This chapter examines the careers of those who designed the new churches. Many styled themselves ‘architect’, but they were joined by engineers, surveyors, builders and a range of amateurs. Also considered is a specific aspect of architectural theory, one central to discussions about Gothic and its application in a modern context. And it explores the published material that existed to inspire and guide these designers. Church building was, for many of them, an unfamiliar aspect of their working life and, at the same time, was one replete with inherent challenges. Accounts of how they proceeded provide valuable insights into broader aspects of architectural practice in the days before full professionalisation.

‘The Architect or Surveyor who will direct the building?’

One of the remarkable aspects of late-Georgian church building is the range of backgrounds recorded by those involved in the design process. Certainly, the majority were the work of men who styled themselves architects and had undertaken some sort of conventional training, but they were joined by other ‘professional’ designers who were self-taught, along with those from a range of backgrounds; this diversity certainly introduced a degree of vitality to the design process. However, it is reasonable to conclude that church building often lacked clear leadership on questions of style and layout. In the profession’s defence, it could be claimed that prior to 1818 there were not enough ecclesiastical commissions to warrant specialisation. Most of the leading London-based men had designed a church or two before 1818, but were much more focused on secular commissions. James Wyatt, with seven new churches (Fig 3.2; see Fig. 5.1) and Thomas Hardwick with four were exceptional and both extended or repaired several others (see Figs 1.7, 2.4 and 9.12). In the provinces, Leeds-based Thomas Taylor with seven was unique (see Figs 1.4 and 2.8). However, by 1818, with the passing of the Church Building Act and the formation of the Church Building Society, it must have been clear that many new churches would be built and that there were substantial fees to be earned by those designers prepared to face the inherent challenges; those architects at the very top of the profession largely absented themselves from these challenges, content to leave church building in the hands of a somewhat less eminent cohort of designers.