1870 – Methodist Church, Dromore, Co. Down

At a talk in Belfast, the design of this small church was publically criticised by architect Timothy Hevey who designed the local Roman Catholic church. Hevey neither named the architect nor the location. This resulted in a public reply by the architect William Gray in The Irish Builder of December 1, 1875. Clearly Gray was a little overly sensitive on this project.

Sir, —In a paper on “Church Building,” read before the Belfast Architectural Association, and published in your journal, Mr. Hevey, FRIAI, refers to a small country church in the porch of which “there is the extraordinary architectural phenomenon of the central pier (the door being a double one) having a capital on a column projecting beyond everything and carrying nothing.” Had Mr. Hevey, FRIAI, been more careful in collecting his illustrations, he could have seen that the “phenomenon” to which he referred was the builder’s temporary blunder, and formed no part of the architect’s design. What he saw was rectified before the adjoining buildings were finished, and the porch is now complete in accordance with the architect’s design. No such “phenomenon” was ever intended, and does not really exist. It is said, “Children and- Ac., should not judge unfinished work.”
William Gray.

And then the gloves were off, with a lengthy reply by Hevey in this next issue, December 15, 1875.

Sir,—“Children and-, &c., should not judge unfinished work,” is the particularly graceful and elegant conclusion of a letter by Mr. William Gray in your issue of the Ist inst. Notwithstanding that I am evidently intended by the writer to come under either of the genus expressed or implied above, I shall again risk being the subject of Mr. Gray’s trenchant pen. With your permission I shall place the facts of this trivial matter (about which your correspondent seems so much aggrieved) before your readers.
Let me state, in the first instance, that the report from which Mr. Gray quotes is slightly erroneous. What I did say was— “the central and two lateral piers, the door being a double one.”

The building to which reference was made is a plain red brick one, destitute of any architectural features except the present casus belli —a projecting stone porch in gable and a stone circular window over it. The church, which belongs to the Methodist body, was finished about four years ago, and in the occupation of the congregation. For about three years subsequently the “phenomenon” was to be seen, and during that period I had many opportunities of contemplating its strange effect; and, as I never saw any indication of its being removed, I, in common with others, naturally enough concluded that it was to remain so. Sorely, I thought Mr. Gray would never have taken the work off the contractor’s hands in an “unfinished state,” or allowed such a length of time to elapse before making good this mere “temporary blunder”

Mr. Gray’s letter is so worded as to rather convey the impression that the “blunder” was forthwith rectified—in fact, before the works, accounts, &c., were brought to a final termination, or contractor’s plant removed from the ground, for he says with considerable naivete that “the porch is now complete according to the architect’s design.”

Mr. Gray evidently wishes it to be inferred that the “completion” of porch was depending and consequent on the “adjoining buildings,” and that these buildings formed part of one great scheme to be built (perhaps in sections) under one contract. “They” consist of an ordinary two-storey duble cottage of the orthodox style, viz., with the hall door in centre, a bay window right and left, and the usual complement of windows over, and are to be used, I believe, for the purposes of a manse. Further, “they” (the adjoining buildings) are completely detached from the church itself, and to a casual observer would seem to have no connection therewith.

This manse was only built this last season, when, I believe, the “completion” of porch took place; and, having seen it a few weeks since, I can vouch that it has been altered, and, since Mr. Gray says so, I am sure in accordance with the “architect’s design,” and he is therefore perfectly within the truth when he says it (the phenomenon) “does not really exist.”

The transformation has been effected by bringing the arch stones forward on to the caps, and setting in behind them, to fill up the vacuum, new stones, which by reason of their light colour afford an agreeable (?) contrast to the dull grey of the old stonework.

I must confess I was rather astonished that Mr. Gray should have written to yon on the subject. No personal reference was made to himself, nor was even the locale of the building mentioned; and I venture to say, with one exception, not one of the audience (so far as I can learn) knew to whose work reference was made.

The other gentlemen referred to in my paper, some of whose works are of real importance (and to whom I made stronger allusions than to Mr. Gray), understanding and recognising the spirit in which my remarks were made, have taken my criticisms in good part, well knowing that the only possible object I could have was to elicit expressions of opinion from those present on the matter of my paper, and thereby have an interchange of ideas—one of the great objects for which our Association was formed; and I submit, owing to the circumstances of not knowing the “architect’s design,” coupled with the fact of the “ temporary blunder ” being in statu quo for such a long time, rendered the subject of this correspondence fairly one for comment.
I shall probably at no distant date reproduce a sketch of the phenomenon,” made last year, for the benefit of your readers.

Timothy Hevey.
4 Alfred-street, Belfast

Share!

More!