1831.]

Removal of the Screen at York Minster.

party's conduct, and charged the newspapers with exciting the irritation which existed throughout the county on the subject of the innovation. The Yorkshire Gazette has very ably refuted this unjust charge, and adds, with truth, that if it had not been for the newspapers, the subscribers would have heard nothing of the matter till the Screen had been taken down. Mr. Vernon quoted in favour of his opinion the names of several provincial architects, not celebrated for their knowledge of our ancient architecture, but known in their neighbourhood for their buildings in the Gothic style; which style, it is well known, contemns the authority of such models of excellence as are exhibited in York Minster. Their opinion, no doubt, is as good as that of the majority of contemporary architects, who have never studied the ancient architecture of England as they profess to have done that of Grecian and Roman origin. They should, however, be told that it requires even more industry to become thoroughly acquainted with its principles than any style which has fixed and certain rules. Stuart has supplied the majority of architects with the greater part of their knowledge of ancient models; but there is no folio of taste for the use of the office, consequently the Barrys* of the day are very few.

Mr. Vernon said: "With the drawings, fifteen hundred copies of Mr. Smirke's report had been circulated; and the opinion of the subscribers had been requested. A number of letters had, in consequence, been received; those in favour of the removal being upwards of 600; and those against it being something more than 100. A meeting was held in Leeds on the subject, where 63 persons were present; and 60 of them had set their names down in favour of the removal, and only three against it."

Mr. Vernon was followed by the venerable Archdeacon Markham, a name which will for ever be revered by the admirers of ancient English architecture, and of York Minster in particular. This gentleman is the brother of the late Dean, who set an example of care and regard for his cathedral, which, it is to he regretted, is already forgotten, or remembered only by those who cannot follow his admirable pattern. The Archdeacon reflected in strong terms on the proceedings subsequent to the meeting in July, which he argued ought to have been, as it was intended, final on the question. He read a letter from Lord Mansfield, declaring his opinion to be against the removal of the Screen; and that, if he even entertained a different opinion on the subject, he would have condemned the propriety of the present meeting. The Archdeacon pointed out, with peculiar skill, the

Charles Barry, Esq. an architect of elegant taste.

35

inaccuracies of the drawing which has occasioned so much criticism, inaccuracies glaring and perfectly indefensible. The model was likewise incorrect. The scale upon which it was executed was two inches to ten feet. Consequently, a person standing at the distance of four feet two inches from the face of the model, was placed as far from that Screen as the west door is from the present Screen in the Minster. He had

often seen, however, people place themselves as far as ten or twelve feet from the model; little thinking, that from the diminutive scale of the model, they were standing certainly far out of the Minster; probably without Bootham-bar, or perhaps on the Manor Shore. Mr. Smirke took it for granted, that every subscriber agrees that the Minster should be restored in the most "perfect and enlarged sense of the term;" surely then, he ought to have kept to restoration alone; and not have brought forward dissertations from Mr. Wilkins on the nature of innovations, which he had himself distinctly declared he would avoid. (Applause.) It had been asserted that the inner porch of the Screen is of a later date than the ornamental Screen front. Now it was only necessary to look at it, to be convinced that this was not the case; as the two porches, and the ornamental fronting to the Screen, were banded in together, so as to shew that the western Screen and the choir front of the porch were built at the same time. There were many reasons why this porch should not be destroyed. In the recent discoveries made of a Ňorman church below the pavement of the choir, the antiquity of the Minster had been raised to the time of the conquest (applause)—so that they now had a specimen of every change of Gothic English architecture from that period to the period of Henry VII. when cathedral Gothic architecture sunk never to rise again. It was a proud possession; and few cathedrals could boast of such beautiful specimens as they had. (Applause.) But the link of this interesting series, which was now complete, would be broken by the demolition of nearly half the porch, where the only specimen of fan-tracery in the Minster now existed. (Hear, hear.) That porch, which now threw a shade between the broad light of the nave and the entrance of the choir, creating that gloom so productive of religious feeling; and that mystic awe which, on other occasions, Mr. Smirke knew so well how to appreciate, that porch would now be reduced to paltry dimensions! (Hear, hear.) And why these innovations! It had been discovered that the porch did not stand in the centre of the nave. Wonderful discovery! It was never intended it should do

nor could it ever be placed by Mr. Smirke in the centre of the nave and of the

choir. If irregularity in ancient buildings were an argument for altering, or rather

36

Removal of the Screen at York Minster.

destroying them, what would become of the
great pillars of the lantern tower themselves?
which were all of different shapes and di-
mensions; or of the leaning columns in the
transept, crushed by the superincumbent
weight? or of the leaning tower at Pisa?
or the Assinelli at Bologna? (Applause.)
But there was another reason for pulling it
down. Mr. Smirke says,
"that a large
proportion of its enrichments are the work
of a plasterer now living.' Why not men-
tion the name of this plasterer? Bernas-
coni, a most ingenious artist, who had within
the last ten years erected an ornamental Altar
Screen in Westminster Abbey of this same
plaster, under the direction of Benjamin
Wyatt; he believed there was also one in St.
George's Chapel, Windsor. "My brother,"
said the Rev. Speaker, “did introduce plaster
into the organ Screen, and he lived to see
his error. No sooner did he see it than he
repented of it; and sincerely lamented that
which the poverty of the Minster funds
compelled him to do. If the meeting, then,
saw the error of removing the Screen, which
he hoped they would, let them imitate him,
not in what he did amiss, but in acknow-
ledging that they were wrong; and de-
pend upon it," added the Rev. Gent. much
affected, "if you never did more harm to
the Minster than Dean Markham did, it
will still continue to stand unrivalled among
the cathedrals of Europe." (Cheers.) No
one, he presumed, would deny that the pre-
sent Screen was built for the spot where it
now stood; and that the architect built it
in proportion to the situation it occupied.
The Screen, being 23 feet six inches high,
was in the proportion of about one-eighth
to the height of the tower, which was near
200 feet high now, when brought east-
ward to the first column in the choir, its
proportion would be about one-fourth to
the height of the canopy, which was not
100 feet high. This was, he supposed, one
of Mr. Smirke's substantial restorations;
any thing more contrary to architectural
rules he could not conceive. (Applause.) If
it was an innovation, in its day, to place the
Screen against the great pillars, it surely
must be equally an innovation now to place
it against a column in the choir, for which
it was never intended. (Applause.) The
argument, "that the pillars concealed by
the Screen were constructed with a view to
be seen on every side, and that their shafts
and moulded bases were worked down to the

[Jan.

the lantern had been extolled, and every thing most beautiful in the Minster must give way to the setting them off to the greater advantage. No person admired that part of the fabric more than himself; but he must contend that it was not the finest part of the cathedral. (Hear.) The choir unquestionably had the pre-eminence, and had always been considered as the finest choir in Europe by all persons of taste in this as well as in all other countries. (Applause.) It surprised him too, to see the composure with which the removal of the altar Screen was contemplated; as if that were not, in itself, a glaring innovation. That was deemed too trivial even to mention, as the removal of it one arch further east, was considered nothing; it made not the slightest difference to the eye; as they had before been told that the diminishing the choir 30 feet in 220, would never be perceived. Supposing, however, that, as Mr. Smirke said, no one would miss 30 feet in 220, that is one arch out of nine, they surely would be able to detect the taking away of one arch out of three, between the altar Screen and the east window; if not, it showed him what he had always thought, how incompetent the generality of people were to form correct opinions from looking at a plan. He would contend that it was the present situation of the altar Screen which gave magnificence and grandeur to the whole choir. It was not the space between the altar and organ Screen which gave the grand effect, but the whole length from the organ Screen to the east window; that noble waste of room, that disregard of space between the altar Screen and the east window which was so striking, and which constituted that sublime effect which was so imposing.

The Reverend Mr. Landon, of Aberford, followed in a speech expressive of his utter contempt of the original design of the Minster, and he called the Screen an "" incumbrance which disgraced the finest part of the Minster,"-the same Screen which immediately after the fire was spoken of with admiration, and its escape from injury regarded with unfeigned and universal delight.

Rich. Bethell, Esq. then moved, "That the plan of Mr. Smirke for the removal of the organ Screen be adopted."

Mr. Fawkes seconded the resolution.

Mr. Scott moved as an amendment, that "It is the opinion of this meeting that the decision of the meeting held in this place on the 29th of July last, was, and ought to be final."

Mr. Stapylton was for the alteration, and made a long speech, in which he invoked disapprobation. He was frequently interrupted by coughing, and other symptoms of impatience and censure.

Lord Morpeth asserted that it had been proved that "the position of the Screen was

1831.]

Removal of the Screen at York Minster.

not that which it originally occupied."(Mr. Morritt, " No, no.")—His Lordship owned, if it was made out that this was the original and constant position of the Screen, and if it was also proved that this was the position of screens in all existing cathedrals, still if it could be proved to him that neither the stability of the fabric, nor its utility for public worship, would be endangered-and it appeared they would nothe said if this could be shewn, and it could be shewn too that the general appearance would be improved, he should say let it be removed. (Applause, and cries of, No, no.) Mr. Morritt talked of the destruction of the Screen; but who thought of such a thing? It would merely be removed to a place where it would stand in ALMOST as good a light, and in BETTER PROPORTIONS. (Hear, and applause.) If the Screen was brought into competition with the general effect of the pillars and the great tower, its minuter beauties must give way, if it were even to be demolished entirely, instead of being removed further back 30 feet. He should say the same if the beauty of the Screen were ten times greater than it were, if its materials were ten times richer, if all its statues were the work of Phidias or of Chantrey. Take a stranger to the Minsterand, after all, first impressions were most decisive in questions of taste-and which would he have his attention rivetted by, the beautiful littleness of the Screen, or the old and magnificent columns, the vast and springing arches of the lantern tower? For himself, he must always prefer the awfully vast to the elegantly little."-This is the kind of feeling and taste which is to decide the fate of an ancient cathedral!

George Strickland, Esq. combatted his Lordship's arguments. He grappled at once with the bad taste of the proposed alteration. He thought that the want of ornament and high finish in the interior of the Minster was obviated by the elaborate Screen which was placed in the centre, in the full blaze of light, and took away that feeling of voidness which must meet the eye, if it had nothing to rest upon but naked walls, and bare pillars. (Loud applause.) Then what constituted the charm of that magnificent choir, which was totally unequalled in any part of the world. (Hear.) What was it but, to use the language of the immortal Milton, "the long-drawn aisle," where was seen pillar after pillar, and arch after arch, in the vast perspective, till the eye rested upon the magnificent and gorgeous east window? (Applause.) If this innovation be carried, what will be the effect? Can we then stand at the foot of the lantern tower and see at one view all the beauties of the choir? No, it will be broken; it will be two; it will not be one! (Applause.) He thought it impossible to pass over the question of pledges. He was present at the first meeting in Lon

37

don. At that meeting strong disapproba tion was expressed at the hasty manner in which Mr. Smirke had been placed over the heads of the admirable workmen who had hitherto conducted the repairs of York Minster with such credit, such immortal credit to themselves; so much so, that when other cathedrals wanted repairing, it was considered that they could not be properly done unless some of those workmen were sent for. (Hear.) At that meeting the Deau, and all who spoke on the part of the Chapter, spoke only of perfect restoration; and the meeting was particularly congratulated upon the fact that the Screen was so little injured, and that so small a part of the subscriptions would be required for its reparation. (Hear, hear.) Then came the meeting which was held in this room on the 5th of March, 1829; previous to which a report had been drawn up by Mr. Smirke, in which he says, "it appears to me on every account most desirable, that the work should be re-constructed in every part with materials of the same durable quality as those employed in the original construction of the fabric; and that the same design, in all the ancient ornamental parts, should be strictly adhered to, as far as it can be ascertained." He hoped that the report which had gone abroad was totally false, that the ornamental parts of the roof were made of the cheap American pine, the softest, the cheapest, and the most worthless of all wood. This report was published in a pamphlet, and along with it a speech delivered by Mr. Vernon, in which he stated, that "the Dean and Chapter entirely concurred in the principles of absolute and perfect restoration which Mr. Smirke had recommended." There was an absolute feeling of delight at this second declaration; and at the reflection that the persons in whom the management of the money was vested, had now bound themselves by pledges which they could not depart from. The subscriptions poured in; and the munificent sum of between 50 and 60,000l. was soon raised. Now, although Mr. Vernon might not consider himself bound by this pledge, nor by the decision of the meeting, yet he would state what the law was on the subject. It was, that if money was subscribed for any particular object, and if the person into whose hands that money comes use it for any other object whatever, then the subscribers are entitled to recover their money back again. Or there was another mode. If a design was manifested to make use of money so subscribed in such an improper manner, the subscribers might apply for an injunction to prevent it being gone on with. (Hear.) No decision of a majority of the meeting in favour of a removal of the Screen could bind the minority in the face of those pledges; and himself, and the subscribers who thought with him, were bound not to give

38

Removal of the Screen at York Minster.

their sanction to this wanton and faithless
innovation. (Applause.) It was not in this
city and county alone that monuments of
ancient art had been uselessly and wantonly
destroyed; and such destruction had always
been followed by feelings of sorrow, repent-
ance, and regret. He would ask them to
travel with him to Rome, or to Athens, and
when there, to view the devastation which
the spoiler had committed on the monu-
ments of their ancient greatness, the re-
mains of their ancient art? Did they never
hear around them a murmur, that these
spoliations were committed by Goths, by
Vandals, by barbarians? And if British
hands had been stained by such offensive
acts of plunder, there were not wanting im→
mortal British poets to hand down with in-
dignation to posterity the wanton spoilers.
Let them hope the example would not be
followed here :

"Dull is the eye that would not weep to see
The walls defaced, the mouldering shrines
remov'd
[hov'd,
By British hands, which it had best be-
To guard those relics, ne'er to be restored."
The Rev. W. V Vernon said, he held in
his hand a full refutation of all that was said
on the subject of the pledge. (Hear.) He
admitted that the question of the Screen was
never called to his mind till he received a
letter from Lord Egremont offering a most
munificent subscription, if the Screen was
entirely removed. He replied, that this was
a measure that had never been considered;
and that there appeared many objections to
it. (Hear.) The pledge he gave to the
meeting was in accordance with Mr. Smirke's
report. Now, in consequence of an offer
munificently made by the Government, of
a quantity of teak for the roof, that wood
had been actually employed in the construc-
tion of it. Luckily the words "or teak"
had been introduced into Mr. Smirke's re-
port, or the use of this wood would have
been made a matter of charge. Of this
wood the ribs and frame-work of the roof
were made; and on them were laid 'orna-
ments of that light American wood which
had been so erroneously described, and so
unjustly reprobated. If the passage so often
alluded to, was taken with its context, it
would be seen that he was pledged to no-
thing respecting the Screen. It ran thus,
"Upon the report I have only to remark,
that the Dean and Chapter entirely concur
in the principles of absolute and perfect re-
storation which Mr. Smirke has recom-
mended; and that, should the means of
finishing the work immediately on these
principles be withheld from them, they would
even prefer protracting its completion to
abandoning them in any respect. They will
not depart from a model more excellent and
beautiful than any thing which they can
substitute in its place; they will not, in
the reparation of this noble and venerable

[Jan.

inheritance from past ages, pay less atten tion to grandeur of effect, and durability of material, than was bestowed on these great objects in its original construction." He would ask this meeting whether it conveyed any other meaning than, that in effecting the restoration the same regard should be paid to the durability of materials as had been shewn in the ancient fabric, and also to the pattern!

In the midst of clamour the Lord Mayor (The Hon. Edward Petre), was heard to speak in favour of the alteration. His remark, however, in reference to the Minster, commenced with a mistake, he said, "att had the same object;" i. e. "THE MOST PERFECT RESTORATION of what might be considered the pride of England; let them come to such a decision then as would show the world their determination to effect that ob

ject." This was hitting his own party a very hard blow. In fact, he spoke with the best taste and voted with the worst.

There were now loud calls for the "question;" and Lord Harewood read the original motion and the amendment, and then said, There is a matter connected with this discussion which I will submit to the meeting now. I consider this meeting to be for the purpose of collecting the sense of the subscribers to the fund. Some of the subscribers have sent their opinions in writing, containing their objections to the measure, or otherwise; and it seems reasonable to me that those persons who have so sent their opinions should be considered as parties present.

A long discussion then offered on the right of the dissentients to the removal of the Screen, or to withdraw their money, should that innovation take place.

Mr. Morritt could not consent to the reception of the opinions of the absent subscribers, because they are founded on prints which are deceptive, and many persons who had formed an opinion in favour of removal from those prints, altered it when on the spot.

The Rev. W. V. Vernon.-There are deputations here from Leeds and from Sheffield, who have brought over the written opinions of the subscribers in those towns. I wish they should be heard as to the maner in which these opinions were obtained. (Astounding cries of-No, no!)

A long conversation then followed on the propriety of receiving the written opinions. A very general call for "Question," now took place. The Lord Mayor and Mr. Scott were nominated Tellers; the numbers appeared to be,

For Mr. Scott's Amendment...119 For the Original Resolution.. 92 The Earl of Harewood.-If the Chair is called upon, the Chair is here to answer it; and I shall do it in the same tone in which I have spoken throughout; and I say, that

Removal of the Screen at York Minster.