the Saxon era; the last coin was so defaced as to be unintelligible. Time, no doubt, and circumstances necessitated the erection of another and more commodious structure; to me it is a matter of wonder why this was not erected on the site of the old one, as our forefathers were very reluctant to destroy all traces of the munificence of their pious predecessors, though always anxious to rebuild and embellish their parish churches with the skill at their command. It would appear, however, that in this case the rule was departed from, nevertheless it has been carried out in the present building, as I shall hereafter show; but first I will endeavour to trace the history of the rectory from the earliest date down to the present time. In 1076, 10th William I., Ivo Talebois gave the church of Beetham and the lands of Haverbrack to the monks of St. Mary's, York, who were then possessed, by gift from Ralph de Meschines, of the abbey of Wetherall; the monks of St. Mary's must have appropriated this portion of their vast possessions, together with Heversham and some more, for the support of their brethren of Wetherall, as in 1194 the daughter and heiress of William 7th Baron of Kendal, who married Gilbert, son of Roger Fitzbride, confirmed the gift to that Abbey. The church and lands remained thus for some ages, the abbot of St. Mary's being still the patron.

I find that King Edward the Second (1307) confirmed the gift of the manor to Conishead Priory, but whether this included the church or not, I cannot say. In 1460, the church and rectory were annexed to the chantry of St. Mary's church Eccles, Lancashire, with a reservation of 13l. per annum for the vicar, 31. per annum to the approviator, 3s. 4d. to the dean and chapter, and 13s 4d. to the archdeacon of Richmond; in the same year the advowson was granted to Nicholas Bryan, Esq., and others, reserving 20s. per annum to the abbot, and this he enjoyed till the time of the eighth Henry, when the monasteries were dissolved. In the time of Mary I. it was presented to Thomas Bradley, Esq., but for some reason it again reverted to the crown, being leased for 251. per annum for 21 years, until, in 1612, King James granted the rectory, &c., to Sir Francis Duckett.

It would not be interesting to trace the decay of the Duckett family, or how they sold off portions of the tythe from time to time, until, in or about 1730, the skeleton of the rectory was sold to Daniel Wilson, of Dallam Tower, Esq., in the possession of whose family it still continues.

I think

I think I have said all I need as to the history of the living, so I will now briefly give a description of the church itself. I believe that the church has originally consisted of nave, chancel, south aisle, and north transept, the south aisle extending eastwards as far only as the division between the two former; and I am led to this opinion from evidence yet traceable, which induces me to believe that there has been a chancel arch which, on the south, has been buttressed by the east wall of the south aisle, and on the north by the west wall of the transept. It will be observed that on the south, immediately opposite the position the chancel arch would naturally occupy, there is conclusive evidence that there has been a buttress, as a portion of the top-weathering yet remains, and as this is the only buttress I can find, I conclude its purpose was to form a natural finish to the wall of the aisle. That this portion of the church is much earlier than any other, is evident from the fact that the south arcade and the great south door are of a transitional character, and the tower still shows a portion of the weather-mould of a high pitched roof. It is evident also, that there has been an arch or arcade, with the arch or arches of very different radius to any others in the building, on the north side between the chancel and north tran sept or aisle, as the springer of one of the arches still remains. The roof over a portion of the present north aisle I consider to be coeval with the body of the church, as it is of a much more elaborate character than the roofs over any other portions of the aisles, having the principal rafters and purlins stop-moulded, and finished in altogether better style. I see that Mr. Hutton considers, from the fact that there are two inverted coats of arms in the south parapet, the arms of the Bannisters in the window below, and the arms of Fitz Roger over the vestry window, that the church was built in 1216; but against this we have the evidence of some old coins, which were found in 1834 in digging for a grave near the base of the pillar against which the pulpit stands; these coins were found to be of the date of Edward the Confessor, William the Conqueror, and William Rufus; and, as they had been placed in a block of ashlar hollowed out for their reception, it is probable they were placed there to commemorate the laying of the foundation stone, and as a guide to posterity as to the date of this portion of the structure. From this it would appear that the building belongs to the latter part of the eleventh or to the beginning of the twelfth century.

The

The desire of our forefathers to emulate the munificence of their predecessors, the increase of population, or other circumstances of which we possess no authentic record, led to the addition of the north aisle and Beetham Chapel. The De Beetham family were, about the time the enlargement would take place, in the zenith of their glory and power; and though the chapel that belonged to them at present only extends as far as would fill up half the space of the length of the chancel, I think a careful examination will show that it originally occupied the whole length of the south chancel aisle, from east to west. I consider this theory is born out by the fact that the arch separating it from the chancel is of much later date than the south arcade or nave, but seemingly of the same period as the north arcade, &c. The pitches of the roofs, over what I designate the De Beetham Chapel, are different, but it is apparent to any one, that a portion of these roofs is of comparatively recent date, being of pine, and good, whilst the remaining portion is of oak, and in a very dilapidated state. This, however, has been the original pitch of the roof, as is shown by the break in the east wall, which corresponds with the rake of the old roof. Another reason for supposing that this chapel has extended westwards as far as the chancel is, that there are some rough limestone corbels in the south wall, which extend thus far, and these, I imagine, have been to support wall uprights in connection with a roof, though I can see no mortises into which the tenons were inserted. There is a peculiar piece of workmanship in the rafter at the east end of south aisle, concerning which I shall be glad of the opinion of gentlemen present, as I can make nothing of it, and cannot think it is in its proper position.

I believe most of the windows in the church and of the additions before referred to, are of about the same date, the character of the tracery being precisely similar to those of the churches of Islip, Northampton, and Donnington, Lincolnshire; both these churches have been added to, according to Brandon, and mostly re-built on the site of Early English

structures.

I cannot say much about the wood-work in the church; it is evident, however, there has been a rood-screen of later date, and there is part of an old screen in the De Beetham chapel, but no idea can be formed as to whether the former possessed any architectural merit, and the latter speaks for itself. A piscina still exists in the De Beetham chapel, and there is a square

opening