li. 



the water in a wet season ; but the prevention of the soakage of tlie 

 irrigated meadows above into the gravel substratum under the bed of the 

 river into the church and its surroundings presents a problem Avhich 

 might be hard for an engineer to overcome, and which I certainly shall 

 not attempt to solve. I can only speak of what I saw ; and I can safely 

 say that though my attention had been directed to the presence of damp 

 within or without the church I did not observe many traces of its 

 existence either on the surface of the graveyard or in the foundations of 

 the walls outside or inside or on the floors. Compared with some other 

 churches I have seen tliis church was dryness itself, on the days of my 

 visits. The turf around it was not soppy and the foundations of tlie 

 walls did not seem to be afi'ected by wet. Inside there was no striking 

 appearance of green mould at the bottom of the walls, nor, as far as I 

 could see, any rottenness in the floor boards. Kelatively to the river- 

 bed the church is sufficiently protected, so that with its vaults concreted 

 to the floor level and the foundations of the walls outsiile cemented, with 

 a stone gutter to carry ott' the roof water sloping outwards from them, I 

 cannot but think that it would be perfectly dry and healthy in the 

 ordinaiy way. Against extraordinary high water such measures as 

 forming a groined cemented bank and a widening of the arches of the 

 bridge would be sufficient safeguards. I believe, moreover, that the gang- 

 ways Hoor of the inside might be raised four inches (to the level of the 

 wood boarding below the pews) so as to do away with the step down at 

 the outer porch -without cutting off the view of the round bases of the 

 colunms. If the irrigation soakage evil is of frequent occurrence, so as 

 often to interfere with the decent interment of the dead, it might well be 

 an inducement to shut up the churchyard and form a cemetery on higher 

 ground, but not to move the church and tower — and tower — why, the 

 taking down ami rebuilding of such a massive structure — and no man of 

 education and taste could counsel its demolition — on another site, would 

 cost more than its careful restoration with nave and south aisle, and I 

 was going to say than the rebuilding the new chancel on the old lines a-ul 

 organ-chamber to boot. Nor does the state of the walls of the body of 

 the church justify such a step. I could not perceive any deflection of old 

 Availing from the perpendicular, nor more than two sliglit cracks in it ; 

 these were in the west walls of tlie aisles where they join the tower. 

 There is nothing in the way of an ordinary restoration that I could see. 

 The taking down the organ gallery and opening out the towei', tlie 

 stripping the roofs : raising the nave, and restoring the south aisle, roofs, 

 and the removing the old pews and benches (I do not recollect that any 

 of the latter are \\'orth preserving), and replacing them with open seats. 



