CLOSED CATHEDRALS.
IN the course of last summer, there was an interesting correspondence between Lord Carnarvon and the Archbishop of Canterbury about open churches. Some very true and pertinent things were said as to the indecency of barring a church against worshippers except just when a service was going on, and more things of the same kind would no doubt have been forthcoming, but for the assurances which came pouring in that the whole corre- spondence was an anachronism. A generation or more ago, in the bad old times, there would have been ample room for complaint. But now the clergy know better than to keep their churches shut. Their one desire is to get people into them, with services or without,—to listen, to pray, to meditate, to sit quiet, to snatch even bodily rest. Lord Carnarvon's suggestion was excellent, but, happily, it had long been anticipated. We will at once confess that this engaging picture appeared to us amazingly exaggerated. No doubt it was less exaggerated than it would once have been. There is an improvement in this respect in all parts of the country. As churches have been better cared for, and their uses better understood, there has grown up a desire to make these uses more widely known, and to see more people profit by them. Still, we suspected then, and we suspect now, that open churches, though they are much more frequent than formerly, are as yet only frequent excep- tions. A good deal has to be done before they become the rule. The clergy whose churches are closed would probably plead that they must first consider the " habitual worshipper " ; and the habitual worshipper is chiefly concerned for his hassock, his hymn-book, and his Church Service with the silver corners. He differs from his precursor mentioned by St. James, in that, instead of saying to the poor man, " Sit thou there under my footstool," he is more inclined to say, " Be so good as to leave my footstool alone." But though we own to some incredulity on this subject, we were not prepared to find that the Open Church movement had not yet conquered even the cathedrals. Yet, if we are to trust certain letters in the Guardian, it is very far from having con- quered them. The first indication of this fact was a letter which appeared in that paper on October 31st. " Why," it ran, " must we of the Diocese of St. Albans pay six- pence a head. to enter the doors of our own cathedral ?" The writer went on to say that if " this short question " appeared on the following Wednesday, it might " receive an answer at our Diocesan Conference on Friday." As, however, the letter is dated October 21st, it is plain that the Guardian thought it safer to keep it back until after the Diocesan Conference. We should have thought that the impassiveness of cathedral authorities might have been trusted not to be provoked even by an incon- venient inquiry like this ; but we bow, of course, to our contemporary's greater knowledge of the material with which it has to deal. A fortnight later, several other cathedrals were included in the indictment. At Christ- church, near Bournemouth, which in size and dignity may almost rank with cathedrals, " Viator " was asked im- mediately on entering,—" Are you going round the church ? if so, you must pay sixpence." At Winchester, the same, with this addition, that on entering, " the verger being absent, I found the choir and all the chantries locked." At Wimborne Minster and Truro Cathedral, the same fee was demanded, and at the latter church " permission was refused me to see what, above all other things, I wanted to see,—viz., the altar frontals." At Gloucester Cathedral, "you are not, or were not till lately, allowed even to enter the cloisters unless you have first paid the fee and gone the round of the church with the verger." We pass over " Viator's " other grievance, that in each of these cases he thought it necessary to give a liberal fee to the verger, because on this point he has no case. If a man chooses to supplement a fee by a tip, he has no more reason to complain, than when he chooses to give a shilling to a hotel-waiter after he has paid for attendance in the bill. Finally, in the number for last Wednesday, " A Lady " says that she " found the practice "—that is, the practice of charging a fee for admission to certain parts of the cathedral—" at Exeter."
To these complaints certain answers have been given, and by examining these in detail, we may form some con- clusion how far the charges are well founded. For Truro the defence is complete. The Precentor says that the whole cathedral has always been free to all visitors with the exception of the choir, while two portions of the aisles are "indicated as suitable places for private prayer." The choir is open to those who wish " a nearer view of the sanctuary, under the care of a verger," and for this, though a charge of sixpence was at first made, it " has been, after a very short time, abolished, and now only a free-will offering is suggested." The altar plate and frontals are " exhibited free of charge on all festivals that occur on week-days, and on other occasions by special arrangement." More than this, as the Precentor justly says, " would be attended with serious inconvenience." For Wimborne Minster and Winchester a very inadequate defence is set up. We hear nothing in these cases of every part of the building being open to all visitors with the exception of the choir. The phrases used by Mr. R. G. Plumptre, who apparently speaks with authority, speak of " being shown over" the church by vergers whose business it is " to exhibit the sacred edifice to visitors," a fair sum being charged " for seeing and visiting " a great church. We infer from this that not only is a charge made for entering certain parts of the cathedral, but also that the parts thus shut off are numerous, and do not comprise only the choir. In the case of St. Albans, the defence is also un- satisfactory, but there is some excuse. Though St. Albans became a cathedral in 1877, the titular dignity " brought with it no accession of endowment to the fabric." Ac- cordingly, the charge which had always been made— except to the clergy of the diocese or inhabitants of the town—was continued. " I should be the first," the Rector adds, " to welcome the opportunity of throwing open the abbey to all comers, if funds were provided for the salaries of the attendants necessary to watch over and explain the features of the immense structure."
We quote this last sentence because it seems to us at once to reveal the mistake which underlies these charges, and to suggest a compromise by which they may be rendered inoffensive. Every one, in our opinion, has a moral right to free and unattended admission to every part of a cathedral, except to such limited portion as may be shut off from considerations of security or reverence. But this right does not extend to the explanations of a verger. These are not necessary either to devotion or to enjoy- ment. On the contrary, whether the visitor regard it as a place of prayer or as a great work of art, the church will be all the better for the absence of the " in- telligent custodian." But besides being a place of prayer and a work of art, a cathedral is also a place of great historical interest, and a visitor may fairly wish to have information of this kind given him by an attendant. For this it is perfectly fair that he should pay. All that is wanted, therefore, to make a satisfactory end of this con- troversy is that such fee as seems good to the cathedral authorities should be charged, not for entering or visiting the church, but for being accompanied round it by a verger. Probably the number of visitors who would wish for attendance is quite large enough to secure a continuance of the sum at present received from this source. But whether it is or not, the authorities have no business to supplement it by charging other visitors for services which they do not receive, or for an admission to a sacred building which certainly ought to be free.
Previous page
