Trinity College Chapel - An Appreciation

Trinity COLLEGE CHAPEL an

appreciation

CAROLINE MILEY

!MHISCHAFELWASJ5RECtEB£tYuDH' \

T- TO t

v.«l<

Hii ClorY OF

y

%

J*.

V. •#

t

m-%

OF- HIS yy

:u.

i

Ci"

A

>;

OBORiv;Ji^ i4Ti*

^

’ -V '

F-

THE HOj^RUPERttAlllNt^ :■ /'

■uWr^'

■■■

I'T'

SEJ»TEMJ8Eft 3 0™ 1$14

im re

\

f

Frinity COLLEGE

CHAPEL an appreciation

«"(j.w4sti>ECTt^jnHHSDmiFF£ tH OeSF," »*■ TO

TH

LORY OF COD ANO m AFFEOntON

M|i*M

f

'

‘ERtMtMBRAH-

,.Y t^iK^sF^r HIS BELOVE^ DAUCM^R' WIF

lE^HEHON RUPER’

S3

m

C_ •>'

CAROLINE MILEY

THE COUNCIL OF TRINITY COLLEGE, MELBOURNE

Caroline Miley is a lecturer in art history in the School of Art of the Victorian College of the Arts. She is a graduate of the University of Melbourne and of LaTrobe University, where she recently completed her Ph.D. on the Arts and Crafts Movement in Victoria (1889-1929).

She has lectured and published in the field of Australian decorative arts, including contemporary criticism and on women artists, and has curated a major exhibition of Tasmanian Arts and Crafts. Her interests include late nineteenth- and early twentieth-

century decorative arts and architecture, especially ecclesiastical art and architecture. She is currently working on a catalogue raisonne of the stained glass of Christian Waller.

Design: Caroline Miley

Photography: Robin Page Photography Printing: The Craftsman Press Pty. Ltd., BurwooJ, Vic. Stone rubbing by janenne Eaton.

Unless otherwise identified, illustrations are by courtesy of the Council of Trinity College.

Published by the Council of Trinity College, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic. 1997 ISBN 0 9599759 2 6

© C. Miley 1997

All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review, no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without prior written permission.

This book is dedicated to the memory of Alexander North, 1858 ■ 1945, and to

Dt. Evan Burge, Warden of Trinity College 1974 - 1997

‘Lord, I have loved the habitation of thy house, and the place where thy honour dwelleth.”

in

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

t is not possible to write a book such as this without the assistance of many people.

1 would like to thank first of all Evan Burge, Warden of Trinity College, for making it possible for me to take on this project, and for his encouragement. The book has also brought me into contact with members of the families of those involved in the creation of

I

the chapel, which has been a pleasure as well as of material help. The North family has been most generous with their assistance, especially John, Dorothy and Judith North. 1 would also like to thank Charles Thompson and Lionel Kerr-Morgan, who provided useful information about their ancestors; Conrad Hamann, David Hamnes, David Cole and John Poynter, who contributed valuable sections of the manuscript; the staff of Trinity College, for their

practical help; Elizabeth Board; Janenne Eaton; James Grant, who read the manuscript, and Atthur Andronas, Robert Cripps, Douglas Jewell, Geoffrey Wallace, Stephen Laurie, Terence Lane and Robin Sharwood for their helpful advice and information.

w

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

IV

Author’s Foreword

VI

Foreword

Vll

Introduction

11

The Background

15

The Building

30

The Chapel in Use

67

Conclusion

69

Notes

70

Appendix: the Chapel Organ

73

ILLUSTRATIONS

The spire

10

Alexander North, Alexander Leeper and John Florsfall

14

Perspective of the “accepted” design - exterior

17

Perspective of the “accepted” design - interior

18

Detail of the brickwork of the sanctuary arch

25

View of the interior of the chapel from the east end

33

The east window

34

The St. Martin of Tours window (Miller Memorial)

35

The St. George window (Jowett memorial)

35

Detail of the carved canopy frieze to the nave stalls

36

Carved possum armrest on the nave stalls

36

The competition design - north elevation

38

An early design for the sanctuary stalls

38

The competition design ■ section of the interior

39

The competition design ■ the sanctuary and organ arch

39

Detail of the nave stalls

46

Detail of the altar rail

46

The Henty font and west end

49

The lectern

51

Copper plaque in memory of G.W. Torrance

52

The J.E. Dodd organ

64 V

AUTHOR’S FOREWORD

Ithough I was unaware of it at the time, I grew up among the architecture of Alex North. As time goes on, the impact of this early experience on my ideas about art

A

_ , and architecture becomes more and more apparent; indeed, his is the single greatest

influence. The opportunity to write this book was therefore one which 1 welcomed with much pleasure and gratitude.

When 1 began this book 1 had a great admiration for the work of Alex North, and thought of him as an artist among architects. Intensive study of the drawings and correspondence relating to this one building, and of its details, has led only to increasing admiration. Nothing was accidental; nothing halfthought-out; nothing, however minute, skimped. North began with a design for a very fine large ornate chapel, and, when the pressure of finances dictated a reduction in his grand plan, substituted instead a design for a very fine small plain chapel.

His was a generous creativity. He poured the same concentration of artistic energy into the smaller plan as into the larger. I do not think that he was capable of anything less.

VI

FOREWORD

aroline Miley’s study of Trinity College Chapel is most welcome in Australian architectural writing. Here she examines a crucial and inventive late Gothic Revival building in Australia: completed at a time when the spiritual in an architectural image was entering a critical phase, changing itself radically in the face of industrial civilisation; its architect, Alexander North, is of the very front rank of Australia’s architects.

A critical biography, which will fill us in on the details and broad picture of his overall career, is still coming; but Caroline Miley’s account, written attentively and with affection, gives us the texture, the context and the detail of a building most noted in architectural circles and rating in accomplishment with the best contemporary work; of Horbury Hunt, Robert Haddon, Robin Dods or John Hawes.

c

Trinity College made a vital choice in selecting North ahead of Oakden and Ballantyne in the chapel’s design competition, worthy though Oakden and Ballantyne were: Caroline Miley sets out all stages of the chapel’s emergence and design. It meant that Melbourne gained a new, free styled religious building to rival Robin Dods’ superb St. Brigid’s of 1912 at Red Hill, standing high over Brisbane, or Sir Walter Tapper’s pale and accomplished Guilford Grammar School Chapel in Perth’s outer suburbs, of 1912-20. In Eastern Australian work it was perhaps the most influential of all three, as its compression and free detail found echo in churches all through Melbourne suburbs. Trinity Chapel’s massing, that cliff-like, rocklike strength that Caroline Miley notes struck contemporaries and later students, shapes the exteriors of at least Payne and Fritsch’s Catholic churches. But it is also the fundamental

shaping of design for the young Louis Williams, who joined work on Trinity Chapel as a junior partner in 1914. Williams would go on to design or add to Anglican and other churches in every Australian state, and his reshaping of church form in the Melbourne suburbs and throughout New South Wales stems from what he learned with North at Trinity Chapel.

Caroline Miley shows in her study of this remarkable chapel the fondness and deep study she has made of the Arts and Crafts movement in Australia and Britain over a long period.

This, and her early and long-standing admiration of the North churches that she grew up with in Launceston and its region, has previously led her to explore the strong connection between the Arts and Crafts movement and the emerging order of Australia’s turn of the century architecture. In this little book she continues this study on from her doctorate and from her exhibition Beautiful and Useful, held in the Launceston Museum in 1987, where

she had first focussed on Alexander North’s furnishings and design. In a sense Trinity Vll

Foreword

Chapel is itself an album or summation ■ both of North’s Arts and Crafts principles and his architectural ideas. In it you find the ideas and spirit of North’s earlier Trevallyn church, St. Oswald’s, of his two remarkable and unfinished Launceston churches St. John’s and Holy Trinity, of Exeter church to the north of Launceston, and of the little contemporary churches he designed in Victoria at the same time as working on Trinity Chapel: Point Lonsdale and Meredith. Caroline Miley brings out these connections and the wider context of the chapel in this book, tracking through one North usage after another.

And a rich pattern of connections they are. As Caroline Miley describes it. Trinity Chapel reflects the force and the excitement of Giles Gilbert Scott’s Liverpool Cathedral, a building which, though not completed until recently, was widely known as a design and which exerted a huge influence on contemporary architects. In its determined High Anglicanism and its compressed and powerful form the Chapel also carries a sense of other great religious buildings of its time - of John Francis Bentley’s Catholic Cathedral at Westminster, or the Episcopal Cathedrals of Washington and Baltimore, in the hands of Henry Vaughan and Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue, or the chapels of John Dando Sedding at Lancing, or of Goodhue at West Point and the University of Chicago. These all had the most imposing and ambitious forms, fused with the essentialism and directness in detail that marked the Arts

and Crafts movement. This is a juxtaposition which Dr. Miley sets out as it emerges in the Chapel’s design: the Arts and Crafts is normally thought of as a movement without monumental intent and in this atea she introduces one of the fascinating contrasts which powered late or Modern Gothic.

On this monumentalism in late Gothic, one of the most interesting aspects of Dr. Miley’s study is her account of the genesis of the Chapel from literally a miniature cathedral, and one can sense that North, coming from within the Arts and Ctafts, had grasped that essence, the real thrust of late Gothic and the reason it was long seen as a new and truly twentieth-century style: that in the tall comptessed mass, the erupting scale of a west window and of transepts behind porches and presbytery buildings of compressed scale, lay a dream vision of the church, in monumental tetms, as a forttess against all depredations of the machine age, truly a rock or cliff-face, as many saw the Chapel afterwards. That view, though, actually stemmed from the early nineteenth-century Gothic Revival. Voiced most clearly in the early twentieth century by the intense commentary of Ralph Adams Cram, the church as fortress was both a High Church and an Evangelical vision, and as Cram was able to put Ametcian Methodists and Baptists into his own tecastings of Catholic Cathedrals, so North was able to shape the new Chapel as that of his own essentially High Church realm.

Caroline Miley relates how, moreovet, he was able to maintain the design’s support from John Horsfall, a devoted follower of Yorkshire Evangelism with a Yorkshire childhood at Haworth parish, no less! Dr. Miley then shows how this particular monumentalism, this intense vision of the late Gothic Revival, nevet left the chapel, even after the design was changed from its ambitious eatly concept with encircling cloisters to the simpler and more contained chapel one sees today.

Yet these concerns, of course, meant that the chapel would always be more than a stylistic exemplar; it would never be copybook. This is reflected in Notth’s assurance and direct viu

Foreword

dealing with each artist and craftworker involved with the chapel - from Robert Prenzel to William Montgomery, an area which Caroline Miley makes clear. We learn the context for the memorial window programme, the individual contribution of each craftworker to the chapel and how their work all came together. Through it all one senses the detail, the intensity, the decisions, the craft that made the chapel, both in its powerful exterior demeanour and in an interior which, infused with the Arts and Crafts, was later seen by Sir John Betjeman as the finest Gothic Revival interior outside England.

Conrad Hamann

Associate Professor

Department of Visual Arts, Monash University

IX

‘The most beautiful little spire in Melbourne'

10

INTRODUCTION

n a little space in Royal Parade, Parkville stands the chapel of Trinity College, a small, plain, red brick building, with a beautiful spire and massive west window. Entering, one is struck by the profuse but restrained ornament - iron altar rails with stylised gilded leaves, carved wooden possums and bandicoots, wooden friezes of native plants, and stained glass images of early English saints. In the chancel, a portrait in coppet tepousse adorns the wall. The overall effect is grand but intimate. The idiosyncratic combination of native motifs with elements of High Victorian, Gothic Revival and Arts and Crafts design in this building, together with innovation, attention to detail and restraint in the craft decoration,

I

make it characteristic of the architect’s work, and, since he was the foremost ecclesiastic Arts

and Crafts designer, of the genre in this country.

Trinity College Chapel was designed and built between 1911 and 1917 by the Tasmanian architect Alexander North, who was then in partnership with Louis Williams in Melbourne.

It was the result of a gift by John Horsfall in memory of his daughter, Edith Carington, and was at first known undet one or the other of their names. A local architectural critic, P.M.

Carew-Smyth, described it in an enthusiastic article as “a notable addition to the ecclesiastical architecture of Melbourne”. He felt it exemplified some of the ideas the great English critic John Ruskin had put fotward in The Seven Lamps of Architecture, quoting a passage as “a fair description of the ptocesses which must have been in operation in the architect’s mind.”

Although North typically threw himself with enthusiasm into the design of every aspect of decoration, he was also well able to modify his ideas to suit a simpler building, some of his smallest churches being among the most delightful. He had an eatly interest in Norwegian stave churches and had delivered a paper on rural churches in 1905.^ Among his churches in Tasmania, for example, the small rustic Sacred Heart, Mangana, is like a cut-down version of

his grand Holy Trinity, Launceston, but very successful; St. Oswald’s, Trevallyn (timbet) and the conversion of the tiny ancient Christ Church, lllawarra, show his abilities with the small and unpretentious building. In the event. Trinity College Chapel, while ornamental, is entirely appropriate to its purpose, Carew-Smyth rematking that “the characteristic of the interior, as of the exterior, is its reticence. There is no over-decoration. Restraint makes for preciousness”.’

Despite its emphasis on hand-made detail and its recapitulation of a Gothic Revival vocabulary, the building is firmly located in the twentieth century, not only in terms of its understanding of design and symbolism, as Dr. Hamann has pointed out in his Foreword, II

Introduction

but was contemporary, even innovative structurally, where required. Although the organ loft arch, for example, was faced with brick and stone to harmonise with the interior, it was actually formed in reinforced concrete. North was somewhat of a pioneer in the use of this modern material, which had been used by the English architect C.F.A. Voysey in

Brockhampton Church. At the same time as the chapel was in progress, he was building a daring extension to St. John’s, Launceston, which included an asymmetrical concrete dome, while his rural church of Sacred Heart, Mangana (1910), was entirely in concrete.

Alexander North seems to have believed in his heart William Morris’ maxim that “art is the

pleasure that man takes in his labour.’’ The only explanation for the wealth of inventive drawings, designs and sketches for all sorts of architectural ornament which poured from his pen as he worked late into the night, embellishing each with decorative lettering and artistic details, is that he took great pleasure in the work. That combination of inventive fancy and joy in labour, perceptible to the observer of his buildings, is what made him an artist among architects. It is also what made him so generous with his talent. He was not content merely to design the details of the building he had contracted for; as ideas occurred to him for

furnishings or addititions, he rushed to put them on paper, lovingly worked out, and present them to the client, often with very little hope that they would ever be realised. He drew from the love of drawing, and was no more able to suppress a good idea than to design a shoddy building.

Trinity College Chapel has always attracted the attention of architectural critics. We have

already seen the opinion of a leading critic of North’s own day. Fifty years later John Betjeman, the distinguished poet and connoisseur of architecture, was also to become a great admirer of North’s work. On a visit to Melbourne in 1961 he stayed at Trinity College, and his first acquaintance with North’s buildings was attending Holy Communion in the Chapel.

He wrote to North’s daughter that “the scale of that building, and its sense of mystery, created partly by that internal arch and the high up windows and the brick walls, remain in my mind... 1 longed to see more of his work.’’"' It was his opinion that North may have been a pupil of the noted English Gothic Revival architect William Burges. He also compared North to Robin Dods and Horbury Hunt as one of the “great Australian architects” who “went on where the Gothic left off and... invented a fine native style of his own.”5 The Chapel must be seen as in many ways the joint effort of North and of the Warden of the College, by whose initiative and assiduous work the Chapel came into being. Alexander beeper was appointed Principal of Trinity College in 1876 at the age of 27. He was a tall, lean man, nervous, charming, and with a vivid, impulsive personality, dark hair, a beak-like nose and piercing blue eyes. The young Irishman had first come to Australia in 1869 when threatened with consumption, but returned to take a brilliant degree in Classics at Trinity College, Dublin. He returned to Victoria in 1875, becoming one of the large group of Irish professional men which was a very important influence in Victorian history.

Trinity was scarcely viable when beeper took charge, and throughout his long tenure retiring in 1918 - he had to “farm” the college to supplement his meagre salary. In his first ten years, however, he succeeded in creating the first distinctively Australian University

college, gaining affiliation with the University and establishing a tutorial system and strong 12

Introduction

community spirit among the students. He also broke new ground by admitting women to residence in a hostel located in the Janet Clarke Building. With Bishop Moorhouse’s support he established a Faculty of Theology, and raised money to expand student accommodation.

He was a prominent layman in church affairs, and very active in local cultural institutions such as the combined Public Library, National Gallery and Museums, keeper was also a determined controversialist, becoming involved in numerous disputes in support of his favourite causes - the Anglican Church, Classics, the Act of Union and the British Empire.

His relations with Trinity and Janet Clarke Hall were sometimes stormy, on one notable occasion - the “Rebellion” of 1890 • the greater part of the Trinity students departing in a public procession of hansom cabs.

The Warden was sixty and a respected senior figure in Victoria when he began to campaign in earnest for an adequate chapel for Trinity in 1909. In the immediate background, however, was his conflict with Archbishop Lowther Clarke, who had removed Trinity’s Faculty of Theology in 1904. keeper won its restoration in 1911, but failed in his attempt to

make it the sole training institution for the Church of England in Victoria. The Chapel had for him symbolic significance, completing his life’s work creating an educational institution for which he had himself chosen the motto Pro Ecclesia Pro Patria.^

North was fortunate in his patrons for the chapel; both Alex keeper and John Horsfall were men who understood and sympathised with his philosophy, and recognised his ability. In

giving their patronage to the project, they no doubt thought as John Betjeman did, fifty years later, when he remarked that “talent dies and genius persists.”7

13

(Top) Alexander North (North Family Collection) (left) Alexander Leeper (right) John Horsfall

14

THE BACKGROUND

n the earliest days of Trinity College, with its snrall numbers of students, there was no Chapel. The students attended a parish church on Sundays, and their Common Room, in the Warden’s Lodge, was used for daily prayers. In 1878 this room was fitted up as a Chapel, which seated about 40. It was always thought of as a temporary expedient. As time went on this provision became clearly inadequate, since in term time there were 60 or 70 students in residence (including the women from Janet Clarke Hall), in addition to staff. The need for a new chapel was apparent, and Dr. keeper had been agitating for the construction

I

of one since at least 1905.

In July 1909 the Council discussed the matter formally. It was decided to procure a design for a new Chapel, which could then be brought into use when sufficient funds had been acquired to begin construction. The amount of £10,000 was decided on as a reasonable figure. The overall plan which the Sydney architect Edmund T. Blacket had prepared for the College in 1881, which included a chapel on the Royal Parade front of the College grounds, was considered. The Council, however, concluded that it should hold a competition for designs for the new building. They may have been motivated partly by the fact that, as Blacket was deceased, another architect would have to he employed in any case to supervise the construction of the building, including the design of such components as Blacket had not finalised in his scheme.

The Council decided to advertise the competition in the press, both locally and interstate, and agreed on a set of conditions which would be made available at the Diocesan Registry.

The Council was to decide on the best design; the winner would receive £75 (later reduced to £50), and the second place design, £25. A Chapel Committee was formed immediately, consisting of the Warden and Mr. Collins, with Archdeacon Lloyd Crossley as Chairman, to supervise the competition. By September it had conferred with the President of the Victorian Institute of Architects, E.A. Bates, and, with his help, produced the required conditions. By the end of November thirteen competitive designs had been received, and just before Christmas 1909 the Chapel Committee met to consider the designs and make the awards.

Events had moved swiftly up to this point, but complications now appeared. The committee reported that they “unanimously [placed] No. 1 as first in order of merit save as regards internal arrangements; but they are also unanimously of the opinion that the building could not be completed for anything like the sum named.” The committee planned to seek professional advice on this important point, and if it confirmed their judgement, they 15

The Background

determined to exclude the design from the competition and “assign the first prize to No. 9, both for originality of conception and for beauty and convenience of the internal arrangements.” They were also impressed with its west front, which they thought showed “constructional skill, suggesting solidity, strength, dignity and true architectural development”.'

The Committee’s judgement was sound. Design No. 1 was by the well-known Melbourne firm of Oakden and Ballantyne, while design No. 9 was submitted by Alexander North, a Tasmanian architect, and probably the finest ecclesiastical architect working in Australia at the time.

Council agreed to place No. 1 first and No. 9 second, but on the condition that the architects signed a written guarantee that the building could be carried out within the projected sum. It took until September of the following year to arrive at a final decision, which was to place North’s design first and Oakden and Ballantyne’s second. The decision was largely motivated by the financial consideration, as the No. 1 building could not be constructed for the agreed sum, even when the tower had been excluded from the design.

However, the Council was sufficiently impressed with Oakden and Ballantyne’s design to award it second prize, rather than eliminating it from the competition.

This was by no means the end of the matter. After further discussion both firms of

architects were asked to supply additional sketches, with details of how much of their designs (which must include the east end) could be built for £5,000, and how many would be able to be seated in the chapel. Another committee was appointed to resolve the matter, consisting of the Warden, Canon Godby, Dr. R.R. Stawell and with E.J. Stock as chairman. Its deliberations took the best part of another year, but by the beginning of September 1911 it had gone into the whole matter, with the result that North’s design was approved by Council, subject to any modifications the Building Committee might later require.

Having secured a suitable design, the next step was to raise the money to construct the new chapel. A committee was appointed to raise the funds, and Alexander North produced some perspectives of the accepted design which could be used in promotional material. These were delightful watercolours painted by North’s friend Lucien Dechaineux, a well-known artist of Arts and Crafts sympathies, then Principal of Hobart Technical College. Urgent pleas were made in the Annual Reports of Council in both 1911 and 1912, remarking that “this want has been so often brought before the attention of the Church in Victoria that the Council are almost weary of continuing to plead for it.” They implored all who were interested in “advancing the cause of true religion in our University, and therefore in our Nation”^ to add their names to the subscription list. It was hoped that at least £5,000 would be forthcoming, which would enable at least a major portion of North’s design to be constructed. At this point some £300 only had been raised, despite the support of all the provincial Bishops, and this sum consisted in fact of £200 subscribed and £100 given by Dr. keeper.

This situation did not look very promising, and it appeared that unless some major

benefactor came to the rescue, the chapel design might simply languish in the College vaults, 16

Perspective of the "accepted" design - exterior

n

Perspective of the “accepted” design ■ interior

18

The Background

leaving the undergraduates and their tutors crammed into the temporary chapel. It was not long, however, before such a benefactor came forward. In a special meeting in March 1913, the Council was presented with a “magnificent” offer of £10,000, which it accepted with gratitude. In June of 1914 the contracts for the building were signed, and in September the foundation stone was laid.

The offer to donate the entire sum required to build the chapel had come from John Sutcliffe Horsfall, a prominent Melbourne businessman. He was horn in Haworth, Yorkshire, in 1837, where he had had the distinction of being baptised by the Reverend Patrick Bronte, then parish priest and a friend of the family. He emigrated to Australia in 1856, and worked his way up in the firm of Goldsborough and Company to become one of its directors. At various times he had also been a major landowner. He was well known among his contemporaries as a man of strong character and considerable energy, especially in regard to his work, and of strong enthusiasms which he occasionally carried out in a quixotic manner.

He was intensely patriotic and cherished a great love, not only for England, but for its national church, and for his own county. His business career was extremely successful and his financial resources allowed him to engage actively in charitable work, in which he usually preferred to remain anonymous.

Despite an agreeable legend that Horsfall had made his generous offer as the result of a particularly festive College dinner, the gift had in fact been preceded by negotiations some months earlier between E.F. Mitchell K.C., the Chancellor of the Diocese of Melbourne, and

Horsfall, who was a friend. Dr. beeper, as Warden, and other prominent churchmen had been consulted. The topic had first been raised with Horsfall by Mitchell in the latter part of 1912, as a result of the public appeal. Horsfall later commented that he “had not been inside the boundaries [of the University] for over forty years when 1 was induced by Mr. Mitchell to go [to the College] and see the buildings... at which time the matter was brought before me”b He had “never intended to build a chapel, but... intended to give £10,000 - to be devoted chiefly to the advancement of medical science - especially with reference to cancer research”b It was indeed partly the sparseness of the public and church response to the College’s appeal for funds to build the chapel that determined Horsfall on making his open-handed gesture in that direction.

In a letter to the Council dated 5 March 1913 the offer was formally made. In it the donor expressed his desire to provide the funds for a chapel to be dedicated to the memory of his daughter Edith, the late wife of the Hon. Rupert Carington, who had died in January 1908.

He wanted a worthy monument “to my late daughter, to whom I was greatly attached and who was my constant companion on my travels to Europe, New Zealand etc., and whose advice I greatly valued’’^ He also stated that his intention was that the building should be opened “free of debt and properly equipped at an aggregate cost... not exceeding £10,000.”

In view of the widespread but erroneous belief that the chapel was built as a war memorial, it is perhaps worth stressing at this point that it was endowed as a memorial to Edith Carington, and was known throughout its early years as either the Carington or the Horsfall chapel. On the donor’s demise in 1916 the Council recorded his “generosity in erecting the beautiful building which will always be known by his name.”^ It was not until the installation 19

The Background

of stained glass windows in memory of College men who fell in the Great War that the chapel acquired any character as a war memorial.

John Horsfall appointed Mitchell and the Hon. William Cain, a lay canon of St. Paul’s Cathedral, to carry out the negotiations relating to the building of the Chapel on his behalf.

He chose Cain because he was “an old friend... and a thoroughly practical man in building matters, also a reliable conscientious man in every respect, as 1 have known from our fifty years acquaintance.’’^ They were to consult with the Warden about the design of the building and its cost, and submit a design for Horsfall’s approval. Alexander North’s plans would be considered in the first instance. Fortuitously, Horsfall was about to leave for a holiday in Tasmania, where he would have the opportunity of consulting with the architect in person.

Dr. beeper immediately wrote to North, and suggested that he should come to Melbourne to discuss the design, as it was by no means a foregone conclusion that the design which had won the competition would be accepted by Messrs. Mitchell and Cain, either in whole or in part. Horsfall had already seen the design, and although favourably disposed towards it, had some reservations, informing his representatives that “there is a lot of ornamentation in the design in the shape of crosses etc., which 1 would dispense with as 1 am a low church-man, and dislike the present high church formulas. 1 believe in honest religion, such as we had in our plain old church in Haworth... in my boyhood.”* Fortunately, Horsfall liked North’s design, and at a special meeting of Council in April 1913 the plans were “placed at his disposal” and the Council approved the appointment of Walter Butler to supervise the construction, since the architect was resident in Launceston, and would need a man on the spot.

Walter Butler was perhaps selected as he was architect to the Diocese and the author of

several handsome churches, including St. Alban’s, Armadale. He would have been very sympathetic to North’s ideas about architecture, as, like North, he was an English emigrant and shared his enthusiasm for the philosophies of the Atts and Crafts movement. In the event Butler did not supetvise the construction. William Cain favoured using Percy Oakden, so the work was handed over to none other than Oakden and Ballantyne, who thus had the task of overseeing the construction of the building which was ptefetted over theirs in the competition. A glance at the extensive correspondence between them and North shows their relationship to have been perfectly amicable.

The architect to whom the College entrusted its new chapel was Alexandet North who, like the donor John Horsfall, was a Yorkshireman, although some twenty years younger. It is pleasant to think of the two expatriates bent over the plans fot their joint project, discussing details of the design and exchanging reminiscences of their home county. They could not have known each other in England, since Horsfall had emigrated a yeat ot so before North was botn in 1858 in Huddetsfield. Despite Horsfall’s appointment of Mitchell and Cain as his tepresentatives on the project, he continued to play a major part in the negotiations. He and North met often in the crucial early stages of the project in 1913, Horsfall travelling to Tasmania on holiday and Notth coming to Melboutne when tequired, to consult with the vatious patties while drawing up the plans. On these trips he never failed to spend some time with Horsfall, and the two cortesponded tegularly in between. It was much more than 20

The Background

a strictly professional relationship: Horsfall’s extensive letters to North often contained

extremely candid remarks, followed hy the injunction that “this is of course strictly private from a Yorkshireman to a Yorkshireman.’’’.

Clearly a rapport had been struck up. This was very useful in the early days, since there were considerable anxieties about the cost of the building, the price of labour having risen very steeply in the two or three years that had elapsed since the design was prepared. It was necessary to make substantial modifications on that head, as well as to eliminate “the

crosses”, which Horsfall thought “give it to my mind, a Roman Catholic chapel aspect.”

Those excepted, Horsfall had liked the designs from the start. Concerns about cost and the difficulty of keeping the designs in line with what both the donor and the architect would be satisfied with could have resulted in major problems, even the shelving of the whole project, if the two men had not been able so easily to come to terms.

Alexander North was of medium height and slight build, with a deep bass voice, short brown hair and a smart waxed moustache. As a boy of four his mother had taken him to a phrenologist (then the rage), who thought that he was “very highly organized... exceedingly intense and susceptible” with an “active and lively” mind, “clear-headed and quick to understand things... quick of observation and much interested in seeing how things are done.”"’ These prognostications of a rather inexact science seem to have been borne out by his career. In later life he was a rather reserved man, gentle and peace-loving, notable for his upright carriage and rarely seen without a Homburg hat on his head and a pipe in his mouth. He was particular about his appearance, and unwilling to leave the house unless his boots were immaculately polished. He was interested in questions of forestry and taxonomy, and as a recreation built drystone walls and read the classics in Latin. He was an insomniac, who could be seen bent over the drawing board in his study at “Holm Lea” until the small hours of the morning, and suffered from diabetes, diagnosed in 1935. Despite this illness, he lived an active life until the age of 87, when he died of complications following a fall from a ladder while pruning a pear tree in his much-loved orchard."

He had been articled in Kendal, Westmorland and studied at the Kendal and Lambeth

Schools of Art, as well as travelling widely in Europe, including Norway. He showed early promise by winning, in 1883, the Gold Medal in the National Competition in architecture conducted by the South Kensington Schools, for his design of a colonial cathedral. He also worked with the architect James Cubitt in London. In 1885 he decided to emigrate, prompted by the death in the previous few years of his mother, then his father and finally, his beloved only brother. His health suffered as a result of these tragedies, and the usual “long sea voyage” was prescribed. At the end of it he arrived in Tasmania, met and married a local girl, and embarked on an architectural career which lasted into the 1930s.

North was a true artist both in his design work, for which he was a great enthusiast, and in the execution of his drawings. These were usually beautifully laid out and embellished with

artistic lettering, and occasionally filled in with watercolour washes by his artist daughter Ina (Adelina Reid-Bell). To the end of his life he retained his proficiency as a draughtsman and his careful handwriting. He was a member of the Church of England.

21

The Background

He was active in the formation of the Tasmanian Institute of Architects, and was its founder

President from 1903-1905, and again in 1911-12. In 1906 he was the delegate of the Tasmanian Association of Architects to the 7th International Congress of Architects in London. He became a Fellow of the Royal Victorian Institute of Architects in 1902 and later

designed its President’s chair. His practice as an architect and designer was based in Tasmania, but he worked in Victoria with Louis Williams for a short period from 1914, and was Cathedral architect at St. Paul’s, Melbourne, for ten years from 1913-23. While in this post he designed the carved wooden screens to the side chapels.'^ The later work of Louis Williams was clearly considerably influenced by Alexander North, particularly Williams’ interest in and style of design of terracotta ornaments and carved wood fittings for his churches.

North’s practice in Tasmania covered the whole State. At one time he shared his practice with Alexander Gordon Corrie, and later with Flack Ricatds in Hobart and Frank Heyward in Launceston, which he carried on while maintaining his partnership with Louis Williams in

Melbourne. He moved to Melboutne in 1914, presumably largely motivated by the Chapel project and by his work as St. Paul’s Cathedral architect, but returned to Tasmania in 1917.

From 1912 he lived at “Holm Lea’’ near Rowella on the West Tamat, a house he designed

himself under the influence of the Arts and Crafts movement. It was characteristically filled

with furniture and fittings he had designed especially for the house, including an enormous combined plan press and bureau, with carved linenfold panels and foliage designs, which furnished his home office.

North specialized in ecclesiastical work and was responsible for numerous fine churches in

Tasmania. They exhibit varying styles, but typically combine high Victotian, Gothic revival and Arts and Crafts elements in some of the best buildings, such as St. John’s, Launceston and Holy Trinity, Launceston. Both of these buildings wete under construction at the time of the College chapel project, hence the need for a Melbourne supervising architect. One of his earliest churches was that of St. Michael and All Angels at Bothwell (1889), in the French Gothic style, carried out in the local warm honey-coloured sandstone. He also experimented successfully with both timber (St. Oswald’s, Trevallyn) and conctete (Sacred Heart, Mangana) building, the formet pattly inspited by his eatly interest in Norwegian stave churches.

North had a keen interest in and knowledge of botany and many of his designs, especially in Trinity College Chapel and St. John’s, Launceston, make a feature of local plants. He was an

enthusiastic, prolific and inventive designer of craft work for his buildings, and extensively promoted the use of native timbers, writing atticles, conducting experiments, and in 1913 winning an award at the Australian Natives’ Association Exhibition for a hardwood desk of his own design. He was also Chairman of Launceston Technical School from 1907-10 and Vice-Patron of the Atts and Ctafts Society of Northern Tasmania in 1914. He died at his home in Tasmania in May 1945, and his ashes were scattered over his beloved plantation. His wife predeceased him in 1944, hut he was survived by his two sons and daughter. His monument is the many impressive churches he left behind him.

In the early part of 1914 there were very grave doubts as to whether the Chapel would go ahead, due to serious illness on the part of John Horsfall. A flurry of correspondence between Leeper and Notth teveals their anxiety, Leeper pointing out in some anguish that 22

The Background

legally the donor was only committed at this point to pay for the plans, a matter of some £250. Despite this, in March North moved to Melbourne, taking up residence in Park St. South Yarra, with offices in Phair’s Building, 327 Collins St., with Louis Williams. Horsfall

was still ill in July, but the project had received the go-ahead. The plans were completed in April 1914, and the tenders invited in May. On the 3rd of June the tender of the building contractor J.L (Joseph) Rowsell of Downshire Rd., Elsternwick, for £9,477 was accepted, and the contract signed by Dr. Carry Salmon for the College. The contract was to be completed within 12 months, with the usual penalties for lateness. Oakden and Ballantyne were appointed with North and Williams as joint architects, and the consulting engineer for the project was the firm of Owen P. Thomas.

Rowsell’s was a family firm, which also owned bluestone quarries near Ballarat and had interests in others near Ballan. Joseph Rowsell junior was the son of an English immigrant

who had worked on the Ballarat goldfields before taking up the quarrying business. Joseph junior carried on the building business, which comprised himself and his son Percy at this time. Unfortunately, the Chapel contract tutned out to be a millstone around their necks rather than a means of advancement. Inability to manage their financial affairs adequately,

combined with the rapidly rising costs of labour and materials during the war, eventually ran the firm into bankruptcy. The firm’s correspondence during the building ptocess reveals a rapidly declining state of affairs, which became apparent as early as the beginning of 1915, when Rowsell’s began to importune the architects to make larger and more frequent progress payments. They did what they could to help, but towards the end of the year the firm was paying its subcontractors with extensively post-dated cheques, a practice which was not at all well received, and by the beginning of 1916 was delaying paying other subcontractors even amounts as small as £15. In late 1916 they filed a petition in bankruptcy, alleging, among other deficiencies, a loss on the Chapel contract of a massive £3,000 incurred between July 1914 and November 1916.'^

The site was chosen at a Council meeting of 5th August 1914, at which it was decided that the position on Royal Parade designated for it in Edmund Blacket’s plans would be suitable,

and that it should be connected to the Clarke building in the manner indicated in North’s design. The Warden expressed some anxiety about whether the existing roadway would be adequate, and Alderman Strong was detailed to look into the matter.

North did not wait for the calling of tenders and signing of the contracts before he began work. He knew that there was a great deal to be done before building could start - especially a building designed by an architect as particular as he was. In March and April 1913 he had been engaged in modifying his plans to suit the donor and the changed financial circumstances, and when this was done, he set to work giving instructions to the firms which he needed to supply him with special products.

In September 1913 North wrote to tell Percy Oakden that he wanted to use green Westmorland slates for the roof, which would have to come from England. Slates come in a

variety of sizes, and Notth explained that he wanted the larger ones laid at the eaves and graded back to smaller at the ridge, which gave a good effect. In the end the slates, which 23

The Background

are grey, were probably supplied by G.R. Routledge of Richmond, English slates presumably being quite unobtainable by 1915, when they were required.

In October he wrote both to Northcote Bricks and to the Australian Tesselated Tile Co. at

Mitcham, inquiring as to what they offered in the way of specialised moulded bricks and terracotta ornaments. Given the importance of bricks in North’s architectural concept, it is not surprising that ensuring that what he required would be available was his first thought.

He had already used Northcote Bricks for St. John’s, Launceston, probably partly because of a shortage of local btickmakers, but also because quality was of the first importance. He advised Northcote that he would need a large number of moulded bricks, some using their stock shapes, but also “special” bricks made to his tracings for string and hood moulds.

From the Australian Tesselated Tile Co. he wanted specially modelled dripstone terminations (label stops), which he wanted to have made in modelled terra cotta instead of stone. Once he found that they could do this work for him. North had plaster moulds made in Launceston, which he supplied to Australian Tesselated Tiles so that they could make the ornaments for him. He probably used Hugh Cunningham, a Launceston woodcarver and modeller who worked for him on St. John’s and other projects, to make the moulds, but it is surprising that he preferred Australian Tesselated Tiles to the Tasmanian firm of Campbell’s Pottery, which had made modelled terra cotta tiles for him in the past. The Melbourne firm, however, was one with artistic inclinations, which had exhibited with Arts and Crafts

Societies and produced ceramic ornament for other architects such as Robert Haddon.

The brickwork was in fact to prove a headache for North from the time building commenced. To start with, he was disappointed with the colour of the facing bricks, although happy with the special hood mould bricks they had made to his design. He had already used these bricks on the Church Hall for St. Mark’s, Camberwell, where they had been “greatly admired”. He was also dissatisfied with the quality of the bricks and with the excessive number of damaged bricks supplied. Northcote retaliated by suggesting that he purchase the top quality product, which was much more expensive and uniform in colour.

North pointed out that this was not what he wanted, and treated the firm to a short lecture on the advantages of varied colouring, while reminding them, effectively, that in being so particular about what he wanted and in using moulded brickwork to a large degree in his buildings he was trying to promote the vittues of brick building. A suggestion from the builders that carved stone should be substituted when it appeared that specially moulded bricks for the columns might be unavailable was also repudiated, and they were instructed that it would be better to cut the available bricks to shape if necessary.

No sooner had harmony been reached than another problem arose. North disliked the use of “pointing” on brickwork, but the extensive use of specially shaped bricks in arches and other features of the building had proved beyond the ability of the bricklayers to lay them with the precise evenness he required. These bricklayers came from the Ballarat area, and had been selected by the contractors. In consultation with Percy Oakden he compromised his ideals and agreed that the joints should be raked and the bricks pointed afterwards with cement coloured with manganese to bring it to the required dark grey colour.

Portions of the construction were to he of concrete, a bold choice fot a church, but a material which was coming into use at this time. It is most noticeable in the toof ttusses, which are in 24

Detail of the brickwork of the sanctuary arch

25

The Background

cast concrete 18” by 10”, and laid on concrete wall plates which extend the length of the building on top of the brickwork of the walls. Because it is faced with btick, it is less apparent that the organ loft arch is also concrete, while its flooring is of 6” of concrete laid over corrugated iron.

Professor Skeats, the Professor of Geology and Mineralogy at the University, was asked to analyse stone samples for the Chapel, procured from Rowsell’s stone quarries close to Egerton near the Moorabool River. He reported that the stone (of two different types) should be adequate for window tracery, but was not very hard and would wear to some extent. This is the stone that was used.

The foundation stone, of Malmsbury bluestone, was laid in a cetemony on September 30, 1914. North was unable to be among the two or three hundred present, as he was ill, but Archbishop Clarke presided, and the large procession included the Warden, John Horsfall, members of the College Council past and present, various clergy and memhers of the College.

“Christ is our Cornerstone” was sung, prayers were read, the stone was consecrated by the Archbishop, and duly laid by the donor. A record prepared by the Warden, comprising a history of the College and the gift, and wrapped in a Union Jack, was placed beneath the stone.

The stone had been supplied by William Train and Co., who were also asked to supply black and white marble tile flooring. To this date, the outbreak of hostilities two months earlier had not affected the building process, but in an addendum to their quote the stonemasons noted that they would need to know soon whether it was accepted, as the black tiles came from Belgium and “we noticed some of the fighting was in the quarries and it will be a long time before we can get any further supplies from there.”''' The Chapel was eventually floored with white Sicilian marble tiles.

The effect of the great conflict on materials prices now began to become apparent. The large firm of Wunderlich Pty. Ltd. quoted £70 in February 1915 to clad the fleche in copper, and only two months later advised that they would stand by this figure, even though “there will be a loss occasioned by the advanced price of copper.”15 North arranged for the major joinery for the Chapel to be carried out by the Launceston firm of Hinman, Wright and Manser, which he used widely on his Tasmanian churches. They supplied the roof trusses in unwaxed fumed Tasmanian oak, one of North’s favourite timbers, which were ready by February 1915 but were not shipped to Melboutne for over a month due to lack of ordets from Rowsell’s. This sort of delay could not really be afforded, as it was becoming apparent that the Chapel would not be finished by the due date of June 1915, or anything approaching that date. Tasmanian oak was also used fot the wooden ttacery above the concrete trusses in the roof, which may have been carved by the Launceston craftsman Hugh Cunningham, whom North used extensively on St. John’s, Launceston. Hinman Wright also supplied all the doors for the Chapel, in the same timber. These were waxed on the inside, but the west end doors had to be painted on the exterior face. Dr. Leeper would have preferred a natural wood finish, but North assured him that it would not stand up to the weather, and a brown colour was chosen to tone with the woodwork. The doors were fitted with Norfolk

latches and other hardware supplied by John Rogers and Son of Little Collins St. 26

The Background

The metalwork in the Chapel was carried out by a man whom North could rely on to be

sympathetic to his ideas. This was James Marriott, an “art metalworker” who had a large workshop in Little Collins St., and who advertised himself as “by Special Appointment to His Excellency Sir Reginald Talbot” (the former Governor of Victoria). Lady Margaret Talbot had been the founder President of the Arts and Crafts Society of Victoria, founded in 1908, and Marriott had exhibited at its first show as well as with the Yarra Sculptors’ Society. He was also a member of the T-Square Club, an association designed to provide a forum for architects and craftsmen of Arts and Crafts tendencies to meet and promote their ideals. North would certainly have become acquainted with him through one or the other of these Societies.

Marriott created the altar rail in wrought iron to North’s design, and also quoted for a large open screen in the same material to be placed under the organ loft arch to divide the Chapel proper from the ante-chapel, and for a lectern. Unfortunately, the screen was not carried out, probably in an effort to contain costs.

The hand-beaten copper covers to the ventilators in the side walls of the Chapel were made by another member of the Arts and Crafts Society, Kathleen (“Kit”) Turner, and were probably designed by her in conjunction with North. Turner was a well-known craft metalwotker who exhibited extensively. She was at the beginning of her career at this time (1916), and again may have come to North’s attention through the display of her work at the Arts and Crafts Society’s annual exhibition of the previous year.

North was less fortunate in the skill and sympathetic approach of the stonecarver who was employed to carve the armorial shields and the corbels which ornament the interior. The armorial shields were those bearing the arms of the College and of John Horsfall, which were to ornament the organ loft arch, and a set of shields bearing the arms of the Sees of Victoria.

The corbels are the small carved stone terminations which decorate the lower ends of the

columnettes which run down the walls. The organ loft arch itself is crowned by a carved stone balustrading, carved very exactly, presumably by a trade firm specialising in such largescale work.

The man chosen for the carving of the ornaments was Mortimer Godfrey, whose studio was in William St., Abbotsford. He was primarily a woodcarver, and like James Marriott had exhibited with both the Yarra Sculptors’ Society and the Arts and Crafts Society of Victoria. He was the son of a well-known English woodcarver who taught at the Working Men’s College, Louis Godfrey. Despite this North was not at all happy with his work, and in a letter to him in July 191 5 he told him so in no uncertain terms:

“We are dissatisfied with your treatment of the interior carving at Trinity Chapel, especially the main corbels.

We will supply you with an illustration showing how the mitres should be treated which at present are quite unsatisfactory, and beyond that must call your attention to the fact that whereas you had three details supplied to you for treatment of three respective corbels you have ignored these and made them all alike. Apart from this flagrant violation of our instructions as per details, the carving itself is not satisfactory to us and is devoid of feeling.

Please proceed no further with this interior carving until you hear from us again.'

27

The Background

This was clearly something of a disaster for North, who had attended lovingly to every aspect of the design of the building, no matter how minute, and who saw every detail as playing its part. Some resolution was reached, however, or promise extracted, and Godfrey continued to work sporadically on the project until early in 1916, when his failure to get on with the carving of the armorial shields resulted in the work being taken away from him and given to W.P. Hutchings of Glenferrie, who completed the work and also the carved font which North had designed. He was apparently recommended by Rowsell’s, for whom he had worked in the past.

By September 1916 the Chapel was substantially complete. The building structure itself was finished. The electric lighting (frosted lamps on bracket fittings) had been installed; the memorial tablets had been moved from the old to the new Chapel, and a disagreeable debris of dead birds and parts of birds’ nests which had fallen through the ventilators, due to Rowsell’s failure to put wire mesh over them, had been removed and the problem rectified.

A neat white picket fence divided the building from the roadway, and a new carriage drive, with circular arms and a road 22 feet wide had been constructed from Royal Parade to the door. This consisted of brick and cement edging filled with gravel laid on spawls, and was supplied not by Rowsell’s but by a builder named Pearson.

The Board of Health had originally indicated that they found the plans deficient “in the mattet of sanitary accommodation”. This apparently meant that they thought there ought to be toilets in the huilding.Where they could possibly have been placed in such an austere plan is a subject to ponder. However, beeper persuaded them that the facilities in the nearby Clarke building would be more than adequate for the small numbers of College residents who would be using the Chapel. In 1916 the Board sanctioned the opening of the building, but a last-minute hitch developed in relation to the City Council’s requirements about water supply to the building. This was resolved, so that in September of 1916 the Chapel was as complete as the donor’s gift would allow. What the College had was a handsome building complete down to its utilities. All that was in fact lacking was interior furnishing, but that was a rather conspicuous lack. There was no altar, no seating, no lectern and no organ.

Horsfall’s munificent £10,000 could not be made to stretch so far, in the altered conditions imposed by the Great War.

In the meantime, the donor of the magnificent new building had succumbed at last to his

illness, and died on June 11, 1916. He had lived to see it completed, even if not opened, and its designer and supervising architects were among the many who attended his funeral. The Council recorded its “sense of great loss sustained by [hisj death”,’’ and Fleur-de-Lys, which had welcomed Horsfall to the College at the time of the gift, printed a profile of him in “grateful commemoration.”'* A memorial service was held at the College two days later.

The College Council debated the matter of the opening for some time. In August 1916 it resolved that the question of opening the Chapel should stand over. In September it postponed the subject until after the long vacation. The reasons for the delay were largely the lack of interior furnishings, which made the building unsuitable fot worship, and the College’s reluctance to incur additional major expenditure at a time when its resources had fallen particularly low, due to the war. It was also felt that the small number of students in 28

The Background

residence may as well continue to worship in the old Chapel. Eventually, in September 1917, the Council resolved that the Chapel should be opened before the end of November. The Chapel was consecrated on Saturday, the 24th November, 1917. The College chaplain, George Aicken, was resigning, but his wish to officiate for the last time as chaplain at the opening ceremony was granted. A long procession, which included the Chancellor of the Diocese, Archbishop Clarice, the Warden and the Masters of Ormond and Queen’s Colleges, and past and present students and members of the College, opened the proceedings. The sermon was preached by Bishop Green, who had been the first Trinity student to train for the ministry and the first to become a bishop. The Warden presented a petition for the consecration of the Chapel, and this was duly done in the name of the Holy Trinity. The collection was devoted to the organ fund.

It had been some twelve years since Dr. beeper had first begun to agitate for it, but at last Trinity College had “a chapel worthy of itself and of the University.’

19

29

FHE BUILDING

lexander North was 55 at the beginning of the Chapel project, and at the height of his career. In his early training he had been influenced by the currents of progressive -_ _ . architectural thought then in play in England. These were, most prominently, the Gothic revival, then in the hands of senior architects such as G.E. Street and William Burges; and the Arts and Crafts movement of William Morris and architects such as Philip Webb, C.EA. Voysey and WR. Lethaby. These two movements shared a number of concerns, and indeed both arose out of prevailing conditions in post-industrial Revolution Victorian Britain.

A

One of these concerns was to find a style appropriate to Britain, in opposition to the rampant and, to them, meaningless eclecticism of the era. The Gothic was thought suitable, as it was both native to Britain and also a symbol of a time which was thought of as more Christian.

Techniques as well as forms of Gothic building and decoration were revived, so that a whole repertoire of forms and images was re-introduced, especially into ecclesiastical architecture.

The Arts and Crafts movement, however, had its own philosophies. These were articulated in the first instance by the critic John Ruskin, whose book The Stones of Venice (1853) and later

publications were highly influential. One of the reasons Ruskin favoured the Gothic was that its whole ethos allowed for individuality and human eccentricity, unlike the formal perfectness of Classical architecture. Like many of his contemporaries, Ruskin was appalled not only by the standard of Victorian design, but also by the conditions of Victorian workingclass life, and blamed the division of labour, among other factors. His views were taken up by the poet, designer and utopian socialist William Morris, who put these ideals into practice.

The bases of Arts and Crafts philosophy might he summarised as follows: the arts, crafts and architecture were regarded as complementary, and were to be united as far as possible; craft work should express the conception of art that Morris described as “the pleasure that man

takes in his labour”'; materials, designs and images appropriate to the origin and use of the object should be employed and work should be “truthful”, that is, it should honestly express the nature of the materials and processes used in its manufacture. This was a philosophy, not a style, so that the appearance of Arts and Crafts objects varies a great deal, especially with the emphasis on individual expression in craft work.

However, following through these ideas led to certain types of design. Local materials were used in building and furniture, while decorative work employed native flora or legends. Desire for “honesty”, a very important criterion, meant that constructional materials were not surfaced with concealing veneers, varnishes or stucco. Similarly, metalwork was hand-heaten.

30

The Building

not machine-turned, and the marks of the hammer were left to enliven its surface.

Constructional features like hinges were not hidden, but extended into triumphs of the blacksmith’s art. Precious materials were not often used, since the value of an object came not from its monetary worth, but from its being the production of a skilled craftworker who had taken pleasure in its making. These concepts were thought to lead to craft and architecture which was not only enjoyable to make, but which was well designed.

This movement was enormously instrumental in improving standards of design and had a massive influence on technical education, in Australia as elsewhere. One of the effects of the

movement was to encourage architects to design craft work for their buildings as an integral part of the concept of the building, not as mere furnishings, and to encourage individual expression of design and skill among craftspeople.

Alex North was to the forefront in this field in Australia. His buildings are characterised by well-integrated handmade furnishings, and he disliked stock items bought from catalogues.

He was a great employer of local craftspeople, always trying to get the best out of them. He thought that appropriateness was central, using Australian timbers in his buildings and Australian flora and fauna to decorate them. He also knew that the design itself had to be appropriate to local conditions, remarking in relation to the chapel, for instance, that “unless every mould and feature is specially designed to suit the requirements of the Australian climate, [it) would be featureless and insipid.”2 North was a great proponent of brick building, which he treated from the point of view of truth to materials. He thought it was so undetestimated - and important - that in 1892 he had given a paper to the Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science on “The Truthful Treatment of Btickwork”. He felt that the reason contemporary brick building was often of such a poor standard was that “the evil lies in the spirit of the age, which looks for ostentation at the expense of truth.”’ He meant particularly that as brick was regarded as an inferior material, it was often covered with stucco made to look like stone, which he described as “a prostitution of sincerity, truth and good sense”.’ The only way to build with brick successfully was to honour it as a medium in it own right, and to utilise its particular characteristics. One of these was its capability for producing modelled decoration, while another was that, constructionally, brick building was “a style of arches”,’ which he considered one of its greatest charms. The colour too, was an important feature, though it was often difficult to achieve the right “warm subdued tone which leaves such a pleasant memory in the mind.” ^ All of these elements are basic to the design of the Chapel.

Ultimately, North’s philosophy - and his aim in building the chapel - might best be summed up in his own wotds: “If a building violates no principle of construction, participates in no imposture, is decorous in its embellishments, and truly serves the purpose for which it was erected, it can scarcely fail to achieve some artistic merit.”’ By these criteria, the Chapel is an artistic success indeed.

The single primary influence on North’s design was most probably Sir Giles Gilbert Scott’s Liverpool Cathedral.® Scott had begun work on this building in 1904. The choice of architect and the competition wete considered controversial, so it would have formed a topic of 31

The Building

conversation at the international architectural congress which North attended in London in 1906, and the plans were probably on view.

The elements of the design which are most relevant to the Chapel are the exterior of the east end of the cathedral and the interior masonry bridge. The east end consists of a large traceried window, deeply recessed into the facade, and flanked by polygonal towers

supported by butttesses and topped by mouldings stittounding conical polygonal caps.

Below the window, an arcade projects forward along the front, very like the arcade which formed part of North’s competition design; atttached to one side is a small round building with a conical roof, giving a suggestion perhaps of the apsidal vestty attached to the north transept of the chapel in the design the College accepted. One of the most striking features of the interior at Liverpool is a large masonry bridge of a single arch, thrown across the nave to fotm a balcony.

It may be argued that these elements are staples of Gothic architecture, and the external features of window, turrets and so on cettainly ate. The intetiot masonry bridge is highly unusual, although not unknown; it is generally thought that Scott borrowed the concept ftom the arch at the east end of the nave of Gloucester Cathedral. Some other ancient

cathedrals, most conspicuously that at Exetet, contain a large architectural masonry choir screen or pulpitum, the one at Exeter having three pointed arches bearing a solid wall at the

top, similar in basic design to the organ loft arch in North’s original competition entry. Even more telling, the Exetet arch petforms the same function as the arch in Ttinity Chapel: that is, it catries the organ.

These various buildings could all, then, have made a contribution to North’s conception.

Howevet, the direct influence of Liverpool Cathedral seems undeniable. All the relevant components of Scott’s design beat a sttong resemblance to the cortesponding patts of Trinity Chapel, and finding all togethet in the one building suggests sttongly that here was a

latge part of the inspitation for some of the Chapel’s most intetesting features.

A further point is also significant. The traceries in the east window of Liverpool Cathedral

are very unusual. The large light is divided into two vertical pointed arched elements, each of which is furthet subdivided into two by a thin mullion which btanches at the top into apparently naturalistic tibs, like the veins in a leaf or the branches of a tree, pointing upward. The traceries in North’s Horsfall chapel are much more conventional, but modified though clearly recognisable versions of this btanch-like ttacery pattern became a stock-intrade of later North and Williams churches.

In the Horsfall Chapel, North has martied Scott’s fotms with William Butterfield’s architectural polychromy. The chapel’s striped stone and brickwotk detives ultimately from

Siena Cathedral and the Italian Romanesque, translated by Butterfield into a modern idiom through Rugby School Chapel (1872) and, here in Melbourne, St. Paul’s Cathedral (1891).

The motif of the deep arched window with its flanking polygonal towers was a favourite with North, who employed it variously in his designs for (among others) the Hutchins School Chapel (Hobart); Margaret St. Methodist Church, Holy Trinity and St. John’s (Launceston); and St. Peter’s, Eastern Hill School and St. Andrew’s, Clifton Hill (Melbourne). The only 32

/

\ sk

1

J

i/

33

Tn

I \71

I r-n

;!S45i r %

^ ‘■-xi .

*=*•«£ lisi^a* aoiyv'

I

l il I

eaw

^^'=~ j i4^b^

*- ■•*'

;

s«a't

KkUM

« a H a t:: r' lu MMAm

I

The east windotv

34

A 'iv I

V'

A

AS

(L»&P

"^1 !? xR

mmwm Iff (fr

m

t

l!>a

li i

•>'»i'i' i'a r4#« I

^4 >-i«

I!ntt«fl»!!!E

rui

K;l5,'

/7 *1

V. C

.t

I

li^>l . r

s:

!»

V alb.

or

>4 a■ ^

■5>. /,

I

I .1^

Ui-

I Rk.

j lyt *«■ I!

Left: St. Martin of Tours window (Miller memorial)

Right: St. George window (Jowett memorial) 35

Detail of the carved canopy frieze to the nave stalls

t/

h

7r: f. ^

i

' n,

,' i

r>:

'itH- ■

r 1^ -

•5

A-'

W;f i ^

■iii fj

\'t.

t.

%.

i

Ui

mt: ^1'- '-mM -i

'

'}

H

vJiS# j

m il ‘V. '

'A) ■ ;r'i j

I

%

m

Ll»

■f1 t ;

Carved possum armrest on the nave stalls

36

The Building

other occasion, however, when the masonry bridge motif was used was in a gallery very similar to the organ loft arch in appearance, hut occupying different role in the building, at St. John’s, Launceston.

The striped interior of brick banded with stone is also a feature of St. John’s, Launceston, the only other building in which North employed it. Like Holy Trinity, Launceston, St. John’s contains many elements recapitulated in the Horsfall Chapel. Both these major contemporary churches are built from red Northcote brick, imported by North. The favoured recessed window/polygonal turret motif appears in both, while Holy Trinity has also a delightful conical-roofed vestry nestling at one side. The resemblance here to Liverpool Cathedral is very marked. Holy Trinity has also the thin windows placed high up in the walls, and the sense of masses of plain brickwork relieved with restrained and well-chosen carved wood and stonework, that characterise the Chapel. St. John’s, a Georgian church which North re-ordered and extended, approximates in its general design much more to North’s original and ornate competition design for the Chapel, with its prominent apse and decorated vaulted ceiling, than it does to the final version. A most individual feature that they have in common is the highly idiosyncratic carved native animals on the pew arms. St. John’s is the only other church to incorporate them, although contemporary designs (unexecuted) for furnishings for Christ Church, South Yarra, show similar fauna.

It might be said that North began the chapel with a concept related to St. John’s, and moved rapidly away from it to create something original and radical in its simplicity. The Chapel is one of a significant group of three churches, all designed and built at the same period, which give a unique insight into North’s development as an architect. It was probably the only time in his career that he had the opportunity to work through his design concepts in such detail, modifying his designs for those as yet unbuilt, as he saw the building of the earlier churches progress.

The prizewinning competition design that North submitted in 1909 was handsome and grand indeed, in the “miniature cathedral” mode. It is not surprising that it caught the eye of the judges. It was not only on a larger scale, but was considerably more complex and ornate than that which was ultimately built. It also derived much more from the Gothic revival than from the Arts and Crafts movement. The latter tendencies, which emerged in the ultimate design, were given more scope to do so by the simplification of the original concept, and the Arts and Crafts character of the building also owes a great deal to its woodwork and ironwork.

The main elements of the present building were all there, the major differences being in scale and ornateness, and in the provision of cloisters and an apsidal east end. The sheer brick walls which are such a feature of the exterior today were partially masked hy a low cloister which ran around the building, one of the features of the design which initially appealed to the Committee. It was enclosed west of the transept, and open from the transept around the east end. From its roof sprang a row of flying buttresses, terminating at a point level with the top of the window arches. The enclosed cloister forward of the transept was wrapped around the west front to create a large covered porch or narthex area, projecting forward under the west window. The west front was entered by a pair of doorways, one at 37

The competition design - north elevation (North Family Collection)

An early design for the sanctuary stalls (LaTrobe Picture Collection)

38

The competition design - section of the interior (North Family Collection)

The competition design - the sanctuary and organ arch (North Family Collection)

39

The Bu(ld/ng

each side, recessed in and with a row of blind arcading between them. From the transepts, arcaded cloisters stretched away at right angles, although where they ended must be

conjectural. A frieze of carved or modelled murals curved around the apse. The fltehe was still the main feature of the roof, but was much larger, crocheted and surmounted by a wrought-iron cross, while the turret caps at the west and east ends were in banded stonework.

The interior was even more ornate. The organ loft was carried on three Gothic gabled arches, rising in the centre, and with a solid wall, rather than balustrade, above, dominating the entire interior. In the original sketches, a modest organ, almost square in shape, could be seen perched above the central arch. Below, a wrought-iron railing separated the ante-chapel from the chapel proper, which receded to a distant apse with an arcaded reredos. The ceiling was groin vaulted, apparently in stone, giving an impressive sense of soaring height necessary to counterbalance the conspicuous organ loft. The vaults were filled with foliate decoration, and the spaces between the ribs with figures of angels. The east end contained a carved reredos and altar flanked by arcading, and surmounted by a frieze with scenes including the Crucifixion and Resurrection, which extended right around the apse. Above were ornate traceried windows.

It is a beautiful design which could not have failed to impress, but would clearly have been extremely expensive. It was progressively amended, Dechaineux’ perspectives showing the design which was ultimately accepted by the Council in 1911. This still retained the vaulted ceiling, cloisters and flying buttresses, but the fleche and east end have been altered to something closer to the Chapel as built. In the foreground of the interior perspective, the artist has included the customary figures to give a sense of scale. They are, perhaps, not simply stock figures - one lean, stooping form bears a marked resemblance to Dr. keeper.

The extensive modifications which were made to the building, both in terms of the design and of construction methods, were largely made in an effort to restrict costs rather than for aesthetic reasons. It is a matter of taste as to whether the building suffered because of the changes. North did not merely cut down the original design; he completely redesigned the building around the original concepts. Dominant and characteristic features such as the fleche (which Horsfall particularly wished to be retained), the effect of the great west window deeply recessed into the facade and flanked by faceted towers, the sheer brick walls and the striking and original organ loft arch, still form the main features of the executed design. North thought that “if anything... the design will be more reposeful and dignified. ”9

The Chapel as executed is a rectangular building some 96 feet long and 35 feet wide; 60 feet in height to the roof ridge, and 100 feet to the top of the fleche. These classic proportions form the basis of the sense of harmony and integrity which is immediately noticeable. It is constructed in red brick dressed with freestone, and gives an overall impression of sturdy but elegant simplicity relieved with carefully chosen ornament. The west face of the building is most often seen by the passer-by, and makes an immediately striking impression. This front is dominated by the very large traceried window flanked by large octagonal brick towers capped with castellated moulding surrounding plain stone turrets. Beneath the main window is a rcrw of smaller lights, broken by the large stone doorway, deeply recessed into the facade and flanked by small buttresses, which exactly mirrors on a smaller scale the shape and 40

The Building

proportions of the facade above it. Both the window and doorway appear punched into the front of the building, receding in the customary manner by means of stepped volts curved to the shape of the arch. Above the window, the roof gable is crossed by bands of stone carved into blind arcading. This is a typical North device to relieve the monotony of the gable brickwork and unite it visually with the stone traceries and doorway below and the stone turrets and fleche beside and above.

The sides of the building rise straight up from the lawn that surrounds them in a graceful cliff of red brick, modulated by the bays along their length, which are defined by steep narrow buttresses and high vertical windows, particularly striking at the square east end. This effect, which suggested to students of the time that receding floodwaters had left the chapel behind, did not meet with their approval when the building was first opened, but it has been admired by generations of architecture critics. The footings are concrete, but the plinth is of stone, which trims the brickwork neatly at ground level. The north side has a projecting gabled transept which houses the stairs to the organ loft, and, originally, such tiny vestry facilities as the chapel provided. In the plans for the building accepted by the Council, North had included a vestry of very great charm abutting the transept on the east side, and entered from it. It was shaped like a miniature chapel in the French Gothic style of the 14th century, with an apsidal east end, a row of tiny high lancets, and a delightful semi-conical roof. It rose only to the top of the base panels of the chapel windows, and was designed so as to obscure only one of these. Unfortunately, it was eliminated from the building at the last minute due to the ever-pressing need to contain costs. Apart from providing much-needed accommodation, it would have created some interesting modelling of the exterior structure.

The slate roof slopes down smoothly, broken by the single turrets on the west end and the pair of turrets on each side at the east end, which give outward expression to the delineation

of the chancel and sanctuary within. From the ridge rises the crowning fleche, described by a contemporary critic as “the most beautiful little spire in Melbourne”. It is placed directly over the organ loft, one-third of the distance from the west end, and symmetrically adds onethird to the overall height of the building. At its base it is of stone, and square in section, splayed outward where it overlaps the ridge to give a feeling of growing naturally from the roof The upper part is pierced with a row of lancet openings, and has a pinnacle at each corner. Above this rises the elegant spire, clad in copper and broken by projecting dormers

which cast interesting shadows on its slope. It seems the culmination of the whole building, and so it is; in its architect’s words, “the object of the design is to render the upper part of the building ornate so as to draw up the eye to the skyline; the lower part of the building should be plainer and less broken so as to give a feeling of repose and solidity.”11

The red brickwork is so much a feature of the chapel that it seems hard to imagine that any other material could have been considered. Horsfall’s man of business, William Cain, wanted Moorabool stone, which the new courts had just been built from, but the cost would have

been prohibitive. In point of fact, all the architect’s sketches and designs for the building, from the earliest stages, and including the competition design, indicate brick construction.

In the interior, the brickwork is laid with three courses of stretchers to one of headers,

pointed and banded with freestone. The colour and texture of the brick lends to the chapel 41

The Building

much of its characteristic atmosphere; the walls dark but strongly coloured and lively, the contrasting stone bands and harmonious woodwork giving variety and proportion. The whole building is an exercise in balance; of the vertical and the horizontal, and the plain and the ornamental. The former is carried out in part by the contrasting of vertical brick walls with horizontal bands of stone and stone-coloured terra-cotta, and in part by counterpointing vertical walls and arches with horizontal elements such as the organ loft and the lateral rows of windows and canopied seating. The latter is achieved by balancing selectively chosen small areas of detailed decoration - carved wood, painted glass, carved stone - against large unadorned expanses of brick. The overall effect is both impressive and amiable; restrained, robust and graceful.

The chapel is divided into two sections, the ante-chapel which occupies the third of the building at the west end; and the chapel proper, which occupies the remaining two-thirds, and terminates in a short chancel and sanctuary with a square end. They are divided by the

organ loft arch, thrown like a bridge across the interior, dividing it in two and rendering it immediately surprising, mysterious, interesting, intimate. Without the arch, the interior

would be a plain rectangular hall, high rather than wide, and open in all its aspects. With it, it is an imaginatively modelled space, which seems full of possibilities.

Entering the chapel through the west door, the visitor passes momentarily through a tiny porch with coffered wooden doors, before emerging into the ante-chapel. It is a gracious and welcoming space, nearly square, and twice as high as it is wide. It is flooded with light from the unpainted great west window, reflected from the white marble flooring. The ceiling is supported by angled cast concrete trusses, which are almost brutal in their plainness, but support elegant carved wooden principals. The hoarded ceiling with its furnishings recedes away towards the east end, which is partially visible below and above the loft. Finely modelled brick arches rise in succession along the building; a pair support the roof and

tower over the organ loft, while a third delineates the opening of the chancel, and a final double arch terminates the end wall. Directly above the centre of the organ loft, between the brick arches, the ceiling suddenly opens upward into a square hollow tower which soars up into a dim lantern. This is a bold internal expression of the fltehe on the exterior. The eye

is drawn upward to glimpse, around the inside of the lantern, modelled decoration of schematised eucalypt foliage. The spaces thus created are complex and engaging, and give an impression of richness and expansiveness.

The organ arch is constructed in concrete and clad in brick, shaped to form sharp angled side piers to support the bridge itself, and to curve gracefully over the low arch. The curve is outlined with a contrasting stone hood mould, while stone banding cuts across the hood moulding to emphasise the horizontality of the bridge, further reinforced by the open stone balustrading along the top. On the east and west sides, the centre is marked by a keystone shaped stone element carrying the carved arms of the College, facing the west entry, and John Horsfall, whose canting armorial faces the altar. Above the bridge, the pillars the ceiling arch springs from are adorned with the carved arms of Victorian Sees, now partly obscured by the placement of the divided organ; below, doors positioned between the pillars give access to the north transept and south entry.

42

The Building

When the chapel was built, Dr. Catty Salmon, secretary to the Council, was among those who found the arch rather too unusual for his taste, and certainly far too low. There were, of course, reasons for the choice of height, and North wrote to Dr. Leeper defending his construction and explaining the concept; “I have often pictured in my mind the effect which might have been produced had different proportions been employed, and so far as my judgement is concerned, 1 am still of opinion that the result 1 have striven to achieve could not have been so easily obtained in any other way.

In the first place it must be conceded, that the Chapel proper is the main object and the Organ loft an accessory. I am firmly convinced that the apparent height, and dignity of the interior would have been enormously reduced had the height of the loft been increased.

The actual height of the Chapel is not great, yet the horizontal lines of the loft throw the leading vertical lines of the interior into strong relief and give an impression of loftiness which it is not always easy to obtain.

In the second place I did not desire that the whole of the interior should be seen at a single glance. Beauty is generally more keenly relished if it is somewhat hidden, and requires to be looked for. The Arch gives perspective to the interior, and the fact that the Chapel has a different appearance when viewed from various positions is largely due to the lowness of the Organ loft Arch.”'^

No organ was in the Chapel when it opened, but it was always anticipated that one would be placed in the building as soon as funds permitted, so in his various designs from 1909 to 1914 North drew in an organ in the loft. In keeping with the entire scheme of the chapel, proportion is of the first importance in its size and placement. The arch over the organ loft is based on a square; that is, the width of the arch from one end of the balustrade to the other is exactly the same as that from the top of the balustrade to the point of the arch.

Correspondingly, the organs North sketched in are all as nearly square as possible, so echoing the shape of the arch and maintaining the essential balance of proportion that unites the whole building. The cases shown are plain in the extreme, even minimal, in marked contrast to the ornate cases of so many Victorian organs, but in harmony with the pervading simplicity of the chapel.

Moving under the arch, one enters the chapel proper, twice the size of the ante-chapel. The immediate effect is of space suddenly expanding outward and upward, just as North planned.

The light is dimmer here, far from the west window, and nearly all the glass in the chapel proper is painted. The row of high, thin windows marches across the dark red walls, banded with stone at top and bottom of the window height, leading the eye toward the sanctuary.

The line of carved wooden stalls, laid out in collegiate fashion, with their high canopied backs, echoes this movement. This is where members of the college were to sit, while the choir occupied the organ loft and visitors the ante-chapel. Today, the stalls nearest the east end have been equipped with bookrests for the choir, supported on wrought iron standards made to match the delicate wrought-iron altar rail, graceful and restrained. Between the windows are thin angular columnettes in shaped brick, rising from a modelled terracotta corbel to a carved stone capital supporting the springing of the roof beams.

43

The Building

The entire chapel is floored with white marble, which continues into the low sanctuary, originally a step highet than at present. The chancel arch is modelled in a series of rounded shaped brick archivolts, cut by string-courses and at the springing of the arch by moulded terracotta ornament coloured to match the stone banding. The sanctuary ends abruptly in a sheer brick wall, and the attention is drawn upward to the large and richly coloured east window, composed of three large vertical lights, rising in the centre and united by a complex of stone banding and hood moulds. A double arch, necessary to transfer downward the weight of the towers at the east end, emphasises the end wall.

Looking back across the organ loft arch from the chapel proper, the shape of the west window traceries is emulated by the tracery of the oak principals above the beam in the ante-chapel, while the form of the balustrade mouldings replicates the outline of the window. This is not, of course, accidental, and a comparison of these mouldings with those on the very similar arch and balustrade in St. John’s shows that in that church, the mouldings are much more rounded, to correspond to the shape of the lights in the wheel window above.

All the craft work in the building is hand made, and it is notable that, in accord with Arts and Crafts principles of honesty and decorum, no surface treatments have been used anywhere in the building to create decorative effects. The woodwork is all in native Australian timbers, solid and unpretentious; and is all left in its natural colour, with only sufficient finish to pteserve it and bring out the grain and colour of the wood. All the metalwork originally installed in the chapel is of hand-beaten coppet or iron, left as far as possible in its natural colours and with the minimum of surface finish or polish. The ironwork has a dull black surface, the result of a “blacksmith’s” treatment to reduce rusting, while the copper ventilator covers have aged to a mellow brown patina. There was no use of brass or shining metal at all; the hardness of the effect of such metals was one of the teasons North did not want a brass

lectern. Red of brick, beige of stone and grey-white of marble are the predominant colours, all the natural unadorned colour and texture of the material.

When the chapel was consecrated in 1917, the interior was incomplete. What was lacking was principally the woodwork, which is such an important feature of the intetior, and lends it much of its chatm and character.

As with the other fittings, the woodwotk was designed entirely by the architect. The work is carried out throughout in his favourite timber, Tasmanian oak (eucalyptus delegatensis).

North was a great exponent of the use of native timbers, and had worked to promote the use of native rather than imported woods. He had also made considerable experiments in seasoning the wood and pteparing it for use. The technique he recommended was widely used and consisted of fuming it in an ammonia solution and then waxing it. His artistic philosophy made vatnishing or staining wood anathema to him, as these practices did not allow the true natural beauty of the material to speak for itself. The use of local rather than imported timber was in line with his Arts and Crafts ideology of “appropriateness”, and the plain sturdy appearance of the wood corresponded to the use by English Arts and Ctafts architects of native timbers such as oak and beech. Unpretentious, honest robustness was what was required. The warm but subdued tones of the timber furnishings with their dull sheen harmonise perfectly with the darker but more brightly coloured brickwork.

44

The Bu/ld/ng

Although the designs were all by North, the work was carried out by several firms. The woodwork which ornaments the Chapel may be divided into joinery and carving, and, as was usual at the time, the carving was subcontracted to a specialist craftsman.

The joined work consists of the doors and the stalls. The doors were made by the Launceston firm of Hinman, Wright and Manser, who North employed on many of his Tasmanian projects. North took special care to direct them to finish the interiors of the doors properly, as only the exterior surfaces would be painted. They are divided on the inner face by cross members into square panels, and are fitted with wrought iron bolts and patent “Norfolk” solid brass latches. The natural finish and coffered effect of the inside panels assists the doors in harmonising with the panelled woodwork of the stalls, while giving a feeling of solidity.

The stalls were constructed by the Melbourne firm of R. & G. Kirkham, and are laid out in

collegiate fashion. They are backed by a high dado which runs the length of the chapel proper from the chancel arch to the organ bridge, and which is panelled by slightly recessed coffering to conform with the individual seats, which in the back row are divided by low armrests.

Like many of North’s designs, especially for the woodwork, the design had to be modified from the original, more elaborate, conception. North’s original design showed the stalls surmounted by carved Gothic tracery, projecting forward at the top to form pinnacled canopies, so that occupants would be seated as it were in niches. In the plainer design as executed, the Gothic tracery and canopy were removed, and the dado is topped by a castellated moulding, a typical North device. The moulding is surmounted by a carved wooden frieze which is an outstanding achievement in its orginality, boldness and delicacy.

Like all the carving on the stalls, it was made by Melbourne’s premier woodcarver, Robert Prenzel.”

The high stall backs have been extended upwards into a light frieze of plaques, bent forwatd so as to suggest a canopy. They are carved in relief with sprays of closely observed native flora - waratahs, wattles, eucalypts - joined by a fourth leaf, that of the English oak, to form a repeating pattern along the canopy frieze. In this way North introduced a characteristically subtle suggestion of the union of the old country and the new in the College Chapel, the two cultures being represented by their most typical foliage. Although the foliage is stylised the plant forms are instantly recognisable, even to the species of eucalypt tepresented e. ficifolia. At this period the waratah was widely thought of as especially emblematic of Australia, having only recently lost the battle to be Australia’s national flower to the more powerful wattle lobby.

The pew ends are capped by three-dimensional renderings of the same plants fotmed into trifoliate standards, a good example of the way North liked to use native plant motifs to render traditional Gothic ornaments both individual and local. The arms of the pews are of even more startling originality. They are adorned with life-like possums, platypusses, bandicoots and so on, carved in the round, a variety of different native animals being

employed. The designs are certainly North’s, and are related to the possum ends on the choir stalls in St. John’s, Launceston and projected designs for Christ Church, South Yarra, which North was working on at about the same date, although a much more unusual range of fauna has been used here and the execution is much more naturalistic than the wotk in Launceston.

45

Detail of the nave stalls

Detail of the altar rail

46

The Building

The difference must be attributed to the carver, Robert Prenzel. The ridged, tactile fur of the

animals, their unaffected poses and the bold treatment of stems and branches are marks of the confidence of this gifted woodworker. Prenzel was a professional woodcarver, and undoubtedly the premier exponent of the craft in the State. He had trained in Prussia and came to Melbourne at the time of the great International Exhibition of 1888. He set up a

practice which continued until the 1930s, and worked extensively on major commissions, both ecclesiastical and secular, for leading architects of the day. Much of his work is now in

State art galleries, and the College is well endowed with this fine collection, to be seen and enjoyed in its original environment.

In about 1980 vandals took three of the carved animals from the pew arms, an appalling loss.

However, the College was very fortunate in being able to have them replaced by Eva Schubert, a talented Melbourne woodcarver familiar with ecclesiastical art. She did not copy Prenzel’s

work, hut created three new pieces - a kangaroo rat, bandicoot and ring-tailed possum - in the same idiom and spirit. Her artistry ensured that they harmonise well with the original carvings.

One feature of the interior that strikes the visitor immediately is the high blank brick end wall

of the sanctuary. North certainly envisaged a teredos to fill part of the space and render the area warmer, as well as focussing the attention more directly on the altar. Something of the sort appears sketched lightly in a contemporary watercolour of the planned interior. It would probably have been carried out in carved wood, which would have helped unite the sanctuary with the nave, via the panelled stalls and, since it would have been designed to harmonise with the remainder of the woodwork, would have been carried out in Tasmanian oak to

match. It is not difficult to imagine what the teredos would have been like. North’s design for the carved wood teredos for Holy Trinity, Launceston, is exactly contemporary, and something very similar, but smaller in scale and perhaps less Gothic, would certainly have been his conception. Such a teredos would satisfactorily have filled the space and completed the scheme of interior decoration, while mediating between the stained glass above and the altar below, without disttacting attention too vehemently from either. The fact that no teredos was installed was due to the shortfall in funds which delayed the fitting of both the stalls and the organ. Dr. keeper had a great desire to have a suitable teredos made, and wished to use the proceeds of the Wigtam Allen Fund for this purpose, but unfortunately the terms of the bequest precluded this.

The altar in the Chapel at present is a simple table of recent design. North had included a design for an altar in his sketches, but shortage of funds meant that it was not carried out. It was to have been nine feet in length, in timber, of table form, and with the front divided into three equal panels. The lower half was open, with the legs joined by a sturdy rail. A low arch filled the top half of each panel and each end, ornamented with a broad carved frieze of conventionalised motifs which ran around the three visible sides. The altar was, of course,

intended to stand against the east wall. A somewhat similar altar designed by North stands in the side chapel of Holy Trinity, Launceston.

Near the entrance to the Chapel is the stone font, placed in the centre aisle of the antechapel. When the building was opened, there was a carved stone font in it, designed by 47

The Building

Alexander North and made by the building contractors, and situated in one of the arched recesses at the west end. This font was, however, removed at some time before the 1960s, and its destination remains unknown.

The font in the chapel at present has had an interesting and chequered history. It is of considerable historical importance and is intimately connected with the founding of the colony of Victoria. Although it is small and unobtrusive in appearance, in importance it probably outweighs everything else in the chapel put together. It is also probably the oldest object of ecclesiastical craft still in use in Australia.

The font was originally in the church of St. Andrew at West Tarring, West Sussex, England.

The antiquary John Selden was baptised in it in 1584, but it is probably much older than that, possibly Norman. In 1829 Thomas Henty removed it, and brought it with him when he emigrated to the colony of Victoria. The font probably accompanied the Hentys to Pt)rtland, where it may have been used in the worship of the Anglican congregation there, although there was no permanent church building there at the time. When St. James’ Old Cathedral (then the Anglican pro-Cathedral of Melbourne) was opened for worship in 1842, the font was placed in it by the Hentys, who worshipped there.

In 1845 Governor LaTrobe acquired a font from St. Katharine’s Abbey, London, which

replaced the Henty font in St. James’. In 1854 St. John’s LaTrobe St. was opened for worship, and the Henty font was installed there. This was by no means the end of its peregrinations, however, as in 1957 St. John’s was demolished, and the Henty font was obtained for the new church of St. Faith’s, Burwood, through the good offices of its architects, Mockridge, Stable and Mitchell.

In 1969 the vicar of St. Faith’s decided to acquire a portable font, and the Henty font was given to Trinity Chapel. This was arranged by the curate with the then chaplain of Trinity, Barry Marshall.

The present wooden cover of the font was designed by Dr. Robin Sharwood, the Warden of the time, of waxed oak and with the metal handle from one of the original ventilators now hidden by the woodwork of the stalls. A hand-beaten copper bowl insert was originally mooted, which would have related to the existing chapel metalwork, but cost and other factors resulted in a stainless steel bowl being acquired instead.

The small, foursquare stone font is in a style characteristic of Norman design. The round basin scooped into a square block rests sturdily on four short cylindrical pillars, slightly ornamented at the capitals, and with a polygonal central pillar directly supporting the basin.

The whole stands on a square stone plinth. Its plain although pleasing appearance seems blandly to belie its exciting history. It is to be hoped that it has at last come permanently to rest. In accordance with church tradition, it is placed near the west door, as it is through baptism that one enters the church.

Apart from the font, the lectern is the most prominent free-standing object in the chapel.

The original lectern was a light wrought-iron stand designed by North to match the altar rails, and probably executed by James Marriott. In 1918, however, members of the Carse family expressed their wish to donate a lectern to the chapel, in memory of Frank Carse, 48

The Henty font and west end

49

The Build/ng

who had been killed in action. Alex North was commissioned to design it, and Dr. keeper was to compose an inscription in Latin. This eventually appeared on the brass memorial

tablet in the ante-chapel. Dr. keeper supervised the proposal, despite having retired as warden, as Frank Carse had been a close friend of his son.

North set to work with his usual energy and creative imagination. He told keeper that he had initially considered getting a brass lectern from an ecclesiastical supplier, but “the more I thought about the matter the more I became convinced that an original design in Australian Timber would be more appropriate and have greater artistic value... a brass Lectern would at best be like a good copy of the work of an old master... and would no more belong to Trinity College ■ in an artistic sense ■ than any other church... From a point of fitness, I think that everything would be in favour of woodwork. It would harmonise with its surroundings and look as though it belonged to Trinity College... A brass Lectern cannot look as though it is part and parcel of the design.”’'*

North produced two designs, the first of which he did not favour himself, as it was “in fact, a wooden copy of a brass eagle” and he considered it “an axiom of all artistic design that the material in which a work is executed should be appropriate.”15 The second design was that on which the lectern as executed was based. It is unusual and

striking, and it is plain that it fulfils its creator’s desire that it should be something unique to the building. As with much of North’s design work, the lectern as originally conceived by him was much grander than that finally executed. His initial concept was for a small edifice consisting of a miniature tower of carved Gothic ornament, projecting forward at the top to form an overhanging canopy like that originally envisaged for the choir stalls. The eagle would stand squarely on this. North had a great aversion to traditional designs in which the eagle is perched on a ball, as he felt this made the bird look insecure and uneasy. The reader ascended by means of a short flight of stairs with a carved bannister. This ambitious and

original design, to be executed entirely in timber, would have matched the more elaborate stalls in his first design. It would, however, have been very large: the platform for the reader was to have been over three feet above the Chapel floot, although less than two feet above the sanctuary floor, next to which it would have stood. It would presumably have served the dual functions of a pulpit and a lectern.

In the event, the design was reduced to its present form, which characteristically retains the main elements of the initial concept, re-proportioned to a smaller scale. The staircase has disappeared, and the reader simply mounts a low platform. The bookrest is carried on the hack of a powerfully formed eagle, carved following a model made by the sculptor J.J.R. Tranthim-Fryer. The bird stands sturdily at the top of a pillar formed by a group of buttresses, plain at the base but crocheted towards the top, and connected there by pierced Gothic ornament and castellated mouldings at the top of each buttress. It is an impressive

and unusual construction, which, as planned, harmonises well with the building it setves. It was executed in specially chosen and seasoned timber by Mr. C. Rouch of Burgundy St., Heidelberg at a cost of £144, and was unveiled in May 1922. The wrought-iron lectern was given to Reverend Frank Oliver and was used in All Saints, East Malvern, until 1960, when Oliver took it with him to Olinda.

50

The lectern

51

Copper plaque in memory of G.W. Torrance

52

The Building

The sanctuary contains a warden’s chair as well as a pair of free-standing stalls or sedilia, designed by the architect and executed in Tasmanian oak. The chair is panelled to match the stalls in the Chapel proper, and the backrest is carved with a pierced Gothic foliate design with the arms of the College in the centre, surmounted by a castellated moulding. There is a crocheted pinnacle at each side of the back, and carved trifoliate standards finish the armrests.

The sedilia are similar although not identical in design, with castellated top moulding on the backrests and pierced Gothic ornament overlaid over the panelling of the back.

There is also a pair of tub chairs of a mediaevalising design favoured by Arts and Crafts practitioners. They are shaped as though cut from a barrel, with a rail around at ground level as well as forming a backrest, and upright laths round the sides and back. The top rail has been scooped downwards at the sides to form curved arms. They are made from Tasmanian oak, with small square medallions of carved floral designs cut into them at intervals to provide their only ornament. Although seculat in design, they harmonise well with the Chapel’s style and furnishings. Remaining sanctuary furniture includes a plain sturdy credence table in Tasmanian oak, and a chair in Victorian Gothic style.

College chapels are usually ornamented with plaques commemorating some of the “great cloud of witnesses” who have gone before, and Trinity Chapel is adorned with memorials to past staff, students and benefactors. On the north wall of the sanctuary is a fine large memorial plaque in memory of George William Torrance, who was first acting head of the College, from 1872-1876. It was executed in copper repousse by J.J.R. Tranthim-Fryer, who had also made the model of the eagle for the lectern. Tranthim-Fryer was a well-known technical educator and leading figure in Arts and Crafts circles, who had trained at East Sydney Technical College and Lambeth School of Design, London, and at the time was Director of Swinburne Technical College. He was a sculptor and metalworker, and an enthusiastic member (later President), of the Arts and Ctafts Society of Victoria. North may first have got to know him while Tranthim-Fryer was teaching at Hobart Technical College in the 1890s, and they would certainly have met at the T- Square Club and other Arts and Crafts venues in Melboutne.

The plaque is in typical Atts and Crafts style, made from copper beaten over forms to produce the required modelling. Marks of the hammer have been left so as to convey the sense of its being hand-made, and to reveal the nature of the metal. It is a fine, confident piece of work. It is bolted onto a wooden base, and framed in blackwood with copper repousse corners, fixed by large rivets which contribute a decorative effect. The upper part has a porttait of Reverend Torrance in three-quarter view, so that he seems to look towards the altar; the lower section, framed with die-stamped architectutal ornament, contains biographical details of the College’s first acting head in hand-beaten lettering.

Two inscriptions cut into the marble tiles of the floor under the organ arch commemorate persons buried in the chapel. One is in memory of Barry Marshall, a former chaplain of the College, whose ashes are placed near the location of the nave altar which he was responsible

for installing; the other marks the place whete the ashes of Ronald Cowan, third Warden of the College, are interred.

53

The Building

In the sanctuary there is a memorial plaque in opus sectile work, probably from the

workshops of the Melbourne firm of Brooks Robinson. In the chapel proper there are brass plaques relating to each of the memorial stained glass windows, and three others which commemorate persons associated with the College. The walls of the ante-chapel form a memorial area, with a row of brass plaques in memory of former students and others connected with the College. The arched recess in the west wall to the north of the door has been formed into a miniature memorial chapel, by the placement on the west wall of an opus sectile plaque with the motto of the College, a list of names, and an inscription to the effect that it, and the east window, record “the sacrifice made 1914-1918 by members of the College”. It is probably the work of Brooks Robinson. There is also an honour book containing the names of members of the College who served in the Great War, and the niche is lined with additional plaques recording the lives of others connected with Trinity who have died more recently. On the staircase leading to the organ loft another large opus sectile memorial lists those members of the Fellowship of St. John who served in the Second World War. This plaque was brought from St. John’s, LaTrobe St., by the Canterbury Fellowship (formerly the Fellowship of St. John), which moved to Trinity when that church was demolished in 1956.

The Fellowship also gave to the Chapel an oil painting of the Crucifixion by George Dancey.

Dancey was an English artist who had emigrated to Australia in the 1880s and specialised in ecclesiastical mural painting until his death in 1922. He worked for Brooks Robinson, and the painting hung in the office of fellow-artist William Kerr-Morgan, a Fellowship member and designer of the Chapel’s east window. When Brooks closed down Kerr-Morgan rescued the painting and gave it to the Fellowship, who later passed it on to the Chapel.

The carved wood hymn board at the rear of the ante-chapel was donated by Mrs. ToddRansom and installed in 1918. The ante-chapel also contains a set of Stations of the Cross, in the form of circular bronze medallions on green marble plaques. These are by the noted sculptor Andor Meszaros, while an additional plaque under the organ arch, by his son Michael Meszaros, depicts the Resurrection.

The interesting set of modern wrought-iron gates closing the second recess on the north west

wall was made following North’s original design for the wrought-iron screen which was to have been placed under the organ arch.

Among other fittings given over the years are the large copy of the Madonna della Sedia by Raphael, in its heavy gilt frame, which was presented to the College by A.F. Mollison; a pair of large sanctuary candlesticks, copies of some Baroque candlesticks in St. Mark’s, Venice, given by Canon E.S. Hughes in 1935; and a reversible processional cross in Byzantine style, commissioned from Nicholas Draffin during Barry Marshall’s tenure as Chaplain. This has been attached to a stand so that it now serves as an altar cross. The nave altar was also

introduced by Barry Marshall in the course of reforms to the Chapel liturgy, and the brass Baroque-style sanctuary lamp was given in the 1980s.

The Chapel contains a fine set of stained glass windows which form a harmonious scheme both in terms of subject and of style, despite having been produced by at least three different 54

The Building

firms. From the first, the College considered that a unified scheme of glass, carried out as far as possible by one artist, was of the first importance. They felt that an inappropriately vatied set of windows would have a very detrimental effect artistically in the small building, and it is apparent that they were right in insisting on an overall scheme.

As early as 1914 the Council had instigated dealings with the well-known English firm of Clayton and Bell to produce a scheme of memorial glass in anticipation of future donations.

Clayton and Bell had probably been chosen because they had made the windows of St. Michael and St. Gabriel for the old chapel, which were to be transferred to the new building, as well as the entire scheme of glass in St. Paul’s Cathedral in 1891. In 1917 Dr. keeper discussed the subject with Alexander North, who felt that Clayton and Bell’s work, although formerly very good, had fallen off somewhat recently, and that there was a risk in employing large firms because in them many craftsmen, of unequal ability, would work on the glass. He suggested instead the Melbourne glass artist William Montgomery, a prominent Melbourne artist who was born in England and had trained there under Clayton and Bell, and who was President of the Victorian Artists’ Society and a Trustee of the National Gallery of Victoria.

There were many reasons for North’s choice: he had used Montgomery on other projects and knew that he could produce good glass in a style that would suit the building; he preferred to support local talent; and, not least important, he urged the convenience of using a local man as opposed to an overseas firm, where practical difficulties might atise. He also urged the cheapness of local production, which attracted no import duty; the advantage of the artist being able to see the actual building, as well as being familiar with Australian light conditions, and the convenience for the donor in being able to inspect the full-sized cartoon of the glass and make altetations at that stage. In the event, the numerous problems that occutred in connection with employing an English fitm more than bore out North’s views.

If his suggestion had been followed, the glass would have been installed a great deal sooner and probably more windows would have been filled; however, the Chapel would have been deprived of the fine Dudley Forsyth windows it now possesses.

The wat and the demise of several College men in combat hastened the offers to donate

memorial windows: in 1915 there were 205 Trinity men and women serving at the front, a figure which had increased by 1917 to 290, of whom 21 had been killed or were missing in action.'^ In 1915 Dr. H.M. O’Hara gave the first of the new windows, in memory of his son Captain Osbotne O’Hara, who was the fitst old Trinity student to be killed in the war. The window, of St. Alban, was executed by William Montgomery and was placed in the sanctuary.

In 1916 the Moule, Millet and Jowett families approached the College wishing to give windows in memory of their sons. By 1918 the situation had become complicated. The various donors had individually approached English stained glass makers of their choice, while the Council was still adamant that a uniform scheme made by one firm was required, and Clayton and Bell had submitted a scheme to them. The Millet family had approached Dudley Forsyth of Hampstead, and believed themselves pledged to him, while the Moule family had begun dealings with Carl Parsons, and the Jowett family had already obtained a design for the armorial section of their window from the College of Heralds. Assiduous 55

The Building

efforts were required hy the Warden, Dr. Behan, relying extensively on the tact of Dr. Beeper’s son Allen, who was then in London, to unravel this knotty situation. To make

matters worse, the templates (traced outlines) of the windows needed before work could well be begun, prepared by Alexander North and despatched in 1918, had been torpedoed en route and a new set had to be made. North’s reservations on the use of overseas craftsmen

seemed justified. By the end of 1919 the situation had been clarified. Clayton and Bell had been advised that they would not be commissioned to do the glass, and Dudley Forsyth had agreed to prepare designs for the total scheme, to be used as donors appeared, while beginning work on the Miller window, his first commission, and the windows for the Moule and Jowett families.

North had suggested a very comprehensive scheme of glass, which included windows illustrating Old Testament history, incidents from the New Testament, Chtistianity in Britain, the history of the English church after the Notman Conquest, and non-ecclesiastics.

He thought that as the Chapel would belong to “the College of the English Church in Victoria”, English church history would be the appropriate subject, and would “inspire the students”. Forsyth’s scheme, however, was keyed to the Miller window which he had already begun, which was of St. Martin of Touts. His conception was also affected by the increasing likelihood that all the donations would be of war memorials. He therefore designed a less comprehensive but very suitable programme. The East window would contain in the centre of its three lights the figure of the Lord standing and bearing his cross, with his tight hand taised in exhortation, as “the emblem of the Great Sactifice”. He would be flanked by Ss. Mary and John in the left light and Ss. Martha and Mary Magdalene in the right, tepresentative of “repentant sotrow and devotional love”. In the nave the “corporal acts of the men in fighting for the great ideals, as set forth in the East [window]”” would he represented by soldier saints - Ss. Martin, George, Adrian, Didymus, Theodore of Heraklea, Theodore the Consctipt, Victor of Marseilles, Victor of Milan, Menna the Greek, Procopius of Cesarea, Maurice and Alban. The West window was to illustrate the Te Deum. The single lights in the nave were to cost £200 each, which was a very high price by local standards, especially as freight and import duties would bring this up to £300. At this period Montgomery and other local firms were charging abtrut £60 or £70 for similar sized windows.

When the Chapel was opened in 1917 there were three windows in situ, all in the

sanctuary. These were the two archangel windows by Clayton and Bell, moved from the old Chapel and installed on the south side, and the window of St. Alban given by the O’Hara family, on the north wall. A local firm, probably Montgomery, had also worked on the archangel windows, which had to he made to fit the much longer fenestrations in the new Chapel. This was achieved by creating a new square panel of diamond quarries, containing a medallion of an angel, which was inserted into the lower section of each archangel window, thus extending its length. The new panels were designed and painted so as to match Clayton and Bell’s original glass as closely as possible.'* Alter this point proceedings became clouded. Forsyth was at wotk on the windows, and in 1922 the Miller memorial (St. Mattin) was unveiled. St. George (for the Jowett family) and 56

The Building

St. Alban were in hand, but progress was slow. Conditions in post-war England were not conducive to rapid progress and the distance imposed severe difficulties on communications.

In the end the work on the Chapel glass was handed over to Brooks Robinson, in the person of its leading artist, William Kerr-Morgan. He created the East window, utilising Dudley Forsyth’s general concept, but substituting the Crucifixion in the central panel, and incorporating three more soldier-saints in the base panels - St. Sebastian, the Emperot Constantine, and St. John Gualberto. Brooks Robinson also made the windows on the south side of the nave, the Moule memorial (St. Theodore of Heraklea) and the Cteswell

memorial, St. Oswald, King of Northumbria. It also appears very likely that they made the window of St. Alban (the Luxton memorial) on the north side, but to Dudley Forsyth’s cartoon.

The Chapel windows must have been one of William Kerr-Morgan’s earliest projects in Australia. He was an Englishman, born in 1896 at Lanchestet, neat Durham. He studied art at Armstrong College of the University of Durham, and served in the Lancashire regiment during the war. He emigrated in 1924 and began working for Brooks Robinson soon after his arrival, possibly having been recruited by them in England. He remained with the firm through the Depression and until his retirement at the age of 68, having been its director for many years. He did a large proportion of its design work, and chose all the glass used in the windows. In his spare time he painted and exhibited wotk in several media, and knew many of Melbourne’s leading artists. He was a tall, red-haited, blue-eyed man, very straight-backed and very musical, who played the violin and recorder and sang in the choir of the Canterbury Fellowship. He died of heart disease in May 1967.

20

To summarise, the archangel windows in the sanctuary were made by Clayton and Bell, the sanctuary window of St. Alban by William Montgomery, the East window and the windows on the north side were made by Brooks Robinson to their own designs; the St. Alban window in the nave was made by Brooks, apparently to Dudley Fotsyth’s drawing, and the windows of St. Martin and St. George were made by Dudley Forsyth. The remaining windows are still filled with the plain leaded glass put in when the Chapel was opened, made by William Montgomery.

When Dr. Behan became Warden in 1918 he took over the negotiations about the glass. He was concerned not only about the uniformity of the scheme in tetms of subject matter and general style, but about the colour of the glass as well. It is clear that he was not such an enthusiast for North’s design as his ptedecessor had been, and was perhaps less familiar with trends in contemporary ecclesiastical architecture. He wrote to Allen Leeper in London that “it is very important to tell Mt. Forsyth... that the question of colours as well as the question of drawing is absolutely vital... the whole architectutal chatacter of the chapel is to say the least of it extremely unusual and a failure in the matter of the windows must ruin the whole thing.” He went on to point out, cortectly, that the scheme must be keyed to the deep brick red of the interior, but tather oddly thought that only gold, brown and a certain electtic blue he had in mind (the colout of his study catpet) would harmonise with brickwork. “Purple, red, yellow, green, mauve and such like colours must be ruled absolutely out.”^‘ He enclosed a tuft of the carpet.

57

The Building

If Dudley Forsyth had followed these instructions he would have prttduced an unusual set of windows, hut his response shows that he well understood the whole question. In his reply to Dr. Behan, he gives such a comprehensive explanation of his approach that it is worth quoting at length: “When Mrs. Miller placed with me the commission for her window I realised... that, as this was to he the first light in stained glass there, it should form the keynote of all others which might... he added. It was essential, therefore, that my design should do this and I based the general line of its treatment, such as style and scale, as to form the specific intention of taking its place in a comprehensive scheme... The chapel in my opinion is very well proportioned and seems to he, from the plans, very good architecture, and from the decorator’s point of view affords an excellent opportunity and a wide scope for design. In considering the decoration the primary motif lies in the main lines which are complimentary [sic] to and harmonize with the scale and style of the building and in this it is apparent to me that, owing to the height of the interior, the scheme of windows should, in the mass of colour, achieve the effect of a lateral line... here where

the series of windows enhance the effect of height of the interior, a counteracting line is essential. 1 need hardly explain there are no obviously obtruding lines running in a lateral direction: the effect is obtained by the carefully considered disposition of subjects and accessory setting and detail, which, completed in a series, have the value of a lateral line.”

He went on to reassure him about the colour:

“your description of the warmth of colour which pervades the interior of the chapel... will he carefully borne in mind when doing a coloured scheme for it is rather a violent condition requiring a counteracting influence to bring it into tone. In treating the strength of painting, and in the execution of the processes of technique, I realise the powerful light of Australia and will be careful to produce the quality most suitable.”^

The Chapel is naturally dominated, as one looks towards the east, by the great east window.

This is actually a set of three tall thin lights, the central panel being the tallest, with beneath them three matching vertical base panels with trefoil heads, separated from the upper lights by dressed stonework sills. The freestone bands which run across the surrounding brickwork at the top, and the matching hood moulds over them, unite the three lights into a single work. The window is a memorial to all those members of the College who died in the Great War, and was dedicated on Armistice Day, 1939.

The subject of the upper lights is the Crucifixion. The central light depicts the Lord on the cross, his face turned upward to heaven but his eyes looking down towards us. The imagery is traditional. Behind him is a blood-red sky with the sun and moon in eclipse above the city of Jerusalem, while a tree in fruit is seen behind the cross. This suggests both the Tree of Jesse of Christ’s descent, and the Tree of Knowledge whose fruit figured in the story of the “fall” of mankind, the “fall” which made necessary the redemptive sacrifice of the cross.

Kerr-Morgan seems to have had in mind the concept expressed in John Donne’s words: “We think that Paradise and Calvary, Christ’s Cross, and Adam’s tree, stood in one place”

To emphasize this point, the serpent is shown coiled about the base of the cross, irs head pinned by the nails fixing Christ’s feet. To complete the picture, a skull lies on the arid and rocky hill at the base, a reference to the tradition that Golgotha was at the site of Adam’s grave, and the suggestion of Christ as the “second Adam”.

58

The Building

The side light on the left depicts Mary the mother of the Lord, wearing a purple robe denoting her suffering, and supported by St. John, who lays his hand on her shoulder, recalling the Lord’s command from the cross that he should be her son and she his mother.

On the right are the figures of Sts. Mary and Martha, both weeping. The inclusion of the

three women as the attendants at the Crucifixion follows the Scripture accounts of the disciples fleeing but the women remaining. Their sorrow is intended to arouse that of the

viewer, while their presence as witnesses also suggests the presence of a much larger group, the saints of the ages, and even those now who gaze at the image in the window.

The base panels carry on this theme while uniting the East window with the scheme of military saints which occupies the nave windows. These panels show St. Sebastian on the

left, the Emperor Constantine in the centre, and St. John Gualberto on the right. All figures are arranged so that they gaze, like the witnesses above, towards the suffering figure on the cross. St. Sebastian was a Roman soldier who was martyred under Diocletian in the late 3rd century. He is usually depicted in art tied to a tree or column and being shot with arrows.

St. Sebastian was a popular subject with Renaissance artists, perhaps partly because it gave them an opportunity to “practise” for renderings of Christ at the column or, as in the painting by Luca Giordano in the National Gallery of Victoria, for lamentations over the dead Christ. He is appropriate as a subject for the chapel glass as, with St. George, he is the patron saint of soldiers. Here he twists around to look up to his Lord.

Constantine, Roman Emperor in the 4th century, is not a saint, but is a particularly suitable subject in this company. The artist has shown him at the moment of one of the decisive

events of his life. At the battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 he suddenly saw a cross of light and the words “in hoc signo vinces” (“in this sign conquer”). He adopted the Chi-Rho monogram depicted here (the first two Greek letters of the word “Christ”) as his standard, and won the battle. From then onwards he supported Christians and was baptised on his deathbed. From his position in the base panel he looks up, not only at the sacred monogram, but at the cross depicted above him.

On the right is St. John Gualberto, a relatively little-known saint, but founder of the

Vallombrosan Order. He was a Florentine of the 11th century who, after sparing the life of the man who had killed his brother, was praying before a crucifix when he saw the head bend towards him. Again the artist has depicted him at the crucial moment, and like the others he looks not only at his immediate vision but at the Crucifixion above. All these figures seem, therefore, to create a bridging of the gap between the historical moment of the Crucifixion and the present day; between the witnesses of the historical event and the martyrs who were witnesses of the faith through the ages, even to the present viewers; and

between the once-enacted historical event and its mystical continuation into the present. The event which took place on Calvary, shown above, is depicted in the three lower windows re manifesting itself again and again.

The artist has abandoned the traditional illusionistic architectural decoration (“canopy work”) which often fills the top and base of stained-glass windows, in favour of a simpler and more direct device which also harmonises well with the architectural style of the chapel. In each of the six lights the figures are enclosed in a border of green vine leaves and yellow and purple 59

The Building

fruit, suggesting both the Holy Eucharist and Christ’s words; “I am the vine, you are the branches.” Below the figures of St. John, St. Mary and Sts. Mary and Martha are their initials in medallions, and above are medallions enclosing the signs of Alpha and Omega.

Above Christ is an angel holding a chalice, recalling his prayer at Gethsemane. The angel and the figures in the lower lights are enclosed in almond-shaped medallions. The colour scheme is carefully chosen to complement the deep red brickwork, the dominant colours

being green, purple, deep golden yellow and flesh tones, relieved with spots of blue and red.

The green vines around the borders form a buffer between the brickwork of the walls and the brighter colours within the lights. The compostion is worked out across the whole set of windows: the central figure of Christ is, appropriately, the highest point, drawing all eyes upward. The fact that the scene is drawn across all three lights causes the lateral emphasis described by Dudley Forsyth, which is reinforced by the prominent blood-red sky which continues in a hand across all three. Confining the figures in the base panels within medallions reduces the potential verticality of these lights and helps them, too, to form a cohesive horizontal band. Again, the bright blue skies behind also unite them.

On the south wall of the sanctuary are the two archangel windows made by Clayton and Bell for the old chapel, of St. Michael and St. Gabriel. They are tall thin lights with trefoil heads and separate base panels to match the East window lights. Archangels, second lowest in the supposed nine-fold celestial hierarchy, are the heavenly messengers sent by God on occasions when he chooses to interact with humanity in tangible form. Their names indicate their being as divine emanations - Michael: “who is like God?” and Gabriel: “the light of God”. St.

Michael is appropriately placed closest to the altar, as he is not only leader of the heavenly armies, as his armour and weapons depicted here suggest, but is also guardian of the heavenly altar. St. Gabriel is shown as the angel of the Annunciation, holding the lily of purity in his

right hand and a scroll with his greeting to Mary in the left. The top of each window is filled with delicately-drawn canopy work, and the lower section is filled with the panels of diamond quarries and angels in medallions inserted to bring the windows to the required length. The base panels are composed of diamond quarries with some slight canopy work detail.

The style is very typical of Clayton and Bell, and may be compared with the set of glass made at about the same period for St. Paul’s Cathedral, Melbourne. The figures are very finely drawn in a delicate, detailed, linear manner which reflects an influence from 16th century

German art, especially, say, that of Diirer or Schongauer. The use of rather cold flesh tones is also characteristic of the work of the firm at this time, as is the colour scheme which is

restricted, being worked out largely in red, blue and white and the prolific use of silver stain, which produces the fine yellow. St. Michael appears as a “red-cross knight”; St. Gabriel is vested in alb and dalmatic, indicating the role of angels as assistants at the Heavenly Eucharist. This motif is also derived from Northern European Renaissance art. The composition is simple but energy is given to the figures by the way in which their wings and arms overlap the borders of the panels, so that they seem to move within the frame.

Opposite, on the north wall, one of the windows remains unfilled with picture glass. The other is the O’Hara memorial window of St. Alban. St. Alban appears twice in the chapel, the other window of him being the Luxton memorial next to the organ arch. He was a 60

The Building

popular subject in Anglican school and college chapels, especially as a war memorial. This is because he was the protomartyr of Britain, a Roman soldier of the 3rd century who was said to have sheltered a priest from persecution and been converted by him, later being executed himself. He is depicted here in accordance with this tradition, dressed as a legionary and bareheaded, holding his helmet under his arm, perhaps as a sign of humility. In the tracery above him is part of the crest of Captain O’Hara’s regiment, and beneath, an angel in a medallion. The window has been made to match the Clayton and Bell windows opposite, which allows for a comparison of the work of the two firms: the much heavier use of silver stain in the canopy work in the Montgomery window, the less delicate drawing and the darker tonality, especially in the flesh tones, are all noticeable features. The rather large feet are also something of a trademark of this firm.

The windows on the north side of the nave contain images of St. George, St. Martin of Tours, and St. Alban, while on the south side the windows are of St. Oswald and St.

Theodore of Heraklea. The base panel of each window is filled with the crests of the regiments of the men who are being commemorated, while the traceries above are filled with gothic canopy-work and red- and purple-winged cherubim. The figures are to some extent united by the band of blue sky whch stretches across behind their heads.

St. George (the Jowett memorial), as the patron saint of the English, was a popular choice. He is depicted here as in his legend, in which he killed a dragon to save a maiden, a legend which is usually interpreted allegorically, the two characters representing evil and purity. St.

George is the archetypal red-cross knight, defender of the faith, shown here in golden plate armour and linen surcoat. The city on the hill behind may represent Jerusalem, a city that is “built compact together” and which he defends. This is appropriate since his cult in England

was closely connected to the Crusades. He is brilliantly depicted by Dudley Forsyth in a glowing red cloak, swathed around him in lavish folds delineated with extensive use of beautifully painted trace lines. His foot rests on the dragon executed in streaked purple glass.

His pale delicate features, awkward gestures and the linear treatment of the bunched drapery all suggest a strong Pre-Raphaelite influence.

St. Martin of Tours, the Miller memorial, is another famous soldier-saint, although having been pressed into the military life against his will. He was a convert to Christianity who lived in Hungary and France in the 4th century, and is best known for the incident in which he cut his cloak in two to give half to a shivering beggar. He was drawn to monastic life, and eventually became bishop of Tours. He is depicted here in anachronistic plate armour to match that of St. George, rather than the Roman armour he would have worn in life. His purple cloak, a reference both to the legend of his charity and to his episcopal status, is

draped conspicuously over his arm. As with St. George on his left and St. Alban on his right, his cloak billows out over the painted frame of the window, cutting across the border and giving a sense of freedom and movement to the figures. It also helps to create the sense of lateral direction that Dudley Forsyth mentioned as important to counteract the verticality of the windows.

The history of St. Alban (the Luxton memorial) has already been mentioned in connection with the sanctuary glass. In this window, created from Dudley Forsyth’s design, the saint 61

The Bu/lding

appears in Roman armour, with a voluminous scarlet cloak to match St. George’s, holding a book of Gospels and a cross, symbols of faith. He gazes sturdily across the chapel into the distance, and his pale figure with warmly-coloured accoutrements stands out well against a background of dark vegetation and a hill castle. The English style of design of this window and that of St. George contrasts with a less bold treatment in the Australian glass. The former is characterised by a single dominant colour - red - formed into large masses and bursting from the frame, giving a strong feeling of unity and power to the panel. In the Australian panels there is more fragmentation of colour and form, so that the window is broken up into a more mosaic-like effect. One notices, too, that in the windows on the south side, executed by William Kerr-Morgan, and in contrast to those executed by Forsyth, the figures seem confined in their frames. There is little or no overlapping of the borders, which gives them a more static feel.

St. Oswald (the Creswell memorial) was the 7th century king of Northumbria, martyred by the heathen king of Mercia. He had become a Christian at Iona, and later brought St. Aidan from there to assist in the conversion of his territory, giving him the island of Lindisfarne for a monastery. He was extensively revered as one of England’s national saints and heroes, and his choice for this window combines the attributes of English nationalism, sanctity and military skill. In contrast to the Roman soldier-saints who surround him, he is dressed in a mail tunic and leggings, sombre in colour but surmounted by a brilliantly striped cloak of royal purple and martyr’s red. He wears a crown and carries a rough wooden cross. In his early days as king he had set up such a cross before a battle and commanded his army to pray around it, although few were Christians, and fragments of a wooden cross were included among his relics. The Holy Island is seen behind him.

St. Theodore of Heraklea is a little-known saint. This unusual choice was made because

Humphry Moule, in whose memory the window was given, was killed at Gallipoli, near Heraklea. Theodore was another Roman soldier martyr of the 4th century, who was said to have worked many miracles. He is shown here in Roman armour with hand on heart, gazing upwards, the only figure in the nave not looking frontally from the frame. Behind him can be glimpsed some of the legion he commanded. The general composition of the window seems to have been derived from G.F. Watts’ well-known painting of Sir Galahad, so once again the tradition of Christian chivalry is the dominant theme. The overall message of the memorials is clear: the men who died in the first war did so in the great Christian tradition of sacrifice of self for others, here united with the English tradition of knightly dedication and valour.

The organ in Trinity College Chapel at the present time is one with a considerable history of rebuilding and tonal alteration. According to the historical trends current at the time of the rebuildings, the instrument has been altered positionally, tonally and in physical size.

Located in a superb acoustic, typical of North churches and particularly suitable for the performance of organ and choral music from the English collegiate and Cathedral tradition, the present organ sounds well in the Chapel, and possesses a range of colours suitable for service accompaniment, as well as exciting full organ sounds.”

When the Chapel was opened for worship there was no organ, which was felt to be a great lack. John Horsfall had promised the £1,200 that was thought necessary to provide a suitable 62

The Building

instrument, but due to his sudden death and a deficiency in his will, his intention was not carried out. Dr. Leeper set to with appeals for funds once more, and by 1919 had the required sum. The original instrument was built by the Adelaide firm of J.E. Dodd in 1923, under the consultancy of Dr. A.E. Floyd, the organist of St. Paul’s Cathedral. Due to vatious delays, however, especially in relation to the case, it was not opened until 1925.

This organ was located in the centre of the bridge, with an attached console. Tubularpneumatic action was coupled to slider, unit and Roosevelte sliderless soundboards. Pipework for the thtee divisions was of wood and plain and spotted metal. The case was designed by the architect William A.M. Blackett, who was a leading figure in, and later President of, the Atts and Crafts Society of Victoria, so was well qualified to understand Alexander North’s

intentions. The case he created was a simple post-and rail structure, the rails lightly ornamented with pierced Gothic motifs, and closely followed the designs North had included in all his various plans for the chapel.^"' It maintained the harmonious balance of verticals and horizontals in the chapel, without competing with the building itself.

In 1959 long-standing problems with the action were resolved by having the organ rebuilt, under the advice of John Barrett, by the Melbourne branch of the British company Hill, Norman and Beard. This cost £6,300, and the instrument was relocated and divided into

two sections positioned on either side of the bridge, with a detached console in the centre.

This was in part so that the choir could be accommodated on the bridge. Much of the original Dodd pipework was revoked at this time, and a number of ranks were discarded in favour of what were considered more flexible alternatives. All the new pipework added at this time was of plain metal. The upperwork was revised and several new additions were made in this area. The Pedal organ was also extended, although no new ranks were added.

An electro-pneumatic action and Swell pedal were installed. The divided instrument faces inwards, covered at the sides (east and west elevations) by a modern timber case of plain vertical slats, shaped to conform to the springing of the arches which it conceals.

By the 1980s it was felt that some renovation and updating was required, and the work was done by the Melbourne company of S.j. Laurie between 1987 and 1992 at a cost of nearly

$72,000. Three new ranks were added, and much of the organ was revoiced and cleaned.

The Hill, Norman and Beard console was made mobile for greater site flexibility, and a new solid state switching and action was installed, as well as a stop combination system giving sixty-four adjustable channels of memory. A voix celeste stop was added to the swell organ, replacing that removed in 1959, and an alternative 8 foot flue stop, a gamba, was added to the great organ. A sharp mixture of three ranks was also added at this time to the great organ. The pedalboard range was increased by two notes to a full thirty-two note compass.

At the time of writing, an appeal is again under way to provide a completely new organ, which has been commissioned from Kenneth Jones of Dublin.25

There has been only one addition to the fabtic since the Chapel was completed. This is the annexe on the north side of the building, spanning the transept. The vestry accommodation had always been extremely limited, although this problem was not acute because those who used the Chapel were largely resident in the College. In 1957, however, the Fellowship of St. John, with its fine choir, was offered the hospitality of the Chapel for their weekly services.

63

£de = rata

The J.E. Dodd organ

64

The Building

The presence of this additional congregation and especially of the large choir, made additional space essential if, as College Council remarked, its activities were not to be curtailed.

Aftet some discussion it was decided to build an extension to the Chapel which would comprise a priest’s vestry on the west side of the transept, and on the east side a large choir vestry, which could be used by the choir for storing robes and music and for rehearsals, and which the College could use as a tutorial room; and a small kitchen. The estimated cost was about £5,000, and the work was carried out to plans drawn by Mockridge, Stable and Mitchell, under the supetvision of Sydney Wynne, the College’s overseer, being completed in 1958. The annexe is a low, flat-roofed brick building, designed to harmonise with the Chapel in terms of forms and materials. The work was financed by Commonwealth building funds, which were being deployed at the same time for the building of Jeopatdy. At the same time the rebuilding of the organ by Hill, Norman and Beard was put in hand.

In 1971, during the course of liturgical reforms, the sanctuary floor was levelled to make it more suitable for modern services. The upper steps were removed and the lowet pavement extended, and the area repaved with white Sicilian marble tiles. The work was carried out by William Train and Co., who had done the original paving, at a cost of $1298.

Despite the care taken by the architect when the Chapel was built, by the late 1970s it had become increasingly apparent that major restoration work would be required. A problem with instability in the gteat west window had arisen as early as the late 1930s, leading to the “temporary” expedient of bracing it with four massive wooden beams, which considerably disfigured the west front. The stone of the mullions, plinth and porch was visibly deteriorating. Duting the 1970s complaints arose both about the appearance of the building, and the fact that small portions of it had a tendency to fall onto occupants. These concerns led to steps being taken in 1978 to restore the damaged sections, and Mockridge, Stable and Mitchell, the engineering firm of John Connell and Associates and the stonemason Trevor Henderson were asked to report on proposed restoration.

On investigation, it appeared that the problems were largely the result of the poot quality of stone used, compounded by groundwater problems, some slight subsidence under the west end and most significantly, strong wind pressure on the large west window. In 1981 it was decided to go ahead with the project, including restoration of parts of the roof and tower, which inspection had shown to be desirable. This was clearly going to be a very extensive and costly project, for which funding would have to be found. Fortunately, at this point a second John Horsfall appeared in the person of Robert Cripps, also a well-known benefactor, whose generosity enabled the restoration and continued use of his predecessor’s gift. He offered to fund the bulk of the required work, which was then able to begin in 1982.

The architects and engineers were those mentioned above, the stonework was carried out by Henderson Marble and Granite, and the re-glazing of the west window by Yencken Sandy Glass Industries. The stonework on the main tower, smaller towers, west front and west window was replaced where necessary, the west window traceries being strengthened with stainless steel rods and dowels within the stonework, while the roof(which leaked) was

completely stripped and renailed. The plinth facing was replaced to half height with polished 65

The Building

Harcourt granite, which forms a rather noticeable contrast with the matt fawn stone of the remainder of the building. At Robert Cripps’ suggestion, the rusting metal ventilator covers on the tower were replaced with aluminium discs bearing the arms of the College and of its founding colleges - Trinity College, Cambridge, Trinity College, Dublin, and St. John’s, Cambridge. The work was completed in 1984, the total cost being over $205,000. Although the restoration required was fairly extensive, it must be temembered that this was the first occasion any major work had been done on the building since it was opened, and the chapel was now in a condition to give pleasure and service to future generations.

66

THE CHAPEL IN USE

s a place of worship, the Chapel may be described as both beautiful and useful.'

A

The brickwork, windows and carvings, and the effects of natural light through the

. west window all contribute to its magnificent atmosphere. This is complemented by the building’s acoustic properties which are superb for choir and organ and lend a cathedral-like sound to the music of worship. The Chapel is used by several different groups - the Ttinity Theological School, the students of the College, the congregation of the Canterbury Fellowship, and by the general public - so that the building’s ability to meet disparate needs is important.

At first glance, the fixed collegiate seating and the stepped sanctuary appear to have many of the limitations of traditional church design. Despite having been designed and built eighty years ago, however, in practice the Chapel offers great flexibility. For formal services, the choir stalls, high altar and traditional seating are very suitable indeed, drawing the eye upwards to the great east window and emphasizing the transcendent

nature of the liturgical celebration. In more recent times the square open space of the ante-chapel has been utilised as a separate worship area, while the introduction of a moveable nave altar in the 1960s, under the aegis of Barry Marshall and the liturgical reforms of the period, and the placing of the eagle lectern on castors, have made even greater variability possible.

The nave altar is often used at the eastern end of the choir stalls, so that the congregation

sitting in the stalls can feel the intimacy of corporate worship. The organ bridge provides another focal point, and when the moveable altar is placed here, yet another set of configurations is possible, using the space of the ante-chapel. With the priest facing westwards towards the congregation, the chairs may be arranged in a semicircle, or in collegiate style, or in east-facing rows. For more informal services, the chairs may be removed altogether and replaced with cushions, while on occasions such as Maundy Thursday, the high altar and sanctuary can form the entire worship space, with chairs placed in a semicircle in front of the altar. The moveable lectern may be placed under the bridge for the daily offices, at the foot of the sanctuary steps for formal services, or removed for weddings and funerals and when the moveable altar occupies its place.

The Chapel may thus be re-arranged in many ways to meet the liturgical requirements of particular services and the pastoral needs of the worshippers. In doing so, its atmosphere of worship is enhanced, while its beauty remains unimpaired.

67

The Chapel In Use

No doubt because of its fine acoustics and its location in a college with a strong liturgical tradition, the Chapel has been for over forty years the home of fine choral musicd In its early years the main services were accompanied by a choir of male undergraduates of the College and female students from Janet Clarke Hall. At this period the choirs were located on the organ bridge.

In 1957 the St. John’s Fellowship moved to the Chapel after its home at St. John’s, Latrobe St., was demolished. It was renamed “The Canterbury Fellowship’’, and has always been known for its very fine choir, which sings at its weekly services as well as giving concerts and broadcasts. It consists of men and women and its repertoire is based on a wide range of English and European music, including much early work. For many years directed by Peter Chapman, ably supported by Norman Kaye as organist, it is at present under the direction of John O’Donnell. Since John O’Donnell’s arrival the choir’s strong traditional English repertoire has been broadened and enriched by the inclusion of European and more recent composers. The Fellowship has its own chaplain and congregation, with two Sunday services, and during its time at Trinity has contributed significantly to the worship and choral life of the Chapel. 1997 marks the fiftieth annivetsary of the formation of this notable choir.

Distinct from the Fellowship Choir is the College Choir In its present form it was established in 1977 by Peter Dennison, on the basis of a number of choral scholarships for undergraduates. The choir was placed in the stalls near the sanctuary, which were equipped with bookrests modelled on the iron altar rails, and more recently with lights. In 1984 Petet Dennison tetired due to ill health, and his work was taken over by one of the choristers, Brecon Darbyshire, and Bruce Macrae, a very experienced teacher and member of the Canterbury Fellowship Choir. In 1989 Peter Godfrey was appointed director, coming from New Zealand, who remained for three years. He was succeeded by Christopher Dearnley, the noted organist of St. Paul’s, London, who in turn was succeeded in 1994 by Michael Fulcher.

Since the establishment of the College Choir, special services such as a Festival of Lessons and Carols have become an annual event. The College supports its musical focus financially through the Music Foundation, and there is also an organ scholarship. The ambience of the chapel together with the superb acoustics typical of North’s church buildings, and its constant liturgical use, have made the chapel somewhat of a focus for church music. Like the Fellowship Choir, the College Choir maintains the English cathedral and collegiate tradition, interpreted by mixed men’s and women’s voices in a robust Australian style.

68

CONCLUSION

r

I

\ here remains little more to say about the legacy of North, Leeper and Horsfall, except to comment on the Chapel’s style, a frequently raised topic. Here, the architect can speak for himself At the time of its building, he remarked that;

“To say that a modern building is designed on any particular style of architecture, is generally incorrect, and often somewhat misleading, because, although the present should be the outcome of the past, architecture no more than any other art can remain stationary if it is to live in sympathy with the present age, and suit itself to modern requirements. It would, however, be correct to say that the basis of the style adopted is English Gothic of the early 14th century.”

“Sympathy’’was a key word for North, and implied an architecture which harmoniously expressed contemporary moods as well as needs. Emphasising the importance he attached to the doctrine of “appropriateness”, he added that: “whilst the architect has striven to preserve the spirit of this style, he has not attempted to perpetuate features suitable only for a past age and different climate.” P.M. Carew-Smyth, while giving voice to his admiration for North’s design, similarly remarked that “it is really a product of this year of grace, 1915, and, yet, is truly Gothic in feeling and in spirit. It is a development, not an adaptation. It is Art, not Archaet)logy.”2 He was no doubt influenced by North’s ideas, but his views adequately represent those of forward-looking critics of his generation, who felt that the best of the past should be preserved, especially in spirit and especially in public architecture, because it carried with it the symbolic roots of a culture. Originality was prized, but not at the expense of cultural identity, and, in an ecclesiastical building, spiritual identity. The Gothic had long been widely identified with English religious life, but this was a life which North clearly grasped was a moving stream. The Chapel, too, expresses an iconic sense of diversity and movement. It was designed to articulate its identity as a place of worship for an Anglican college community and as a symbol of Anglican faith for the public, but decidedly in an age in which ecclesial tradition could no longer be taken for granted. Although softened by kindly ornament, its architectural innovations and spare design place it squarely in the twentieth century, while as Dr. Hamann has pointed out in his Foreword, its sheer monumentality presents the church as a place of strength in the difficulties and ambiguities of the modern age.

69

NOTES

The main resources used in compiling this hook were the archives of Trinity College, Melbourne, the North family collection and the Louis Williams collection of the State Library of Victoria, as well as contemporary periodicals and personal research into North buildings. Bishop James Grant’s history of the College, Perspective of a Century {The Council of Trinity College, Melbourne, 1972) provided valuable background.

INTRODUCTION

P.M. Carew-Smyth, “Horsfall Memorial Chapel, Melbourne”, Building, Feb. 12 1916, pp. 126-128.

North wrote to Carew-Smyth thanking him for the article, which he felt expressed his (North’s) own ideas. (Letter, North to Carew-Smyth, 10 Jan. 1916.) Carew-Smyth must have sent him a proof, as the letter of thanks pre-dates the relevant issue of Building.

Carew-Smyth quotes from “The Lamp of Power” Para. XllL “Not looking at a design in its miserable liny skeleton, but conceiving it as it will be when the dawn lights it, and the dusk leaves it”. Ruskin is issuing instructions to young architects on how to approach designing a building so as to understand the important role of shadow and mass; he adds that “there wasn’t one of the architects for whom this

was written - nor is there one alive now - who could, or can, so much as shade an egg”. Carew-Smyth is more sanguine.

2.

“Rural Churches”, Proceedings of the Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science, 1905, Section H, pp. 656-668.

3.

“Horsfall Memorial Chapel, Melbourne” op. cit. p. 128.

4.

Letter, Betjeman to Ina Reid-Bell 5 Jan. 1962.

5.

Letter, Betjeman to Ina Reid-Bell 24 Feb. 1962.

6.

This section, and the portrait photograph of Leeper, were kindly contributed by Professor John Poynter from his forthcoming biography of Alexander Leeper.

7.

Letter, Betjeman to Ina Reid-Bell (n.d.) Feb. 1962

THE BACKGROUND

Report included in Council Minutes 23 Dec. 1909.

2.

Annual Report of Council 1911-12.

3.

Letter, Horsfall to North 25 April 1913.

4.

Letter, Horsfall to North 13 Nov. 1913.

5.

Letter, Horsfall to Cain 5 March 1913.

6.

Council Minutes 7 March 1913.

70

Notes

7.

Letter, Horsfall to Cain 5 March 1913.

Letter, Horsfall to Cain, 5 March 1913.

9.

Letter, Horsfall to North 13 Nov. 1913.

10.

“Phrenological Character of Alexander North” given by LN. Fowler, Huddersfield, Oct. 1st, 1862.

11.

1 am indebted to the North family for generously supplying much of this information, and especially the efforts of John and Dorothy North.

12.

Information kindly supplied by Bishop James Grant

13.

A glance at some of the price rises connected with the building trade, occasioned by the war, gives an impression of what builders had to contend with. During the period 1914-1916, cement prices rose from 12/6 a cask to £1/2/6. Rowsell’s had costed it at 13/-. Steel rose from £9.10.0 per ton to £23.0.0 over the same period, Rowsell’s costing it at £10.10.0, while timber rose by 15% and wages by the same amount. These unforeseen price rises were undoubtedly a major feature of Rowsell’s bankruptcy.

(Details from Rowsell’s Plea in Bankruptcy.)

1 am grateful to Mr. Charles Thompson for kindly supplying information relating to the Rowsell family and business.

14.

Letter, Wm. Train & Co. to North, 14 Oct. 1914.

15.

Letter, Wunderlich & Co. to North, 30 April 1915.

16.

Letter, North to Mortimer Godfrey, 26 July 1915.

17.

Council Minutes, 10 Aug. 1916.

18.

Fleur-de-Lys, Nov. 1916, p. 11.

19.

Age 27 Nov. 1917, p. 9.

THE BUILDING 1.

William Morris “The Art of the People” 1879.

2.

Letter, North to Tristan Buesst (editor of Fleur-de-Lys) 8 Sept. 1915. Excerpt(crossed out) from the manuscript of an article written for Heur-de-Lys.

3.

Proceedings of the Conference of the Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science, 1892 Section J, p. 920.

4.

Ibid.

5.

Ibid., p. 925-6.

6.

Ibid., p. 921.

7.

Ibid., p. 926.

1 am greatly indebted to Mr. Arthur Andronas for drawing my attention to this.

9.

Letter, North to Leeper 28 Sept. 1913.

10.

P.M. Carew-Smyth “Horsfall Memorial Chapel, Melbourne” op. cit. Ponsonby Carew-Smyth was then Government Director of Art, Inspector of Drawing for the Education Department, and had been instrumental in the formation of the Arts and Crafts Society of Victoria in 1908. He was a wellqualified judge of architecture, and an enthusiast for the sort ofprinciples North enshrined in his work. North wrote to him to thank him for the article, which he said expressed his own ideas.

11.

Letter, North to Horsfall 19 Aug. 1914.

71

Notes

12.

Letter, North to Leeper 7 May 1915.

13.

The very fine woodcarving in the chapel has invariably excited the interest of decorative arts historians. It has always been thought of as being by Prenzel, and was stated to be so by Miss Valentine Leeper, daughter of the Warden, but documentary evidence was lacking. The present attribution is made by the author, greatly assisted by the opinion of the Australian authority on Prenzel, Terence Lane, Senior Curator of Australian Art before 1900 at the National Gallery of Victoria.

14.

Letter, North and Williams to Leeper, quoting a report from North, 29 April 1918.

15.

Ibid.

16.

Council Minutes 1915, p. 88.

17.

Letter, Dudley Forsyth to Behan 4 Feb. 1919.

18.

Attribution of stained glass is not easy, where there is a lack of documentation. Although some of these windows are fully documented, in other cases attribution was carried out by the author working in conjunction with the stained glass firm of Jewell and Wallace, and decisions were made on the basis of style, technique and brush-work.

The attribution of stained glass is complicated by the fact that a window produced by one firm may have been designed by one man and painted by one or several others. Neither Dudley Forsyth nor William Kerr-Morgan painted all the windows their firms produced. Both the style of design and the painting of the St. Martin and St. George windows differ, hut the consensus is that both are by Forsyth’s firm.

19.

A “cartoon” is the full-sized drawing that the glass is painted and cut to match.

20.

1 am grateful to Mr. Lionel Kerr-Morgan for kindly supplying information about his father, William Kerr-Morgan.

21.

Letter, Behan to Allen Leeper 14 Oct. 1918.

22.

Letter, Dudley Forsyth to Behan 4 Feb. 1919.

23.

The section on the original organ and its various rebuilds, with the specifications, was generously contributed by Mr. David Hamnes, Trinity Organ Scholar 1992-1994. See Appendix for detailed specifications of the original organ and the different rebuilds.

24.

The organ at St. Bartholomew’s, Burnley,(Vic.) has a similar case on a smaller scale.

25.

See Appendix for specifications. The Hill, Norman and Beard organ currently in the Chapel has been purchased by Camberwell Grammar School for its auditorium.

THE CHAPEL IN USE 1.

2.

Material in this section was kindly contributed by the College Chaplain, David Cole.

This material was kindly contributed by Dr. Evan Burge.

CONCLUSION

“The Chapel: an Architectural Description” Fleur-de Lys, Vol. 3 No. 17, Oct. 1915, pp. 22-25, p. 23.

Although he is referred to in the third person, the article was written hy North.

2.

72

P. M. Carew-Smyth “Horsfall Memorial Chapel, Melbourne” op. cic. p.l28.

APPENDIX: THE CHAPEL ORGAN (Specifications compiled by David Hamnes)

1. SPECIFICATIONS: ORIGINAL J.E. DODD ORGAN,1923 (Source: Notes of W.A.F. Brodie, from Hill, Norman and Beard records and J. Maidment, 1965)

Great organ

Swell organ (enclosed)

Pedal organ

Seven Stops

Twelve stops

Five stops

1. Bourdon

16’

2. Open diapason

8. Open diapason

20. Majorbass

16’

9. Hohl flote

21. Bourdon

16’

8’ (#20) 8’ (#21) 16’(#16)

3. Clarabella

10. Viola

8’

22. Octave

4. Dulciana

11. Voix celeste

8’ (T.C.)

23. Bassflute

4’ 4’

24. Contra fagotto

5. Octave

4’

12. Gemshorn

6. Harmonic flute

4’

13. Flauto traverso

7. Clarinet

14. Fifteenth

2’

1 5. Mixture

111

Stop numbers 4, 6 & 7 enclosed

16. Bassoon

16’

in Swell box

17. Oboe

8’(#16)

18. Cornopean

8’

19. Clarion

4’(#18)

Couplers Swell to Great

Swell octave

Great to Pedal Swell to Pedal

Accessory Tremulant on Swell organ

Manual compass: 61 notes Pedalboard compass: 30 notes Pitch: c = 51 7 hz

73

Appendix

2. SPECIFICATIONS: ORGAN REBUILT BY HILL, NORMAN AND BEARD, 1959 (Source: J. Maidment, 1965)

Great organ

Swell organ

Pedal organ

Six stops

Eight stops

Seven stops

1. Open diapason

8’

2. Gedekt 3. Octave

4. Super octave 5. Mixture

6. Trompette

4’ 2’

111 (17-19-22) 8’

7. Hohl flote

15. Majorbass

8. Salicional

16. Bourdon

16’

17. Grossquint

10 V3’(#16)

9. Gemshorn

4’

10. Hazard

2 V3’

18. Octave

11. Flageolet 12. Cymbel

2’

19. Flute

111 (22-26-29)

20. Octave flute

13. Contra Oboe

16’

21. Contra oboe

14. Cornopean

8’

Couplers Swell sub-octave to Great

Swell Sub-octave

Great to Pedal

Swell to Great

Swell unison off

Swell to Pedal

Swell octave to Great

Swell octave

Swell octave to Pedal

Accessories

Three fixed thumb pistons to each division duplicated by toe pistons Two reversible thumb pistons duplicated by toe pistons Pedal and Great piston combinations coupler Pedal and Swell piston combinations coupler Cancel bars to each division

Tremulant on Swell organ

Wind pressures Great and Pedal organs: Swell flues: Swell reeds:

Manual compass: 61 notes Pedalboard compass: 30 notes

74

4 1/2' 4 1/8’ 4 1/4’

16’

8’ (#18) 8’ (#16)

4’ (#16) 16’ (#13)

Appendix

3. SPECIFICATIONS: ORGAN REBUILT BY S.J. LAURIE LTD., 1989 (Source; S.J. Laurie Ltd. and J. Maidment, 1989)

Great organ

Swell organ (enclosed)

Pedal organ

Eight stops

Nine stops

Seven stops

1. Open diapason

8’

18. Majorbass

2. Gedekt

10. Salicional

8’

19. Bourdon

16’

3. Gamba

11. Voix celeste

8’

20. Grossquint

10 V3’(#16) 8’(#15) 8’(#16)

9. Hohl flote

4. Octave

4’

12. Gemshorn

4’

21. Octave

5. Super octave

2’

13. Hazard

2 Vi’

22. Flute

14. Flageolet 15. Cymbel

2’

23. Octave flute

111 (22-26-29)

16. Contra oboe

16’

6. Mixture

7. Sharp mixture 8. Trompette

III (17-19-21) 111 (26-29-33 ) 8’

24. Contra oboe

16’

4’(#16) 16’(#13)

17. Cornopean

Couplers Swell sub-octave to Great

Sub-octave

Great to Pedal

Swell to Great

Swell unison off

Swell to Pedal

Swell octave to Great

Octave

Swell octave to Pedal

Accessories

Sixty-four channel capture system

Six adjustable thumb pistons to each division duplicated by toe pistons Six general thumb pistons duplicated by toe pistons Two reversible thumb pistons duplicated by toe pistons Pedal and Great piston combinations coupler Pedal and Swell piston combinations coupler Cancel bars to each division

Tremulant on Swell organ Closed circuit television for choir accompaniment

Wind pressures Great and Pedal organs; Swell flues; Swell reeds;

4 1/2’ 41/8’ 4 1/4’

Manual compass; 61 notes

Pedalboard compass; 32 notes

75

Appendix

4. THE PROPOSED NEW ORGAN

The College has commissioned a new organ from Kenneth Jones of Dublin. The organ will have three manuals, 33 speaking stops, six couplers and 2004 pipes. There will be a suspended mechanical key action with electric action for the combination action and the pedal open wood 16’, which will be placed at the southern end of the loft. The winding will be by traditional reservoirs and wooden trunking, with controllable concussions to vary the response. The third manual, for an unenclosed solo organ, forms a resonance division which can be used for solo purposes to amplify the resources of the great organ, and act as a supplement to the pedal organ.

SPECIFICATIONS

(Source;]. Maidment, 1995)

Great organ (I)

Swell organ (enclosed)(II)

Solo organ (unenclosed)(III)

Eight stops

Ten stops

Nine stops

1. Double diapason 2. Open diapason

16’

8’

19. Open flute

10. Salicional

8’

20. Gamba

9. Stopped diapason

8’

11. Voix celeste

8’ (T.C.)

21. Wide Octave

4’

12. Principal

4’

22. Hazard

2 2/3’

5. Coppel flute

4’ 4’

13. Wald flute

4’

23. Super octave

2’

6. Fifteenth

2’

14. Octavin

2’

24. Nachthorn

2’

7. Mixture

1 1/3’ IV

15. Mixture

2’ 111-lV

25. Tierce

1 3/5’

3. Rohrflute 4. Octave

16. Contra trumpet

8. Trompette

17. Cornopean

16’

26. Cromorne

27. Solo trumpet

18. Oboe

Pedal organ Six stops 28. Subbass

32’ (polyphone)

29. Open wood

16’ *

30. Subbass

16’ A

31. Octave 32. Bass flute 33. Trombone

8’ 8’ A

16’ (wood)

* denotes rank retained from present organ, restored and revoiced.

Couplers Swell to Great Solo to Great

Great to Pedal Swell to Pedal Solo to Pedal Solo octave to Pedal

Accessories

Tremulants on Great, Swell and Solo organs.

76

8’