28 PAPERS, ETC. 
or panelling, is traced out, in which the raised parts are 
represented by hewn stone and the flat by flint: I say 
represented, because the whole is one plane. It is in fact a 
picture of real panelling, done in black and white, and at 
a distance looks very like it. There is some of this work 
in St. Peter Mancroft, but St. /Ethelberht’s Gate and St. 
Michael Coslany are the best examples; the former 
Flowing, the latter Perpendicular. 
The lack of fine stone has also doubtless led to the 
frequent absence, not only of the magnificent pierced 
parapets of northern Somersetshire, but very often of any 
battlement or parapet at all. 
Such is my comparison between the two great Perpen- 
dieular distriets of England, which I spoke of two years 
ago as a desirable undertaking. But I have not yet 
exhausted my favourite subject of Somersetshire archi- 
tecture. I must ascertain the exact boundaries of the 
two types, or the existence of any other distinct ones. The 
Perpendicular of the midland counties, as far as I have 
seen it, is not identical with either, but comes much more 
nearly to the Norfolk type. Then I must trace out the 
exact influence of Somersetshire on the neighbouring 
counties, both in Perpendicular and in earlier times, when 
the great Welsh churches, as I have often observed, evi- 
dently imitated Somersetshire models. Here, to say 
nothing of more minute individual investigations, is matter 
for several more Meetings of the Somersetshire Archzolo- 
gical Society, before I have entirely done with the subject 
of Somersetshire architecture. 
