Page:Archaeological Journal, Volume 4.djvu/399

 NORTllA.Ml'TONSHiKK L'llLHUHKS. 375 The Reviewer ventures the statement that I was not aware of the use of the niche in the west wall of the porch. It so happens that I was not aware of the use he atlrihutes to it, inasmuch as I did not observe the chimney referred to at all. But how the Reviewer became aware of my ignorance I know not, for the more observant correctors of my MS. inserted this sentence, which I should think was sulHciently explicit, in the printed description. " This has evidently been intended ior a lamp-niche, the opening or chimney being on the other side of the wall." The real crime seems to be that it did not occur either to me or to any other member of the Committee to go out of the way to speak irreverently of what the Reviewer is pleased to call " the theatrical effects common in the Ki)man Church." Individually, I shall always feel myself bound to abstain from sneering at any ceremony of the ancient Eiujlish Church ; as a body the Committee are expressly prohibited from inserting any matter " not strictly archseological, historical, or descriptive." And to none of these heads can controversial language be referred, and least of all any attempt to cast ridicule upon any Church or sect. I have myself, as a member of the Committee, objected before now to what I considered as irrelevant attacks on the Puritans. After all, what has this purely ritual or ecclesiological matter to do with the architecture or history of the Collegiate Church of Irthlingl)orough ? On the great general difference between the Committee and the Reviewer with regard to the date of the Church I cannot profess to enter at length. I can only say that, as being supported by the opinion of so many others no mean proficients in Church Architecture, my statements at least deserve to be met with argument, and not to be passed by with a futile attempt at ridicule. I only ask for such treatment as was given by the Archaeological Journal in the case of an exactly similar difference as to the double north aisle at Higham Ferrers. I imagined and it appears that others imagined also, that the arcades at Irthlingborough were of the thirteenth and not the fourteenth century ; we may be wrong, but how does the Reviewer account for the appearance of the Clerestory of the Quire, which is manifestly of the last mentioned date, and is as manifestly an addition to the arcades which support it ? If the Reviewer, instead of amusing himself with sneering at our supposed mistakes, had attempted to explain two real difficulties, which none of us could satisfactorily solve, and on which he has not vouchsafed a single word, he might have conferred a real benefit on Ecclesiologists, — perhaps on archaeologians also. These are the supposed gateway (p. 114) and the great arch of construction (p. 1 1(5). Instead of elucidating that most ])erplexiug fragment of which the latter is a part, he diverts himself with a paljiable aKionax'ta. He says, " the opinion entertained by this writer that the College buildings consisted only of the tower, and the four small rooms attached to it, is extremely improbable." I cannot find that I state any such thing ; indeed by speaking (p. 11 6) of " the remnants of the Collegiate buildings," I imply the contrary. A person who derived his first acquaintance with Irthlingborough from the Review, woidd naturally sujipose that the description there given of the Church and College was something entirely new, a correction of my faulty account. On the contrary, where the author does not directly attack, he simply repeats, or, at least, coincides with, my statements ; and communicates, unless it be with regard to the impost of the Chancel-Arch, no fresh information whatever. And I cannot