7 
7) 
4 
} 
i 
4 
the Virgin, Bishops Cannings. 18 
The cock had lost its head, and the shape of the fragment was 
as shewn in Fig. 11, Plate II. Mr. Ewart thereupon either took 
it as representing a sea-god—(and the form of the tail is very sug- 
gestive)—or he used the term “ Triton” as a representative one, 
the sea-monster with long tail and broad breast being not infre- 
quently employed as a weathercock; and tritons were said to be 
weatherwise, and, under Neptune, had the superintendence of storms. 
The conventional form of the cock (which is of copper, not of 
iron, as the discolouration of the metal apparently led Mr. Ewart 
to believe) pointed to the conclusion that it was of medieval origin, 
and I considered it contemporary with the erection of the fifteenth 
century spire. On a scaffold being raised for the repair of the spire, 
advantage was taken of this to compare the weathercock with the 
top of the cross, when it was clearly shewn that the hope expressed 
in line 5 of Mr. Ewart’s inscription had been anticipated; that the 
cross (the stem of which was built 9ft. into the stone-work of the 
spire) was the original one, and that it was formerly surmounted by 
the weathercock, their separation having been caused by the cutting 
off of the spindle through friction. Disregarding, therefore, the 
desire expressed for well-merited rest, we agreed to restore the head, 
as shewn by the dotted lines in the sketch, and re-mount the bird on 
its former lofty perch, “ above holy walls,” where we trust that it 
may yet, “through long generations of years give warning of 
rains and sweeping winds,” 
C. E. .P, 
