commenced, or at least been brought to a completion, for some time after the consecration of the church.

The central tower has but little in its architectural features from which to assign it a date. The arches supporting it are pointed, of three plain chamfered orders without capitals; such as we might find anywhere, and of any date, through a course of two or three centuries. The whole tower is also very simple and massive. The belfry windows are of a single pointed light in each face, without either tracery or foliation; that is, in their present state, for a curious break in the continuity of their jambs seems to indicate that some pattern may have occupied the head. The moulding under the parapet is remarkably bold and effective, though simple, and the thickness of the lower stage of the tower adds to its dignity. I should therefore assign rather an early date to this part of the building, perhaps, as I said, the beginning of the fourteenth century.

If the present tracery of the west window represents the original, that part will be carried back to the time of geometrical tracery, that is, to the thirteenth century; and the decorated bay added to the chancel evidently belongs to a very early period in the style. The east window I believe to be almost unique. There is, if I remember, a three-light window in Wenlock church of much the same composition, but I am not clear if it is precisely the same, and I certainly cannot call to mind another example. The tracery consists of pointed arches springing from the points of those below. The arches only have foliations, not the lower part of the openings (except the imperfect tracery lights which join the main arch of the window. Had the arches been ogee, instead of merely pointed, the common reticulated window, so prevalent in Northamptonshire, would have been the result, the tracery lights being filled with a quatrefoil. And we often find the tracery lights, or larger portions of the head of the window, in early Decorated examples, in the form of what is generally, though not quite correctly, called a spherical triangle; that is, having the arch, with the addition of a curved bar of stone at the bottom, the whole foliated, and leaving subordinate openings of a triangular form. This east window is of great value, and does not appear to have been ever restored; I trust it will long be found unnecessary to meddle with it. The side windows are also of a remarkable type, consisting of three lights with a quatrefoil in the head, so placed that a circumscribing square would have its sides in a vertical and horizontal position, instead of its diagonals, according to the more usual arrangement. This also is an indication of early date, and marks the transition from the purely geometrical tracery of the thirteenth century, to the flowing tracery of the middle of the

I See Plate IV.

2

By the circumscribing square is meant the smallest in which the figure can be inclosed; it is plain, a larger one can also be drawn round it.

fourteenth, of which the Moreton chapel shews so good an example. Standing at the south-east angle we see the two kinds of tracery at a single glance, and at once perceive the difference. A tomb on the outside, and the sedilia in the interior of this part of the chancel, deserve notice.1

The Perpendicular windows and other insertions in the transepts do not appear to be very early, but are of good character, and carry out the principles of the style. In this style, however, you have seen a very perfect and beautiful specimen in the church of Tong. The south aisle, between the porch and the transept, was probably rebuilt on a larger scale in the sixteenth century, and though the latest part of the church, yet from the badness of the stone selected, or from the manner in which it was worked, it was in the worst condition of any a few years ago, when it was restored very judiciously, the new windows being an improvement on those they replaced, while at the same time they preserve their character. The windows through the rest of the aisles are evidently very modern insertions, made, probably, in consequence of the small quantity of light afforded by their predecessors. Though poor, they are no disfigurement to the building, and I confess I am by no means anxious to see new ones, which might deceive the antiquary, substituted in their place. The uncovering of the fine timber roof over the nave, and the opening of the upper part of the tower arches, which had been cut off by a belfry floor, now raised above their points, enable us to form a better judgment of the interior of this fine church than was possible a few years ago, and, as I have already remarked, its freedom from unnecessary restorations makes it a valuable study to the antiquary, the architect, and the artist.

See Plate V.

THE

HE charters and other documents which bear upon the history of this monastery have been so often displayed and digested, that it would be unprofitable to enter upon any reconsideration or repetition of them.1 For the latest additions to these authorities we are indebted to the researches of the well-known Shropshire historian and antiquary, the Rev. R. W. Eyton, of Ryton; it is not probable that any important light has escaped his glance, and yet the sum of all the information afforded from these sources amounts only to an imperfect account of the endowments of the abbey, a memoir of the names of seventeen of its abbots (their acts and character being left in obscurity), and a record that some portions of the buildings were in progress in the early part of the thirteenth century.

In the architectural essays, attention has been directed chiefly and almost solely to the abbey church, omitting from consideration the conventual buildings, which, though

1 For original authorities see Dugdale's Monasticon, Tanner's Notitia, Stevens's Hist. of Monasteries, F. Dukes's Antiquities of Shropshire, and Eyton's Antiquities of Shropshire. For digests and views see Buck's Antiquities, view dated 1731. Grose's Antiquities, view dated 1772. Virtuosi's Museum, view of the interior of the church by Paul Sandby, 1778. Moore's Monastic Remains, S.W. view taken in 1789. Pearson's Select Views of the Antiquities of Shropshire, 1807: two spirited etchings, but architecturally inaccurate. Beauties of England and Wales, 1813, a N.W. view by P. S. Munn. Britton's Antiquities, N.W. view by Munn. Plan, by E. Aikin, architect, and plates of parts of the chapter-house and church point, Coney's N.W. view, dated 1823, in the Monasticon of 1825. Joseph Potter, an architect of Lichfield, commenced a work intended to illustrate remains of ancient monastic architecture, it proceeded no further than Buildwas and Tintern, and comprises a most complete series of plans, sections, and details of them. The Buildwas drawings were made in 1844. The Journal of the Archæological Institute for 1858 contains Mr. Eyton's account (omitting his list of abbots), transferred from his great historical work, together with an excellent Architectural Essay from the pen of the Rev. Mr. Petit, accompanied by woodcuts. Views by W. Williams in 1777, and by Mayor, 1771-9, I have not met with; they are mentioned in F. Dukes' work, as well as nearly all the other views mentioned above, but he multiplies them in his catalogue by repeating some under the names of the engravers as well as of the artists.

With the exception as to Williams's and Mayor's views, I have had the advantage of consulting the whole of the books and illustrations above enumerated. It would be tedious to point out every case in which I have found it necessary to differ from previous accounts and descriptions. It will suffice to say that I have personally very carefully examined and measured the whole of the buildings, and that of late every year has added important knowledge to the means at hand for forming a correct judgment as to their purposes.