10 The Forty-Fourth General Meeting. 
daughters of the occupier, Mr. Dansey. The room over this is also 
good, the date apparently very early in the 17th century. The 
stables, of early 18th century date, with their oak stalls and rooms 
over, are quite worth notice too. Altogether the group of buildings 
at Beanacre is an extremely interesting one, and ought to be 
adequately described and illustrated. 
Melksham Church was the next item on the programme. 
Here the Vicar, Rev. E. G. Wytp, described the building, and 
showed the interesting pre-Reformation paten, and the Elizabethan 
chalices which Canon Warre secured for the use of the parish. 
After this the party adjourned to the neighbouring barn, converted 
now into a school, for luncheon—and then entered the carriages 
again and drove to Seend, passing on the way “ Woolmer,” or ~ 
“Bower”? House, of red brick with stone dressings, dated 1631, 
and the old oak tree on which, according to local tradition, Cromwell 
caused three men of his own army to be hung for pillaging. Time 
unfortunately did not allow of a stoppage to examine the old house. 
Seend Church was described by Mr. Ponrtne, but the time 
available for examining it was somewhat short, and the Secretary’s 
trumpet was soon calling the party together to depart for Keevil. 
Here the first thing to be seen was Mrs. Kenrick’s well-known 
15th Century wooden mansion, second only in Wiltshire 
to the Church House at Potterne. Here Mr. Adye, who restored 
the building for Mrs. Kenrick, described the house; and after the 
Members had wandered through the hall, the drawing-room—with 
its restored ‘“ beasts’? painted on the wall, and remarkable panelled 
oak ceiling 
and the many rooms upstairs—filled, as the whole 
house is, with old furniture, china, and curiosities of every kind— 
they adjourned to the garden for tea, kindly provided there by 
Mrs. Kenrick. The garden is in itself quite worth seeing, and with 
the house hung with creepers as a background makes a singularly 
charming picture. Mr. Anys, while discoursing on the architecture 
of the building, relied on the arms of the Earl of Arundel painted 
on the gallery of the hall as giving the date of its erection—a 
conclusion which Mr. Tarnor dissented from—holding that the 
original arms, of which the present shield is a restoration, were 
