religions. Only lately they had a Punic inscription found at South Shields, and another inscription had been found describing the influence of a Syrian goddess. Coming to speak of more modern times, Mr. Evans said it was interesting to know that coins of Edward the Elder and Athelstan had been found in Carlisle. It was, however, curious that there were no Saxon coins bearing the name of the town as their place of mintage; neither were there any coins of Rufus. It was stated that a coin of Henry I. and one of Stephen had heen struck here, but that was doubtful. Henry, Earl of Northumberland, appeared to have had power to coin in his own right about 1150; but the principal coins of Carlisle that came down to us were those of Henry II., Richard I., and John, all of whom minted here. In the year 1208, King John summoned all his "moneyers" to London, and among them was a moneyer from Carlisle. It was in part from the evidence afforded by this mint that the history of the short-cross coinage had been determined, and it had been proved that Richard and John continued to strike coins with the name of their father, Henry. Much of the credit of this discovery was due to a northern antiquary, Mr. W. H. D. Longstaffe. After Henry III., Carlisle ceased to be one of the mints of the north; but there was a mint at Durham and another at Newcastle, where a good deal of money was struck. During the siege of Carlisle, however, three-shilling pieces and one-shilling pieces were struck. The sixteenth century tokens which were issued in other parts of the country were scarce in the north, but some of Cockermouth existed.

In conclusion, Mr. Evans said a few words on monuments such as were generally in churches, and regretted that the restorers of our churches should so much neglect them. There seemed a disposition to preserve the more ancient monuments, but to leave to their fate those relating to any subsequent period. He was compelled to ask why the history of the last two or three centuries should suffer at the hands of our church restorers at the present day. He was not aware that our predecessors had done anything to offend, unless possible in being Protestant. He looked to the architects, and to those who were interested in the churches, to preserve for the future all funereal inscriptions and monuments, of whatever date, without which it would, in future ages, be impossible properly to reconstitute the history of the past.

On Thursday, August 3rd, the Council of this Society met in the Town Hall and elected the following gentlemen as Honorary Members of this Society:-The Lord Talbot de Malahide, P.R.I.A., F.R.S., F.S.A.; J. Evans, Esq., D.C.L., LL.D., F.R.S., F.S.A.; Edward H. Freeman, Esq., D.C.L., LL.D.

At 11 a.m. the two Societies were received by the Dean and Chapter of Carlisle in the restored Fratry. On taking the chair, and opening the Architectural Section, in the absence of Mr. Beresford Hope, the Dean expressed a welcome to the members and their friends within the walls, and on that spot which represented through all changes, and through so many centuries, the two main ideas of Christian civilisation-the idea of Christian worship and thought and study as represented by the Church itself on the one hand, and the idea of what he would presume to call Christian communism or Christian socialism

!

socialism on the other, as represented by this noble community room and the other adjacent buildings of the ecclesiastical body. The Dean concluded by asking Mr. Freeman to make some observations upon the Cathedral.

Mr. Freeman at once led the way to the cloister garth where, after remarking that this was not his section-that he belonged to the following of William the Red and not to the following of Bishop Æthelwulf, he dealt with the Castle rather than the Cathedral-spoke to the following effect :

;

That suppose a wise man, learned in the history of buildings and in history generally, but knowing nothing of this particular place, were suddenly to drop from the clouds on this spot, how much would he be able to find out for himself without any man or book to guide him? Such a man, thus set down, would be able to find out a good deal about the place in a very short space of time. He might not know the name of the place, or the name of the founders and builders but he would be able to know what country he was in, what kind of place he was in, and pretty nearly what were the dates of the different things that he saw. When he lifted his eyes to the windows in the upper part of the tower, he would say at once, "I am in England," for he would know that windows like those Perpendicular ones could not be found anywhere but in England. Then he would know at once that he was under the shadow of a great church, and it would not take him very long to find out the character of that great church. The first question he would ask was-"This is something more than a parish church; it has buildings about it. What is it? Is it a regular or is it a secular church?" He would soon see that it was a regular church. He would note the surrounding buildings, and, above all, this Fratry or refectory, parallel with the nave, and he would know that this building, parallel with the nave of a church, must be a refectory, and nothing else. Again, if he had been dropped down at Furness and Calder abbeys before he came to Carlisle, he would easily see that it was not a Cistercian church, because, apart from it being in a town, the refectory of Cistercian churches was not parallel to the nave. Then he would have to doubt a little. He might think it was a church of Benedictines; he could not tell by the light of nature that it was a church of Austin canons. A further question he would ask was, "Is this simply a conventual church, or is it something more-is it the church of a Bishop?" There seemed to have been no episcopal palace or anything else to tell the inquirer that it was the see of a Bishop. Some local antiquary should be able to tell them whether there was ever an episcopal palace in Carlisle, as there commonly was in episcopal cities, and if not, how there never came to be one. Was the lack connected with the long vacancy of the see after the first bishop, or was it, that when bishops had got feudalized and turned into barons, they did not care to have a house in that city? As to the history of the building, the inquirer would see that we had here a Norman minster of moderate size, of which there are still fragments in the two transepts and what remained of the nave. He would also see that the nave must formerly have been much longer, and he would need local information as to the circumstances in which it came to be shortened. Then he would guess that this nave had been the parish church, as was so common a Custom with the Austin canons, though this feature would at once distinguish this church from any old standing cathedra church in England proper, except Lincoln.

At

At Lincoln, the division came about through the first Bishop setting up his throne in an existing church, exactly as the Bishop of Newcastle was doing at this very moment, so that the parishioners, who kept the nave as their parish church, did not lose their right by the setting up of the Bishop's throne. The arrangement was a very common one, though it had puzzled many people, as judges and counsel had been puzzled by the precisely similar Arundel case. The inquirer would further see that here he had a comparatively small church of the twelfth century, and that a vast and magnificent choir of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries had displaced the eastern limb of the Norman church, and had displaced it in a very remarkable way. He would see that the under row of windows was of the thirteenth century and the upper row of the fourteenth, and he would also see that some one in late times had gone and destroyed the history of the place by sticking in that great doorway where no great doorway ought to be. It was a remarkable example of the way in which the history and memorials of the past were being wiped out day by day to bring in the pretty things of the present. Here was the refectory, there was the walk in the cloister, and there was the dormitory. There was a little door in the transept, but no grand door, because there was no grand entrance. Why had the church not been left to tell its own story, to tell every man that the dormitory had come up against the church? Why were not the signs of the dormitory left, instead of giving us that new masonry? The new doorway might be a fine thing of its kind, but why not leave, if only for visitors like themselves, those fragments of history which they came from place to place to make out? It was disappointing when they came to a place to find that some ingenious man had done his best to wipe out its history; to find that there had been a perfectly wanton sacrifice of the building to make the thing pretty. A doorway was wanted no doubt, but why not put it somewhere else and not destroy the history?

At this point Mr. Freeman went inside, and went on with his description in the nave. No one, he said, ought to come inside a building until he had examined the outside, adding that the outside of the city of Carlisle-its walls and its sitewas perhaps better worth seeing than the inside. They saw a fragment of the nave of the Austin priory, forming anciently, and until recently, the parish church. From hence they would see the character of the church; it was neither very early nor very late Norman; and if it was the work of Bishop Æthelwulf, he should be well pleased, as he was a sort of friend of his. They would see the nave had gone a long way further to the west. Now, casting their eyes to the east, they would see still remaining a Norman arch over the opening from the transept into the south aisle of the choir. They would see also, on the north side, another Norman arch, which was partly destroyed, and the rest of it was blocked up, as it did not lead from anything to anything. They saw the north wall of the choir came against it. When the choir was added, it was designed of a much greater width and height than the original building, and it was thus thrust altogether to the north, without any reference whatever to the original Norman church. Commonly the middle of the nave and the middle of the choir coincided, or nearly so; but in this case the middle line of the nave was very much to the south of the middle line of the choir. Perhaps those who built this grand choir intended some time or other to pull down the nave and rebuild it to match; or, which was most likely, they thought nothing about the nave. Going inside the choir, Mr. Freeman pointed out the evidences of the way in which the choir had been built to the north, regardless of the original Norman building. Turning to the south side, he com

mented

mented on the very beautiful thirteenth century work, the pillars, arches, and aisle windows, and on the fourteenth century windows in the clerestory above. The east window was the grandest of its kind in England, and, he supposed, in the world. There was as big a window in one of the windows at Perugia, which in some points reminded him of this; but here they had the finest tracery to be seen anywhere; next to it came the abbey church of Selby, which however was smaller. In this choir might be seen one distinctive English peculiarity, the absence of a vault in so great a church. But even in England it was very rare in a church of this rank to see a wooden roof designed from the beginning. Mr. Freeman next drew attention to the series of lancet windows in the aisles, remarking that the range was rather more perfect than it ought to be. One or two Perpendicular windows had been taken out, and lancets put in. It was a very curious thing that, whenever there was a piece of history in a building marking its age, there was sure to come a wise modern architect, some man of taste, with his head full of his own ideas, who felt himself as much above history as the King of the Romans did above grammar. This modern architect came and said, "I am the only person who am upon a level with the original architect; I am the only person who knows what he would have done." So all later work must be swept away. The wise man of taste must wipe out the whole story and bring everything back to what he supposed it would have been in his pet century. This wiping out of history was called by the strangely sarcastic name of "restoration." Restoration commonly meant destroying all traces of the past, and building up according to the fancy of some architect to whose tender mercies the building may have been handed over. So it was here. These windows were not the original thirteenth century windows-they were windows of the nineteenth century, stuck in to the wiping out of history. Mr. Freeman expressed some doubt as to the propriety of fencing off the choir from the nave, remarking that he was tossed to and fro on the snbject, between needs of the past and the present, since at Carlisle so little of the nave remained that it was necessary to use the choir as the church till somebody should rebuild the nave. He hoped that, if ever the nave was rebuilt to the west, they would not attempt to make the new part like the old part; they should not build it in the twelfth century style, but in that of the nineteenth, if there were one. And such a style might be called into being; but if we could take up and develope the style which prevailed at the end of the fifteenth or beginning of the sixteenth century, when the native English style began to decline, that would be better still.

Mr. Ferguson, F.S.A., gave a description of the old glass in the upper part of the east window, and then read the following notes which Mr. Bloxam had contributed on the monumental effigies in the Cathedral.

"1. In the south aisle is the recumbent effigy of a bishop. His face is close shaven; on his head is worn the mitra pretiosa with pendent infulæ behind. The amice is worn about the neck. On the body appears, first, the skirts of the alb, then the extremities of the stole, then the tunic, over that the dalmatic, over all the chesible, with the rationale in front of the breast. The maniple hangs down from left arm; the right hand in gone, but was upheld in the act of benediction. The

A paper on this glass, by Mr. Ferguson, is in the Transactions of this Society, Vol. ii., p. 296.

pastoral

pastoral staff, enveloped in a veil, appears on the left side, but the crook is gone; the left hand is also gone The shoes or sandals are pointed, and the feet rest against a sculptured bracket. The head reposes on a square cushion. Above is a canopy, partly destroyed. This effigy appears to be of the middle of the fifteenth century, circa 1469. It is generally assigned to Welton, who died 1362.* "2. There is, on the floor, the inlaid brass effigy of a bishop, wearing the mitra pretiosa, and vested in the amice, alb, stole, tunic, dalmatic and chesible, and maniple. In the left hand the pastoral staff is held; in the right hand is a book. This is engraved in Gough's Sepulchral Monuments, Vol. ii., pl. cxvi. ; and in Hutchinson's Cumberland, Vol. ii., p. 602. It is the effigy of Bishop Richard Bell, who died in 1496; his name is on it.

"Under an arch in the north aisle is a recumbent effigy of a bishop of the thirteenth century. He is represented bearded, with the mitra pretiosa on his head, the amice about his neck, and in the alb, tunic and dalmatic, over which is worn the chesible, which is long, with the rationale in front of the breast. The right hand, now gone, was in the act of benediction. The pastoral staff is on the left of the body. Above the head is an Early English canopy, now much mutilated. This is said to be Bishop de Everdon, who died 1254 or 1255.

"There is also a small quadrangular brass, of very late date, to Bishop Henry Robinson, who died in 1616. A duplicate is in Queen College, Oxford. It is engraved in Jefferson's Carlisle, p. 180."

The Rev. J. T. Fowler proceeded to describe the carvings on the capitals of the pillars of the choir representing the occupations in the twelve months of the year.

The party moved on to the west door near which is the stone inscribed with runes. Professor Stephens, who was called upon by the Dean, said he had described the inscription very fully in the second volume of his work. It was very short and simple, the translation being, "Dolfin wrote these runes," or "Dolfin carved these letters on this stone." It was a simple scribble of the builder, or the architect, or some of the workmen. The name Dolfin was a very common one, but it might be that of the governor of Carlisle whom Rufus drove out. These scribbles-some of a more formal and official character-were frequently found, and they might be called "church scribbles." In a similar way we found inscriptions which had been written on the wet clay of bricks with the finger or a stick, the brick being afterwards hardened by burning.

Returning to the Fratry, Mr. C. J. Ferguson showed by plans what was known of the original arrangements of the Cathedral and the adjacent buildings, and afterwards described the painted ceiling in the Deanery.

Mr. Micklethwaite followed with some remarks. He said no doubt the parish church was very much older than the Cathedral, and he

*There is no doubt it is Bishop Barrow, who died 1429.

† A paper on these carvings by James Fowler, F.S.A., is in these Transactions, Vol, ii., p. 280.

confessed