have not been examined. There are fragments of inscriptions on two of the lids, one quite unintelligible, the other, thus

T. PHILIPPVS
ÞILARIO

which Mr. Walford, who writes in the Archæological Journal (No. 78, 1863) supposes to be

+ HIC IACET PHILIPPVS DE SANCTO HILARIO.

The ground around the church abounds in fragments of bones; but no whole skeletons were found, excepting two discovered in digging the foundations of Goldsmith's Building. These were without coffins, and nothing of interest was found with them: doubtless all the graves were well ransacked when the cemetery was turned into building ground.

It now only remains for me to mention St. Ann's chapel, which stood on the south side of the Round Church. A ground plan of this building is shown in all the earlier plans of the Temple church; and its outline is given in a plan made by Mr. Hakewill, in 1825, when unfortunately it was destroyed. The

only elevation I have seen is from a drawing in the British Museum, copied into "The Builder," March 20th, vol. 20, 1862. As I have said, the whole of the shops on the south side of the church were destroyed in 1825, and with them all traces of the chapel and its crypt above ground. However, in cutting a drain for Goldsmith's Building, we came across the remains of the crypt, from which the rubbish has been cleared, and the remains covered with stone landings, with an opening at one end, so that it can be entered and viewed at any time. A few fragments of the vaulting ribs and other stones were found, as well as a few encaustic tiles. The drawings shew the south wall of the crypt as far as it remains, with the plastering, which is of very fine material, jointed with red lines.

MR. W. A. BOULNOIS inquired whether the timbers of the new roof were of oak.

The Chairman, EWAN CHRISTIAN, V.P., said that had not been stated by Mr. St. Aubyn. He added, he was sorry Mr. Street had not waited to hear the confirmation given in this paper to his (the Chairman's) observations about plastering walls. With respect to the Temple Church they must all admit that the form of roof introduced was an improvement, and he was glad to find that Mr. St. Aubyn had restored the lead gutters. Ancient examples of these gutters were now getting rare but there were a few beautiful ones still remaining in the country-one on the choir of Lincoln Cathedral. It was, however, disappearing by degrees, and every time he went he feared to see another piece gone. It was a beautiful parapet, in cast lead, ornamented with enriched panelling. There had been similar gutters at Canterbury Cathedral, but little now remained. Last year at a village church in Dorsetshire he saw a very simple and beautiful lead eaves gutter such as he thought might be more generally introduced, instead of the cast iron gutters which required frequent painting, and soon got out of order. He was sure the meeting would be unanimous in agreeing to a vote of thanks to Mr. St. Aubyn for his paper.

Royal Enstitute of British Architects.

REPORT of the Committee appointed by the Council of the Royal Institute of British Architects, 2nd March, 1863, for the Purpose of making experiments on Artificial Stone.

YOUR Committee met on the 11th of March, 1863, and at once issued notices, and advertised in the public journals, that it was desirous of receiving prospectuses or other information connected with the manufacture of Artificial Stone; and resolved

That each patentee be informed that this Committee proposes to report merely on the actual facts which may appear in the investigation;

That, so far as possible, the various materials used in the investigations be supplied under the immediate supervision of this Committee;

That Mr. C. H. Smith, Honorary Member, be added to this Committee;

That some eminent Chemist be associated with this Committee, in order to assist it in the investigation of the processes [Alfred White, Esq., was thereon added]; and

That each patentee be requested to inform this Committee the proceedings he would propose to adopt with regard to the investigation of his process.

It received responses from Messrs. Coignet, Ransome, Bodmer,* and Wheeble.†

Mr. Charles M. Westmacott put forward his patent cement and plaster; and although they are, perhaps, beyond the scope of the Committee, it was received by them, on account of the interest that had been shown in the patent at the meeting of the Institute on the 23rd of February, 1863.

The Committee met eleven times at Mr. Dines's, Grosvenor Road, twice at Mr. Tracey's, and once at Mr. Ransome's, in Cannon Row, exclusive of a visit to his works at Ipswich on the 15th of December last.

On the first meeting, at Mr. Dines's, the Committee met Mons. Coignet for two successive days (7th and 8th of April, 1863), who prepared before it various blocks of his patent béton, which were experimented upon at future meetings (Table A). The Committee, having had regard to the state of the materials after exposure to atmospheric influences, and the reverse, the results in these as in all its other experiments, may be taken as certified by the extreme care that it has taken, and are herewith appended in tabular forms, A, B, C, D, E, and F.

The Committee met in Cannon Row on the 15th of May, 1863, and Mr. Ransome thoroughly explained, in the most open and satisfactory manner, his process; but, as he stated that he could not, on so small a scale of manufacture, and without machinery, provide fair samples, it permitted him to prepare (from moulds supplied) samples at his works at Ipswich, and to forward them to London, guaranteed by him, to be experimented upon before it. The Commitee, however, not being satisfied with the results, thought it advisable to see samples made, and intimated its wish to Mr. Ransome, who most liberally received it at Ipswich on the 15th of December last, and exhibited his mode of manufacture on a large scale. Specimens from the moulds, supplied by the Committee, were made before it, which were tested afterwards in London; and subsequently he likewise prepared others from the same moulds, which were tested in like manner. The results are appended in Table B.