was not the Church of the Priory. 



11 



recorded measurements of the Monastic Church corresponded very 

 closely with those of the present Church. There was a great 

 difference in the length of the two naves. 



Canon Jackson says that the first impression, produced on his 

 mind, by the reference to the chancel of the Parish Church, was 

 that there were two large Churches, and this is the natural meaning 

 of the words, viz., that the Parish Church was not the Priory 

 Church. The obvious explanation is that the Earl of Hertford 

 was the lay Pector, and, as such, liable to repair the chancel of the 

 Parish Church. 



Now, with regard to the absence of any trace or tradition of any 

 other large Church, what is there extraordinary in that ? The 

 records show that the Priory Church was condemned to be de- 

 molished, and was demolished. The domestic buildings of the 

 Priory have also entirely disappeared. Under these circumstances, 

 there could be no visible trace of the Priory Church, and it is very 

 unlikely that there would be any remaining tradition. 



On the other hand, if this Church had really been the Priory 

 Church, it is probable that the name would have remained, as in 

 the case of Bath Abbey, and also that the fact would not have been 

 forgotten. There are cases in which a Monastic Church has become 

 a Parish Church, since the Dissolution, as at Malmesbury, where 

 all that remained serviceable of the Abbey Church seems to have 

 been given to the parishioners by William Stumpe, who acquired 

 it from the King, as being better than their former Church, which 

 was also dilapidated, and, at Pomsey, where the Abbey Church 

 was bought by the inhabitants. In these cases, the transaction is 

 recorded and well-known, and the name remains, but such is not 

 the case at Amesbury. 



When Canon Jackson says that the measurements of the Monastic 

 Church corresponded very closely with those of the present Church, 

 he seems to have overlooked the great difference in the length of 

 the naves altogether. The real state of the case seems to be that, 

 in the length of the choir and chancel and in the length of the 

 transepts, the two Churches did not differ much, if at all, assuming 

 that Canon Jackson is right in thinking that the north and south 



