A HISTORY OF DURHAM 



perished, one bay of the original chancel, which was 

 70 ft. 6 in. long, alone remaining, so that the evi- 

 dence of its suggested development is not complete. 



The west tower, with its built-up arches, offers 

 many points of difficulty. There seems to be little 

 doubt that the heavy buttresses were planned from 

 the beginning to take the thrust of the tower vault, 

 those on the west side being further designed to form 

 the north and south walls of a western porch. The 

 original design was doubtless like that still existing at 

 Kelso, where the west tower of the abbey church is 

 flanked by short north and south transepts and a western 

 building of equal size and height with the transepts. 

 There is no indication in the style of the buttresses 

 that they are later than other parts of the tower, and 

 their base-mouldings show that their lower portion, 

 at any rate, is part of one design carrying out that 

 of the aisles. The west buttresses with their door- 

 ways bear general signs of belonging to the second 

 quarter of the 13th century and may be ascribed to 

 the date given above for the tower. The ' porch,' 

 or western building, was intended to be of two 

 stories, the lower one vaulted, as is shown by the 

 corbels or capitals remaining in the angles, and by 

 the smaller angle buttresses built on to the greater 

 ones, and its importance is indicated by its inde- 

 pendent entrances, the southern of which is of a 

 somewhat elaborate character." 



There is no doubt that the tower began to fail 

 either in the course of its erection or shortly after. 

 The failure was probably due not so much to the 

 vault as to the vertical pressure of the upper walls 

 upon the masonry of the ground stage, which stood 

 on a foundation which h.is only recently been dis- 

 covered to have been utterly inadequate. When the 

 ground was opened up during some late repairs 

 (previous to 1894) it was found that the found.itions 

 of the piers went down only 4 ft., or about 3 it. short 

 of the solid rock, and in some cases there were ' no 

 foundations at all,' the north-east angle having been 

 built on the surface of what appears to have been 

 puddled clay with a few large boulders thrown in 

 amongst it.'^ The foundations of the buttresses, how- 

 ever, went down to the rock but were composed of 

 loose rubble, and under the south-east buttress was a 

 split, or fissure in the rock about 1^ in. wide ' with a 

 current of air blowing out.' ^^ A streak or pocket of 

 clay also crossed the centre of the site of the tower 

 from north to south. The settlement, or disruption 

 of the tower resulting from these causes was 

 remedied, or attempted to be remedied, mainly by 

 building up the tower arches and a number of the 

 window openings in the upper stages. As the fillings 

 in of some of these windows contain small lancet 

 lights the work must have been done very shortly 

 after the tower was completed, if not actually before 

 the upper stages were finished. Seeing that these 

 ' remedies ' added considerably to the weight to be 



borne by the foundations, it is not surprising that 

 the tower has ever since been in a more or less in- 

 secure state and is still supported internally by timber 

 shoring. The south-west pier, containing the newel 

 staircase, was strengthened by a mass of masonry built 

 against it on the outside. Whether the tower was ever 

 crowned by a spire it is now impossible to say, but it 

 seems clearly to have been so intended ; the settlement 

 occurring at so early a period, however, probably 

 caused the spire to be abandoned, the tower being 

 completed with p.irapet and pinnacles. 



No change in the plan took place during the 

 middle ages, and practically the only alterations made 

 seem to have been in the 15th century, when the 

 north aisle wall and a good deal of the south were 

 pulled down and new windows inserted. Most of 

 these have since been replaced by modern copies. 



At the beginning of the 18th century the church 

 was in a state of disrepair; but a petition to Quarter 

 Sessions in 1 7 14 recommending the queen to grant 

 Letters i'atent for its repair produced no result,''' 

 and two years later the building is described as 

 ' ruinous.' In I 7 1 9 the quire was stated to be ' almost 

 entirely unroofed, and the steeple, pillars and walls 

 ... so much decayed by length of time that the 

 whole fabrick will inevitably fall to the ground unless 

 speedily prevented by taking down and rebuilding 

 some and repairing the decayed part? thereof A 

 sum of about j^ 1,700 was collected by brief, and the 

 work of repair put in hand in I 72 I ; but a scheme 

 for rebuilding agreed to in September of that year •''* 

 was evidently not carried out, for in May 1724 Bishop 

 Talbot gave leave to take down the roof and to cover 

 the church with a flat one, and for the chancel to be 

 reduced to 15 ft. within the walls. This was done, 

 the old chancel being practically swept away, 

 leaving but a single bay at its west end. A straight 

 end wall was erected immediately to the east of the 

 remaining piers, and the arches themselves, together 

 with those between the nave and chancel aisles, were 

 built up. There is nothing to show that the decay 

 and ruin of the chancel was so complete as to neces- 

 sitate its demolition, and it seems, therefore, probable 

 that its destruction was due to poverty and indif- 

 ference. No drawings of it in its perfect condition 

 are known to exist, but the remaining bay indicates 

 that it was contemporary with the nave and almost 

 exactly similar in all its details. Foundations of 

 eastern parts which have from time to time been dug 

 up show the length to have been as stated in the 

 bishop's licence to take down. In spite of the 

 decision that the windows should be wrought ' after 

 the same model as they now are ' this docs not appear 

 to have been done, the drawing in Surtees ^* showing 

 the aisle windows of three plain square-headed lights 

 under semicircular hood moulds, and there was at 

 that time ' a clumsy south porch,' '' probably an i 8th- 

 century addition. Surtees describes the interior as 



^' Antij. viii, 172. 



" Arch. Ael. xvii, 239, 243. 



" Ibid. 243. 



^* The mayor and others petitioned the 

 justices of the peace praying that they 

 would recommend the queen to grant 

 Letters Patent for the repair of the 

 church. The poverty of the inhabitants 

 was pleaded and the cost was estimated 

 at ^1,884 and upwards (Sharp, op. cit. 

 pp. 113-14)- 



^■^ It was agreed on 22 September 1721 

 that the church and chancel should be 

 continued its full length and breadth ; 

 that the roof should be flattened to 4 ft. 

 or 6 ft. pitch and that the north wall, if 

 advisable, should be taken down and 

 rebuilt : * but in fear the cash arising 

 from the brief may not answer the ex- 

 pectation, the said wall shall be referred 

 unto the last ; that the said church shall 

 be new Bagged, paved, and whitened, and 



280 



in respect to the glory of the antirjuity of 

 the said church what repairs the windows 

 may want, they shall be wrought after 

 the same model as they now arc, and as 

 for the chancel it it referred until the 

 Earl of Scarbro's consent is got I'n writing 

 and that the steeples both in and outside 

 be repaired ' (Sharp, op. cit. p. 115). 



^^ Surtees, op. cit. iii, 99. Engraved by 

 John Ic Keux after Edward Blore. 



*' Ibid. 116. 



