The ArcUUeciural History of Longleat. 227 



therefore be later than 1553, the year of his death, and they are 

 obviously both of the same date. These photographs have no direct 

 connection with Longleat, but are shown as typical examples of 

 Renaissance work, of the time of Edward the Sixth. The connection 

 of Sharington with considerable building operations is certain. His 

 own buildings, at Lacock, of excellent workmanship and showing a 

 strong Italian influence, were in progress in 1548, just about the 

 time of the building of Somerset House, and he was also concerned 

 in building operations, for Lord Seymour of Sudeley, the brother of 

 the Protector Somerset, about the same time.^ 



I naturally expected, after reading Canon Jackson's first paper, 

 to find, at Longleat, work very similar to the work at Lacock. 

 I am not referring, however, so much, to these tables, as to 

 other architectural features, particularly the windows. In that ex- 

 pectation I was disappointed. "What I saw, on my first visit, 

 appeared to be distinctly later, but I did not see more than the 

 general exterior of the house and the interior of the hall. On the 

 occasion of the Society's visit, in 1877, however, I went over the 

 bouse, and I then found, particularly in the walls of the inner courts, 

 evidences of what I thought then and still think earlier work, some 

 of it, not improbably, of the time of Edward the Sixth. I was 

 met then, by Canon Jackson, with the objection, that the house was 

 known to have been begun in the reign of Elizabeth, 1568. 



Shortly after the publication of my notes, I was very kindly 

 permitted by the Marquis of Bath, to examine the whole house, in 

 the company of my friends. Canon Jackson and H. P. Jones, Esq. 

 We were shown over the building by the clerk of the works. 



I saw, at once, that I had made some mistakes ^ in what I had 

 published, after a hurried visit, and that the resemblance of what 1 

 consider the earlier work at Longleat to Sharington's work, at 

 Lacock, was not so close as I had supposed, but still there was a 

 marked approximation, so that my opinion, that there was a good 



* Wilts Arch. Mag., vol. xxvii., p. 162. 

 ' Particularly in supposing that there were several doors with cornices. 



E % 



