shell of the political State, in order that, when that industrial republic is fully organised, it may crack the shell of the political state." Their capital will then be taken, and quite easily, from the capitalists.

It will be noticed that Connolly anticipates no opposition from the middle classes. In this he is following Marx, who expected that the middle classes would have practically ceased to exist by the end of the 19th century. Connolly's Industrial Unions, if they could be established, would include a very large proportion of the middle class, namely all those who are in receipt of salaries from the capitalists. It will, however, be always difficult, especially in view of the general tone of modern Socialist speakers, to weld together in one compact body the receivers of salaries and the wage-earners, and until this is done the salaried classes will be more or less in sympathy with capital, and will prove a formidable obstacle to the achievement of the Socialist revolution.

According to Connolly the capitalists are to get no compensation for the capital taken from them. The labourers will be merely re-entering into possession of what had been robbed from them. He defends this confiscation from the charge of cruelty in the following strange way. Every capitalist, he says, will be in a Trust or will not. If he is in one his property will have ceased to be his, it will have become the property of the Trust. We hardly think that Connolly, had he been attacking a large Dublin soap-manufacturer belonging to the soap-trust, would have shown towards him the pity due to a pauper! As for the

capitalists who will belong to no Trust, he says they have at choice of two alternatives, either to have their property confiscated by a Trust in the interests of the Trust, or to have it confiscated by the nation in the interests of all. It is strange how he could have addressed such an argument to people who have before their eyes thousands of small capitalists who belong to no Trust and who are plainly not being forced into any.

(To be continued.)

8 Socialism made Easy, p. 26.

DECORATIVE PAINTING IN CHURCHES. By J. V. BRENNAN, M.R.I.A.I.

IN

N submitting a few remarks on the decorative painting of churches, the writer does not by any means intend to discuss from a strictly technical standpoint a subject, many readers' interest in which will be, in the main, academic; his aim is simply to offer some helpful suggestions to the custodians of churches who may be contemplating a task which will prove either formidable or simple according to one's experience and knowledge of the matter.

Let us assume that it has been decided to adopt a scheme of decorative painting and that a sum of money, be it much or little, has been ear-marked for the purpose. With the money in hand and the general details of the scheme arranged, the rest would appear to be simple, a mere matter of entering into a contract with a painter and having the work carried out forthwith.

Here, a word of warning. A somewhat costly experience has taught many that there is an essential preliminary, the omission of which will cause a considerable amount of heart burning and many regrets.

In an architectural practice three-fourths exclusively pertaining to church work, and covering a period of a quarter of a century, it has been my privilege to carry out the reconstruction or renovation of a large number of ecclesiastical edifices, and I have noted not once, but many times, with surprise that schemes of decorative painting involving the outlay of considerable sums of money have been entered into without the opinion of an experienced architect having been obtained. Why this should be so, it is difficult to understand. In a matter touching one's physical wellbeing, naturally, recourse is had to the doctor; in case of drafting a will or a deed of assignment, to a solicitor; why is it then there is no hesitation about dispensing with the professional aid of an architect? As well have access to

the chemist directly without first having consulted the physician.

How often does one note in going around churches that the costly and elaborate work in coloured pigments and gold relief is being utterly ruined, owing to constitutional dampness, salt sand, defective ventilation, porous materials or downward, upward or horizontal damp. For the first year or two, possibly, all goes well and the beautiful decoration is a joy to the beholder and a source of edification to the congregation; then a thin whitish scum gathers on the walls; this in a short time crystalizes and hardens, ultimately flakes, and then sheds the pigment and colour skin, and what was once regarded as a triumph of decorative art becomes a melancholy and depressing spectacle. And why? Simply because a precaution had not been taken, as essential as it was obvious, that of having the fabric of the church examined by an experienced architect who would make sure the walls were dry and fit to receive colours, and if they were not dry, who would devise some practical expedient calculated to arrest the trouble at a stage when a cure is practical politics.

Dampness in churches arises in the main from the character of the walling, and when one reflects that a building constituent such as granite absorbs water from one-half to one per cent. of its dry weight, sandstone eight to ten per cent., limestone fourteen to seventeen per cent., and bricks ten to twenty per cent., one may to some extent realise what happens in a badly ventilated church, especially in close muggy weather. The humid atmosphere in contact with the walling produces excessive condensation on cold surfaces like stone and hard plaster. Most building materials, as we know, are very porous, especially stones and very notably soft stones like sandstone, which may contain moisture to the extent of half a gallon to the cubic foot. Even granite in a dry state frequently holds one and a half pints of moisture per cubic foot. Time after time I have seen water drawn up walls by capillary attraction to a height of over thirty feet from the foundations. Indeed there is so much to be said on this question of dampness in churches, that one is tempted to go into the details of

the question, but to do so adequately would require a whole article. The writer would, however, advise anyone contemplating the decoration of a church, under no circumstances to launch the scheme without first seeking the aid and advice of a practical architect, whose examination of the edifice will reveal whether it is in a fit condition for what is in contemplation. After all the painter is but human, and he will not lay undue stress upon the suitability or otherwise of paint or colour to the fabric upon which he has to operate. It is not really his affair, and his training and occupation do not qualify him to offer an expert opinion upon a matter of this sort. Indeed, occasionally incipient damp is so an insidious affair, that it is only when the pores of the walls are closed up with a coating of paint or distemper that its real character shews. With an experienced architect, it is entirely different; if dampLess is either present or to be anticipated, he should be able instantly to detect it; and if he advises the adoption of a decorative scheme, he will at all events be fairly in a position to suggest some method of counteracting it, for example by a damp course, or a process of lining to the interior, or again by battening, or by a hollow walling formed by two skins bound together, either by horizontal iron ties, or by vitrified bonding bricks.

To come now to our subject proper, it will be clear that in dealing here with church decorative work, general principles only can be referred to. Every church has its own particular and distinctive problem. In any event the architect to whom is entrusted the preparation of the designs and specification, will see that nothing is introduced out of keeping with the character of a building which is erected for the highest aspiration of human kind, and which is to us Catholics not only a house of worship, but the abiding home of the Second Person of the adorable Trinity. It will be the duty of the architect as well to employ only such as are familiar with ecclesiastical decorative work and who can understand and carry out his detailed instructions. I have seen some instances in which the ordinary house painter was commissioned to decorate a church without the intervention and guidance of an archi

tect, with the almost inevitable results: coarse daubs of thick colouring laid on without regard to either harmony or density of light, garish and gaudy shades, and mechanical stencil work ad libitum.

In a scheme of colour for churches, regard must be had to the fixed colours of woodwork and stone; and where we have ornamental detail and rich carving, nothing should be introduced which might detract from their effect. Again, the sanctuary and the body of the church must be treated on perfectly harmonious lines. Considerable liberty, however, may be given in the employment of more elaborate detail in the sanctuary. Gold may be used with considerable effect here, and is a form of decoration which in skilled hands can yield the most charming effects. It is rather expensive when used freely, and there are many tints of yellow which give, under certain circumstances, and with certain degrees of light, as satisfying results as gold leaf. As a general rule it is best to confine gold relief to sanctuaries, but where it is used at all is should be used with freedom, as nothing is so suggestive of scrappiness and meanness as the meagre and occasional use of gold in a vast desert of wall colouring.

Speaking of light reminds us that this is an important factor to be taken account of in the selection of colour ranges. As most of us know by practical experience, whether it comes from insufficient windows, or from having heavily bodied stained glass, a great many of our churches have but poor light, and the effect of a given shade of colour must be considered both in view of the greatest amount of direct light that will fall upon it, and of a shadowed and subdued or a winter dull light. Generally speaking, in a well-lighted church it is advisable to have the prevailing tints of a bright pronounced hue and the dark tints scattered and broken up, and where the reverse conditions exist, exactly the opposite. A tinting of French grey I find goes well in the majority of churches for the body of the walling, with as an alternating colour yellow of a sombre shade, not too bright to match the frequently used sandstone. These tints go very well with a dado of red, either lined in imitation of ashlar stonework and surmounted by