2 PAPERS, ETC. 
great light on an important question to which I have for a 
long while devoted special attention. 
The subject to which I allude is that of the architectural 
distinction between merely parochial churches and those 
which were conventual or collegiate, and especially of the 
peceuliarities of those churches m which both purposes 
were united. This is a subject which I have often 
treated elsewhere, though 1 do not think that I have ever 
before been called upon to bring it at any length before 
my present audience. The general question I dealt with 
some time ago in a paper read before the Oxford Society, 
which was afterwards printed in the Builder. I have also 
followed it up in detail in my History of Llandaff Cathe- 
dral, and in various monographs and other papers in the 
Archzological Journal, the Ecclesiologist, and in the ex- 
cellent publication of your sister Association north of the 
Bristol Channel, the Archzologia Cambrensis. Any of 
you who may remember what I have said elsewhere of 
Llandaff, Monkton, Brecon, Chepstow, Ruthin, Leominster, 
Dorchester, and Malmesbury, will recognize what I have 
to say about Dunster, as naturally forming part of the 
same series. To others, I presume that a general recapi- 
tulation of the whole subject may not be unacceptable. 
The monastie and the larger collegiate churches of Eng- 
land may be dividel into two great classes, those which were 
simply and wholly designed for the use of the monastie or 
collegiate fraternity, and those which at the same time 
discharged the functions of ordinary parish churches. In 
the generality of these latter cases, the eastern part, or 
the choir, belonged to the monks ; the western part, or the 
nave, to the people. In fact, they often formed, to all 
intents and purposes, two distinct churches, and the two 
parts were often spoken of distinetly as “the parish 
