MIDLAND UNION OF NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETIES. 247 
it, or, indeed, to examine it carefully, as the huge woodwork 
on which the steam-cranes are supported rests on the floor 
above. Indeed, only a portion of the tomb is visible. 
How far the remains of this Saxon building extend, and 
whether the lines of walling indicate the existence of one or 
more than one building, it is at present impossible to 
determine. This can only be done when the immense shoring 
and scaffolding which have been erected for the demolition 
and reconstruction of the pier have been removed. Unfortu¬ 
nately as the pier stood directly over a portion of the Saxon 
building it was necessary to destroy some part of it in digging 
the foundations for the new pier. 
If I am right as to this discovery, if we have here come 
upon the remains of the old Saxon church, then it is quite 
plain that Mr. Poole is wrong in Ins conjecture that the 
Norman church was built on the lines of the old Saxon 
church. He says, “ In substance, I believe, the Abbot John 
of Sais (who laid the foundation of the existing presbytery, in 
March, 1117) found the same monastery and especially the 
same church which Saxulfus had built and Etlielwold restored. 
Indeed, I suspect that a very large portion of the Saxon 
church existed until the present nave was built by Abbot 
Benedict. From that time no visible traces of it remained 
above ground.” And of Waterville, who built the tower and 
the transepts, he remarks, “ His transepts were built in all 
probability on the foundations of the Saxon transepts, which 
he removed to make way for them ; but with this difference, 
that the Saxon transepts had aisles both east and west, the 
Norman only to the east.” And again (p. 203), in reply to 
Mr. Palcy’s argument that Waterville must have extended his 
work west of the central tower because “ so large and heavy 
a tower could not have stood safely without some considerable 
abutments against the pillars at the west side,” and that 
hence, “ two or three nave arches, with their triforia and at 
least one bay of the clerestory would be essential for sustaining 
the fabric.” “ Granted,” he says, “ if the fabric had not 
already a sufficient support; but you will remember that we 
have no reason to doubt that the Saxon nave yet remained, 
so that the support was there already.” All this argument, 
however, falls to the ground if the building recently disin¬ 
terred was any part of the old Saxon church. It could never 
have been used as an abutment to the Norman towers. In 
fact, even if the Norman building had followed the same lines, 
the upper portion of the Saxon church being of wood, nothing 
but the low stone walls on which this rests would have been 
left and these calcined by the fire. There was, however, an 
