Page:Archaeological Journal, Volume 4.djvu/397

 NORTHAMPTONSHIRE CHURCHES. 373 to far more attention and weight than they at present deserve. Much credit is due to the Northampton Society in general for avoiding this error, and not trusting implicitly to any individual. It now appears that Mr. Freeman's notes required to be re-arranged and digested into order after they had been corrected by otlier members. This was not done, and hence the " confused and unsatisfactorj'"' manner in which they appear, and of which the Reviewer justly complained. There is very little real difference of opinion between the Reviewer and Mr. Freeman. Tiie complaint is not that the account of the latter is erro- neous, but that it is '•confused." Tlie leading facts are not brought out clearly. The Reviewer said that " the existing church is chief y of the latter part of the fourteenth century." He did not say that the pillars and arches are of the same date, he did not enter into detail at all, not being called on to do so. He was content to point out the remarkable and unusual features of the buildiniT, and give an intelligible account of them, and only incident- ally pointed out those errors in Mr. Freeman's description which it seemed necessarv to correct. To the Editor of the Archteological Journal. An author who, like the Reviewer, is so intimately acquainted with the details of the Societys proceedings as to know that the letters E. A. F. denote " an in- experienced wiiter," and "one of the youngest Members of the Society," might also have known that no description, though bearing the initials of its immediate author, rests upon the individual authority of any single Member. Each paper is laid before the Committee, is carefully inspected by them, and usually verified on the spot by one or two of their number. In pursuance of this system, I have at present in my possession descriptions of three Churches written by one older and more experienced than myself which I am requested to verify. In like manner my account of Irthlingborough was corrected on the spot once, if not twice, by other Members of the Committee. The result was several alterations, none of which brought the description nearer to the Reviewer's opinion, and which indeed produced more than one of the passages which he has expressly selected for animadversion. For nistance he says, " the west window is a good Decorated one, standing clear over llie porch, and flatly contradicting the notion that there was originally a room over the porch, which would have blocked this fine window." I was told that there had been such a room, and, like the Reviewer, thought it improbable, though I was not inclined to throw aside the information quite so cavalierly without looking into its evidence. The notes in jip. 114 and 1 Hi were inserted liy the Secretary on the authority of the Rector of the Parish, who surely must be vol.. IV. ■ ■ 3 c