Visited by tie Society in 1889. 



31 



an awkward-looking* arch, with the remains of a segmental label 

 and its terminals over ; but on looking* at the north door we see 

 that the peculiar form of the arch is due to to the cusping having 1 

 been cut away. The remains of a niche — probably for a figure of 

 Our Lady, to whom the Church is dedicated — exist over the door. 

 The porch has the moulded oak ribs of its original roof, but the 

 ridge-piece is missing. Even the door and its hinges are old. The 

 outer doorway of the porch has the pointed arch under a square 

 label, which is so common in late Perpendicular work. 



The nave arcade is of a peculiar type, but it was not constructed 

 as we now see it, and some of its peculiarity disappears on closer 

 inspection. The arches are panelled (the panelling being without 

 cusping), and the ribs die out on to the face of the pillars ; these 

 latter were merely square piers, without caps or even an abacus mould. 

 This simple form seems to have offended the eye of some more 

 modern guardian of the Church, who (probably when the other 

 alterations were made) pared off the angles to give the piers more 

 the appearance of ordinary columns. 



I have no doubt that there was a chancel arch of similar kind, for 

 there are no projecting responds : this, however, has disappeared, 

 possibly improved away ; but I think it is more likely that it fell, 

 owing to the spreading of the abutments, for there are evidences 

 everywhere of defective foundations — the south wall is going out 

 and the nave arcade inclining northwards to an extent which should 

 receive consideration. 



Further evidence of the chancel arch being the full width of the 

 chancel is afforded by the lower part of the rood-screen, which 

 remains intact, and apparently in situ, on the south side of the 

 gangway : this has been cut off at the middle rail, and the mortices 

 and pins of the upper stage can be seen. This rail has a broad flat 

 member, which contained carving planted in, as at Edington, so 

 that we may conclude the screen was a rich one. There are many 

 pieces of it — mullions, &c. — used as supports to the seats (two or 

 three being in one pew in the north aisle) , and I have no doubt the 

 removal of the more modern pews would reveal sufficient evidence 

 for the entire restoration of the screen. 



