28 Amesbury Church. Reasons for thinking, &e. 
Church, the building still existing on the east side of north transept, 
the evidence of there having been formerly a building against the 
north wall of the chancel, of there having been two successive 
chapels, on the same site, on the east side of the south transept, and 
the insertion of large 14th century windows, in the north and south 
walls of the chancel. As I said, at first, I found it impracticable 
to attempt a critical description of the Church, and it is not so much 
incumbent upon me to show that these chapels were not those of 
the Priory Church, as for those who hold the opposite opinion to 
prove that they were. 
I admit that those, who hold that opinion, have a very plausible 
and perhaps even a strong argumentative case, but I believe that, 
the more the matter is enquired into, the more it will be found that 
that view is untenable. That it should be further enquired into, 
and, if possible, sifted to the bottom, will, I am sure, be the wish 
of every member of the Wiltshire Archeological and Natural 
History Society. 
In conclusion, I should like to pay a tribute to the memory of 
those very painstaking antiquarians and former inhabitants of 
Amesbury, Mr. Job Edwards and Mr. W. C. Kemm. [If it had 
rested with them, we may be sure that any restoration of Amesbury 
Church would have been carried out in a much more conservative 
manner. I do not think I ever met Mr. Kemm, but I am much 
indebted to him for his description of the Church, though I do not 
agree with his conclusions,! and his pamphlet contains one or two 
obvious fallacies, but he deprecates severe criticism. With Mr. Job 
Edwards I was personally acquainted, and our acquaintance came 
about in rather a curious way. A document of great interest came 
1 That is to say, the conclusions to be inferred from his pamphlet, but Mr. 
Ruddle informs me that Mr. Kemm, in a letter written probably not long 
before his death, reluctantly gave up his belief that the present was the Priory 
Church. This was on account of a difficulty that he found in reconciling the 
dimensions of the Church tower with the recorded dimensions of the spire of 
the Priory Church. The difficulty may possibly not have been insuperable, 
but, at any rate, it appears that Mr. Kemm’s opinion, which seems to have 
been somewhat uncertain throughout, ultimately inclined to the belief that 
the two Churches were not identical. 
