By C. H. Talbot. 



341 



| The roof of the nave is also Perpendicular. Two of the old bench 

 ends, of the fifteenth century, remain at the west end of the nave, 

 and one at the west end of the south aisle. These have been copied 

 in the new seating, but the copies are not equal to the originals, 

 j Some remarkable stone fragments were found at the " restoration," 

 ! but what has become of them I have not been able to ascertain. 1 

 j The removal of the central tower is to be deplored. 2 I am aware 

 I that it was considered an obstruction, but that was not sufficient to 

 j justify what has been done. Its removal has also brought into 

 j prominence the divergence of the lines of the chancel and the nave, 

 | which was not so evident before. 



J [On March 11th of the present year I detected a previously 

 ! unobserved fact, viz., that the chancel of Corsham Church was 



lengthened, in the fifteenth century. I noticed that the lower part 

 .] of the north wall of the chancel, where it projects beyond the 

 * Tropenell Chapel, is built against a previously-existing buttress of 

 ! the fifteenth century, which faces east, and that, to give room for 

 j the arch of the small three-light window above, part of the tabling 



of the same buttress has been cut away. This suggested that the 



original east wall of the chancel ranged with that of the Tropenell 

 j Chapel. A stone spout of the fifteenth century, which now faces 



north and is evidently not in its original position, may probably 

 r originally have been between the two roofs and facing east. There 

 ! is evidence also internally of extension from the same point, the 

 ! ridge-piece of the extended portion of the ceiling being lighter and 

 ' not quite in the same line with the rest. There is also some 

 ! difference in the other timbers. There would probably be more 



1 I was informed, when the Society visited the Church, that these fragments 

 j are preserved at the Court. 



2 It is due to the architect to say that, at first, he objected to removing it. I 

 I myself suggested to a gentleman, who was one of the churchwardens, that, if 

 , the obstruction of the Church internally was considered intolerable, the tower 



might be re-built on the same site, with higher and wider arches, and its ex- 

 ternal appearance be preserved. I was told that the expense would be too great. 

 | The present tower is so situated as to be crowded up with the porch, and some 

 1 damage has also accrued to the adjacent old south wall of the aisle, and. in a 

 j less degree, to that of the chapel, as a consequence of its erection, owing to 

 settlement. 



