Notes and Queries

( 244 ) NOTES AND QUERIES. XIXTH CENTURY RESTORATIONS AT STOCKBURY CHURCH. "WE have received from Mr. Richard Cooke of Detling a transcript of some notes made by the Rev. David Twopenny, Vicar of Stockbury from 1831 to 1870, and now in the keeping of the Rev. Thomas Cobb, the present Vicar, detailing the various repairs and alterations to Stockbury Church in the years 183G and 1852. These notes have apparently been recently used by a contributor to the Reliquary, Mr. J. Russell Larkby, whose excellent Paper on three Kentish Churches—Offham, Stockbury, and Trottescliffe—is published in the October 1901 number of that periodical. Mr. Larkby says some severe things about nineteenth-century restorations in general, and in particular as carried out at Stockbury, with which we generally agree. All Kentish archseologists must deplore the fact that these well-meant but often ill-directed efforts on the part of incumbents and churchwardens to render the sacred buildings entrusted to their care better fitted for divine worship, have in the majority of instances done more in a few months to destroy the real character of the building than centuries of neglect. We must not, however, forget, as antiquaries sometimes do, that the custodians of the churches, when they awoke in the middle of the last century to the necessity of effecting some improvement in the fabric and its fittings, were in a very difficult position. It often happened that a church had been so long without seasonable repair that portions of it could only be made good by rebuilding, and for advice on this point, as well as to what minor alterations and adaptations should be carried out, parson and people were dependent on their architect. Architects, however, in the middle of the last century were not, speaking generally, in advance of their times. Gothic architecture was fashionable, hut in the opinion of many of its professional exponents a modern imitation thirteenthcentury pillar or window was infinitely superior to an old fifteenth>& ittt m&rjte, ^Utkbnxy db Sxwjtb E RIM___MI £»8L N ^ M • mtifiWorc Uowtx NOTES AND QUERIES. 245 century one; hence the unfortunate destruction of so many interesting pages in the history of the fabric of our churches! Stockbury Church was restored at a period when the above remarks are peculiarly applicable, and was certainly not exempt from some of the evils which good intentions, accompanied by imperfect knowledge, invariably bring. Still, the following notes, which we print in extenso, will serve to shew that at the period when these alterations were carried out the Church was in a ruinous condition, that what was done was done under the advice of an architect of repute in his day, and that the result, though unsatisfactory from an archsBological point of view, was as good as could be expected under the conditions then existing. Before 1836 the Parish Church was in many respects in a very miserable state, both as to repair and fittings. In hard rain the water poured from the top of the tower, soaked under the wall at the west end of the north aisle, ran all down the middle of the Church, and stood in a pool opposite the pulpit. The -fittings were of the poorest and meanest sort. The chancel was fitted up with painted deal seats and desks on each side against the walls, and with deal wainscotting on the walls, which hid the water-drain. The pavement was of broken tiles and bricks, very uneven. Some of the marble pillars were whitewashed, and the whole of tbe small capitals were so choked up with whitewash that no carving could be discerned upon them. The large capital on the south side had been a little cleaned. The Vioar asked leave of the parishioners to clean them, which after some demur they allowed on condition that he would undertake to whitewash them again when required to do so. This he agreed to, and cleaned the whole of them and found them nearly perfect. There had been some red aud green colour on the large capital A, and on the large corbel C next to it, but not put on in the first instance, there being two or three coats underneath the colour. The first coat was as near the colour of the stone as couid be. 20 February 1886 a Are took place. Plumbers were at work on the east end of the north aisle, then covered with lead. While they were gone to their dinner they left their stove alight on the roof; the iron legs of the stove became hot, and melted the lead upon whioh it stood; it fell down, and the fire fell out, and was blown by the north wind into crevices among the rotten timbers of the roof. The whole of the roof of the north transept was burnt and half the roof of the chancel, also the pews underneath, the surplices, etc. The Registers were saved with considerable difficulty, and, with some risk to himself, by Mr. John Read, blacksmith. In the repair which followed, the four-light perpendicular window was taken out of the east end of the ohancel and was subsequently (with the addition of about nine inches to the jambs) put up in the north transept in place of a three-light perpendicular window, which was poorly designed, ill-executed, and in bad condition. In place of the four-light window three lancets were placed in the east end of the chancel, the mouldings, shafts, and bases (and to some extent the capitals) being copied from remains of lancet windows found buried in the wall on each side of the four-light window. These remains with a few additions to complete them, are now built into the wall as a blaqk arch at 246 NOTES AND QUERIES. the west end of the south aisle at J. Over the four-light window there was found buried in the wall a plain, circular, splayed window, which belonged to the lancets, and it is to be regretted that in the rebuilding more attention was not paid to the replacing, as far as could be, of what was there before. There appear to have been either two or three lancets with large splays and the circular window over them. The ceiling of the chancel was plain circular plaster, with a wide imperfect cornice in parts, of this form. A cornice of no very good design was added at this time, but the remainder of the woodwork of the ceiling was not added until 1852—the idea of it and most of the details of the flowers being taken from a flit ceiling in the south transept of Headcorn Church. At this time (1836) the south wall of the chancel was rebuilt, the work being put up nearly as before, with the following alterations : the bases of the pillar A and of the respond B stood on a rough substructure of flints, plastered like all the rest of the bases in the Churoh. These bases were now placed on the floor, and the pillar and respond lengthened by the addition of the upper course of stone in each. Part of the hinder side of the capital and base of A, and of the capital of B, had been broken off apparently for putting up a screen. These were restored, and, it being necessary to rebuild part of the wall under the corbel C, the southern scroll of foliage of the capital B was found buried in the wall under the corbel, and was restored to its original place. Behind B was a slanting opening in the wall at 11, through which the altar might he seen from the old seats in the south transept whioh were . . . . to the south of the pillar A. The window D was a small, plain, circular-headed window, both within and without shorter than the others, and it is to be regretted that it was not retained. The other side windows o£ the ohanoel were wide and weather-worn externally and not very intelligible; internally they had plain splays which ran up into the arches in this manner. These splays were now out into a moulding and arched over at the top. Below the window D was a small plain looker with a wooden door. Below the windows at the east end was a wide recess in the wall, which had been filled up. The cusps o£ the water-drain were broken off, and no guide left as to what they were. The gravestones now within the Communion rails were scattered in different parts of the chancel, and it is a pity they were not left in their places. The screen E stood against the pillars lf G. The darker shafts are of old marble; the lighter are new, Bethersden in some cases replacing shattered Caen shafts. The shaft G was of Caen, very well coloured to imitate marble; the shaft E, being very bad and shaky, was taken out and put in the place of G, a new one being put at E. The four capitals of these double columns are of different stone and design, and were rudely put together, as well as the bases, with gaping rough intervals between (since filled up with stone); also at the joint of the shaft H was the remainder of a cramp sticking out on the other side, opposite to the wall, making it appear that the materials had been brought from some other building, and rudely adapted to this. There were two or three rude plain tiebeams, which were cut away, aud in their place was inserted the iron bar which runs through the head of the centre east window, and is. strongly secured at each end to the wall plate. Under the sort of step on the sills of the two south windows is a bond timber. It is to be regretted that the Dean and 0 hapter's surveyor declined shewing a flint wall on the outside, being bent upon plastering NOTES AND QUERIES. 247 The external weather mouldings and leaves of the . . . . were copied rom the church at Little Casterton, Eutland. The Communion rails were copied from a design by Mr. Blore in Peterborough Cathedral, and executed at Peterborough by Mr. Euddle, whose men were almost the only church woodcarvers in the country then. The Communion table was taken from a print of a circular table at Salisbury, and is of cedar, the pillars being oak. At this time the roof of the nave was altered. The side aisles were before covered with lead, shewing the clerestory, in which were no marks of windows externally. This lead had been so repeatedly stolen by people coming from the towns with carts in the night (it was suoh a theft which necessitated the repair which occasioned the fire) that it was resolved to take it away, though greatly to the detriment of the looks of the Church, and to carry one roof over the whole nave. In 1851 a much more extensive repair was begun—Mr. Eichard Charles Hussey being the architect—and a fund being raised, partly by the Vicar, partly by a subscription originating at the suggestion of Archdeacon Lyall, and partly by the parish, who gave £200. The south wall of the nave was taken down and rebuilt from the tower to the south transept, when it was found that the old foundation did not go below the level of the floor of the Church, and next the tower at J it was 13 inches above that level. A new porch was built on the south side, when it was discovered that there had been a porch there before, and the old north porch was made into a vestiy. The north porch had then a plain lath and plaster gable, but it had had an embattled parapet in the memory of persons living. The two three-light windows K K were of dilapidated Kentish rag, square-headed, of a meaner oharaoter than the two-light window L. There was a similar window at M. The pillars 1, 2, 3, 4, C, 7, 8, and 9 were taken down and rebuilt, being very muoh out of the upright. New bases were given to all the pillars in the nave, with the same mouldings as before, but with rather more projection. The capitals on the south side are the old ones, except 6. The capital 5 is old, with a new abacus having rather more projection than the old one. In the place of 1 was a rude flowered capital much mutilated, 2, 3, and 4 were very meagre and ill-looking of this form, the abacus being circular; the springing of the arches above being not greater in diameter than the diameter of the shaft, and in one case less, having altogether a very mean and miserable look. There had formerly evidently been a great fire in the Churoh, and Mr. Hussey conjectured from the appearanoe of the capitals that they might perhaps have been injured by the fire, and have been pared back. The labels over all the eight arches of the nave are entirely new, there having been none before. The arch mouldings of the north arches were the same as those now on the south side, but were now altered by the addition of a moulded rib underneath. The oiroular-headed windows in the clerestory were discovered on breaking away the plaster, aud left to shew the history of the Churoh. The decayed wooden corbels of the tie-beams were replaced with stone. The crosses cut on the pillars are rebuilt in the places where they were found. The font was a plain, rude, square block of Kentish rag of a late Perpendicular period, as shewn by the mode of tooling at the angles, and lined with lead; it stood by the pillar 3. The lower part was of slabs of rag and rough lumps plastered; it was buried for a drain to the new font. The font oover is old, with new panels; the finial also is new, the old finial being nothing but a series of knobs. The new 248 NOTES AND QUERIES. chancel arch was built within the old one, which was of great width and height— a plain rough struoture of Kentish rag of the Perpendicular period. The rib X was taken out. The wall at N, being very weak and shattery, was strengthened as much as possible, the north-east angle being rebuilt. In place of the stone arch now at the east end of the north aisle at P there was before a beam of lath and plaster. To make that side of the Church firmer the whole of the turret at O was filled up solid and grouted, the best of the steps being taken out to repair the tower steps. The doors inside were left to shew the history of the Churoh and to break the blank wall. The arch over the pillar 1 was very muoh cut about and crippled, as if to make room for a passage from the upper door to the rood-loft. The whole of the string-course in the inside of the Ohurch under the windows is new, there having been none before. The flowers built up in the north transept at the angle Q were found built up at random on the old south wall of the nave. They were arch-stones, and Mr. Hussey conjectured that they belonged to the original Early English chancel arch. Before the new arch at E was built there was visible the old arch of the Early English aisle, which was wider than the later Perpendicular aisle, and as viewed from the south transept appeared thus, there being no moulding but a plain chamfer on the edges throughout. The traces of the remainder of the arch I are discernible in the south transept both inside and out. The fire-stone head at X was too much defaced to be used again. The heads throughout the Church were executed by Mr. "William Vaughan of Maidstone, except the head at S and at T. He also executed the foliage of the capitals throughout and the font. The small window over the western tie-beam in the nave opened out from the ringers' room, and exactly commanded a view of the high altar. The entrance to the tower stairs was at U. This was bricked up and an entrance made outside at V, but after the work was completed the old wall of the turret shewed suoh signs of giving way, that it was considered necessary to fill it up solid as high as the ringers' floor, and make a new staircase at W. The tower windows were in every case restored just as they were before. The tower, which had lost its battlements and nearly the whole of its parapet, was raised three or four feet, and the turret at the southeast angle was raised in proportion, having before been nearly level with the rest of the tower. There was before a mutilated head at each angle of the tower cornice, but no more. The south-east turret of the tower was rebuilt from the middle string-course, and, being carried up too fast, it fell in a wet and stormy night with a tremendous crash, being nearly up to the top of the tower, and damaged the south-west corner of the Church very muoh, causing a settlement in the new wall at the west end of the south aisle. Before these alterations the ringers rang from the ground, the ropes passing through horizontal strips of wood to steady them. The ringers were now moved to the floor above. The floor of the ringers' room is laid with two thicknesses of boards, with a square opening left in the centre, fastened with screws, for raising or lowering a bell. The oak beams under this floor are new. The parapets of the nave were raised as much as possible to conceal the great spread of the roof, and a cornice and coping added. The gable of the old porch was rebuilt and ooping added, and the buttresses renewed; and the octagonal turret O was carried up to its present height, and cornice aud battlements added. JtatnJb %xt\ J2Y Id C^&tuttt j\*rjdj NOTES AND QUERIES. 249 The pews in the nave were copied from the old open seats, the remains of whieh were found buried under the deal pews in several parts of the nave, and in the south transept. The design is unusual, the little truncated shaft with its base being a singular substitute for the usual buttress. The whole design was copied exactly, the doors being added to keep the people warm in a very cold place. In the old remains the angle pieces were not united together, but grubbed out of one great solid block of oak. The remains of the chancel screen are put up in the tower at X, being made good, with deal and battlements added. The screen E also has battlements added to it. The screen P is old, the doors and cornice at the top being added. The cornice of the nave has battlements added, and also a piece at the bottom to receive the plaster in the dubbing out of the wall below to get it upright. The_ finials of the moveable desks in the chancel with their fronts open were copied from some in Ketton and Ryhall Churches, Rutland; those where the upper leaves turn down from the top were also copied from Ketton. The ends of the moveable seat without elbows are old, but were reduced in size to get rid of the worm-eaten wood. One finial is old, recarved to get rid of the decayed wood; the other is new. These seatends were stuck up at random in the Church, and had belonged to a desk. About one-third of the glass in the window Y in the north transept is old; the rest has been made to imitate it. The glass belonged to that window. A near inspection will shew which is old and which is new. The glass in the window next to it, and in the three east windows of the chancel, and in the. tower windows, is some of the glass which has been made under the directions of Mr. Winston in imitation of the old material. The windows were made by Ward, and nothing was done by him to the glass to anticipate the effects of time. The table in the Vestry is of walnut, and was purchased at the sale at Hill Green House in this parish. It had to be somewhat reduced in size to make it fit its place. There appear to have been several fires in the Church. The flints in the inside of the tower, from the floor of the ringers' room upwards, are very much burnt, and melted lead was found between the stones. The old timbers and floor of the room had no marks of fire on them. There were strong marks of fire on the wall Z in the south aisle and over the pulpit, and the west end of the northern tie-beam in the south transept was found to be completely burnt. No marks of fire were found on any part of the tie-beams or other timbers of the nave roof. Pieces of burnt timber were found in the wall over the arches of the north side of the nave. The joists of the old deal pews against the north wall were made of old oak rafters, burnt black, shewing by the very great numbers of lath nails that they had been in use as rafters for a very long time. The grating at 12, by the door of the old porch, is designed to make a ventilation under the vestry floor and under the whole floor of the nave. The corbel over the vestiy door was designed for one of the corbels under the commandments. The arches on the south side of the nave are iu alternate courses of chalk and Reigate fire-stone. The arches leading from the chancel into the south transept are alternate courses of Caen and Reigate stone. The base and capital of the- pillar A are engraved in the &lbssary of Architecture, with the date "circa 1220." The following things were 250 tfOTES AND QUERIES. found: A leaden seal, flat, and about \ of an inch thick, the inscription being:— Sigillum. SGLIG * FIL' WILL6LMI PKRWIRINI The old Vicarage, which was pulled down in 1834, was a poor cottage divided into two dwellings. It stood to the west of the well and faced the road—so close to the well that the drainage from the house spoiled the water. The well was afterwards cleaned and deepened. The house was old, Mr. Hussey the architect being of opinion that one moulded timber in it was of the Decorated period. On the staircase, at least, if not in some of the rooms, were found under the coats of whitewash inscriptions on the walls in black letter, the letters being IJ inches long or more, and covering the walls a good deal. They appeared to be not texts of Scripture, but religious and moral sentences, and it is to be regretted that, owing to the haste in destroying the old building, the opportunity was lost of copying them. The knocker of the door is engraved in the Q-lossary of Archilecture. The tradition of the place in 1832 was that a clergyman had lived in the house eighty years before. The old ash pollard, called in one of the terriers " the Bounder," had a large decayed half on the north side, whioh it was necessary to remove, being quite dead. AN OLD MAP OE CANTERBURY. I EEOENTLX acquired a duphcate copy of this old map, identical (save as to colour) with that belonging to the Sussex Archseological Society, now in their library at Lewes, from which I had, by permission, this photographic reproduction (slightly reduced in size) prepared. Erom internal evidence it has been a two-page plate in a folio book, 16^ inches high by lOf inches width of page. There is no name of any artist or engraver upon the print, nor any water-mark with maker's name in the paper, which fixes the date as being in the earlier portion of the sixteenth century prior to the introduction of that practice. It was described to me by the vendor* as " a very large [the size of the original map is 16_ inches long by 10f inches high] and curious old view of Canterbury, shewing all the streets and houses as in Queen Elizabeth's time, A.i). 1562. The first view of Canterbury published; an original impression rare and curious." Some former owner has written on the margin, " Dessine et grave a. l'eau forte par Hoefnagel." This, with the early date assigned to it, attracted my attention and led me to make a closer examination of it and a search into its probable * The well known London antiquarian bookseller Mr. William Ridler (himself no mean authority upon old prints). FACSIMILE REDUCED BY PHOTOGRAPHY FROM THE ORIGINAL IN THE LIBRARY AT LEWES CASTLE, SUSSEX. f%_fe». C A ISTT\ARBVRY '•^P^Jjjfe Iter adL^jnJhttitr' .te-r.- ,£. MA 4M£kMiHI» * # ^-mr Mpini i gSEH-j-RTJH' y 11'? •• •cr- e. IWWIjB^ QJVTP I 41A R Vrbs jcrnlK g simatj/Ln.:. 8 l a owe cilcvns, V | niwicmsco' j vattJcJL,, ivmmenaam* | •'• •| AN EARLY MAP OF CANTERBURY, ATTRIBUTED TO G. HOEFNAGEL. NOTES ATJTD QUERIES. 25 l history. I may say at once there is no evidence to connect this map with Hoefnagel other than the fact that in conjunction with G-eorge Hogenberg or Hogenbach, and Simon Novellani, he engraved the plates for the Theatrum Orbis Terrarum of the celebrated geographer Ortelius, published at Antwerp in 1570, and that after his return from Italy Hoefnagel travelled in England and executed for the Civitates Orbis Terrarum of Braun, published at Cologne in 1572, the large views of Oxford (stated by Gough* to be the oldest view of it extant), Bristol, and Nonsuch Palace in Surrey, which last is now in the possession of the Society of Antiquaries. That Hoefnagel visited England and made the drawings for these and other views (he being a skilled artist as well as au engraver), at a date between 1562 (after his return from Italy.) aud 1576—after which year it does not appear that he revisited England—is well authenticated; doubtless he arrived from his native city of Autwerp by way of Sandwich; if so it seems probable that this view of Canterbury would be drawn by him as being the first city of importance met with after landing in Kent. It has been objected " that a youth of sixteen could not possibly have executed so elaborate a drawing, and that therefore it cannot be so early as 1562." To this I reply that the age was one of great precocity in art, and if Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, and Titian painted valuable pictures at the age of eighteen, a young artist (already trained by previous and similar work in Italy) could surely have executed a simple drawing at sixteen. My own opinion is that while this map may not be by Hoefnagel, or so early as 1562 (although the costume of the figures proves from the small size of the ruffs worn that it can be but a year or two later), it is a plate from the work of Braun above mentioned, and that its date is not later than 1570-71. The details are far more accurate than those in William Smith's map of 1588,f from the rude execution of which there is every reason to infer that both maps are not by the same hand, although certain features are identical in both. In several important details both maps agree and are absolutely correct: both shew the arches in the city wall over the Stour, the south postern gate, then a tower on the wall, not, as incorrectly stated by Canon Scott-Robertson,J that of St. Mildred's Church (which can be * Gough's Topography, vol. ii., p. 96, edition of 1780. f Archceologia Cantiana, Vol, XV., p. 346. This map is a bad reproduction. X The reproduction of Smith's map, given in the reprint by Wheatley and Ashbee In 1879 of "The Particular Description of England," is valueless as evidence. 252 NOTES AND QUERIES. plainly seen at some distance—60 yards—from the wall on the left of the road leading from the postern, and having its tower on the north side away from the wall), then the Castle with its moat, not standing, as erroneously described " between Worth and Wincheap Gates," but between the postern and Wincheap Gates. The Boman arch or so called "Worth Gate" was built up in 1553, and remained so for many years, and could not appear as an open gate in a contemporary map with any pretensions to correctness, nor could so absurd a blunder have been made by any one with the least knowledge of facts or of the sites in question. While these old maps must be taken cum grano salis as to absolute fidelity, yet the artists depicted what existed at the time with incorrect perspective, but truth in detail. In any case, whoever the artist, the face evidence shews this map to antedate by at least 17 years (if not more) " The Earliest Known Plan of Canterbury in 1588." This reason moved me to bring it under the notice of members, in the hope that some one among them may be able to throw more light upon so valuable a record of early Canterbury topography. I may add in conclusion that there is no mention of these early maps, either in Bibliotneca Cantiana by J. R. Smith, or in Gough's Topography, a remarkable omission, as the latter gives under Cheshire an account of William Smith, and of Hoefnagel under Surrey. HAROLD SANDS. Craythorne, Tenterden, Kent. [This plan or bird's-eye view of Canterbury is one of the plates in Braun and Hogenberg's Civitates Orbis Terrarum, the earliest part of which was published at Cologne in 1572, and was followed hy five other volumes, the last of which appeared in 1618. Canterbury is given in Vol. IV. The date of this volume is not clear, but it is probably not many years later than 1572. The edition of 1599 has coloured engravings in the first five volumes. Hoefnagel, who was an artist of great merit, but not, it appears, an engraver, supplied drawings for many of Braun's plates; his views are generally presented as landscapes shewing the country round the city depicted, and his work is usually signed. He is also careful to state his exact share in the production: thus, under the view of Palanka in Upper Hungary we read, " Communicavit Georgius Houfnaglius acceptum aliunde." The Canterbury plate has been commonly attributed to Hoefnagel in printsellers' catalogues (e.g., in J. R. Smith's Topographical Catalogue, 1878), but we think on insufficient grounds. Both in style and artistic merit it differs considerably NOTES ANE QUERIES. 253 from his acknowledged work. Hoefnagel was a draughtsman of great fidelity in detail—a miniature painter—and the inaccuracies of this plate make it very improbable that he executed the drawing on the spot. His share in the work, if any, must have been limited to working up the material supplied by other hands ;* but this point, as we shall see, instead of diminishing, greatly adds to the value and interest of this plate. Hitherto William Smith's plan, dated in 1588, a reproduction of which, as Mr. Sands notes, was given in Archaologia Cantiana (Vol. XV.), bas been supposed to be the earliest known plan of the city, but an examination of the original MS. in the British Museumf leaves little doubt that Smith's drawing is a reduced and somewhat inaccurate copy of Braun's view. The conventional treatment in form and detail is too much alike to admit the possibility that the two plans were founded on independent surveys. Smith's mistakes point to the conclusion that his work was not original. He calls St. Gregory's Church, St. John's; St. Stephen's, Harbledown; refers to the Greyfriars' Church as St. Mildred's, omitting altogether the real Church, which is given correctly, with its two aisles, in Braun. Purther, Smith's work only existed in MS. until printed in 1879, and it is not likely that Braun's engraver had access to it. A careful examination of Braun's plate reveals a far higher archasological interest than if it were proved to be Hoefnagel's original work. There is evidence that the engraving must have been made from sketches taken perhaps fifty years earlier than the date of Smith's plan. A rectangular detached tower is seen at the south-east angle of the Cathedral, close to the actual site of the old Campanile, and presumably intended to represent that building. When Leland visited Canterbury about 1540 he tells us that this Campanile was " now a late clene pulled down." On the other hand, it is possible that the tower may only be a mistaken rendering of the Corona, which otherwise appears to be altogether omitted. The Worth Gate was evidently still open when the drawing was made, but it was built up, Mr. Sands says, in 1553. Wincheap Gate, which was probably only constructed after the closing of Worth Gate, andwhich, Somner tells us, "carries no show of the least antiquity,"! is absent from the plan, and we may infer was not in existence till a later date. That the material for these plates of cities was, at least in some cases, prepared much earlier than the published work is shewn by the view of old St. Paul's, * See an interesting Paper on Hoefnagel, by Mr. Philip Norman, in Archaologia, vol. lvii., p. 321. l . f Sloane MSS, 2596, J Battely's edition, p. 12. 254 NOTES AND QUERIES. which gives a representation of the spire, and this had been pulled down after the fire which injured it in 1561. Our thanks are due to Mr. Sands for calling attention to this interesting view, the importance of which seems to have heen hitherto somewhat unaccountably overlooked. A coloured impression of the plate has recently been placed in the Cathedral Library at Canterbury.— EDITOBS.J SCHEME FOR WIDENING MILL STREET, MAIDSTONE. I T was seen that this project, which has for some time past been under the consideration of the Corporation of Maidstone, if carried out as originally conceived, would involve the destruction of all that which lends such a charm to the southern end of Mill Street on its western side, namely, the old half-timbered Mill House, the Corn Mill, the beautiful Mediseval bridge which spans the river Len, and the ancient gate-house of the Archbishop's Manor House, known as the Palace. As soon as matters were sufficiently developed Mr. Hubert Bensted, P.E.I. B.A., brought the whole matter under the notice of the Honorary Secretary. Both working together acted promptly, laying the above particulars before the National Trust and the Society for the, Protection of Ancient Buildings. Mr. Bensted prepared an admirable alternative scheme accompanied by a plan, by which the eastern side of Mill Street was dealt with instead of the western, thus doing away with necessity of demolishing anything of archaic interest. This was duly laid before the Corporation and the Trustees of the Palace, while in the meantime urgent appeals were sent to those bodies by the two societies already named. Subsequently, at a meeting held of the Trustees, Mr. Robert Hoar and Mr. George Payne were kindly permitted to attend, and were invited to give their views upon the whole subject. The latter, at the close of his remarks, strongly urged the Trustees, if Mr. Bensted's alternative scheme were finally adopted, to endeavour to acquire the garden of the Mill and connect it by means of a rustic bridge with the Palace grounds. At the conclusion of the meeting the Trustees resolved to invite the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings to send down an expert to report on the questions at issue. It is earnestly hoped that the active measures which have been taken may induce the authorities at Maidstone to preserve that which blends so charmingly with tbe Church, College, and Palace adjoining. GEORGE PATNE, NOTES AND QUERIES. 255 COLEBRIDGE CASTLE. CAN any Member inform me as to whether any plan or description of this castle (beyond the brief notice in Hasted) is known to exist ? The licence to crenellate is dated 7 Edward II., and Mackenzie, in his Castles of England, speaks of it as " a strong minor castle," giving the date of its demolition as 36 Edward IIL, surely a short life for a strong castle. There is a Colebridge Parm still, near Egerton. Is it known whether it occupies the site of the former castle ? H. SANDS, Tenterden. KENT CHURCHES. MB. H. SANDS writes that although there are about 405 churches of ancient date in the county, only 30 have been properly planned by contributors to Archceologia Cantiana, and he hopes that the Society may adopt a uniform scale of ^-th to the foot for the drawings, which will reduce readily to -/jth for publication. We are entirely in sympathy with Mr. Sands' suggestion, and to emphasize the importance of carefully-measured surveys we need only quote the wise words of Lord Kelvin to the Royal Society: " Accurate and minute measurement seems to the non-scientific imagination a less lofty and dignified work than looking for something new. But nearly all the grandest discoveries of science have been but the rewards of accurate measurement and patient longcontinued labour in the minute sifting of numerical results."