28 Amesbury Church. Reasons for thinking, 8fc. 



Church, the building still existing on the east side of north transept, 

 the evidence of there having been formerly a building against the 

 north wall of the chancel, of there having been two successive 

 chapels, on the same site, on the east side of the south transept, and 

 the insertion of large 14th century windows, in the north and south 

 walls of the chancel. As I said, at first, I found it impracticable 

 to attempt a critical description of the Church, and it is not so much 

 incumbent upon me to show that these chapels were no^ those of 

 the Priory Church, as for those who hold the opposite opinion to 

 prove that they were. 



I admit that those, who hold that opinion, have a very plausible 

 and perhaps even a strong argumentative case, but I believe that, 

 the more the matter is enquired into, the more it will be found that 

 that view is untenable. That it should be further enquired into, 

 and, if possible, sifted to the bottom, will, I am sure, be the wish 

 of every member of the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural 

 History Society. 



In conclusion, I should like to pay a tribute to the memory of 

 those very painstaking antiquarians and former inhabitants of 

 Amesbury, Mr. Job Edwards and Mr. W. C. Kemm. If it had 

 rested with them, we may be sure that any restoration of Amesbury 

 Church would have been carried out in a much more conservative 

 manner. I do not think I ever met Mr. Kemm, but I am much 

 indebted to him for his description of the Church, though I do not 

 agree with his conclusions, 1 and his pamphlet contains one or two 

 obvious fallacies, but he deprecates severe criticism. With Mr. Job 

 Edwards I was personally acquainted, and our acquaintance came 

 about in rather a curious way. A document of great interest came 



1 That is to say, the conclusions to be inferred from his pamphlet, but Mr. 

 Buddie informs me that Mr. Kemm, in a letter written probably not long 

 before his death, reluctantly gave up his belief that the present was the Priory 

 Church. This was on account of a difficulty that he found in reconciling the 

 dimensions of the Church tower with the recorded dimensions of the spire of 

 the Priory Church. The difficulty may possibly not have been insuperable, 

 but, at any rate, it appears that Mr. Kemm's opinion, which seems to have 

 been somewhat uncertain throughout, ultimately inclined to the belief that 

 the two Churches were not identical. 



