and one in the aile of the church. All which will be much better understood by seeing than by hearing. But it should be known, that the new building is as much higher than the old as the upper windows, both of the body of the choir and of its side, exceed in height the marble arcade. But, lest it should hereafter be asked why the great breadth of the choir near the tower is so much reduced at the top of the church, I think it not improper to mention the reason. One of which is, that the two towers, namely, St. Anselm's, and St. Andrews, formerly placed in a circle on each side of the church, prevented the choir from proceeding in a straight line. Another reason is, that it was judicious and useful to place the Chapel of St. Thomas at the head of the church, where was the Chapel of the Holy Trinity, which was much narrower than the choir, as far as the confines of those towers in a straight line. Afterwards, by degrees avoiding those towers on both sides, and yet preserving the breadth of that passage which is without the choir, as much as possible, on account of the processions which were frequently to be made there, he narrowed his work with a gradual obliquity, so as neatly to contract it over against the altar, and from whence, as far as the third pillar, to reduce it to the breadth of the Chapel of the Holy Trinity. After that, four pillars of the same diameter, but of a different form, were placed on both sides. After them, four others were placed circularly, at which the new work met. This is the situation of the pillars. But the outer circuit of the walls, proceeding from the above-mentioned towers, first goes in a right line, then bends in a curve, and thus both walls meet at the round tower, and there are finished. All these things may much more clearly, and more agreeably be seen by the eye, than explained by speaking or writing. But they are mentioned that the difference of the new work and the old may be distinguished. Let us now observe more attentively what, or how much work, our masons completed in this seveath year after the fire. To be brief, in the seventh year the new undercroft, elegant enough, was finished, and upon it the outer walls of the ailes, as high as the marble capitals; but the architect neither could nor

would turn the windows on account of the approaching rains, nor place the inner pillars. With this the seventh year ended, and the eighth began. In this eighth year the architect placed eight inner pillars, and turned the arches, and the vault, with the windows, circularly. He raised also the tower as high as the bases of the as the bases of the upper windows under the arch. The ninth year the work was suspended for want of money'. In the tenth year the upper windows of the tower were finished, with the arch upon the pillars; also the upper and lower balustrade, with the windows, and the larger arch ; the upper roof, too, where the cross is raised, and the roof of the ailes, as far as to the laying of the lead. The tower also was all covered in, and many other things were done this In this year. Baldwin Bishop of year Worcester was translated to the see of Canterbury.

This was in all probability a political suspension, for the purpose of raising supplies and procuring liberal contributions. The monks well understood the powerful nature of such an appeal.

E

OF THE

METROPOLITAN CATHEDRAL CHURCH

OF

Canterbury.

SECTION II.

CONCLUSION OF THE HISTORY OF THE STRUCTURE.

Arrogance of the Convent of Christchurch.—Henry II. endeavours to controul its power.-Fails of success.-Appeal of the monks against Hubert Walter. They elect Langton.—Altercation between John and the Pope.-The sentence of interdict.-Nature of its operation.John compelled to submission.—Fitting up the Trinity chapel for the relics of Becket.-His translation.-Its pomp.-Prior Henry de Estria. His tasteful additions to the choir.—Decline of the political influence of Christchurch.-Edward I.-His altercations with the monks.—Decrease of donations to the church.-Islip's liberality.— Western transept rebuilt by Sudbury.—The ancient Norman nave taken down.-Death of Sudbury.—Rebuilding the nave by Prior Chillenden.-Pure and elegant style of architecture then prevailing.—Its characteristics.-Prior Goldstone erects the beautiful chapel of the

Virgin Mary. His other works.-Prior Sellynge glazes the cloisters. Undertakes to rebuild the central tower.-Its completion by the second Prior Goldstone.-He builds Christchurch gate.-Munificence of Cardinal Morton and the Prior-Christchurch at the zenith of its splendour.-Its magnificence and sumptuous adornments.-Grand effect of the services of the Romish church.—The pride of Christchurch humbled by Henry VIII-He annuls their festivals.-Degrades their patron Saint.—Plunders his shrine.-Finally, dissolves the monastery.-Christchurch formed into a collegiate church of a Dean and twelve Prebendaries.-Observations on the dissolution of the convent.—Vindication of the monks by Batteley.—Decline of architecture under Henry VII.—Fantastic varieties of the florid style.— Gross licentiousness and barbarism of the mixed style of the close of the sixteenth century.-Gaudy screen given by Mary.-Undercroft given by Elizabeth to the refugee Protestants from the Netherlands. -Devastations by the fanatics of the Commonwealth.-Re-adornment of the choir at the Restoration.-Added varieties of style.-Spire of Arundel steeple taken down.—Further improvements of the choir.— Decoration of the altar.-A somewhat finished appearance given to Becket's crown.-Injuries of the building from time and the weather. -Perishable nature of the stone employed by Sudbury and his successors.—Care taken for the preservation of the edifice.—Conclusion of the history.

power,

By this time the natural effects of accumulated wealth, and extended had begun to display themselves in the haughty assumption and unbridled insolence of the convent of Christchurch. Lurking jealousies of the influence of Rome were evinced by the secular government, in its endeavour to direct the election of the Archbishops'. Baldwin lent his aid to a poli

The election of the Archbishop was a subject of severe contest on many occasions; the opposing parties were the Prior and Chapter of Christchurch, under the sanction of numerous papal bulls; and

tical project of the King, to controul the dangerous preponderance of the monks, by founding a collegiate church of secular canons and prebendaries in honour of the martyred Becket, at Hackington, three miles from Canterbury; the number of canons to be equal to that of the suffragans of Canterbury; the King to bestow one of the prebendaries, and the suffragans the remainder. By this scheme it was hoped covertly to transfer from Christchurch the management of archiepiscopal and secular affairs, and to undermine an influence too powerful for an open assault. The wary and subtle monks perceived the intention, and appealed to the Pope. Baldwin, with becoming firmness, suspended the Prior Honorius, and excommunicated the appellants; and upon a repetition of the offence, imprisoned the convent within their own walls. The Prior escaping, fled to Rome, and his representation was of such effect, that the spirit of Henry was again compelled to bend to monkish arrogance. He in vain courted them to withdraw their appeal. Baldwin went so far as to consecrate the chrism at London, a peculiar right of Christchurch; but finding dangerous consequences likely to result from continued opposition, relinquished his endeavour.

Leaving further details of these contests to the biographical part of our volume, it is sufficient for our present purpose to remark that the convent was triumphant under the protection of the Pope; although the monks condescended so far as to elect Hubert Walter at the recommendation of the captive Richard. He proved an enterprising and able statesman. Jealous of political ability, not exerted solely for the interest of the church, they

the suffragan Bishops, countenanced by the Sovereign. The former had to plead their having on former occasions received the Royal licence to exercise their alleged privilege. The Bishops claimed a voice in the election of a Metropolitan, to whose authority they were to submit, and pleaded the examples of the elections of Rodulph, William Corboil, Theobald, and Becket. The altercations arrived at a height perfectly ridiculous. Upon the death of Baldwin, when the Bishops and Nobles arrived at Canterbury to join in the election, the Prior and Convent forcibly seized the Bishop of Bath, and dragged him to the metropolitical chair, proclaiming him their Archbishop elect. Pope Innocent III. by a bull, A. D. 1206, in which he peremptorily decides for the monks, set the matter at rest. In succeeding instances the Popes in the plenitude of their power chose to nominate the Archbishops of Canterbury by bulls of provision; which method prevailed until the Reformation put an end to this disgraceful usurpation.