Soane's Specimen Church Designs of 1818: A Reconsideration

SAHGB Publications Limited

Soane's Specimen Church Designs of 1818: A ReconsiderationAuthor(s): Gerald CarrSource: Architectural History, Vol. 16 (1973), pp. 37-53+89-94Published by: SAHGB Publications LimitedStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1568304 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 17:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

SAHGB Publications Limited is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toArchitectural History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.121 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:43:58 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sahgb

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1568304?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Soane's specimen church designs of 1818: a reconsideration

by GERALD CARR

In a recent article in this journal Dr Rhodri Liscombe published John Nash's and Robert Smirke's original finished drawings of their specimen church

designs of 1818 for the Church Building Commissioners. He also nominated two drawings in the Soane Museum (Figs.18a & 18b) as 'almost certainly' depicting the two specimen church projects by John Soane.' However, as will be established here, these two elaborate watercolour drawings illustrate designs, and variations of designs, for three specific churches. Almost all of the drawings which may be associated with Soane's specimen projects are unfortunately lost, excepting only five sheets of rough sketches (Figs.21a-23b), by Soane himself, which remain at the Soane Museum. Nonetheless, it is possible to tell the

story of his first substantive adventure as a church architect. This article will

provide an analysis of the five existing drawings and an evaluation of the relevant documentary evidence, in an attempt to reconstruct, as far as

possible, the designs themselves and the process by which they were created.2 Before discussing Soane's specimen designs, the identification of the above-

mentioned two drawings (Figs. 18a & 18b) may be clarified. Both drawings, and the two used for comparison (Figs. 19 & 20)', are elaborate perspectives by J. M. Gandy of the type used by Soane for exhibitions at the Royal Academy and at his own Museum.4 Although none of these four drawings is dated or inscribed, Fig. 18a definitely shows a design for Trinity church, St Marylebone, of 1820-21. The interior corresponds exactly with the Marylebone designs for those years, while the remarkable triumphal arch entrance front, which does not appear in any working drawing or sketch of a church in the Soane Museum, can be seen in nearly identical form in the centre of Fig. 19, another drawing by Gandy. Here, the arch-fronted church is clearly a variation of the flanking Tuscan designs. These two Tuscan projects, and the ground plan common to all three churches shown in this drawing, are for the Marylebone church and datable by other drawings to 1820-21. Both the drawings shown in Fig. 18a and Fig. 19 may have been exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1821.'

Fig. 18b, also drawn by Gandy, illustrates Romanesque, Gothic and Greco- Roman Doric variations for the Marylebone church, datable to 1822-24; an Ionic design for St Peter, Walworth, perhaps worked up after the original projects for that church of 1822; and a sepulchral chapel for Tyringham, designed in 1800.6 This composition exists in two variants. The other version, Fig.20, also by Gandy, was shown at the Royal Academy in 1825 (No.902), under the title 'A groupe [sic] of churches, to illustrate different styles of architecture'.7 There are also two sketches for these drawings, dated '8/6/24' and 'July. 17. 1824', which show that some changes were made between the initial ideas and the finished representations.8 Soane reproduced the three 37



ARCHITECTURAL

HISTORY 16: 1973 Marylebone designs shown in Fig. 18b in his Designs for Public and Private Buildings of 1828 and 1832.9

Returning to the specimen designs, the major circumstances pertinent to Soane's plans may be reconstructed from documents at the Public Record Office, Church Commissioners and Soane Museum. On 2 February 1818, several weeks before the creation of the Church Building Commission, the

Surveyor-General of the Office of Works, Colonel B. C. Stephenson, attended at the Office of the Treasury, and was directed to request the three architects 'to consider the best mode of building Churches with a view of accomodating the greatest number of persons at the smallest Expence - within the compass of an ordinary voice - One half of the number to be free Seats for the Poor - And to prepare a rough Estimate of the same.'? On 14 February Stephenson wrote to all three architects, asking when their plans would be ready." On 17 February he received replies from Nash and Smirke, and as it later turned out both were somewhat optimistic: Nash said his designs 'will be ready in the course of next week',"2 while Smirke estimated that his would be delivered 'on the first of next month'.3 There is no record of a reply from Soane, and the evidence indicates that he started slowly on the whole project. However' he and his assistants did survey and prepare plans of Wren's St James, Piccadilly, in late February and early March of 1818.14

Soane may have been asked to make the survey, although again there is no record of such a request. It was well known that Wren himself had regarded St James's as an ideal model for an Anglican church,15 and Soane was evidently attracted to the building for that reason. We should say 'attracted again,' for Soane had already investigated St James's in 1811, when he surveyed possible sites for the projected new parish church for St Marylebone.16 Ultimately, Soane utilized Wren's church as a primary model for his specimen designs.

On 16 March 1818, Stephenson received four (not six, as Liscombe believed) specimen designs from Smirke, with a report which apparently included a 'rough estimate', and also a note from Nash saying his designs - there were to be ten of them - were on their way.17 But Stephenson had not yet heard any- thing on the subject from Soane, and a debate on the new churches Bill was about to take place in the House of Commons. He hurriedly wrote to Soane, requesting 'something, if it is only one [drawing] & if this cannot be done, send me an Estimate of the Probable Expence of your Plan'.8 In fact, Soane had

hardly begun serious consideration of the new designs, and there is no indi- cation of his attention to the matter until 19 March, a date appearing on two of the sketch plans in the Soane Museum. Substantive work apparently did not

begin until 25 March, a date appearing three times on sketch plans. Also on 25 March Soane sent F. C. Copland, a pupil, to take plans of nearby St Bride's church. On 27 March Copland made a plan of 'St James Clarkenwell [sic]'.19

During the nine working days from 25 March to 3 April 1818 Soane and his assistants were at last hard at work on the project. Finally on Friday 3 April, eight drawings illustrating two designs were dispatched to the Surveyor- General. The drawings, numbered 1-8, were as follows :20 1 Ground plan (design No.1) 2 Plan of galleries 3 Ground plan (design No.2) 38



4 Plan of galleries 5 View (design No.1) 6 Elevation (design No.1) 7 Elevation (design No.1) 8 View of interior

The two 'views', Nos.5 & 8, were drawn by Henry Parke, who on 2 & 3 April was 'Making views of the Exterior and Interior of a design for a Church'.2 The other submitted drawings cannot be specifically attributed to particular draughtsmen, but Copland, George Bailey, Henry Burges, Edward Foxhall, A. P. Mee and Charles Papendiek also worked on various drawings over the nine-

day period.2 Since Foxhall was busy 'About Elevations &c of various designs for Churches' on 3 April, it is possible that he contributed to No.6 or No.7.23

There can be no doubt that the two submitted designs were chosen from a

larger number of trial projects, which existed in dozens of sketches.24 The distillation continued in the submitted drawings, since one design was pro- minently displayed in six drawings (including both views), while the other was allowed only two plans.

Two other pieces of evidence may be briefly considered. An undated short

summary of the participation of Soane's assistants in the project refers to a consultation of plans of St John, Hackney, as well as St Bride's, St James, Clerkenwell, and St James, Piccadilly.25 Secondly, there is a rough estimate of

expense for a church, dated 'March 1818'. It totals ?33000.26

The eight drawings are lost, and there is evidence that they had been mis- laid as early as 1834.27 The five remaining sheets of sketches do not furnish us with a complete specimen design, but they do reveal much about the process by which Soane created the designs. Each of the five sheets (Figs.21a-22c) is dominated by a large drawing of a ground plan.28 There are also four rough sketches of fagade elevations, two of which (Figs. 23a & 23b) are fairly complete. Fig.23a is the verso of Fig.21a. There are also two very rough plan sketches, not

reproduced here, on the verso of Fig.21b. On the recto of each sheet a careful block plan was first drawn in pen or

pencil, and in Fig.21a a light wash was also added to the plan. Each of these

plans was then used by Soane as a 'base plan', upon which he sketched trial alterations as he tried to create new designs. The 'base plans' in Figs.21b, 22a & 22b are of St James, Piccadilly, complete in all the major details, including the

projecting vestry at the north-east (upper left), the old south doorway (right) and one circular staircase within the tower. The 'base plans' of Figs.21b & 22a are dated 19 March 1818, and the undated plan in Fig.22b was probably made on or about 19 March as well. The 'base plan' of Fig.22c is a rough (and in-

accurate) plan of St Bride's29 evidently by Copland, dated 25 March. The plan in Fig.21a, dated 27 March 1818, will be discussed below.

Judging from the slim evidence of these sketches, St James, Piccadilly, was Soane's most important model. The plan of St Bride's has almost no sketch alterations upon it, and there exists another similarly inaccurate plan of St Bride's, dated 1818 in George Bailey's hand, which was probably intended as a 'base plan' but not used.30 There are no surviving plans of St James, Clerken-

well, or St John, Hackney, in the museum.

Figs.21b & 22a are also dated boldly '25 March 1818' - perhaps in Soane's

CARR: SOANE'S

SPECIMEN

CHURCH DESIGNS

OF 1818

39



ARCHITECTURAL

HISTORY 16: 1973

hand - and his undated work on the drawing illustrated in Fig.22b is probably of 25 March as well. Sketching directly upon the block plan of St James's, Soane extended and considerably modified Wren's plan, experimenting with alternative new arrangements on each half of the long axis of the plan.

Starting our examination at the entrance front, we see that in all three of these sketches Soane has retained Wren's projecting tower, while transforming the western entrance through the tower into a monumental feature with a

flight of stairs and (in Figs.21b & 22b) a portico. He has also extended the front westward on either side of the tower to provide larger staircases to the galleries (cf. Fig.22a, labelled at left, 'Stairca to G'), which are insulated - Wren's were not - from the body of the church. On the flanks, Soane has added separate entrances to these staircases. Fig. 22b is especially interesting in this respect: on the left, he considered a staircase entrance through a tetrastyle portico nearly as large as his west portico, while on the right he offered a projecting rectangular entrance, 20 x 12ft, placed across the corner of the church. In each of the three plans Soane also contemplated adding a shallow western apse to the nave and corresponding recesses at the west end of each side aisle. Notice that in

Fig.22a, and the left half of Fig.22b, the plan of the gallery stairs is somewhat

cramped by the western nave apse. At the east end Soane discarded the imbalance of the St James's vestry,

bringing the vestry and robing rooms more coherently into the entire plan by placing them across the corners of the building (Fig.22b, labelled at left

'Ves'). This treatment probably inspired the form and placement of the

rectangular south-west entrance in Fig. 22b as well. Soane also varied the lengths of the long and short axes of the vestry and robing rooms. On the right half of

Fig.22a he also studied the use of an internal apse at the south-east end of the

projecting robing room. Finally, he considered the addition of a wide but shallow eastern apse in all three sketches, at the same time giving the east end of each side aisle a consonant recess.

In these sketches Soane demonstrated only a slight interest in the flanks of his building. In the left half of Fig.21b he dabbled with altering the placement of the flank windows, while in Fig.22a, left half, he cut an entrance (labelled 'Entr') through the flank wall immediately in front of the vestry. Otherwise, he merely outlined the walls in ink, probably so that he could see more

clearly the coherence of the whole plan, or he left the walls entirely alone. And except for Fig.22b, Soane has hardly involved himself with the internal

arrangement of the church. The most striking sketch on these sheets is the rough fagade elevation at the

lower left of Fig.21b, enlarged in Fig.23b. Its major features can be correlated with the left half of the sketch plan above it. The church rests on a high plinth, although the western stairway is not indicated on the elevation. The centre of the front projects strongly, with a tower and large turret rising over the projection. At the main entrance there is a tetrastyle portico without pediment, with a further row of columns - probably in antis - behind. A large rectangular window - or entrance - can be seen on either side of the central projection. On the flanks just behind the fagade are distyle entrance porticoes for the gallery staircases. Above, a very wide clerestory, with circular-headed windows to the west, rises from the body of the building. 40



Farther to the right in Fig.21b Soane has added a separate plan of the gallery staircase and vestibule, connecting them by a passageway, as also in the right side of the plan above. He has also begun, and unfortunately only begun, a

fagade elevation with three large arched openings. The modifications of the St James's plans just discussed may be traced to

several sources, in particular to Thomas Hardwick's recently completed (in 1817) St Marylebone parish church. The corner-straddling vestry and

robing rooms, the staircase plan in the left half of Fig.21b and the projecting columns on the flanks are all related to St Marylebone. The use of these columns as staircase entrances, however, comes from St Martin-in-the- Fields. The eastern apse may be derived from St Clement Danes or St Mary- le-Strand, while a western apse can be found at St James, Clerkenwell. However, the 'double apse' combination is probably an idea traceable to Soane's

lifelong interest in the planning of ancient Roman basilicas and baths. But in all three sketches, in spite of Soane's alterations, the derivation from St James, Piccadilly, remains apparent in the wide proportions of the whole plan, the

seven-bay length of the entire building - including the vestry and robing rooms - and the projecting central portion at the west.

By contrast to the activity of the experiments based on St James's, Fig.22c, the St Bride's plan, is barren indeed. On the left of the plan Soane has moved two of the nave piers farther apart to make room for a dome or large circular

pattern in the ceiling, which the sketch informs us is 24ft across. But that is all. This rather lengthy analysis of these four sketches could be extended to

encompass all of the variations in the plans, some of which are not readily visible in photographs, or even in the drawings themselves. But it should be

emphasized that there is considerable use of pencil in several of the sketches, as for example in the bold elevation in Fig.23b. Soane's harsh lines are not

merely impulsive jottings. Turning now to the plan in Fig.21a, dated 'March 27th 1818', we have another

'base plan', but it is not the plan of an existing church. On 27 March

Papendiek and Mee were busy 'About Plans of Churches', but the Day Book

entry of 28 March 'Drawing Elevation of Churches - Copland',3' provides the first mention of an elevation. Hence, it is not improbable that a working plan or plans was produced by 27 March, and Fig.21a is a likely candidate for such a

plan. Perhaps it is very close to the plan of one of the two submitted specimen designs.

The plan, in pen and wash, immediately appears more substantial and finished than the other four plans, and its major features may be linked to the trial sketches illustrated in Figs.21b-22b. Once again there are the wide proportions, seven-bay length and a projecting tower and portico at the west. Also at the western end of the nave, a shallow internal apse impinges upon the insulated gallery staircases. The entrances to these staircases are at the west

(as in the left half of Fig.21b), but there are paired pilasters at each end of the flanks. The vestry and robing rooms are now aligned with the long axis of the plan, and each has a projecting eastern apse; the arrangement resembles the

prothesis and diaconicon of Early Christian churches. The only entirely new32 feature in this hot-water-bottle-shaped plan is the eastern portico, which

provides a covered passageway to the vestry and robing room entrances.

CARR: SOANE'S

SPECIMEN

CHURCH DESIGNS

OF 18i8

41



ARCHITECTURAL

HISTORY 16: 1973

The undated alterations begun on this sketch are harder to explain. In the

plan, the projecting tower, and the western apse, are entirely discarded, but the entrances and passages are obscured. The partial fagade elevation exhibits a

step-like build-up 'a la St James's to the tower, but its proportions are very wide indeed. The feature on the left is probably an arcuated substitute for free- standing flank columns, but neither of these corner features - columns or arches - is present in the original plan or altered plan.

The sketch elevation, Fig.23a, on the verso of Fig.21a, offers some help here. Dated '30 March 1818', probably in Soane's hand, it coincides fairly well with the modified recto plan, which is probably of the same date. No portico or tower base projects in any direction. The entrances are through modest pedimented doorways on the fagade. A balustrade, with a central square support for a clock, stretches atop the main storey. Above it is a high clerestory with tall circular-headed windows (at left, labelled 'Open') to the sides, and a tabernacle within an arched recess (or

window.) in the centre. An Ionic rotunda and cup-

ola appear to rest directly on the flat clerestory roof. In the Day Book for 30 March we read that Bailey, Burges and Copland were

all engaged with church elevations.". Thus, Fig.23a must be regarded as the most definitive remaining statement of a fagade elevation, although it is a less satisfactory composition than the elevation shown in Fig.23b. Even so, this apparently rough freehand sketch, unlike that illustrated in Fig.23b, was blocked out in ruled pencil before the details, summary as they are, were added by Soane.

It is unfortunately not possible to reconstitute the interiors of Soane's designs. In Fig.21a, the galleries apparently rest on pedestals, much as at St James, Piccadilly, but one may only guess at the features above gallery level. It cannot be determined whether the ceilings were to be flat or vaulted, or both, although the appearance of a clerestory in all four fagade sketches would seem to indicate some kind of vaulting. The flank windows are probably rectangular, but their form at gallery level is not clear. But in the end Soane did devote some effort to the internal form of his designs, as is evident by his inclusion among the finished drawings of a view of one interior. It is interesting that if Nash and Smirke included such views or sections among their drawings, they do not survive.

If we admit that these five sheets of sketches are inconclusive, it still appears highly probable that one and perhaps both of Soane's submitted specimen designs were based on St James, Piccadilly. It is especially likely that at least one of the designs was seven bays in length. A clerestory and an Ionic rotunda and cupola tower are quite probable features of one design, and a projecting western tower and a western portico without pediment remain possible features as well. A monumental eastern entrance is also probable in at least one, and indeed the eastern end as a whole was presumably given considerable compositional emphasis by the vestry and robing rooms. Finally, the triple arch front begun in Fig.21b suggests, however slightly, that an entrance front similar to that of the Marylebone design in Fig. 18a may have been entertained by Soane in March of 1818.

When Soane sent his designs to the Office of Works he enclosed an explanatory letter, as Nash and Smirke had done, in which mention is made of a 42



?30000 estimate of expense.34 This letter, though it has been published twice,35 is so remarkable for its emphasis on practical matters and its literate clarity of

expression that it is fully deserving of another complete quotation :36

In compliance with the Minute transmitted to me requiring that I should 'consider of the most economical mode of building Churches with a view of accomodating the greatest number of Persons at the smallest Expence within the compass of an ordinary voice, one half of the number to be free Seats for the Poor, and that I should furnish a rough Estimate of Expence,' I beg leave to state my opinion.

That the Interior of Churches to be within the compass of an ordinary voice should not exceed in length ninety feet and in breadth seventy, that the Square and parallelogram are the most economical forms.

That the structure as respects the Walls should be of Brick, and no greater quantity of Stone used than is required to assist their construction or to render the exterior characteristic and for the requisite pavements.

That the roofings should be covered with lead and eaves or drips every- where prevented and that the water be conveyed away so as to prevent injury and the decay of walls & foundations.

The Ceilings should be flat. The Windows should be principally of Iron glazed in small squares of

metal. The Pews and finishings should be generally of Deal and with the

stuccoings painted. In arranging the Interior to accomodate the greatest number of Persons I

am of opinion that enclosed Seats or Pews should be as much as possible avoided, that open rising Seats should be substituted, that the Aisles be wide and Benches with backs placed therein, these open Seats and Benches would be free for the accomodation of the Poor.

It is difficult to form an Estimate that shall apply generally as a Scale to

compute the probable cost of Churches, differing in Size and accomodation and in locality, and differing also perhaps widely as respects their construction and stability, but I apprehend the largest Churches cannot be built with a requisite attention to their character and durability for a less sum than Thirty Thousand Pounds. The letter is a recipe in the very broadest sense of the term, rather than a

description of church designs. There is hardly a reference to 'style', and in fact not one specific allusion to Soane's own designs. One may assume that the estimates of his projects are about ?30000 and that their ceilings are flat, but there is room for doubt. There is no explanation whatever of a second design. After all, Soane had produced two alternatives, one of them in two plans only. Perhaps some further explanations accompanied the drawings (which is un- likely - see note 20), or were written on the drawings themselves (as in the case of Nash's projects). Even so, an examination of the paragraphs above does not provide information on Soane's designs, a circumstance quite different from the clear references made by Nash and Smirke in the letters enclosed with their drawings. Soane's explanation, remarkable as it is, seems to be an inde- pendent statement.

There is good reason to believe that this is literally so. There are two drafts

CARR: SOANE'S

SPECIMEN

CHURCH DESIGNS

OF 1818

43



ARCHITECTURAL

HISTORY 16: 1973

of the letter in the Soane Museum, and one of them is in James Spiller's hand-

writing.37 Spiller was Soane's old friend and fellow architect and the designer of St John, Hackney, that capacious brick building built in 1792-97 (the steeple and fine porticoes were added in 1812-13).18 In 1818 St John's was one of the very few recent English churches of large size, and as such a likely object of study for anyone interested in building new churches. Soane had himself once referred to it in 1811,)3 and now, in 1818, Smirke mentioned it in his letter about his designs.4" Thus, in 1818, Soane, at the very start of his work for the Church Commission, turned not only to St John's, but to its architect as well.

He probably did so for a number of reasons. Not only had Spiller built a 'model' church, but Soane had never built any churches. It is curious that there should have been an omission of this kind in Soane's already long career. True, he had altered a number of churches, but the three really interesting opportunities for entirely new churches - a chapel on the east side of Lincoln's Inn Fields in 1799," a sepulchral chapel at Tyringham of 1800 (shown in Figs. 18a & 19) and a (slight) chance at the new St Marylebone parish church in 181142- had all come to nothing.

Further, Spiller was a very articulate and able writer. He was also an overly exacting professional architect with a fiery temperament akin to Soane's own. The opinions of the two men were allied against the economy of the proposed churches, but when Soane protested to churchmen and Church Com- missioners, he used Spiller's words. Time and again Soane applied to Spiller for the right words to deal with these men, and more often than not he repeated Spiller's responses nearly verbatim.4 But Spiller was filled with sufficient protestations for two men, his sense of outrage at injustice was self- perpetuating, and his articulate misgivings about the new church-building movement were released in a torrent of correspondence, culminating in two published Letters to John Soane on the Subject of the New Churches in 1822 and 1823."

Thus there is good reason to suppose that 'Soane's' opinions in the letter above are really Spiller's. Such instances of ghost-writing can be documented thoroughly in 1821 and 1822," and the situation was doubtless much the same in 1818. Spiller's behind-the-scenes participation in Soane's churches was to continue until at least 1824, and he acted as an assistant architect as well as a phrase-maker.

Although Soane's specimen designs do not survive, one may doubt that they were very satisfactory efforts. They were hurriedly composed and delivered well after the greater quantity of alternatives had been submitted by Nash and Smirke."6 Soane's approach through Wren's St James's, although interesting, is eclectic at best and fatally lacking in inspiration at worst. His reliance on Spiller smacks of evasion as well as urgency, although later on Soane expended real effort on his churches when Spiller's participation was greatest.

By his hesitation Soane exacerbated the already difficult requirements of the task. He, like his younger contemporaries John Constable and ThIodore G6ricault, found artistic creativity an effort. Sufficient time for 'second thoughts' was essential, and thus it is possible that a poor design - or even two - slipped through in the haste. Soane probably felt the inadequacy him- 44



self. He never published or exhibited the designs, and apparently he destroyed all of the drawings remaining in his possession, excepting only the five rough sheets of his own sketches.

In the end this lack of commitment mattered little, for only the architects themselves were to derive any real benefit from their exertions. The specimen designs may have been available to MPs in the spring of 1818, but the parlia- mentarians made no specific mention of them in the debates.4 Afterwards the Commissioners decided to encourage a 'general competition' among architects for church plans, rather than adopt a centralized distribution of

designs or standards of design. The casualness of this 'general competition' was keenly felt by Archdeacon Wollaston, one of the Commissioners most interested in architectural ideas - in August 1819. after a year of experience.48 But nonetheless the Commissioners did not get around to examining the three portfolios of specimen projects until early 1820. All three sets were rejected, and, surprisingly, the Commissioners asked the Crown Architects for further designs.49

But by 1820 it was quite evident that churches could be built for much lower costs than either Soane or Smirke had calculated in early 1818. The very first design surveyed by the three architects only a few months afterwards in late 1818 carried an estimate of a mere ?6457, including the architect's commission. Its author was Thomas Rickman, who was destined to become the most prolific Commissioners' architect."s Although the three men did not pass the effort by Rickman, even after he had made many alterations over a

period of several weeks, the damage, so to speak, had already been done: an architect possessing an important mentor within the Commission itself (the Bishop of Chester) had designed a church supposedly costing one-fourth to one-fifth the expense of those proposed by Soane and Smirke, and about half the expense of Nash's projects. Indeed, in 1820 Smirke's first Commissioners' church, St John, Chatham, was erecting under a projected cost of ?12371.5 This church closely follows Smirke's specimen designs No.1 and No.2, and at first Smirke proffered a less expensive plan. He had contributed to the neglect of his own designs as well as those of the other Crown Architects, and the ignominious fate of any further specimen projects was already inevitable.

NOTES

1 R. Liscombe, 'Economy, Character and Durability: Specimen Designs for the Church Commissioners, 1818', Architectural History xiii (1970), pp.43-57, esp. pp.43 & 54. The Crown Architects' work for the Commission is described in M. H. Port, Six Hundred New Churches (1961), pp. 38-49. Their relationship with the Office of Works is dealt with in J. Mordaunt Crook & M. H. Port, The History of the King's Works VI, 1782-1851 (1973). 2 I would like to express my sincere thanks to Sir John Summerson, Miss Dorothy Stroud, the Trustees of the Soane Museum, and Mr R. E. J. Melling of the Church Commissioners for help and permission to publish. 3 Drawer 47, set 4. 4 In his publications on Soane, Arthur Bolton has implied that all of the large perspective watercolour drawings in the Soane Museum are 'Lecture Dia- grams'. This categorization is quite misleading. In fact, most of the 'Lecture

CARR: SOANE'S

SPECIMEN

CHURCH DESIGNS

OF I818

45



ARCHITECTURAL

HISTORY 16: 1973 Diagrams' used by Soane in his lectures at the Royal Academy and Royal Institution were topographical - views of London buildings, Greek temples, capitals, comparisons of buildings or the orders &c. Relatively few illustrations of Soane's own designs were used in the lectures. The illustrations actually used, and others intended for use, can for the most part be readily identified from inscriptions on the versos of the drawings, from George Bailey's original Inventory (see note 5), and from drafts of the lectures in the Soane Museum. 5 The four large drawings discussed in these two paragraphs of text, and notes 5-7, are in Drawer 15, set 4 (formerly Drawer 13, set 8), and in the north

drawing-room of the Museum. The drawings do not have individual numbers. In George Bailey's original inventory of the Soane Museum collections,

entitled An Inventory of the various Works of Art, National Curiosities, Fittings and Fixtures

Uc in Sir John Soane's Museum, in January 1837, taken by the Curator by Order of the Trustees, and in accordance with the 4th Section of the Act of Parliament. 3rd William 4th

Chapr 4, vol. A(B) (the finished copy), p.287, Fig. 18a is listed as 'Another design [of a church] (Exterior & Interior View)', drawn by J. Gandy. Fig. 19 is listed, 'Another [drawing] consisting of three designs for a Church', by J. Gandy.

Soane exhibited three drawings for the Marylebone church at the Royal Academy in 1821: No.950, 'Sketch for a church proposed to be built in the Regent's Park'. No.960, 'Sketches for a church proposed to be built in the Regent's Park'. No.978, 'Sketch for a church proposed to be built in the Regent's Park'. No.960 depicted more than one design and is perhaps identical to Fig. 19. Fig. 18a is possibly No.950 or No.978. The third drawing is not in the Soane Museum.

The fullest review of Soane's exhibited designs was part of an attack on Soane

signed 'T.O.', which appeared in The Guardian, 27 May 1821; reprinted in A. T. Bolton, The Portrait of Sir John Soane, R.A. (1927), pp.341-342. The reviewer says that there were 'four designs for churches; or, more correctly speaking, one design, and three variations, without any real difference', thus implying that No.960 illustrated two designs rather than the three shown in Fig. 19. It is possible, however, that the reviewer considered the two triumphal arch schemes to be one design, or that he erred in recording the correct number of designs. This difficulty is not easily resolved, but in any case the two Tuscan churches and the ground plan clearly are for the Marylebone church, 1820- 21 'T.O.'s' remark 'The arrangement of the plans is of the commonest kind' may refer to the plans actually shown in Fig. 19.

'TO.' also says 'There is a view of one of the interiors', which could refer to Fig. 18a, and criticizes the 'repetition of the affected and capricious forms, in the ornamental parts, which have so long been characteristic of this Architect', comments that could refer especially to Fig. 18a.

The watermarks of both Fig. 18a and Fig. 19 are: James Whatman Turkey Mill Kent / 1819. 6 Fig. 18b is listed in Bailey's original Inventory, vol.A(B), p.287, as 'another [drawing] consisting of Eight designs for Churches in various Styles of Archi- tecture, the dimensions and the accomodation required, being similar in each', by J. Gandy.

The Doric design for the Marylebone church, a variation of which is shown at the right of this drawing, is dated 1822-24, but was rejected by the Corn- 46



missioners as too expensive. In March 1824 the Commissioners asked Soane to make a Gothic design, hoping that the change of style might reduce the

projected expense. It did not, however. At the same time Soane tried a

Romanesque design. There are no working drawings or sketches of the

Romanesque scheme in the Soane Museum, but seven drawings by C. J. Richardson in the Victoria & Albert Museum (93.E.19, Nos.3307.22-3307.28) are undoubtedly copies of lost drawings of this design.

The Ionic design for Walworth church differs from the executed building in the pairs of three-quarter columns recessed in the flanks and the heavy banded rustication on the body of the church. There is another large drawing by Gandy, also Drawer 15, set 4, showing only this design.

The design for Tyringham chapel was one of Soane's favourites. Sketches and drawings for it in the Soane Museum (Drawer 47, set 3) show that it was created in late 1800, not in 1796, as erroneously stated by Soane himself in his Designs for Public and Private Buildings (1832), p.41. The correct date was published by D. Stroud, The Architecture of Sir John Soane (1961), p. 161. 7 Fig.20 has been displayed, in a frame, in the north drawing-room of the Soane Museum since the 1830s, when Soane's first Description of the museum was published. However, it is clearly shown in the picture room of the museum in J. Britton, The Union of Architecture, Sculpture, and Painting (1827), pl.xi.

In Bailey's Inventory, vol. A(B), p.203, Fig. 20 is described: 'A Group of Churches, designed by Sir J. Soane (1825) to illustrate different Styles of Architecture'. In vol.A(A), the rough copy of this Inventory, p.208, there is the additional note: 'exhibited R.A. 1825'.

A review of the 1825 Royal Academy exhibition in the Literary Gazette and

Journal of Belles Lettres, 10 June 1825, p.395, quite explicitly records the contents of Soane's No.902: 'We believe one of the churches, the design of which is here

represented, is that built at Walworth by this architect; and, that another of these designs is intended to be carried into effect by him in the parish of Saint

Mary-le-bone. This drawing, as a work of art, is finely executed, but the

designs, in the Anglo-Norman and later manners of the middle ages, are in- ferior, in our opinion, to those composed in the more ancient styles of architecture. We think Mr. S. has not been eminently successful in the fagades of the church which he has erected at Walworth, from a want of boldness in the features of them, sufficient to produce a richer chiaro scurso.'

Oddly enough, the design for Walworth church shown in these two draw-

ings, with its rustication and additional flank columns, shows Soane's own restlessness with the lack of 'chiaro scuro' in the executed building. The flank columns of the executed Marylebone design, adumbrated in the Doric design in Fig.20, would further demonstrate his concern with plasticity. 8 Soane Museum bound volume of drawings labelled Miscellaneous Drawings No. V, Nos. 166 & 168 respectively. No. 166 shows the churches arranged in

space as in Fig. 18b, No. 168 as in Fig.20. The Doric design in Fig. 18b has two

pairs of flank columns, whereas the Doric design in Fig. 20 has engaged columns

along the entire length of each flank. These two alternatives have been inter-

changed from the two sketches. 9 1828 edition, p.26 and pl.36; 1832 edition, p.41 and pl.36. A note in the margin of

p.41 of the 1832 edition, evidently inadvertently omitted in the 1828 edition,

CARR: SOANE'S

SPECIMEN

CHURCH DESIGNS

OF 1818

47



ARCHITECTURAL

HISTORY 16: 1973

refers the reader to the illustration showing the three designs. In the adjoining paragraph Soane remarks, a little carelessly, on the high expense of 'Either of the Gothic Designs' for the Marylebone church, which he says were not submitted to the Commissioners. However, the Gothic design did at least reach the Commissioners' desk, according to their Annual Report for 1824, pp. 16- 17. 10 PRO Works 4/23, p.61. 11 ibid., p.73. A copy of the letter to Soane (Soane Museum Corresp. 2, Div.X, B, No.3) is published in A. T. Bolton, The Works of SirJohn Soane, R.A. (1924), p.90. 12 PRO Works 4/23, p.76. 13 ibid.; Works 6/183/1, No. 1. 14 Soane Notebook, 23 February 1818; Soane Day Book, 23, 26, 27 & 28 February, 2 & 3 March 1818. The Notebook, Day Book and Journal referred to in the following notes and in the text, are in the Soane Museum. 15 In Christopher & Stephen Wren, Parentalia (1750), p.320, a source with which Soane and anyone interested in Wren would have been acquainted. 16 Soane Museum Corresp. 2, Div. X, A, passimn. Soane was asked by Sir Thomas Bernard to value the ground on which Foley House then stood. He sent his valuation on 15 January 1811, enclosing six plans of the site, five of which included schematic designs for a large church (or churches), illustrating possible dispositions of the building and site. Two of the plans were based, as Soane stated in a draft of his valuation, on St James, Piccadilly, another on St John, Hackney, and a circular project was inspired by Rowland Hill's Surrey Chapel. An arrangement of two smaller churches facing one another across Portland Place may have been derived from the Piazza del Popolo, Rome. 17 Smirke: PRO Works 6/183/1, Nos.2, 6, 7; Works 4/23, p.76. Nash: PRO Works 6/183/1, Nos.3, 9, 10.

Liscombe, p.43, says that Smirke sent six designs, but there exist two statements by Smirke himself (one of which is partially quoted by Liscombe, p.45) and two from the Office of Works (one of which is published by Bolton, The Works of Sir John Soane, p.90, and referred to by Port, p.40) which specifically mention four designs.

Probably Smirke did make two more designs, but only in 1820, when the Commissioners requested a Gothic and another - presumably classical -

specimen design (Church Building Commissioners Board Minute Book, 2 May 1820). In 1825 and again in 1827 he sent bills to the Commissioners for six

designs which he said had been made in 1818, but in 1834,

when he once again sent in his designs (which apparently had been returned to him) to the Commissioners as evidence for his charges, he could only find four specimen projects. Moreover, he could not recall having made the fifth and sixth designs, although he was 'unwilling to suppose' that his earlier statements naming six projects had been in error (Church Commissioners File 12131, pt II.) See also note 49. In 1834 the Surveyor to the Commissioners, J. H. Good, stated that Smirke had made six designs (cf. Liscombe, p.43), so either the other two were found or he took Smirke at his word. 18 Soane Museum Corresp. 2, Div.X, B, No.4; published in Bolton, The Works of Sir John Soane, p.90, and Port, p.39. The Parliamentary debates on the new churches bill began on 16 March 1818. 48



19 Soane Day Book, 25 & 27 March 1818. The first entry on the subject in the Notebook is also on 27 March: 'About the plans for Churches...' 20 Soane Day Book and Soane Journal, 3 April 1818. The Journal entry erroneously records that the drawings were sent to the Commissioners (who did not then

exist) instead of the Office of Works, as correctly specified in the Day Book. Cf. also The Office of Works Minute Book, PRO Works 4/23, p. 113. 'Received a Letter from Mr Soane with 4 plans, 3 elevations, & 1 section, for building the new Churches-' 21 Soane Day Book, 2-3 April 1818. 22 ibid., 25 March-3 April 1818. 23 ibid., 3 April 1818. 24 This is certain, not only from the repeated references to 'various designs' of churches that appear in the Day Book, but also from a letter from Soane to

George Jelf, Secretary of the Commissioners, dated Lincoln's Inn Fields, 5

May 1834. (CC File 12131, ptII). In this letter Soane replied to a request that he send in his drawings as evidence for his fee for making the designs sixteen years earlier: '... the Drawings and Estimates to which the account delivered relates, were sent in April 1818 to the Office of Works and from thence, as I am in- formed to the Treasury, but they have not been returned to me. I have however selected, from a much larger number, Thirty of the original Sketches, from which those Drawings and Estimates were made, and likewise some Plans and Sections, (Nine in Number) of different Churches, made from actual measurement at the time, for the purpose of assisting to determine the several points which the Board required to be ascertained...' 25 Soane Museum Corresp. 2, Div.X, B, No.1. 26 ibid., No.6; published in Bolton, The Works of Sir John Soane, p.91; mentioned in Port, p.39. 27 See note 24. When J. H. Good reviewed the three architects' designs in 1834, he implied that he had not seen Soane's drawings: 'Sir John Soane states that he furnished Two designs with Estimates of each...' Two paragraphs further

on, however, he spoke of an 'examination' of the designs (cf. Liscombe,

pp.43-44). Did he include Soane's? 28 Drawer 47, set 4, Nos. 1-5, corresponding to Figs.21a-22c, respectively. 29 The junction of tower and west front is incorrectly shown in this plan. 30 Drawer 47, set 6, No.21. This plan is on the same rough paper as Fig.22c and is inscribed in Bailey's hand: 'Plan of St. Bride's Church in Fleet Street -

1818'. The original full date may have trimmed off. 31 Soane Day Book. 32 There are indications, in very faint pencil, of a semicircular eastern colon- nade in Fig.21b. 33 The last Notebook entry (there are only three in all, 27, 28, 29 March 1818) on the churches is for 29 March, a Sunday, which may indicate that the significant work was complete by that date. 34 Nash also included an explanatory letter with his designs, which is not mentioned by Liscombe. It is very briefly summarized by Port, p.41. The

original letter is in PRO Works 6/183/1, Nos.9 & 10. 35 Bolton, The Works of Sir John Soane, p.91; Port, pp.39-40. 36 The copy reproduced here is from PRO Works 6/183/1, Nos. 11 & 12.

CARR: SOANE'S

SPECIMEN

CHURCH DESIGNS

OF 1818

49



ARCHITECTURAL

HISTORY 16: 1973

37 Soane Museum Corresp. 2, Div. X, B, Nos. 8 & 9. No.8 is in Spiller's hand, while No.9 is 'signed' 'J.S.' There are only two minor word changes between the two drafts, although some additional changes were contemplated.

In his Notebook for 29 March 1818 Soane recorded that he was 'At home, except walking with Mr. Spiller to Mr. Gandy's...' The consultation between Soane and Spiller on the churches probably took place on that date. 38 An account and illustration of the towerless, porticoless church are in Gentlemen's Mag. lvi, pt.i, April 1796, p.274, and plate opp. p.273. 39 See note 16. 40 As noted in Port, p.40, n.6. 41 Drawings for a hexastyle Ionic chapel, part of a larger project for the entire east side of Lincoln's Inn Fields, are in Drawer 14, set 5, Nos.2 & 3; the latter is dated May 1800. 42 See note 16. 43 Soane seems to have had more confidence in his public pronouncements on the new churches. The editors of the Annals of the Fine Arts, 1819, pp. 110-111, applauded 'Excellent! Mr. Soane - excellent!' when Soane introduced into his fifth Royal Academy lecture a commentary on architects' competitions for the new churches. 44 There is a copy of the Second Letter in the Soane Museum. Both of these

pamphlets must have been written with Soane's knowledge, since there are also some manuscript drafts pertaining to them in the Museum. 45 Spiller definitely helped Soane write a letter declining a request to design a church for Stand, near Manchester, in 1822. Port, p. 46, quotes an excerpt from Spiller's draft; M. Whiffen, The Architecture of Sir Charles Barry in Manchester and its

Neighbourhood (Manchester 1950), p.4, published the draft actually sent by Soane.

Spiller also helped Soane express considerable hesitation concerning the Commissioners' requirement of a 15 per cent bond from the architects em-

ployed by them in 1822, and the inadequate allowance of expense for Walworth church in 1823 (Soane Museum Corresp. 2, Div.X, B; Corresp. 2, Div.X, C1). 46 In 1820-21 Soane expended more than three months of activity on the designs for the Marylebone church, compared to about one and a half weeks on the specimen designs. In both cases two designs in eight drawings were submitted. 47 In the House of Lords on 15 May 1818 Lord Liverpool said that one hundred churches might be built with the grant of one million pounds. This statement may have been influenced by Nash's estimates, but it did not originate with them. In the letter accompanying his designs (see note 34), dated 17 March 1818, Nash said he had been told 'that 10000? for each Church was the expence in contemplation', i.e., the ?10000 figure was not his idea.

There is a letter in the 'National Churches' correspondence file of the Soane Museum (2, Div.X, B, No.7), dated 27 March 1818, from Nicholas Vansittart, Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking Soane to bring 'the Plans" on 1 April (referred to by Port, p.39). However, an entry in Soane's Notebook for 1 April 1818 records an appointment with Vansittart respecting the plans for the National Debt Redemption Office, not specimen churches. 48 In a letter dated 23 August 1819. Excerpts quoted by Port, pp.51-53. 50



49 PRO Works 6/340/1, Nos. 1, 3. 4. These papers are copies of Church Build-

ing Commissioners' Building Committee minutes for 22 February 1820 and Board minutes probably of the same date. The original minute books covering this date are missing from the Church Commissioners Muniment:

Committee Room 22d February 1820 At a Meeting of the Building Committee

Present Lord Kenyon The Revd Archdeacon Cambridge Colonel Stephenson [crossed out in pencil] Joshua Watson Esqr" In respect to the Plans for Churches and Chapels prepared by the Archi- tects attached to the Office of Works. The following Report was agreed to. The Board having been pleased to express a wish that the Building Com-

mittee would inspect the Designs for Churches and Chapels prepared by the Architects attached to the Office of Works; with the view of reporting whether any of them could be conveniently applied to for the use of the Commissioners for the Churches and Chapels to be built under the Pro- visions of the Acts of the 58th & 59 of Geo. 3; beg leave to report - that the Committee have carefully examined three Portfolios containing Plans and Elevations which previously to the passing of the said Acts, had been furnished to the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury, and since transmitted by them to this Board; and that it appears to this Committee, on such Examination, that the designs of M' Nash the Senior attached Architect are the lowest in cost, and entirely within the Sum fixed by the Board as the maximum Expence for building any Church or Chapel; but that as the Ground Plans do not appear to the Committee to be best suited

for the purposes of the Board, and as the Building in each Plan are [sic] to be

cased with a cement the Committee have not any selection to offer for their

consideration. The Committee beg leave further to report, that as the Designs of Mr

Soane and Mr Smirke the other attached Architects exceed the Expence

contemplated by the Board; they are not prepared to recommend either of

such Designs to their attention; under these circumstances the Committee

beg leave to submit whether it may be desirable that it be proposed to the

attached Architects to offer other Designs framed with more particular reference to the views entertained by the Commissioners, and that for this

purpose they be invited to communicate with the Committee. In respect to the Report with reference to the Plans for Churches and

Chapels prepared by the Architects attached to the Office of Works.

Resolved, That the Report be approved, and that it be proposed to the Architects

attached to the Office of Works, to offer other Designs for Churches and

Chapels framed with more particular reference to the views entertained

by the Board; and that they be invited to communicate with the Com-

mittee thereon.

CARR: SOANE'S

SPECIMEN

CHURCH DESIGNS

OF I818

51



ARCHITECTURAL

HISTORY 16: 1973 Only Smirke appears to have made further designs (see note 17), and per-

haps only he was formally requested to do so. There is apparently no surviving request of this kind among Soane's papers. 50 PRO Works 6/183/1, No. 17. See Port, p.50 and pp.64-67. 51 CC File 15452. The total cost of St John's was ?13 966.

CATALOGUE OF THE FIVE SHEETS OF SPECIMEN DESIGN SKETCHES BY SOANE

The drawings are in Drawer 47, set 4, Nos. 1-5, corresponding to Figs.21a-22c. There are no watermarks on any of the sheets.

1 Recto: Ruled pen & wash plan of a church, with freehand pen alterations; freehand pen partial elevation of

facade [Fig.21a] Scale: *in to 1ft Insc: (in pen, in George Bailey's hand) Sketch of a Design for a Church - 1818 Dated: (in pen, lower right) March 27th 1818 Verso: Ruled pencil & freehand pen elevation of a church [Fig.23a] Scale: A-in to 1ft Insc: (in pen, in Soane's hand, in left clerestory window) Open; height from plinth to sill 5' Dated: (in pen, probably in Soane's hand, lower left) 30 March 1818 (565 x 350)

2 Recto: Ruled pen plan of St James, Piccadilly, with freehand pen & pencil alterations; freehand pen partial plan of tower & elevation of fagade; freehand pen & pencil elevation of fagade [Figs.21b & 23b] Scale: Aiin to 1ft Insc: (in pen, in George Bailey's hand) Sketch of a Design for a Church - 1818 Dated: (in pen, upper right) March 19th 1818; (in pen, perhaps in Soane's hand, across the turret of lower left fagade elevation) 25 March 1818 Verso: Two freehand pencil plans of churches, one fairly complete, showing a building of roughly square plan & projecting tower to the W & a large vestry (labelled Ves) at the E, directly behind the altar; the other plan is very rough, apparently concentrating on the arrangement of the western staircases; a third, very summary pencil sketch probably illustrates a partial fagade elevation [not reprd] (565 x 350)

52



3 Ruled pencil plan of St James, Piccadilly, with freehand pen & pencil alterations [Fig. 22a] Scale: *in to 1Ift Insc: (in pen, in Soane's hand, at left) Entr & Stairca to G; (at upper right, robing room) 12 Dated: (in pencil, upper right) March 19; (in pen, perhaps in Soane's hand, towards lower left) 25 March 1818

(565 x 350)

4 Ruled pencil plan of St James, Piccadilly, with freehand pen & pencil alterations; freehand pen vestry plan (upper left) [Fig.22b] Scale: *in to 1Ift Insc: (in pen, in Soane's hand, upper left) Ves; also some dimensions for lower right entrance 3.6, 20, 12,1.4 & 2.71; (in pen, in George Bailey's hand) Sketch of a Design for a Church 1818 Not dated

(565 x 348)

5 Ruled pen plan (inaccurate in some respects) of St Bride, Fleet Street, with freehand pen alterations [Fig.22c] Scale: bin to 1ft Insc: (in pen, in Soane's hand) diameter of circular pattern in centre of

plan 24 Dated: (in pen, lower right) March 25

(565 x348) Cf. also Drawer 47, set 6, No.21, an identical plan without any alterations, inscribed in pen in George Bailey's hand Plan of St. Bride's Church in Fleet Street - 1818. This sheet appears to have been slightly trimmed, as it is 552 x 333mm; it may therefore once have carried an original date, which was probably 25 March 1818.

CARR: SOANE'S

SPECIMEN

CHURCH DESIGNS

OF 1818

53



Fig. 18a Sir John Soane, Design for Trinity church, Marylebone, 1820-21: drawing by] . M. Gandy

Fig. 18b Sir John Soane, Designs for churches at Marylebone, Walworth and Tyrinqham, 1822-24:

drawin8 by]. M. Gandy



Fig. 19 Sir John Soane, Design for Trinity church, Marylebone, 1820-21: drawing by J. M. Gandy



Fig.20 Sir John Soane, Designs for churches at Marvlebone, Walworth and Tyringham, 1822-24: drawing by J. M. Gandy



5.5.

.. .... .. ....

.... I.. m i

Fig.21a Sir John Soane, Specimen church design, 1818

............... . .

... .. .

.

.

.. ....

. . . . :: x,:

N...

-H

.xf. .:'•:

.m:z ":;F~i.

.::.x ..

? •?? :? • • ??? .......

••'..;• i• ..: ....

? ?' ??, ? ?

i-

? rii. • •...•?l3 i~ ~l:ii •:i•i:% ... . ...• :rift .... ••ii~

R

? . :• .. ?.,.. ,. :

% Xi it?, : ,

% ,

:

i•:i• :X•i Mi- :•• % ••

it

-M.N.:.: .•. • ..

Fig.21b Sir John Soane, Specimen church design, 1818



4T*

..

.. . ri•e

gg:i

Fig.22a Sir John Soane, Specimen church design, 1818

On-

XA

XX 77?

%: .... .... ... ... ... NUM :;:I

. .. . ... ...... I; U, M l?x+ ii?+??++:??: +

+

Fig. 22b Sir John Soane, Specimen church design, 1818

................ .

34 hi kom mu

. ... ....... Al?t . . . .. ... ....... ...

NO Ak ... ..... .. ... .... 0.1. eew

? rl" W, 4 40 1 U., N. T vK -,Rt i?' M ME eo:l In QM? E,

13' ................ ..... ... am 4 IN

i*V

-3., RN Wv 'ARM

MT NX Ri-l X.

INS tv, M.

Fig. 22c Sir John Soane, Specimen church design, 1818



=. . , .',..:" ..

... . . .... .......?.. •

;] i •.i'• . -•;{.'i•7 1,•:;. ... .. ..

............2

. . . . .. -w

,•!iTIM

Fig. 23a Sir John Soane, Specimen church design, 1818

:" .:3 /

ii~i..:-N :-.

...g.•.......:...-......, W.. =. N•.. m.-:Jm:xM:........... ...........:"•

!::i ... .. :X

:•i ,Ji!•~i~ii~!.,.d ,:..... . .... ~

;,•.:; ;,ii

"..::?'M, ..:.

...... .... ..ii!•ii!: .:-:,,::::.•;.,,..:: ::• i~ii~i.

• ": •:• i~t : .i ...... ... .:.;.:"..•i:,MT

:.i

.... '" "N

: .. •':- :• . ? ? . = • .: .:. !:' .: ::i" .: ?

.... .. . :. . .:..:. :..:W

:

Fig. 23b Sir John Soane, Specimen church design, 1818



Soane's Specimen Church Designs of 1818: A Reconsideration

Documents

Transcript of Soane's Specimen Church Designs of 1818: A Reconsideration