By C. E. Ponting, F.8.A. 217 
so often advanced for openings in this position. Was the chamber 
the kind of anchor-hold described by Mr. Mackenzie Walcott,—the 
openings being to enable the recluse to see the mysteries? Or was 
it not, rather, a watching chamber? The latter would seem to be 
the more probable use. The fact of there being a doorway between 
the chamber and the chancel, and that the outside wall of the latter, 
under the window, bears marks of fire, might be of assistance in 
forming an opinion. Certain it is, however, that all these features, 
including the doorway, are coeval with the chancel, and that their 
original use was abandoned at a very early period; for the filling 
up of the small openings has oyster-shel/s in the joints, and I have 
neyer yet seen nor heard of these having been employed in Post- 
Reformation work. 
In the westernmost bay of the chancel, on the north side, is what 
Canon Jackson refers to, on the same authority, as a “ blocked-up 
door, which once led into the cloister.” This doorway is only 2ft, 
Odin. wide, but it is identical in its jamb and arch mouldings with 
that on the south side, and there are mutilated remains of a similar 
canopy over it. This opening has been built up so cleverly on the 
outside as to entirely remove all traces of it there. I think it 
probable that it opened into a sacristy, for the cloister could hardly 
have extended so far eastward, and it is probable that the cemetery 
of the monastery was on the north of the chancel. 
I may here mention that on the outside of the north-wall of the 
chancel, and in the next bay to the last named is another curious 
niche. It is built up from the projecting plinth, and on rising 
above it the sides are canted off to the wall face. The opening in 
front has tracery of a very “Geometrical” type, the ceiling is 
groined, and the whole is surmounted by an embattled cornice. 
The masonry here has been much scraped away, but I can discern 
three holes in the back of the niche (one of which has a metal rivet 
left in it) in such a position as would seem to indicate that a crucifix 
was fixed to it, facing the cemetery. That this, and also the features 
on the south side are coeval with the original structure is proved, 
not only by the unmistakeable manner in which the masonry of 
the first is jointed, but also by the fact that in both cases the 
Q 2 
