4 PAPEKS, ETC. 



Lockiug, whicli I mentioned in rny last paper. !Muclford 

 is also a pretty little tower of the same class, chiefly re- 

 markable for foliated bands on each side of its belfry 

 Windows. Muchelney is a tower of more pretension than 

 any of these, except perbaps Montacute, but less pleasing, 

 the stages being awkwardly managed, and the belfiy- 

 windows placed too low down. 



I believe I am right in referring these two last towers 

 to this class ; my drawings at least do not show any 

 buttresses at the angle occupied by the turret, but I 

 have no view from the other side, where they may exist, 

 especially at Muchelney. If any one blame me for not 

 having made more extensive drawings or notes, I raust 

 plead what I consider the very valid excuse, that I visited 

 Muchelney when it was very nearly dark, and Mudford 

 during a violent storm of i*ain.* 



Of the class represented by Temple church at Bristol, 

 where buttresses do exist at the angles, and yet the tiu'ret 

 soars conspicuously above all, Yeovil is a very graud ex- 

 ample. It is indecd comparatively piain, and without 

 pinnacles, but its solidity of mass and strongly projecting 

 buttresses produce a most striking effect. South Brent, 

 in like manner, lias a turret rising above the buttresses ; 

 but here all the buttresses terminate below the belfiy- 

 stage, so that the latter is somewhat bare. 



Yeovil leads the way to a group of towers, chiefly 

 in the western part of the county, some of which might 

 be referred to the first, and some to the second class, but 

 which seem to have more in common with each other than 

 with either of them. I allude to certain towers of con- 

 siderable height and great boldness of outline and dignity 

 of general effect, in which there is nevertheless an entire 



* At Mudford I have asuertained that the turret does stand free 

 without buttresses. 



