oi i cell alee 
By the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Salisbury. 177 
by Cassan, and quoted by Mr. Fitzherbert Macdonald, has naturally 
been generally accepted as the true account. It does not much 
matter whether the dilapidation was the work of Hayles, as the 
bishop says, or of Van Ling, a Dutchman, as Dr. Pope says, for 
both might have been concerned. But Pope’s statement—* His 
expenses in altering, repairing and re-building amounted to above 
£2000, there being little or nothing done in order to it by his pre- 
decessors, who had the cream of the Bishoprick ?’?—gives a false 
impression. It no doubt represents his recollections of the bishop’s 
grumbles before the suit was decided. But, asa matter of fact, of 
the £1676 accounted for in the “ Notitiw,” £1375 was charged to 
the preceeding bishops. It may be interesting to give the names 
of the workmen employed on this building :—the carpenters were 
John and Augustine Curtis; the masons, William Romsey and 
Henry Lakes, and again Anthony Robertson and Roger Knight ; 
the glaziers, Charles Horton and Henry Burges; the plombers, 
John Smith and Charles Horton. The smiths are not mentioned. 
Knight also appears as a heliar (or haulier). The architect who 
estimated the whole cost, and who witnessed the signatures of the 
different tradesmen, or as they are called persons of each profession, 
was James Harris, who seems to have been employed by Bishop 
Ward as early as December, 1668. Robert Matthew and Robert 
Hole also witnessed the signatures, possibly as partners of Harris. 
I will conclude by referring to three scenes in the inner life of 
the palace, the first from the history of Bishop Jewel, who was the 
first bishop after the Reformation, and also the first who resided at 
Salisbury for a considerable time. He had a great many new and 
good traditions to introduce as well as old superstitions to eradicate. 
Le Bas, in his “ Life of Jewel,” thus describes one of the good 
traditions introduced by Bishop Jewel :— 
“To friendless worth and scholarship (wrote the biographer) his hand and 
heart were always open. He had generally domesticated with him some half- 
dozen lads of humble parentage, whom at his own charge he trained up to 
the pursuits of learning. And it was one of his favourite recreations to hear 
them dispute, during his meal, and under his own directions, upon questions 
arising out of their daily task. In addition to this he allowed a daily pension, 
for their maintenance, to several youthful students at the university; and 
