Hi. 



Whether the north aisle is to remain depends upon the state of the funds. 

 There would be no great harm done to Wie general appearance of the 

 church if it were to remain, the roof of course being made weathertight. 

 It never could be made to look old, and the accommodation its additional 

 width affords may forbid its being reduced to the narrower proportions of 

 the south aisle, which were, no doubt, its proportions when first built. 

 The enlargement of the chancel would give dignity to the whole edifice, 

 and the organ chamber on the noith side of the chancel would be 

 the proper place for that instrument. I now appproach the last, but 

 most delicate, part of my task— the moot point of the pulling down 

 the chancel arch and its removal to the north chancel wall, where 

 it would form the entrance to the organ chamber. I have already stated 

 the cause why this change is suggested. It is owing to the small size 

 and comparative lowness of this Norman arch preventing the sound of a 

 strong-voiced hale incumbent from being well heard in the body of the 

 church that a measure is proposed that would meet with fierce opposi- 

 tion from all sound archfeologists. And, indeed, it should be only a stern 

 necessity that would justify such a step being taken. It is true that a 

 church exists for the purpose of a congregation's orderly worship of 

 Almighty God according to the ceremonies of the Church of England. 

 Whatever tends to the promotion of such worship should be cherished and, 

 as far as can be, adopted. Any hindrances to it, even to the removal of 

 an ancient monument, should in my judgment be taken a,way. Thus, 

 sorry as I should be to see it on archivological grounds, were a large 

 tomb to interfere with the sight of the altar by any considerable number 

 of worshippers and a suitable nook be found for it in some other position 

 in the church I would not, as far as my voice would go, oppose its 

 removal, ^•5'., I should have been in favour of the transference of the 

 Denzil Hollis monument in St, Peter's Chuch, Dorchester. But in the 

 case before us no such necessity as far as I can judge exists. Tiie old 

 arch is not so small, relatively to the size of the wall in which it is placed, 

 as others I have seen. To go no further off than Powerstock, there you 

 certainly have a far more enriched Norman arch, but so disproportion- 

 ately small to the dividing wall between nave and chancel as even to 

 offend the eye as you enter the church, left in its integrity, though the 

 chancel was entirely rebuilt at the restoration in 1858, and, no doubt, 

 another place could have been found for it. I was frequently at Power- 

 stock when the County School was being started, yet T never heard of 

 the diminutive size of the chancel arch interrupting the sound of the 

 voice. It should be borne in mind, too, that the openings into the 

 proposed new organ-chamber from the chancel and from the north aisle, 



