Bi/ the Rev. J. Baron, D.B., F.S.A. 109 



towards the altar, and measure at the base 2ft. 5in,, from base to 

 apex, 2ft. 11 in. 



At the beginning of the recent restoration, many said, " How 

 strange and inconvenient ! " "A good chancel arch ought to be 

 substituted." 



Fortunately I was able to remember and look up a paper by Mr. 

 John Henry Parker, in the Archaeological Journal for December, 

 1844, " On some Perforations in the Walls o£ Churches.^' In illus- 

 tration of the said paper two similar examples are engraved, one at 

 Ashley Church, Hampshire, as rude as that at Stockton, but with 

 round arches, the other in the old Church of Otterbourne, Hamp- 

 shire, with pointed arches and distinct thirteenth-century ornament. 

 These two examples were sufficient to prove that such an arrange- 

 ment as the east wall of the nave of Stockton Church prevailed, 

 more or less, in the south-west of England from about the time of 

 the Conquest, or much earlier, till the thirteenth century. It is 

 worthy of note that Ashley and Otterbourne are both in the diocese 

 of Winchester. The manor of Stockton was given to the monks of 

 St. Swithun at Winchester, i.e., to the Cathedral there, before the 

 Conquest, and is so recorded in Domesday Survey. The patronage 

 of the Rectory of Stockton remained with the Bishop of Winchester 

 till our own time, and has only recently been transferred to the 

 Bishop of Oxford. 



The little Saxon Church at Bradford-on-Avon, Wilts, has not a 

 chancel arch, in the usual sense of the term, but a doorway instead. 

 Possibly such a doorway, with or without a perforation on each side, 

 may have been common elsewhere, though now obliterated by chancel 

 arch and restoration, as at Yatesbury, Wilts. 



The Rector of that Church, in the Wilis Archaological Magazine 

 for November, 1879, says: "When the Church was restored in 

 1854, it was found necessary to pull down and re-build the chancel 

 arch, which was effected by shoring up the whole of the east end of 

 the nave roof by means of props from below. Though the chancel 

 arch was so small and narrow as to be inconvenient for service, and 

 showed such signs of settlement as to necessitate its removal, it was 

 not without considerable regret that it was taken down ^ as it was 



I 2 



