that controversy and was, as I think, signally discomfited.

He begins with a thrice-told tale about the tower having been "stripped of its original plaster." This has been more than once fully explained, but is too good a stone to remain unthrown. Mr. Loftie has, however, in the interval of fight, forgotten his tale. It is clear that he now thinks that it was internal plaster which was thus stripped, for he goes on to say of the exterior of the tower that "the exquisite weathering of the old bricks" has been "rudely removed" and, again, that "there was a venerable bloom on the bricks." Now, will it be believed that this "exquisite weathering" and 66 venerable bloom" are ascribed to brickwork which I was the first to expose to view, and which had never known what weather was since the days of Henry I., when the walls were coated with the mortar with which my critic accuses me of having “daubed" them "everywhere"? I can hardly be blamed for destroying beauties which existed in Mr. Loftie's brilliant imagination- and nowhere and nowhere else.

The facts of the case are these: The tower, like the rest of the Norman structure, was built of Roman bricks from Verulam, and coated all over with plastering. This plastering had often gone out of repair, and been patched again and again in a not very sightly manner. It was once more in bad order, and was falling off in large flakes when I was repairing the tower, so much so that it was found necessary to remove it, with the full intention of repeating it. Here I suppose came in what he alludes to as "the wishes of the townsmen," for I recollect arguing against some one's wishes, and urging that the tower was always meant to be plastered. So far, however, was I from being "led by them," that I obstinately persisted in my own way, and began to replaster the walls, when on my next visit I was so horrified at their hideousness, that I at once restripped my own plaster, and have

exposed to view the entire structure of Roman brick. The "pointing" alluded to was simply to protect the decayed mortar-joints. I do not ask Mr. Loftie's opinion as to its necessity, he has no means of judgingwhile I have. Whether the Roman brick or the plastering which covered it be the best looking, I leave to others; but this being the largest structure in England of the Roman brick, the interest attached to that material, and the fact that the construction is now visible, at least make some amends for the loss of its coating of mortar.

As a matter of taste, pure and simple, there is room for two opinions. Sir Edmund Beckett likes it, Mr. Stevenson does not, and while Mr. Loftie is not quite sure what we have done (whether plastering or unplastering) he dislikes it, whatever it may be. We find the editor of Mr. Murray's Guide to St. Alban's Cathedral saying that "the tile-work, which is the great feature of St. Alban's, is thus shown in its integrity, and the tower has infinitely gained in beauty of tone and colour," and the editor of his Handbook to the Environs of London (Mr. Loftie's text-book for St. Michael's) saying that "lastly, to the great improvement of its appearance, the remaining cement was stripped from the exterior, the mortar repointed, and the structural character fairly exposed to view."

Mr. Loftie next attacks the interior, which he says has been "simply gutted." By this he means that the pewing, galleries, &c., have been removed. He omits, however, to give the reason for their removal. This was not done, in the first instance, with any notion about the incongruity of such fittings, but simply because the central tower, under or near which most of them were placed, threatened to fall, and the space occupied by them was imperatively required for the timber shoring, excavations, and new foundations requisite to render it secure. Mr. Loftie mentions the "Georgian oak panelling." Any one

who looks at Neale's view of the interior of the choir, will at once observe that this panelling inclosed the two eastern piers of the tower in which the chief danger existed. How, then, let me ask, were these pillars to be repaired (one of them was crushed for seven feet deep into its substance) without removing the panelling The same was the case with the adjoining walls of the presbytery. One, at least, of them was crushed throughout its length beneath the casing of this "Georgian panelling." How was it to be rendered safe while this remained? It was as much as we could do to save it at all. If the panelling had remained the tower would probably not now be standing.

"But," it will be asked, "why not have refixed this panelling when the work was done?" One reason why was that it covered up on either side the ancient doorways into the presbytery, the beautiful tabernaclework over which had been ruthlessly hewn down, probably to make way for it. New openings had been rudely cut through the walls to the eastward of these, and it became necessary to security that these should be solidly walled up, and consequently that the older ones should be re-opened just where the wainscoting was. But "why not refix the old pewing, galleries, &c.?" Our work had been begun for the safety of the building, but it had grown into restoration. A bishopric was hoped for and then promised. The galleries, &c., had already partly disappeared before we began, and the organ shown at the west end of the choir in Neale's view had yielded to one (on a sufficiently absurd design) in the transept. But what need is there of explanations? Let any reasonable being take a glance at Neale's or Clutterbuck's views, and ask himself whether, when the Abbey Church should become a cathedral, it would be possible to retain such fittings? They dated, I believe, from 1716 to 1801, with other parts erected within the last fifteen

years. I know of no "Elizabethan' work or "traces of the Stuart period" earlier than Queen Anne's time. The pulpit will, no doubt, be retained.

I may add that Mr. Loftie speaks of the oak as "black with age." He is not perhaps aware that oak does not get black with age, but with oil and varnish. The "Watching Loft" is of far greater age than the work he laments, but shows more disposition to become white than black with age.

Mr. Loftie winds up his remarks on this most venerable building by saying that "it would have been impossible, three years ago, to believe that it could be made to look so new by any expenditure of thought or money."

I write while fresh from St. Alban's, and I simply meet this statement by denying it. True, that where the tower piers have been repaired to save the building from destruction their new plastering necessarily "looks new." True, that where stone details of windows had so perished that it had for many years been thought hopeless to glaze' them, the renewal or repair of such portions must necessarily look in part new. True, that where dirt has given place to cleanness, it may look newer for the operation, just as any other building, when repaired, looks fresher than before. But I assert that not only the real antiquity, but the old look of the building has been thoroughly respected. Whereever the whitewash is scraped off old paintings and inscriptions appear; and, contrary to what is usual, where stonework is divested of its whitewash, its darker colour gives it a look of even increased age. building was in a degree a ruin, and must be repaired. Five whole bays of the nave clerestory had scarcely a square yard of old stone surface remaining, while the aisle roof below

The

1 The glass had been replaced by open brickwork which Mr. Loftie has, I believe, elsewhere called Elizabethan lattice work, but which has been shown to have been put in by a man now living.

them was after each successive winter strewed thickly with the débris annually brought down. Is this state of things to remain because, forsooth, some can be found to prefer ruin to reparation? This glorious temple must not, and so far as I am concerned shall not, be left to crumble on to its destruction, but I hope to redeem it at the smallest possible cost of real and apparent antiquity.

I will not, however, further defend my own course as regards this building. Mr. Street, in recently addressing the Institute of British Architects, said that as to St. Alban's Abbey he (Mr. Street) could only say that the work which had been done there under the direction of Sir Gilbert Scott was the opening to us of what was practically a sealed book, and he could hardly conceive that anybody who at all cared for medieval art could object to what had been done there.

The rector of St. Alban's, in writing to express his "admiration" of "the ingenuity displayed" by Mr. Loftie, goes on to say :-"I can positively affirm that Mr. Loftie's statement that the exquisite weathering of the old bricks has been rudely removed is absolutely untrue. The only external portions of the building where they were exposed to the weather have not been touched, while the tower, where they had been plastered over, and could by no possibility have gathered any bloom, now reveals them; and even the last three winters have given them a weathering which will grow more charming as years roll on. far from the tower looking 'modern' (as 't did when it was stuccoed) the course after course of the tiles of old Verulam now exposed to view impart an appearance of unique antiquity, and tell even the chance beholder the story of the pile. I shall never forget Charles Kingsley's enthusiastic admiration when I had the pleasure of pointing this out to him." After saying what I have already stated about the old pulpit, he suggests that Mr. Loftie "might have told his readers of the

So

finding ofthe Shrine of St. Amphibalus; of the discovery of the charming perpendicular doorway and stone screen in the south presbytery aisle; also of the lovely fourteenth century choir ceiling; of the restoration of the old levels, adding to the height of the interior of the building in some places as much as two feet; of the discovery of the foundations of the old choir stalls, whereby you have been able to replace their successors on the old lines." He mentions also the ancient tile pavements and wall paintings, the beautiful presbytery entrance, &c., but adds "only this would not have agreed with the indictment."

Mr. Ridgway Lloyd, the great local antiquary of St. Alban's, who has done so good a work in elucidating its history, writes to me also to express his indignation at the attack. After telling me that watching the progress of the work had been one of his greatest pleasures for several years, he says:

"With your permission I will give a few instances to show the conservative character of your work.

"The Georgian (not Elizabethan) oak panelling in the presbytery was of no great merit, and its removal was most fortunate, since it served to hide the fractures in the north-east pier of the lantern tower, which so nearly led to the destruction of the central tower, and a great part of the eastern limb of the church. It also concealed from view the priest's doorways as well as the canopied structure over the southern of these doorways. That over the north door is certainly new [though following old indications], but soon after it was finished, some finials [pinnacles] belonging to its predecessor were found in the Saint's chapel, and at once the new finials were cut off and the old ones substituted.

"It is true that after the two eastern piers carrying the lantern towers had been partly rebuilt with brick and cement, they were plastered over to match their fellows on the

western side, but who would wish it otherwise?

"In the Lady Chapel, in almost every instance in which the wallarcading has been renewed, old and new work may be seen side by side, the former by its presence attesting the faithfulness of the latter.

"One most valuable of the many discoveries made during the restoration is that of the ancient paintings on the ceiling of the choir. This was until recently adorned with a series of 17th century paintings indifferently executed, but it was discovered that the panels bore an earlier design beneath. The later painting having been carefully removed, a splendid series of thirty-two heraldic shields (date circa 1370) was disclosed, showing the medieval arms assigned to the Saints Alban, Edward the Confessor, Edmund, Oswyn, George, and Louis; the emperors Richard (Earl of Cornwall) and Constantine; the kings of England, Scotland, Man, Castile and Leon, Portugal, Sweden, Cyprus, Norway, Arragon, Denmark, Bohemia, Sicily, Hungary, Navarre, France, and the Crusader king of Jerusalem; as well as those of several of the sons of Edward III. There are also several sacred devices, including the coronation of our Lord and St. Mary, and, in addition, nearly the whole of the Te Deum in Latin, and a number of quotations from the Antiphons at Matins and Lauds from the Sarum Antiphoner. This discovery, which is entirely due to the work of restoration, it is impossible to estimate too highly. Among lesser 'finds' may be mentioned the two pits for heart burial, one in the Lady Chapel and the other in the south transept; both have been most carefully preserved."

Of the entire work of restoration, reparation, or whatever we may call it, I may say that it has been replete with the most important discoveries; that it has been characterised by the most studious conservatism; that it has saved the building from destruction; and that it is gradually fitting it for

its advance to the rank of a cathedral, without the loss of any object of antiquity.

Passing over a number of less important matters, we will now proceed to Canterbury Cathedral.

Mr. Loftie introduces the subject by giving an account of all the things done to the Cathedral for the last half century, including the erection of the south-west tower, which, with the reparation of its fellow tower, he mysteriously describes as being "in the style now universally recognised as that of Camberwell;" an expression I do not understand, unless it be a means of connecting it with myself, I having, thirty-five years back, built a church at Camberwell, though as far as possible from being in that style. beg, however, to clear the ground by saying that I have never carried out any work in connection with Canterbury Cathedral. The question at issue, however, relates to the proposed refitting of the choir, and I have else

where stated it as follows:

I

We do not know what were the fittings of the choir at Canterbury after its restoration in 1180. Very probably they were only temporary. "We have, however, records of their being renewed by Prior De Estria about 1304. He is especially said to have decorated the choir with beautiful stonework, a new pulpitum (or rood loft) and three doorways. The fittings, &c., then introduced continued undisturbed till long after the great Rebellion. It is probable that they had been much injured during that period; and we find that Archbishop Tenison, in 1702, removed all the old stallwork; concealed the beautiful side screens of De Estria by classic wainscoting; and substituted pewing for the side stalls; but, to the west, erected new return stalls with very rich canopies, concealing entirely the pulpitum or rood screen of De Estria. The wainscoting of the sides was removed about 1828, leaving the pewing backed up by De Estria's side screens.

The Dean and Chapter now desire to substitute for these pews as near a reproduction as may be of De Estria's stalls. We have found parts of them below the flooring, and trust to find other fragments from which their pattern may be recovered. The difficulty, however, is with the western or return stalls: for behind them we find De Estria's pulpitum or rood screen with its original and rich colouring, and apparently complete, excepting the stone canopies of the Priors' and Sub-Priors' stalls, which were rudely hewn off when Tenison's stalls were erected. We want to preserve both the stalls and the more ancient objects which they conceal. I love Tenison's stalls well, but I love De Estria's pulpitum more. Some probably take the contrary view. Why should not both be gratified?"

Now this is a very fair subject for discussion and difference of opinion; and the more so as this is practically "Queen Anne" work, and to the special lovers of that style its removal would naturally be exasperating. For myself I do not in the least degree wish its removal on account of any discrepancy between it and the surrounding architecture. Some have gone so far as that; for my part I have no sympathy with that feeling, but the reverse. My own leanings entirely arose from my excitement at the discovery (or rediscovery) of De Estria's pulpitum, hidden behind Tenison's stalls, which I do not hesitate to say filled me with an enthusiasm with which the devotees of Queen Anne cannot be expected to sympathise. That work is described by those who desire to minimise it as small in quantity and greatly mutilated. I have devoted much time to it, and have to state that it is almost entire, having only suffered from the mercilessness of Archbishop Tenison's workmen, who, while putting up the stalls, chopped away the two canopies and much of the mouldings of the central doorway. The necessity for restoring the inner face of the side screens in 1828, when Tenison's wainscoting

men.

was removed, no doubt arose from its like barbarous treatment by the same It is droll to find the enthusiastic advocates of the style of the last century arguing, from the havoc made in older work by their demi-gods, that it is hopeless and almost beneath contempt to try to recover the older work from their depredations.

Putting, however, such considerations aside, the simple question is this: having a Queen Anne work placed in front of a medieval work, each possessing its own class of merit, ought we to be content with seeing one, or ought we to endeavour to render both visible? I took the last-named view, and suggested that a worthy position should be sought for Tenison's work, and that the choir screen,

-the "pulpitum" of Prior de Estria -should be exposed to view. Mr. Loftie has spoken of this idea as a new design by Sir Gilbert Scott founded on a fragment." He speaks of "the portion of it already restored behind the altar" (which does not exist) and says "could we be certified that the stone screen exists intact behind the panelling, we might hesitate. But nothing of the kind is asserted. A small portion only remains, and from it an eminent architect is prepared to reconstruct the whole." He has elsewhere described what is proposed as "modern work in imitation of some fragments of a stone screen of the 14th century." Mr. Morris speaks of it "Sir Gilbert Scott's conjectural restoration," and again, as "the proposed imitation, restoration, or forgery of Prior Eastry's rather commonplace tracery."

as

The facts are that the old screen, or "pulpitum," remains throughout its extent in very fair condition, with its ancient colouring nearly complete and exceedingly beautiful. It is true that the barbarous mutilations made in putting up Tenison's work have left a few parts in some degree to conjecture; but the evidences left in situ, aided, it may be fairly hoped, by fragments still to be found, will