_ 
194 Architectural Notes on Places visited by the Society in 1891. 
and gable against which the chapel is built are older than the chapel 
itself—there were two buttresses (one of which is seen near the 
doorway, the walls are three feet thick—this is probably part of 
the Norman house built at the foundation of the hospital. On the 
inside a passage is carried along by the east wall and the corbel- 
heads carrying the floor are old work (as. are parts of the doorway 
at the south end) the entrance to the chapel opens out from this 
passage; the arch in the chapel side is a segmental one of fourteenth 
century type. 
The chapel stands at right angles to the dwelling (east and west), 
and it appears to have been erected when the latter was re-modelled 
in the fourteenth century—the three-light east window with label 
returned into the wall, and the two-light window and piscina in the 
south wall are of this date and doubtless in their original positions. 
The similar two-light window on the north side was formerly also 
on the south, where the doorway now is, but a few years ago the 
positions of the two were reversed. This doorway and the other 
window still in the north wall are fifteenth century insertions. The 
jambs of the east and south windows are carried down on the inside 
—the former probably to receive the stone altar, and the latter as 
sedilia. The two flat buttresses on the south side have been cut 
away—near the east end there are two corbels, the use of which is 
not quite apparent, unless they were for supporting a bell-turret. 
It is interesting to hear that the prior still retains his ancient 
title. 
S. Micuati’s. ComsBe Bisset. 
The oldest parts of the present structure are the two western bays 
of the south arcade of the nave and the responds of the eastern bay, 
and of the archway between the south aisle and tower. These are 
the work of the twelfth century and indicate the usual cruciform 
plan of that period. There is no part of the older Church left, but 
where, as in this case, one finds the chancel of the Church only a 
century later than the nave, the thought which naturally suggests 
itself is that there must have been a Church on the spot older than 
either. For the nave, aisles, and transepts would hardly have been 
—= 
