better than quote Mr. Irvine's words, proving, as they seem to do most conclusively, that this earliest Norman work at Maxey belongs to the first years of Henry I's reign, and is of earlier date than any Norman work (except fragments) to be seen at the cathedral. The parts of the lower part of the tower, he says:

"are in perfect agreement with the work at Castor church; and the bases of the arch from the tower to the nave present the same singular scaling ornament almost invariably found in the work of the architect, or master-mason, of Castor, as to leave no doubt of this being his work. Here, oddly enough, part of his design seems to have been borrowed from the neighbouring Saxon tower of Barnack, existing then as at present. The vertical stone slips at Barnack reappear at Maxey as two narrow slips of plinthless buttresses placed on the wall face, a good way inwards from the angles, just as at Barnack.

"The position of the corbel table seems to prove that the proportion of this new tower was so low (perhaps from doubt as to the stability of the foundation on the mound), that a further addition of a fresh Norman stage was soon made, mounted over the corbelling; this again, in its turn, to be finally terminated with the present upper pointed storey. The caps of the tower arch are carved with the beautiful and rich work found in all the buildings of this able architect, and can well be compared with that seen at Castor and Wakerley. The first appearance of those curled and ornamented angles which were perfected in the Early English age, are here excellently displayed. Their scale-worked bases have been mentioned above. Outside is seen the very same string, with its horizonal line of diamonds left in relief, that the architect uses at Wakerley. The date of the work cannot differ in any appreciative degree from that of Castor church. This date must have been prior to 1116, because no trace of any of the characteristic points of the design occurs anywhere in the cathedral of Peterborough; while those singular fragments of the period of Abbot Ernulph, found re-used in the great south-east pier of the tower, appear considerably to resemble it. Accordingly, when the next extension at Maxey is executed, namely (as at Wittering and Barnack), a north aisle, not a trace of the work of the architect of the older portion is to be seen; but the bases of the piers are found to present peculiar sections, precisely similar to what is seen in the apse, and found at other points westward of the cathedral: work which is known to be not earlier than 1117 or 1118. This work at Maxey presents caps, abaci, and bases of very plain, simple workmanship, in all cases square only, while the attempts at ornamentation are of the slightest description."

The next extension of the Norman period consisted in adding a stage to the tower, and in erecting the south nave arcade and south aisle. If these two were not done at the same time, we should have four distinct periods of Norman work. The capitals in the south arcade, as well as the bases (which is unusual) have a square recess in the angles of the plan which always marks late work; the capitals themselves are richly carved, and the outer order of the arches is cut with large indentations, which formed the precursor of the nail-nead ornament of the later Norman style, which was itself to develop into the dog-tooth of Early English. The Norman clerestory windows remain in this wall, below the later clerestory, and can be seen beneath the roof in both aisles.

more

The Norman chancel has entirely disappeared. It may simply have been removed to give place to an enlarged chancel in later style: but more probably, as I should judge, some defect became apparent in the east wall of the nave, above the chancel arch; and the fact that the piers to the east of the nave are very much out of the perpendicular confirms this theory. The sturdy walls, though out of plumb, might still be strong enough to support an additional clerestory, and medieval builders did not shrink from such a method of reconstruction. The roofs of new aisles and new outer aisle walls might be relied upon to receive the thrust, and the new main roof would be strongly timbered. It is certain that the aisles were rebuilt and enlarged in the early geometric period: and I should judge the lower part of the existing chancel arch to be of this date; but on this point I should be glad of the opinion of any visitors to the church tomorrow. This is not the only point on which I should like to consult competent architectural critics, but other special matters I must leave till we can inspect the building.

Whatever may been the character or extent of the chancel then, as I suppose, rebuilt, it was all absorbed in a further enlargement in the fourteenth century, when the chancel was brought into its present state. The alterations then included the erection of a dignified rood

loft, so large that it contained an altar upon it, the piscina attached to which is still to be seen in the south wall of the nave. This is a feature so very rare that I

have been able to find notices of fifteen other churches only in which such a piscina is known to have existed, although I have very carefully noted every mention of such a thing that has come under my observation. The clerestory, of course, had to be erected, and the chancel arch raised. The present somewhat ungainly appearance of this arch, which has 6 ft. perfectly straight above the capitals before the springing of the arch, is due to the removal of the rood-loft. These alterations made the Norman tower too low, and a belfry stage was added. Later in the century, the lady-chapel was built. The chantry is known to have been founded by Sir Robert de Thorpe in 1367. To obtain a grander entrance to this from the north aisle, its wall was removed, and rebuilt as before, about 4 ft. to the north; the lady-chapel itself projecting three more feet northwards. The arch from the north aisle is a large cusped arch of singular beauty, and I know of no example in a village church equal to it. The mouldings of this arch, the ball-flower on it, and other details, seem to agree with the date assigned to the foundation of the chantry, although the large windows in the chapel are of Transition character, which many would conjecture belonged to the beginning of the fifteenth century.

Other objects of interest I can do no more than enumerate. Two black-letter inscriptions remain: one to a vicar, about 1390, the other to Thomas Anable, 1402, who is said upon it to have had "this sepulchre" (hunc tumilum) made. This is generally believed to refer to an erection in the north of the chancel, which may be supposed to have been an Easter sepulchre. It is a graceful piece of work, in good condition, with no indication of anything in the nature of an inscription. There are three handsome sedilia, and a piscina in the east wall, all canopied. The position of the piscina is due to the usual place being occupied by the door to an ancient sacristy. This is a most singular chamber, and, as far as I know, quite unique. It had two doors, each

with three locks. Its dimensions are 9 ft. 1 in. by 6 ft. 4 in. It is 9 ft. 1 in. in height from the floor to the centre of the stone groined roof. A small lancet is in each wall, except where the chamber adjoins the chancel, and each window is protected by iron bars. At one time, in the early days of the revival of ecclesiological study, this was called an oratory; but there can be, I think, no doubt whatever that it was the sacristy of the church. A good sepulchral arch remains in the south aisle, near the piscina, but no effigy or inscription exists. I may add that the splendour of the chantry caused it for some time to be believed that the church itself was dedicated to S. Mary. But the true dedication, to S. Peter, is given in several ancient deeds which are in my keeping.

At the time of the suppression of chantries the value of this one was £9 0s. 8d., very nearly equal to the vicarage, which was given at the same time as £10 10s. 7d. I imagine that the lady-chapel must have been let by the grantee after the Reformation; for I find in 1560 a Maxey yeoman bequeathing "all the corn which lieth in the chapel," and this is the only building that could be so described. In the present century it has been used for the parish school.

There are three manors: the manor of Torpel, the manor of Maxey with its members, and the manor of Maxey and Northborough. The former, which extends. beyond the limits of the parish, takes its name from the earliest-known owner of the manor. Both the firstnamed manors have at different times belonged to the Crown. The manor of Roger de Torpel came to be part of the settlement upon Eleanor of Castile; after her death it reverted to the Crown, and was granted a few years later to Edward of Woodstock, son of Edward I by his second wife. It now belongs to Lord Kesteven. The manor of Torpel, as well as that of Maxey with its members, which for several generations had been in the family of the De la Mares, belonged in 1409 to John Beaufort, Marquis of Dorset, one of the sons of John of Gaunt; he died in 1410, and the manors came to his eldest son, Henry, and afterwards to the next son, John, Duke of

Somerset. On his death they passed to his only child, the famous Margaret, Countess of Richmond and Derby, the mother of King Henry VII, known generally (at any rate to Cambridge men) by the simple title of Lady Margaret, the foundress of S. John's and of Christ's Colleges at Cambridge, and of the Margaret Professorships in both universities. At her death, a few months after the accession of her grandson, Henry VIII, the manor of Maxey with its members came to the Crown, and was granted in 1560 to Sir William Cecil, Lord Burghley, the great Lord High Treasurer of Queen Elizabeth; and from one of his descendants it passed by purchase to the Fitzwilliam family of Milton, Mr. George Fitzwilliam being now lord of the manor. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as successors to the rights of the Dean and Chapter of Peterborough, are lords of the third manor, which is of very small extent.

I may be allowed once more again to speak of Lady Margaret. She owned the manors, as has been said, but did not reside here, having a good house at Collyweston, a few miles on the other side of Stamford, about twelve miles off. But both she and her mother, Margaret Beaufort, Duchess of Somerset, used to come, at least occasionally to Maxey. In 1456, a petition was presented to the High and Gracious Princess the Duchess of Somerset by her poor priest Beadsman, Dan John Bukke, Prior of Deeping, against the miller of West Deeping," for determining the corn of their house, which was of the foundation of her noble progenitors." The Duchess summoned her council in all haste to consider the matter, and it was settled in favour of the Prior. This document, giving the decision of the council (which is to be found in the Red Book of Thorney), is dated at the Castle of Maxey. Her daughter, Lady Margaret, was interested in the disputes about the boundaries of the parts of Kesteven and Holland, in Lincolnshire. Quarrels as to the exact boundaries were of frequent occurrence. Sometimes they became the occasion of disturbances and riots. Richard II issued a commission on the subject, but it did not succeed in finally settling the question. In the interests of peace, Lady Margaret obtained a new commission from