Scotch Presbyterian Church and Schools, Chapel Street, Salford

NEW CHURCH IN SALFORD - Parties desirous of Contracting for the Several Works required in the ERECTION of a PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH and SCHOOLS, to be built in the borough of Salford on a plot of land bounded respectively by Chapel Street, St. Stephen’s Street, and St. Mary’s Street, may see the drawings and specifications at our offices, on and after the 13th day of July.  Tenders sealed and endorsed are to be delivered to us on or before 2nd of August next ensuing. — TRAVIS and MANGNALL, Architects, Norfolk-street, 9 July 1846 [Manchester Courier 18 July 1846 page 8]

Building converted into the Salford Cinema. Traces of the original stonework and blocked east window are still visible at the rear of the building.

Among the new erections and improvements in Salford is the Scotch church at present in progress at the corner of St Stephen-street and Chapel-street, a perpendicular Gothic building, by Mr Hollins from designs by Messrs Travis & Mangnall.[The Builder 1846: Page 485.]

From this church (St John’s) we passed to a smaller edifice close by, erecting for the Free Kirk, and which we think sufficiently important to merit particular description. Messrs Travis & Mangnall are the architects. The style on which the design is based is Gothic and perpendicular; but galleries being required, the architects, in place of separating the nave and aisles by the ordinary stone piers and arches, have substituted ornamental iron columns - bracketed out to support the galleries - carrying timber arches, above which is a range of wooden dormers, in what may be called a low clerestory, also in wood. From the same level in the transverse section, spring the arches of the open timber roof, so that the interior, with great novelty of design, has a picturesque interior. Externally, the church has at the west, a central gable, a smaller gable to the side roof and a tower and spire at the north-west angle. The ridge of the side roof continues but for a short distance from the gable (we think for about 10 feet), and thence as a “lean-to to the clerestory, containing the dormers already mentioned, continuing the line of the apex. The window tracery in the church might, perhaps, have been improved, the angles of the spire a little more pronouncé, and the labels to one or two arches better; but the details, generally, display great care and taste, and among such portions are the crockets to the label of the west window, the iron railings, the woodwork generally, and many other parts, and in the schools and attached buildings.

The principal novelty has been the subject of much condemnation. For ourselves, we notice the church because it shows more of real design than hundreds of the structures lately erected throughout the kingdom, on what are called correct principles, and if not altogether what might be wished, by no means justifies much of what has been said about it. It is at least that which its more elaborate neighbour is not, a foretaste of what we hope the architecture of England may become, an evidence not only in skill in drawing and arrangement, but of original thought. Indeed, difficult as we confess it is, to lay down correct principles for criticism, in reference to the future practice of ecclesiastical architecture, we are, as we have said, far from satisfied with the present state of this branch of the art. Formerly we had a version of Gothic architecture, in which were distorted outlines, and other deformities, which a slight acquaintance with the architecture of the middle ages would have taught us to avoid; but while we have gained by the recent improvement in architectural knowledge, we have gained little of what ought to have resulted from the increased store of our materials. For ourselves, we do not always necessarily think that church the best piece of architecture, in which there is no detail that can be found fault with, nor do we think that every church built in the present century, except during the past ten years, must necessarily be not worthy of examination. But such has become the opinion of the day, appears in every newspaper article in which a church is the subject of criticism and infects the profession of architecture itself: it is an opinion which we lose no opportunity of eradicating, fatal as it is to the high standing of the pursuit amongst kindred arts and fields of thought, and discreditable to all who are engaged in the practice of architecture. In the discussion respecting the particular work which has called forth these remarks, we were as little pleased with the tone of defence as with that of attack; the same feeling, that of absolute obedience to old forms, was apparent in both. If the architect of a church be ignorant of the mediaeval styles, then, indeed, he may depreciate criticism, but if not, and he has produced a design in which original thinking is manifest, let him boldly meet his detractors, and he will have us to applaud him as one of those pioneers in taste, who, notwithstanding all may not yet say so, we believe were never more needed. [The Builder 1847: Page 598].

Reference    Manchester Courier 11 July 1846 page 8 – contracts
Reference    Manchester Courier 18 July 1846 page 8 – contracts
Reference    Manchester Guardian 11 July 1846 – contracts