Pry 
was not the Church of the Priory. 1] 
‘recorded measurements of the Monastic Church corresponded very 
‘closely with those of the present Church. There was a great 
difference in the length of the two naves. 
Canon Jackson says that the first impression, produced on his 
mind, by the reference to the chancel of the Parish Church, was 
that there were two large Churches, and this is the natural meaning 
‘of the words, viz., that the Parish Church was not the Priory 
Church. The obvious explanation is that the Earl of Hertford 
was the lay Rector, and, as such, liable to repair the chancel of the 
Parish Church. 
Now, with regard to the absence of any trace or tradition of any 
other large Church, what is there extraordinary in that? The 
records show that the Priory Church was condemned to be de- 
molished, and was demolished. The domestic buildings of the 
Priory have also entirely disappeared. Under these circumstances, 
there could be no visible trace of the Priory Church, and it is very 
unlikely that there would be any remaining tradition. 
On the other hand, if this Church had really been the Priory 
Church, it is probable that the name would have remained, as in 
the case of Bath Abbey, and also that the fact would not have been 
forgotten. There are cases in which a Monastic Church has become 
a Parish Church, since the Dissolution, as at Malmesbury, where 
all that remained serviceable of the Abbey Church seems to have 
been given to the parishioners by William Stumpe, who acquired 
it from the King, as being better than their former Church, which 
was also dilapidated, and, at Romsey, where the Abbey Church 
was bought by the inhabitants. In these cases, the transaction is 
recorded and well-known, and the name remains, but such is not 
the case at Amesbury. 
When Canon Jackson says that the measurements of the Monastic 
Church corresponded very closely with those of the present Church, 
he seems to have overlooked the great difference in the length of 
the naves altogether. The real state of the case seems to be that, 
in the length of the choir and chancel and in the length of the 
transepts, the two Churches did not differ much, if at all, assuming 
that Canon Jackson is right in thinking that the north and south 
