CHAPTER IV

THE PRECINCTS--THE CLOISTERS AND ST. MARY’S COLLEGE

The College of St. Mary was founded conjointly by John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, his wife Blanche, and Bishop Adam Houghton in 1377, but it was endowed solely by the Bishop for the maintenance of a Master and seven Priest-Fellows, who were bound by a solemn oath to live in strict obedience to such regulations as the founder thought fit to ordain. The priests wore the same dress as the vicars-choral, and were under the control of the Precentor or Treasurer of the cathedral. They were bound to say the Hours and Masses of Requiem and perform certain services in the church. Any view from the northern side of the cathedral must include the graceful proportions of St. Mary’s, and it is surprising how well these buildings group with those of the cathedral. The cloisters and the cloister-garth, which separate the two buildings, date from about the same time as St. Mary’s and doubtless were common to the members of both foundations. The Early Perpendicular chapel is built on a large crypt, being quite contiguous to the river Alan, not unlike the chapel and hall of Magdalene College, Oxford. At the south-east angle was a Sacristy, with an upper chamber built over the cloisters, which had alleys to the north, west, and east; the latter running from the college to the north wall of the transept. As at Hereford, therefore, a covered way existed between the cathedral and the college.

To the north of the cloisters was the square occupied by the college; on the north side of which, again, was the principal entrance. And on the south side of the square stood the chapel of which we now see the remains, showing that it must have been a very fine building of its kind. The elegance of the proportions and subtlety of the detail betray the hand of a very skilful architect. The dimensions of the chapel are 69 ft. × 23 ft. 9 in. × 45 ft. high. It was lit by three windows in each side 24 ft. × 9 ft. broad each, and the east window must have been a grand affair, as it occupies the whole of the east wall. The tower is 70 ft. high, to the north of which are the remains of the Infirmary.[89]

The cathedral cloisters, unlike most English cathedrals, never had an alley next the church, and it is most probable that no cloister existed before the time of Bishop Houghton.

But so fragmentary are the remains of the cloister and so complete its destruction that we will only give a brief outline of its state as inferred by Freeman, that the visitor may understand the ruins.

A reference to the plan will best locate the cloister, but it will be noticed that the massive western buttresses, which take the thrust of the nave, show traces of the cloister wall. Also the wall-arcade and vaulting-springers are visible on the south wall of the chapel of St. Mary’s. The sacristy to the chapel, which has a piscina, was over the eastern alley, and under this can be seen the lines of four bays of the cloister and part of a fifth. Apparently the east side of the cloister was never completed, as the buttresses show no sign of additions; therefore, although a covered way was obtained between the cathedral and college, the north door remained as a separate entrance from the prebendal and other houses.

The crypt[90] on which the chapel stands is roofed with a simple elliptical barrel-vault and rear arches of small lights cut into it on the northern side. Below the tower was the cloister entrance, but the steps up to the chapel have quite disappeared. The landing at the top of these steps and two bays to the north formed an ante-chamber to the chapel, and a turret-stair on the northern or garden side led down to the domestic buildings as well as to a room over the vestibule. This room had two windows, one of which looked into the chapel, as at St. Cross. It will thus be seen that there could not have been a west window.

The chapel is in four bays, but as the eastern bays were utilised, on the north by the existing recess for the founder’s tomb and on the south by the sacristy, there are only three windows. The great east window--as well as others--was denuded of much ashlar-work and tracery to help in Nash’s extraordinary concoction the west window of the cathedral.[91] This great east window filled up almost the whole of the wall, and must have been a fine example of the best sort of Perpendicular. Indeed, it would not be impossible to reconstruct it even now.

There is a legend (found by Browne Willis in an Elizabeth manuscript) that Houghton was excommunicated by the Pope Clement, and that he retaliated by returning the compliment, and further pictorially displayed the event in stained glass.[92] Clement died, however, in 1352, before Houghton was made bishop, but was succeeded by Innocent VI. The names may thus have got confounded, or the Pope may have been the Anti-Pope, Robert of Geneva, known at Avignon as Clement VII. Although the story is of doubtful authenticity it is quite in accord with Houghton’s vigorous character, being as he was the friend of Chaucer and John of Gaunt. He also established several ordinances for the diocese, which shows that he was no mere figure-head. He held the office of chancellor for two years.[93]

The tower of the chapel--the only part yet undescribed--was evidently designed for a broached spire, as is shown by the squinches within. But a settlement, owing to the close proximity of the river, evidently not only prevented further weights being imposed, but caused the south-west angle buttress to be added which is so prominent (_vide_ p. 82).

Of the collegiate domestic buildings there only remain a few vaults, except a single entrance, with a four-centred arch, to the north.

THE BISHOP’S PALACE.

After crossing a bridge to the north-west of the cathedral we pursue a most picturesque alley, whence a good view of the tower and north side is obtained, and shortly, on the left-hand side, we come to the entrance to the =Bishop’s Palace=.[94]

In the times before Gower (1328-47), who built the whole of this once magnificent palace, there undoubtedly was some

sort of episcopal residence or guest-house, as Kings Henry II. and Edward I. were here entertained. However, not only is there no trace of a pre-existent building, but this of Gower is a superb ruin. It is said that we have to thank the scandalous Bishop Barlow (1536-49) for initiating the work of destruction, removing, as he did, the lead from the roofs to provide marriage portions for his daughters who married five bishops. He also attempted to remove the see to Carmarthen. “Barlow’s letter to Cromwell on this subject strongly urges the removal, partly on account of the inconvenient situation and partly because the hopes of Protestantism rested on getting rid of the _religio loci_.”[95]

“It is hardly necessary to say that many churches, even of inferior ecclesiastical rank, greatly surpass St. David’s Cathedral in extent and in positive beauty, though certainly there is none which could so well occupy its peculiar position; of the Palace, on the other hand, it is hardly too much to affirm that it is altogether unsurpassed by any existing English edifice of its own kind. One can hardly conceive any structure that more completely proclaims its peculiar purpose. It is essentially a palace and not a castle; we have not here the moat, the tower, the frowning gateway, or any feature proclaiming, if not an intention of hostility, at all events a state of things involving the necessity of defence. The prominent parts are the superb rose-window of the hall and the graceful spire of the chapel, importing an abode, not of warfare, but of hospitality and religion.”[96]

With all due deference to Messrs. Jones and Freeman, however, the great arcaded parapet, which is certainly the most noticeable feature of the building, gives at least a hint that Bishop Gower had an _arrière pensée_ against defence. As the close was fortified, it was not necessary to make any elaborate preparations against attack; but it will be noted that, although there is no moat, the river Alan--then much larger than now--runs past one side, and that on the others there were very few windows, and those small; in fact, most of the remainder opens on to the great quadrangle, which was self-contained. Let us look at it again from another point of view. Eliminate the parapet, and what do we find? Truly, except for an excellent plan and mere bulk, nothing at all extraordinary from an architectural point of view.

A particular description must be given to the =Parapet=. It consists of a series of arches, with a hollow ornamented by Gower’s four-leaved flower, carried down on octagonal shafts, which rest on corbels of considerable variety about two feet down the wall. Above the arcade is a corbel-table carrying a projecting battlemented cornice. The battlements have extremely narrow embrasures and loopholes. The sills of the arcade are steeply slanted outwards, and the jambs show the old shape of the roof and finish with a neat weathered projection. Great richness is obtained above the arcade from the various coloured stones employed. They are set in squares, alternately purple and grey, in the voussoirs of the arches and the spandrils above them, and make a mellow and harmonious chequer-work which greatly adds to the character of the whole building.

A similar parapet is only known to occur in two other buildings (also attributed to Gower), viz., Swansea Castle and Lamphey Palace, near Pembroke.

We can place the date of the building about 1340, as an ordinance by Bishop Gower, dated May 27, 1342, orders that only certain buildings belonging to the bishop be kept in repair,[97] which includes the palace. Architecturally, the arrangements are excellent. The leading idea is a great quadrangle, but so skilfully broken up with projections that the monotonous rectangular effect of the square gives place to a most pleasing and picturesque variety, and although the main portion is kept about the same height throughout, yet the most dignified chambers are given due prominence and the parts of lesser importance treated with a fit reticence.

The building is raised on crypts, which, however, were evidently used for domestic offices from the windows (once glazed) and the divisions. The vaults are of the plain barrel description, without ribs, although there are some which rather suggest ribs. These vaults do not run longitudinally, as under St. Mary’s Chapel or, indeed, the chapel in the palace; the reason being that divisions, for living purposes, were necessary on both floors.

On entering the quadrangle, which is about 170 feet square, we find a small building immediately to the left which many call the =East Chapel=. The West Chapel (K)[98] was probably not built till later, and then probably this little one became the Bishop’s private chapel. There are indications of a way through to the ante-room adjoining in the south-west wall, and a passage also leads to the lower floor.

The =Bishop’s Hall= (I, about 60 ft. by 23 ft.) is approached from the quadrangle by seven modern steps and a porch with a semi-octagonal arch. The point of the octagon is at the centre of the opening, and resembles that leading to the rood-loft in the cathedral. The small window in the porch has two five-foil lights.

The Hall was lit by two windows to the north-west and four to the south-east. Possibly the recess, which cuts into the window at the south angle, may have contained the refectory pulpit, and behind it was a passage and stair leading to the minstrels’ gallery.

There was a diagonal entrance (just above the head of the I on plan) leading from the Bishop’s Hall to his =Study= or private apartment. Just by this entrance there is also a way down. There are two fireplaces and chimneys, and as there are indications of a divisional wall there were probably two rooms, the further of which has a blocked doorway and may have been utilised before the main entrance was built. H is the _Kitchen_ (about 26 ft. by 23 ft.), to the west end of the Bishop’s Hall. This room is very interesting, as it was evidently domed, and later a wall had to be built to support it. The chimney, which was standing in 1857 when Messrs. Jones and Freeman published their book, is now lying in a mass on the floor. As this is a good object lesson to the modern flimsy designers of to-day, the dimensions will not be without interest: flues, 1 ft. 11 in.; outer walls, 1 ft. 3 in., inner, 1 ft.

On the northern side of the kitchen was an aisle leading behind the Great Hall, and so out to the garden.

=The Great Hall= is approached from the quadrangle by a fine porch, richly adorned and of the whole height of the building. The entrance is an unusual one at so early a period.

It is about 9 ft. wide by 11 ft. 6 in. high, and has an ogee six-centred arch, but the flight of steps are somewhat inconvenient, as the tread is about fourteen inches and the rise about eleven and a half. Above were two niches containing statues of King Edward III. and Queen Philippa. Fragments of one remain now, but where is the other? It seems sad that this should have disappeared within the last few years.

The Hall itself is a magnificent stately apartment, even unroofed as it is. It measures 116 feet by 31 feet, but this includes a smaller chamber of about 30 feet which was originally a withdrawing room. At the south corner is a staircase (down and up), and another at the east leading to the turret. A doorway from the kitchen aisle is now blocked. In the south-east wall is an exceptionally beautiful rose-window. The centre is an upright quatrefoil, and at the cardinal points radiate four strong mullions, and in between each of these are three lesser ones. The heads are of the trefoil kind. The inner circle is not concentric with that enclosing the tracery, but is dropped a little to create, as was often done in these circular windows, an optical delusion. Thus the splay at the top is considerably less than at the bottom, but _looks_ about the same. Gower’s four-leaved flower is again in evidence in the hollow at the outside edge of the splay. Bedrooms in two floors occupied the western end of the hall.

The =West Chapel= is entered from the northern corner of the hall, and projects from the main building. There must have been a fine window to the east judging by its proportions, and it has niches with canopies outside. A large arched piscina can be seen on the south wall inside, and at the east corner a double-bodied grotesque. In the north-east angle is the belfry turret, which terminates in a very pleasing broached spire; but the porch, which occupied the angle between the chapel and the domestic buildings, is all destroyed.

Of the _Domestic Buildings_ to the north-west less remains than of any other part. The well of the palace is to be seen in a crypt, and a fine example of a stone chimney-place with brackets, like the one in the library of the cathedral, is also worthy of notice. The northern side was probably used for stables, and the foundations for the enclosing wall on the north-east side can still be traced.

In conclusion, it must be remembered that the very high regard in which St. David’s was held as a pilgrims’ haven, particularly in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and that the Bishop was bound to entertain all who came, necessitated a very large guest-house, and here, indeed, was one which was deemed worthy of the attention even of royalty on many occasions.

APPENDIX I.

BISHOPS OF ST. DAVID’S.[99]

[601] David Cynog Teilo Ceneu Morfael Haerwnen Elwaed Gwrnwen Llunwerth Gwrgwyst Gwgan Clydawg Eineon Elfod Ethelman Elanc Maelsgwd [831] Sadurnfen Cadell Sulhaithnay 840. Novis Idwal Asser Arthwael Samson Ruelin [961] Rhydderch Elwin Morbiw 873. Llunwerth 944. Eneuris Hubert Ivor [999] Morgeneu Nathan Ieuan Arwystl [1023] Morgeneu 1023. Ervin 1039. Trahaearn [1061] Joseph 1061. Bleiddud 1071. Sulien 1076. Abraham 1078. Sulien (again) 1088. Rhyddmarch 1096. Griffri 1115. Bernard 1147. David Fitz-Gerald 1176. Peter de Leiâ 1204. Geoffrey de Henelawe 1215. Iorwerth, alias Gervase 1230. Anselm de la Grace 1284. Thomas Wallensis 1256. Richard de Carew 1280. Thomas Beck 1293. David Martyn 1328. Henry de Gower 1347. John Thoresby 1350. Reginald Brian 1353. Thomas Fastolfe 1361. Adam Houghton 1389. John Gilbert 1397. Guy Mone 1408. Henry Chicheley 1414. John Catterick 1415. Stephen Patrington 1418. Benedict Nicholls 1433. Thomas Rodburne 1442. William Lyndwood 1447. John Langton 1447. John Delabere 1460. Robert Tully 1482. Richard Martin 1483. Thomas Langton 1485. Hugh Pavy 1496. John Morgan 1505. Robert Sherborne 1509. Edward Vaughan 1523. Richard Rawlins 1536. William Barlow 1548. Robert Ferrar 1554. Henry Morgan 1559. Thomas Young 1561. Richard Davies 1582. Marmaduke Middleton 1594. Anthony Rudd 1615. Richard Milbourne 1621. William Laud 1627. Theophilus Field 1635. Roger Mainwaring 1660. William Lucy 1677. William Thomas 1683. Laurence Wornack 1686. John Lloyd 1687. Thomas Watson 1705. George Bull 1710. Philip Bisse 1713. Adam Ottley 1723. Richard Smallbrooke 1730. Elias Sydall 1731. Nicholas Claggett 1742. Edward Willes 1743. Hon. Richard Trevor 1752. Anthony Ellis 1761. Samuel Squire 1766. Robert Lowth 1766. Charles Moss 1774. Hon. James Yorke 1779. John Warren 1783. Edward Smallwell 1788. Samuel Horsley 1793. Hon. William Stuart 1800. Lord George Murray 1803. Thomas Burgess 1825. John Banks Jenkinson 1840. Connop Thirlwall 1874. Basil Jones John Owen

PRECENTORS[100] (DEANS FROM 1840).

1224. Richard W---- [1237] Philip [1254] Richard Pue [1287] John de Swinssey [1300] Thomas Barry 1328. Richard de Musselwick [1334] David Barret 1339. Adam Houghton [1352] David Ley [1399] John Noke 1413. Thomas Wollaston 1437. Hugh ab Owen 1486. Richard Machen 1492. John Howell 1509. Lewis ap Rhys 1534. Thomas Lloyd 1547. Thomas Young 1554. Morgan Phillips 1558. Thomas Young 1560. Thomas Huett 1591. Roger Gyfforde 1596. William Hinton 1631. Griffith Higgs 1660. William Thomas 1663. Richard Watson 1677. John Ellis 1693. Charles Pryse 1696. Hugh Powell 1717. John Davies 1733. John Pember 1735. Joseph Hill 1753. John Morgan 1774. John Jekyll 1777. Francis Wollaston 1816. Richard Richardson 1839. Llewelyn Lewellin (assumed the title of Dean in 1840) 1878. James Allen 1897. Evan Owen Phillips 1897. H. Howell

ORGANISTS OF ST. DAVID’S CATHEDRAL.[101]

Walter Warryn 1490 Priest Vicars[102] officiated from 1490-1563 John Norman 1509-1522 Thomas Elliott 1563-1577 Priest Vicars officiated in turn 1577-1713 R. Mordant 1713-1714 (Lay Vicar Choral) Henry Mordant 1714-1719 (Son of the preceding Lay Vicar Choral) Richard Tomkins 1719-1719 (Lay Vicar Choral) William Bishop 1719-1720 (Lay Vicar Choral) Henry Williams 1720-1725 Matthew Maddox 1725-1734 (Lay Vicar Choral) Matthew Philpott 1734-1793 (Lay Vicar Choral) Arthur Richardson 1793-1826 (Lay Vicar Choral, also tuner of the organ. Died 1826?) John Barrett 1827-1851 (Lay Vicar Choral) William Peregrine Propert, LL.D. and M.A., Cantab.; Mus.B., Oxon. 1851-1883 (A Lay Vicar Choral of the Cathedral. During the restoration of the Cathedral, 1864-1883, the organ was not in use) Frederick S. Garton 1883-1894 (Organist of St. Martin’s, Haverfordwest, 1894) D. John D. Codner 1894-1896 (Born 1851. Organist of St. Bride’s, Fleet Street, E.C.) Herbert C. Morris, F.R.C.O. 1896 (Born at Coventry, June 18, 1873)

APPENDIX II

EXTRACTS FROM SIR G. G. SCOTT’S REPORT TO THE DEAN AND CHAPTER, 1869

By reference to my first Report, addressed to the Dean and Chapter in 1862, it will be seen that, while the entire building was reported to be in a state of the most severe dilapidation, and some portions actually in ruins, the greatest immediate danger was to be apprehended from the tower, the crushed condition of two of whose sustaining piers rendered its fall an event by no means improbable--a catastrophe which would probably involve the destruction of a large portion of the church.

Before, therefore, embarking upon any other works of restoration, it was determined to take immediate measures for the removal of this great danger, and, while the first contract united with this the restoration of the choir, the actual work in the first instance undertaken, excepting only some necessary works of drainage, was limited to this “article of a standing or a falling church.”

At the risk of being tedious, I will repeat here a detailed description of these most dangerous and difficult operations, which I wrote immediately after their completion, in a private Report to the Bishop:--

“I do not hesitate to tell you that the operations thus in the main completed, have caused me the greatest anxiety; for, although it has been my lot to apply the same process to five other central towers, and though I have, in each instance, undertaken it not without much trepidation, I have never met with a case so serious, and involving so great an amount of apparent and actual danger, as that of your Cathedral; for not only is the tower far larger and of vastly greater weight than any other on which I have been called to operate, but its two western piers were more alarmingly shattered than anything I have witnessed elsewhere. I take the liberty of quoting the following passage from my first Report, as showing what were my impressions on this point after my original survey, and they have been more than verified by the result:--

“‘The present condition of the tower is in the highest degree alarming, and till it is restored to a state of security, it is quite useless to think of any extensive reparation of other parts of the building.

“‘The western piers consist each of two portions, the parts towards the nave belonging to De Leiâ’s work of the twelfth century, and those towards the transepts having been added after the catastrophe of 1220. Of these, the older or western portions are literally, at least so far as they are open to examination, shattered to fragments, and the same process has extended itself in a less degree into the later or eastern parts of each pier; in fact, the only security which the tower has from actually falling, is the buttressing it sustains from the walls of the transepts and the nave, though the latter have themselves severely suffered under the undue pressure thus brought upon them.

“‘The arch facing the nave is very much injured, and the wall which it sustains, up to the commencement of the later stages, is utterly disintegrated, so much so as to render it dangerous very closely to investigate the defects; and the same state of disintegration extends itself some feet into the north and south walls, but especially the former, which is at this point crushed throughout its whole thickness.

“‘It will be seen from what I have stated, that the whole remaining portion of the first tower is crushed and left at the mercy of the various walls which abut against, and, so to speak, bolster it up; and that this terrible failure extends itself to a certain distance into the later and, in themselves, better constructed portions; in fact, that of the four supports of the tower, two are sound, and two wholly untrustworthy.’

“It will be seen from the above, that the object to be aimed at was little (if anything) less than the rebuilding from their foundation of two of the four piers which sustained the tower, each of them bearing a load of 1,150 tons, which had to be supported by timber shoring during the operation.

“Our first work, however, was to take measures for binding together, and otherwise strengthening the tower itself, so as to avoid the danger of its becoming fractured, or otherwise injured, during the reconstruction of its supporting piers; and this was rendered the more necessary by the disintegrated state of the lower walls immediately resting on the arches, and the enormous cracks by which the north and south walls were rent throughout their entire height. This object was attained by the introduction of permanent iron ties of great strength, at several different levels, binding all the walls together; by the use of temporary girders of massive timber-work round the exterior of the tower, throughout the greater part of its height; and by repairing with new stone and strong cement many parts of the disintegrated walls.

“The shoring by which the weight of the western half of the tower has been temporarily supported is of three descriptions--1st, direct supports under the western, northern, and southern arches (the two former consisting of timber framing, and the latter being provided by an old stone wall, by which the arch was blocked); 2ndly, vertical shores of immense strength, supporting “needles,” or horizontal masses of timber, passing through the walls; and 3rdly, by ‘raking’ or inclined shores abutting against the walls in all directions, and both supporting weight and preventing lateral motion. All these had to be provided with firm foundations, having to bear the actual weight of the tower. The magnitude of the work may be judged of when I mention that, of the six main supports of the ‘needles,’ two consisted each of _nine_, and the others of _six_ full-sized balks of timber, bound together into one mass by irons, and thus making timber supports, the first 3 feet 6 inches square, and the others 3 feet 6 inches by 2 feet 4 inches in thickness, and all of them 36 feet in length. The ‘needles’ are of oak, 2 feet 4 inches deep and 2 feet 4 inches thick, and shod with wrought iron. The raking shores are arranged in systematic groups, giving supports at all heights, from immediately over the piers to nearly the top of the tower.

“The shoring has required the use of nearly 12,000 cubic feet of timber.

“The state of the west wall of the tower was rendered alarmingly apparent by the difficulties encountered in making the holes for the ‘needles.’

“Mr. Clear, the Clerk of the Works, and myself, foreseeing some difficulty, arranged a plan by which, before cutting through the wall, a sort of tunnel of strong stone should be formed through it, by inserting the stones, one at a time, in the shattered rubble work, and then removing the enclosed wall. This was done, with some difficulty, to a depth of 2 feet from either side, but as the wall is 6 feet thick, there remained 2 feet in the middle untunnelled, and when the enclosed wall was attempted to be removed, the middle mass began to pour out like an avalanche, which was only stopped by the immediate insertion of sand-bags, and by subsequently running the wall from above with liquid cement, and thus solidifying the disintegrated rubbish.

“These systems of supports having been completed, the actual operations commenced, and for this another and less permanent system of shoring was requisite. If the main shoring may be compared to the solid masses of an army, those I am now speaking of may be viewed as the _skirmishers_. They consist of needles and props inserted immediately above the part to be operated on, and supporting a portion of the shattered pier while that below it was renewed, and as soon as this was effected, a new needle was inserted above the first one, to make way for the renewal of another batch, each lower needle being in its turn removed, when that above it was secured. Besides this, however, endless extemporised precautions had at every hour to be taken, to provide against contingencies which were ever arising; blocks of timber inserted under stones threatening to fall; struts and shields against masses in danger of bursting; sand-bags, &c., against the rushing out of the avalanches of rubbish; temporarily running together, with liquid cement, of parts which, though eventually to be removed, had not yet been reached, and threatened, if not consolidated, to bury the workmen in their ruins. All these, and many more precautions, had to be taken to meet the exigencies of every day and every hour; and when it is considered that each pier took months to reinstate, that these dangerous operations could not, in many cases, be suspended day or night, and that the Clerk of the Works would never leave the spot while any dangerous work was pending, you may judge of the wearing anxiety which he and others engaged in the work have undergone.

“By the process I have thus briefly sketched, the entire piers, excepting a small central portion, have been rebuilt from their foundations to their capitals; the new stone-work having to be inserted a little at a time, has been aided, in all cases, by strong copper cramps, so as to tie its courses together in their circuit round the pier.

“All the stones are laid in strong cement, and all that remains within of the old work is run together at each course with liquid cement till it will hold no more. I saw, myself, ten pails full of this material poured into a single hole.

“The stone made use of is the purple stone of the neighbouring cliffs, and closely resembles the old stone, though somewhat harder, and is worked in a similar manner. Any old stones which are unshattered (of which I regret to say that but very few were found) have been re-used.

“I had hoped that the southern pier, which was the second operated upon, would have proved less dangerous than the northern one, but on a close examination of it, just before the work on it was commenced, I found that it was really as much shattered as the other had been, and, in point of fact, was ready to burst at the middle of its height. The Clerk of the Works, when he reached this point, told me that a cat could walk in and out of the cracks which intersected the pier!

“I have been the more minute in describing our operations, and the state in which we found the old piers to be, because, when such a work is completed, there is a tendency to forget, or to discredit, the danger which has been avoided; indeed, to any one who sees the piers as now reconstructed, it would be impossible to believe that the tower could have stood on such masses of shattered fragments as those which they have replaced.”

At the time that the above description was written the shoring had not been removed. This has now been the case for several years, and the piers, I am thankful to say, have sustained the weight perfectly.

When the crushed substructure had been thus rendered trustworthy, we not only proceeded with the restoration of the remainder of the choir, which formed a part of the same contract, but your orders were given to proceed also with the repairs of the upper portions of the tower, which were sadly dilapidated, and with the aisles of the choir, one of which had long been in ruins and roofless, and the other in but little better condition.

(For extract here see pp. 16-19, _ante_.)

I have had to bear some little ridicule for taking down the dead wall, by which the sides had been heightened, and building it up again. I can only say that the roof having been of necessity temporarily removed, and these additions to the walls, being devoid of any character or value of their own, being a mine of wealth in the debris they contained, I simply worked them _as a mine_, and having obtained the treasure which lay hidden within them, I reconstructed them with their old materials.

In doing this we discovered the curious eaves-course and gutters of the original roof, which is of a remarkable construction, and is now exposed to view with some restoration.

Among the timbers of the later roof were found portions of that of the earlier date, shewing that it was perfectly plain, though massive, and of the cradled form so usual at early periods.

The design of the early stonework of the eastern arm, apart from its intrinsic merits, is interesting from the evidences it presents of its _double_ date, being a union of the original work of Bishop De Leiâ (begun in 1180) with that resulting from the reparations after the fall of the tower in 1220. The tower falling eastward would of course destroy the parts immediately adjoining it, and it would appear that it, by the fall of its upper portions, must also have reached and damaged the eastern wall.

We accordingly find that, while the eastward portions of the side walls and the lower parts of the east end are of the original date, the western bays of the sides and the upper parts of the end are of the later date. This is made very manifest on the south side of the clerestory by a triforium passage, originally communicating with that in the south transept, but which was omitted in the reconstructed parts, thus cutting off the communication.

Curiously enough, we also find that in the reconstructed portions of the sides a very marked preparation was commenced for vaulting, which, however, was suspended at a few feet in height, and on one side niches added just where the groining arches would come; while at the east end the upper range of windows (as already mentioned) was designed without reference to vaulting.

We made a curious discovery in the eastern end, where a walled-up arch was visible below the cill of the central window in Bishop Vaughan’s Chapel (formerly the exterior of the end). On opening this we found it to be a deep recess into the thickness of the wall, at the back of which are some ornamental crosses of the older period, in the principal of which (which is very beautiful) the intervals between the arms of the cross are perforated through into the interior, opening just behind the high altar, as if to allow a person while kneeling in the external recess to participate in the services going on within.

Returning for a moment to the choir roof, I will mention that we have restored it precisely to its old form, retaining every part not unfitted by decay. The chief exceptions are the beams, which were hopelessly decayed, and which were of so great a size as to cause us much difficulty and delay in obtaining trees of sufficient size to contain them. They were eventually procured from Radnorshire, Shropshire, Herefordshire, and the Forest of Dean.

The old roof was decorated throughout with colour, which has been carefully restored. The panels had been repainted in the seventeenth century, in a discordant style; these have been now decorated in a manner agreeing with the older work.

The roof contains ancient shields, bearing the arms of Bishop Tully, the Earl of Richmond, Roderic the Great, Bishop Martin, Owen Poole, treasurer to the church; the arms of France and England quartered; those of Edward V., Richard III., and (perhaps) Henry VII., of Rhys ap Tudor and of Bishop Young. Those which were affixed to the corbels had been obliterated, and have been supplied by the arms of the present bishop, dean, canons, and archdeacons, thus marking the period of the restoration.

The walls, pillars, arches, &c., of the eastern arm, are now put into a thorough state of repair; and the beauty of the interior will be greatly increased by the munificence of the Rev. John Lucy, of Hampton Lucy, in Warwickshire, who, as a memorial of Bishop Lucy, a member of the ancient family to which he belongs, has undertaken to fill the upper tier of windows in the east end with stained glass, and the lower tier (blocked up by Bishop Vaughan’s Chapel) with Venetian enamel mosaic work, the opaque co-relative of stained glass, though a much more costly form of art. This will give to these noble lancets just the relief and beauty which they had lost when deprived of their light, and that in a form more unique and striking than stained glass itself. I had in my first report suggested for these blank windows that “possibly some more durable kind of decoration (than painting) may be introduced,” and Mr. Lucy’s benefaction precisely meets the want.[103]

The aisles of the eastern arm, which owing to their ruined condition had been walled off, have now been opened out and brought back to a perfect state, which of course brings out the beauty of the interior in a very marked degree. In opening the second arch from the east the old sedilia were found. They are of wood, and of the fifteenth century. These have been carefully restored. The piscina, which occupied the south-eastern arch, is too ruined for its design to be recovered, though I think that a beautiful basin dug up in the churchyard must have belonged to it. Three arches on the north side are occupied by ancient tombs (including the substructure of St. David’s shrine). These are a good deal ruined, and must be in some degree restored. The tombs similarly placed in the northern arch of the tower, and which had to be removed for the repairs, have been carefully replaced.

The aisles of the choir have been twice prepared for vaulting, first in the original structure, and again when the aisles were widened, and the walls raised and remodelled, by Bishop Gower. I doubt whether in either case it was carried out, as I could find no evidences of it on the inner side, and after some perplexity I determined not to attempt it, but to cover them with handsome oak roofs, suited in character to Bishop Gower’s work.

The windows were in a most ruined condition. We found on the north side evidences of the old form of their tracery, which we have followed. Those of the south aisle had no remains of the tracery left, and even the jambs were so shattered that it was only by a fragment here and there that the mouldings were recovered. These were found to be curiously varied, out of four windows two only being alike. The tracery introduced has been founded on fragmentary evidences from other parts of the church of the same date.

One thing caused us a little puzzle: we found the remains of windows in _all four bays_, though the westernmost of them would be blocked up by the eastern aisle of the transept. On close scrutiny, however, we found that the place of this aisle was at first only occupied by a single chapel,[104] with a space between it and the aisle of the choir, which had been at a later period built over, so as to form the aisle which stopped the window in question. This we have restored to its older form, at the same time repairing the adjoining stair turret of the transept, which was in a dangerous state.

I will now return to the space beneath the tower, which in this church is the _choir_ proper, as containing the stalls; the eastern arm of the church being more correctly the _presbytery_.

The great engineering works already described necessitated the temporary removal of the stalls. They have subsequently been restored to their old position, and have undergone a most careful process of reparation. On close examination they were found to have been deprived of many of the more delicate of their decorative details. These have been or still are in process of being restored from fragments, more or less extensive, which have been discovered; the greatest care being taken to preserve the ancient work as nearly untouched as is possible. The whole is a very excellent and interesting specimen of ancient woodwork, and retains traces of coloured decoration, including some armorial bearings.

The same process of careful reparation has been applied to the Bishop’s throne, and the unique screen, which severs the choir proper from the presbytery, neither of which have been moved from their positions, but have been repaired as they stood. The similarity of the panels of the lower parts of the screen and the throne, show them to be practically one work. I suppose their date to be late in the fourteenth or early in the fifteenth century. Both are very curious and valuable ancient works. I am aware that the conservative manner in which they have been dealt with has provoked some criticism from those who undervalue these relics of ancient workmanship. For myself, I do not hesitate to express my high satisfaction at the manner in which they have been both preserved and restored; and I trust that the hand of spoliation and innovation will never be permitted to tamper with the works I have thus endeavoured to hand down in their integrity to future generations.

(For extract here see pp. 30-32, _ante_.)

One thing I will mention which stands, I think, alone, as a deliberate deviation on my part from the old work.

Bishop Gower, in building the middle stage of the tower, had made it form a fine lantern storey to the choir. Late in the fifteenth or early in the sixteenth century, wooden groining had been introduced, which, strangely enough, cut Gower’s lantern windows in two, entirely hiding their traceried heads. I have done away with this desight, by lifting the wood groining a stage higher, so as to show Gower’s windows in their integrity, which forms the lantern into a very fine feature. I trust that, as regards the general principle of _conservative restoration_, this exception will be accepted as one of the class which _proves the rule_. The wood groining was decorated with colour, and has been repainted.

* * * * *

Since the date of the last Report the works have been proceeding. The restoration of the roofs of the nave and south aisle with their ceilings has been accomplished. The clerestory of the nave has been fully restored externally and internally; some of its windows which had been walled up have been opened out, and the whole of them have been reglazed.

In carrying out this portion of the work it was found that the parapets had been corbelled in the same manner as those of the presbytery, although the corbels had been cut off flush with the face of the wall. Fortunately in a sheltered corner next the tower two or three of the corbels remained in a perfect state; these have been the guide in the restoration. The parapet was probably of less height originally, but the position of the sixteenth century roof would not allow of the height being kept lower than at present.

The ceiling of the south aisle, which until lately was open, showing the rough timbers above, has been panelled in completion of the ancient design. The parapet and pinnacles have also been repaired.

The walls internally of the nave and south aisle and the piers and arches have been cleaned, restored, and pointed.

The north transept has been groined in oak, carrying out the design which had been commenced in stone. The modern roof, which was truncated and of very slight timbers, has been strengthened, and the pitch carried up to fit the fifteenth century gable. The ruined pinnacle at the north-west angle has been completed.

Whilst speaking of this transept, it will be well to call attention to the doorway on the western side, which was originally of considerable width, but at a period very shortly after its erection was narrowed, the later jamb with its shaft, cap, and base being precisely like the original jamb which remains built up in the wall; and at a still later period the doorway appears to have been walled up to form a recess, in which was placed a hollowed stone sink with a stone shoot projecting through the wall.

The roofs of Bishop Vaughan’s Chapel and of the cross aisle eastward (page 6) have been thoroughly repaired and releaded.

The works now in progress (July, 1873) are the reparation of the roof of the north aisle of the nave and the restoration of the upper part of the Chapter-house building. The windows in the north aisle, two of which have lost their tracery, are being restored, and the walls internally will be cleaned.

The modern roof of the Chapter-house building, which has for years been in a very unsafe condition, is now being removed, and will be replaced by a new roof covered with lead. The walls, &c., of the upper part of the building will be restored as far down as the floor of the Chapter-house. This will include the completion of the triangular window in the gable, and the windows in the north side of the uppermost storey or “Treasury.” The window in the north wall of the Chapter-house has enough of its tracery remaining to enable the design to be completed with certainty, and will be restored. The pinnacles flanking the eastern gable, which are of very curious design, will be completed.

The cost of these works on the Chapter-house building is being defrayed by one of the Canons Residentiary, to whose liberality the new roof and groined ceiling of the north transept, and the renewal of the roofs of Bishop Vaughan’s Chapel, and of the adjacent ante-chapel are also due.

Now that the substantial repair of the nave with its aisles is so nearly completed, the nave should without further delay be paved and provided with fittings for the parochial services.

The pavement of the north transept should follow, with the restoration of St. Thomas’s Chapel, stone tracery being substituted for its present wooden window-frames, and an open screen for the existing partition between it and the transept.

The south transept should be dealt with in a similar manner to the northern one. The unseemly condition of its roof is rendered more apparent by contrast with the restored roofs and ceilings of other parts of the church.

There would still remain the porch, with sundry external repairs to the north and south aisles. There is also the eastern group of unroofed chapels, for which some provision should be made, to prevent further dilapidation to their walls and injury to the delicately wrought tombs still remaining within them.

It is unnecessary at present to give estimates for the works enumerated above, or for the amelioration of the western front.

The extent to which these very desirable objects will be effected, must depend on the liberality with which the present appeal is responded to.

The outlay and liabilities up to the present time are--for the Drainage, £500; the Tower, with the Presbytery and its Aisles, £15,700; the South Transept Chapel and Stair Turret, £600; the Nave and its Aisles, £6,500.

CHISWICK PRESS: PRINTED BY CHARLES WHITTINGHAM AND CO. TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.

DIMENSIONS OF THE CATHEDRAL.

Total length (interior) 298 feet. Length of nave 130 “ “ from crossing to E. wall of choir 56 “ Width of nave and choir 68 “ Length along transept 131 “ “ of crossing (E. to W.) 30 “

Area 21,950 sq. ft.

* * * * *

Bell’s Cathedral Series.

_Profusely Illustrated. Cloth, crown 8vo, =1s. 6d.= net each._

NOW READY.

CANTERBURY. By HARTLEY WITHERS. 3rd Edition, revised. CARLISLE. By C. K. ELEY. CHESTER. By CHARLES HIATT. 2nd Edition, revised. DURHAM. By J. E. BYGATE, A.R.C.A. 2nd Edition. EXETER. By PERCY ADDLESHAW, B.A. 2nd Edition. GLOUCESTER. By H. J. L. J. MASSÉ, M.A. 2nd Edition. HEREFORD. By A. HUGH FISHER, A. R. E. LICHFIELD. By A. B. CLIFTON. 2nd Edition, revised. LINCOLN. By A. F. KENDRICK, B.A. 2nd Edition, revised. NORWICH. By C. H. B. QUENNELL. 2nd Edition. OXFORD. By Rev. PERCY DEARMER, M.A. 2nd Edition, revised. PETERBOROUGH. By Rev. W. D. SWEETING, M.A. 2nd Edition. ROCHESTER. By G. H. PALMER, B.A. 2nd Edition. ST. PAUL’S. By Rev. ARTHUR DIMOCK, M. A. 2nd Edition, SALISBURY. By GLEESON WHITE. 2nd Edition, revised. SOUTHWELL. By Rev. ARTHUR DIMOCK, M. A. WELLS. By Rev. PERCY DEARMER, M.A. 2nd Edition, revised. WINCHESTER. By P. W. SERGEANT. 2nd Edition, revised. WORCESTER. By EDWARD F. STRANGE. YORK. By A. CLUTTON BROCK. 2nd Edition, revised.

_Preparing._

ST. DAVID’S. By PHILIP ROBSON, A.R.I.B.A. CHICHESTER. By H. C. CORLETTE, A.R.I.B.A. RIPON. By CECIL HALLET, B.A. ELY. By Rev. W. D. SWEETING, M.A. ST. ALBANS. By Rev. W. D. SWEETING, M.A. BRISTOL. By H. J. L. J. MASSÉ, M.A. ST. ASAPH’S and BANGOR. By P. B. IRONSIDE BAX. GLASGOW. By P. MACGREGOR CHALMERS, I.A., F.S.A. (Scot).

_Uniform with above Series. =1s. 6d.= each._

ST. MARTIN’S CHURCH, CANTERBURY. By Rev. CANON ROUTLEDGE, M.A., F.S.A. 24 Illustrations.

BEVERLEY MINSTER. By CHARLES HIATT. 47 Illustrations.

WIMBORNE MINSTER AND CHRISTCHURCH PRIORY. By Rev. T. PERKINS, M.A., F.R.A.S. 65 Illustrations.

TEWKESBURY ABBEY AND DEERHURST PRIORY. By H. J. L. J. MASSÉ, M.A. 44 Illustrations.

WESTMINSTER ABBEY. By CHARLES HIATT.

[_Preparing._

* * * * *

Bell’s Handbooks to Continental Churches.

_Profusely Illustrated. Crown 8vo, Cloth, =2s. 6d.= each._

CHARTRES: The Cathedral and Other Churches. By H. J. L. J. MASSÉ, M.A.

[_Ready._

ROUEN: The Cathedral and Other Churches. By the Rev. T. PERKINS, M.A.

[_Ready._

PARIS (NOTRE-DAME). By CHARLES HIATT.

[_Preparing._

LONDON: GEORGE BELL AND SONS, YORK STREET, COVENT GARDEN, W.C.

* * * * *

Opinions of the Press.

“For the purpose at which they aim they are admirably done, and there are few visitants to any of our noble shrines who will not enjoy their visit the better for being furnished with one of these delightful books, which can be slipped into the pocket and carried with ease, and is yet distinct and legible.... A volume such as that on Canterbury is exactly what we want, and on our next visit we hope to have it with us. It is thoroughly helpful, and the views of the fair city and its noble cathedral are beautiful. Both volumes, moreover, will serve more than a temporary purpose, and are trustworthy as well as delightful.”--_Notes and Queries._

“We have so frequently in these columns urged the want of cheap, well-illustrated, and well-written handbooks to our cathedrals, to take the place of the out-of-date publications of local booksellers, that we are glad to hear that they have been taken in hand by Messrs George Bell & Sons.”--_St. James’s Gazette._

“The volumes are handy in size, moderate in price, well illustrated, and written in a scholarly spirit. The history of cathedral and city is intelligently set forth and accompanied by a descriptive survey of the building in all its detail. The illustrations are copious and well selected, and the series bids fair to become an indispensable companion to the cathedral tourist in England.”--_Times._

“They are nicely produced in good type, on good paper, and contain numerous illustrations, are well written, and very cheap. We should imagine architects and students of architecture will be sure to buy the series as they appear, for they contain in brief much valuable information.”--_British Architect._

“Bell’s ‘Cathedral Series,’ so admirably edited, is more than a description of the various English cathedrals. It will be a valuable historical record, and a work of much service also to the architect. The illustrations are well selected, and in many cases not mere bald architectural drawings but reproductions of exquisite stone fancies, touched in their treatment by and guided by art.”--_Star._

“Each of them contains exactly that amount of information which the intelligent visitor, who is not a specialist, will wish to have. The disposition of the various parts is judiciously proportioned, and the style is very readable. The illustrations supply a further important feature; they are both numerous and good. A series which cannot fail to be welcomed by all who are interested in the ecclesiastical buildings of England.”--_Glasgow Herald._

“Those who, either for purposes of professional study or for a cultured recreation, find it expedient to ‘do’ the English cathedrals will welcome the beginning of Bell’s ‘Cathedral Series.’ This set of books is an attempt to consult, more closely, and in greater detail than the usual guide-books do, the needs of visitors to the cathedral towns. The series cannot but prove markedly successful. In each book a business-like description is given of the fabric of the church to which the volume relates, and an interesting history of the relative diocese. The books are plentifully illustrated, and are thus made attractive as well as instructive. They cannot but prove welcome to all classes of readers interested either in English Church history or in ecclesiastical architecture.”--_Scotsman._

“They have nothing in common with the almost invariably wretched local guides save portability, and their only competitors in the quality and quantity of their contents are very expensive and mostly rare works, each of a size that suggests a packing-case rather than a coat-pocket. The ‘Cathedral Series’ are important compilations concerning history, architecture, and biography, and quite popular enough for such as take any sincere interest in their subjects.”--_Sketch._

LONDON: GEORGE BELL AND SONS

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Jones and Freeman, p. 140.

[2] King’s “Handbook to the Cathedrals of Wales” (Murray), 1887, p. 115.

[3] Winchester central tower fell 1107; Ely central tower in 1321.

[4] J. & F., p. 54.

[5] Report, 1869, p. 16.

[6] Giraldus, “Vita S. Dav.” Ang. Sac. ii. 634.

[7] J. & F., pp. 72-73.

[8] King’s “Handbook,” 1887, plan p. 105.

[9] J. & F., p. 56.

[10] J. & F., p. 161.

[11] P. 127.

[12] King’s “Handbook,” p. 123.

[13] P. 128.

[14] Pronounced _Dice_ locally.

[15] _Vide_ Scott’s Report, 1869.

[16] “El sol pro factura muri in solaris Ste. Cyencis calce & lapid’ & aliis nēriis ad idem opus pertinent, ut palet per billam inde examinat, 100_s_.”--_Lib. Comm._ vol. i., p. 24.

[17] Lib. Com., vol. i., p. 47.

[18] “A Survey of the Cathedral Church of St. David’s” (1715), 8vo, London, 1717.

[19] Browne Willis, p. 8.

[20] J. & F., p. 94.

[21] Manby’s “History and Antiquities of the Parish of St. David’s,” 1801, pp. 20, 30. “Mens. Sac.,” vol. i., p. 23.

[22] J. & F., p. 95. “Mens. Sac.,” vol. ii., Appendix, fol. 54.

[23] “Mens. Sac.,” vol. i., p. 23.

[24] “Guide to St. David’s,” &c., T. J. Bryant, 1896, 12mo, p. 49.

[25] King’s “Handbook,” pp. 143, 144.

[26] J. & F., p. 163.

[27] “Lib. Comm.,” vol. i., p. 15, an. 1490.

[28] _Vide_ Appendix.

[29] _Vide_ Plan, _at end_.

[30] J. & F., p. 129.

[31] “Handbook,” p. 147.

[32] J. & F., pp. 84-85.

[33] J. & F., p. 65.

[34] J. & F., p. 86.

[35] 3 & 4 Vic., c. 113, § I. _Vide_ also p. 94.

[36] J. & F., p. 105.

[37] “Church of Our Fathers,” vol. iii., p. 473.

[38] See _post_, pp. 61, 62.

[39] McKenzie Walcott’s “St. David’s,” p. 17, and “Anglia Sacra,” vol. ii., p. 640.

[40] Two other doings by this Pope are worthy of passing notes. (1) Being a Frenchman, he was the first to make France a traditional ally of the Roman See. (2) He concluded the celebrated Concordat of Worms, 1122, by which the rights of the Roman Church in relation to the Crown were defined.

[41] Given as 1079 in “Anglia Sacra,” p. 649.

[42] “Brut y Twwysogion, sub annis.” Haddan and Stubbs, vol. i., p. 377.

[43] “Anglia Sacra,” p. 651: “Annales Cambriæ,” in ann. 1284.

[44] “St. Justinianus martir 5 die decembris in vigilia Sancti Nicholai; jacet in capella in ecclesia Sancti David sub ejus tumba, confessor Sancti David.”--Itinerarium _Willielmi de Worcestre_ (Nasmyth, 1778, p. 164).

[45] “Anno MLXXXVI. Scrinium Sancti David de Ecclesiâ suâ furator, & juxta civitatem ex toto spoliator.”--_Anglia Sacra_, vol. ii., p. 649.

[46] Gale, “Scriptores,” vol. xv., p. 299.

[47] “Anno MCCLXXV. Incœptum fuit Feretrum Beati David in Ecclesiâ Menevensi.”--_An. Sac._, p 651.

[48] “Mens. Sac.,” vol. i, pp. 255-257.

[49] “Lib. Stat.,” p. 299.

[50] “Browne Willis’ Survey,” pp. 54-55. and 69.

[51] J. & F., p. 105.

[52] “Lib. Stat.,” p. 24.

[53] Removed from the back recently. J. & F., p. 103.

[54] P. 69.

[55] “Anglia Sacra,” vol. ii., p. 547.

[56] Fenton’s “Pembroke,” p. 84.

[57] Freeman, p. 155. King’s “Handbook,” p. 148.

[58] Report, 1869, p. 21.

[59] George Owen’s MS. history, see Fenton, p. 98.

[60] J. & F., p. 152.

[61] J. & F., p. 70.

[62] During Scott’s restoration this was subsequently found to be a recess only (of De Leiâ’s period).

[63] P. 52.

[64] Briant, p. 67.

[65] J. & F., p. 96.

[66] “I take it to be This Bp. who began S. Mary’s Chapel, & that He lies buried in it on yᵉ N. Side, which Tomb is by Mistake said to be Bp. Houghton’s.” “Mens. Sac.,” vol. i., p. 49. J. & F., p. 121. Fenton, p. 87, _note_.

[67] King, “Handbook,” 1873.

[68] On Plan No. 4.

[69] Browne Willis, opp. p. 1.

[70] J. & F., p. 71.

[71] Browne Willis, p. 4.

[72] Now wrought iron (_vide_ opposite).

[73] P. 108.

[74] Finton, p. 423, gives a similar design.

[75] J. & F., p. 159.

[76] “Mens. Sac.,” p. 232.

[77] See p. 36.

[78] Fenton, p. 73.

[79] P. 112.

[80] J. & F., p. 112, from Browne Willis.

[81] “Survey,” p. 12.

[82] Pp. 68-69.

[83] J. & F., p. 113.

[84] J. & F., p. 114.

[85] For a learned disquisition on these tombs see Jones and Freeman, pp. 114-116.

[86] Browne Willis, p. 101.

[87] J. & F., p. 116.

[88] T. J. Briant, p. 54.

[89] McKenzie Walcott, p. 16.

[90] Formerly a charnel-house (Browne Willis, p. 25).

[91] See plates, pp. 2 and 7.

[92] King, 1887, p. 239; Briant, p. 71.

[93] _Vide_ Campbell’s “Lives of the Chancellors.”

[94] Reference to the plan on page 10 is here desirable.

[95] J. & F., p. 330.

[96] _Ibid._, p. 189.

[97] J. & F., p. 190; _Lib. Stat._, p. 24.

[98] The references are to the plan on p. 10.

[99] J. & F., pp. 358, 359.

[100] The List of Precentors is from Eardley as far as the middle of the eighteenth century, from the Cathedral Registers from then to 1854. Freeman (footnote p. 358) states that the Registers have never been very carefully kept, but both lists were revised by Le Neve’s “Fasti” (ed. Hardy); the accuracy of this latter, however, is not very remarkable.

[101] Condensed from pp. 76-77 “Cathedral Organists,” by J. C. West, 8vo, London, 1899, which was apparently compiled from information supplied by D. J. D. Codner.

[102] “Mens. Sacra.”

[103] The stained glass and mosaics have since been fixed. Mr. Lucy has also undertaken the repair of the Earl of Richmond’s altar-tomb in the presbytery.

[104] This chapel was added in the fourteenth century, being a part of Gower’s work. Its extension into an aisle was probably of modern date. It will be seen that the old base-moulds concealed by that extension still remain.

End of Project Gutenberg's Bell's Cathedrals: St. David's, by Philip A. Robson