ground-plan and the curious remains of the Romanesque chapter-house, the very existence of which is unknown to many visitors.

Our readers will see, from this brief running commentary, how very useful a work of reference these present volumes will be. They are a great improvement on former guide-books; but still, we confess, we hope for something still better in time. Why should not the architectural description be original and scientific, such, for instance, as Professor Willis himself might give us? And we should plead for more measurements and accurate scales in future volumes of the series. We should be glad too to see sections and elevations, as well as perspective views; so that the handbooks might be useful, not merely as memoranda, but for actual architectural study. However, after all allowance is made for these drawbacks, the series will be very useful and very acceptable; and we wish it the greatest possible success.

CHICHESTER SPIRE.

SINCE our last number appeared, the great misfortune of the downfall of Chichester spire has occurred. We shall not enlarge on the gracefulness of that beautiful monument of the 14th century, at once a specimen of the art feeling and of the reckless engineering of an age which could heap so vast a pile of stones on the rubble-cased piers of a Romanesque lantern, nor shall we recapitulate the picturesque description of its gradual subsidence into itself on the fatal day.

What the public did not know was the strenuous fight which was made to avert the ruin. Of course, as soon as the catastrophe happened, opinion was rife, and for want of any other victim, Mr. Slater's indefatigable exertions were overlooked, and such inconsistent charges were pressed into the service against him as the removal of the jube, at the express request of the Chandler Committee, with the advice of an engineer, after it had been proved that it merely touched, and did not mortice into the piers, and had no share in keeping up the steeple.

We cannot better dispose of these allegations than by reproducing a letter which Mr. Slater has addressed to the Sussex papers, containing the simple narrative of events as they successively occurred:

"Sir,—It would be unbecoming in me, while inquiries and investigations are taking place, to put myself forward in a way that might seem to prejudice such measures. Some statements, however, have appeared in the public prints, which, as they affect what are purely matters of fact, it may, I think, be well to put in a correct light.

"The points to which, with your permission, I would call attention, are chiefly in connection with the subject of the removal of the Arundel Shrine, commonly known as the organ screen.

"It is a very prevailing impression that this screen, placed as it was at the entrance to the choir and in close proximity to the western piers of the great tower, formed a strong abutment to them, and materially assisted them in the

support of the spire. A little examination, however, of the real facts will show that this supposition was not really correct.

"I have before me a plan of this part of the building, made by Mr. Butler, the late resident architect to the dean and chapter, as long ago as the year 1846, in which the position of the organ screen, with reference to the piers, is correctly shown; and Mr. Thompson, the clerk of works, made before its removal most complete and particular drawings of the screen, tower piers, and adjacent parts. These latter may be seen by your readers at the cathedral at any time by application to Mr. Thompson.

"Those who recollect the screen and know the cathedral best, will be able best to vouch for the accuracy of these drawings. From them it would appear —as, indeed, was the fact that the main body of the screen was not between the two western piers of tower at all, but between the arches on the north and south sides of the eastern bay of the nave. The back wall of the screen -which, by the way, was very thin, not being more than twelve or fifteen inches in thickness-was the only portion of the structure in question which touched the piers at all, and that only at the extreme western angles. I use the word touched' advisedly; for when the work came to be examined, it was found that the stonework of the screen was in no way bonded into the pier, but simply touched' it. Indeed, in the case of the south-west pier the marble shaft at the angle of the old pier was found in position, not disturbed in any way by the stonework of the screen. This, I think, sir, must be admitted by all unprejudiced persons to be a convincing proof of the fact, so often asserted by Mr. Yarrow, myself, and others, that the Arundel Shrine was practically unconnected with the main fabric; and, therefore, could have no effect one way or the other upon its stability. Moreover, the shrine was not, as has been asserted, a very massive structure, but was both lightly and indifferently built. I may here add also that Mr. Yarrow was consulted before it was arranged to take down the screen.

66

Immediately behind, that is eastward, of the Arundel Shrine, and between it and the backs of the return stalls, were two stone staircases, leading to the organ-loft. These were approached by doors in the back wall of the screen, and some of their steps were placed apparently against the great piers. These stairs were in no way connected with the structure of the Shrine.

"On ascending the staircase which was against the south-west pier, a very large crack was observable in the respond, or projecting portion of the wall supporting the west arch of the tower. This fissure was large enough to admit a walking stick, and had been there before the memory of man. It is therefore erroneous to suppose that these and other cracks were not perceived until after the organ-screen was removed. On the contrary, iron straps and cramps had been applied from time to time to stay the progress of the settlement alluded to; while other cracks had been only too long apparent by their disastrous effects in crippling the eastern bays of the nave, and causing a most unsightly break in the rich pointed arch opening from the south aisle of the nave into the south transept.

"Nor was this all. In the south-west, as well as in the north-west pier, were numerous unsightly cracks in various parts, which bore sure testimony to the general unsoundness of the work. Until, however, the stalls and the staircases before referred to were removed, the full extent of the unsoundness of the piers neither was nor could be known.

"It was now perceived that the lower portion of the respond before alluded to, forming part of the south-west pier, had been, at some distant period, entirely cut away, and the super-incumbent mass actually supported on two wooden struts. What had long been a mystery was at once explained; the crack of such long standing in the upper portions of the pier was now, in part at least, accounted for.

"In the north-west pier the case was different, but scarcely less alarming.

Here the respond indeed remained, but on either side of it were cracks wide 'enough to admit a man's arm, and so deep that a five foot rod was inserted for its full length into the crevice without meeting with any obstacle. In point of fact, the respond was entirely detached from the body of the pier.

'Immediately that these appalling discoveries were made, measures were taken to meet the emergency. Centres and shores were at once put up, and means instantly taken to restore the ruined portions of the piers. The wooden props under the south respond were taken out, and new stone-work built up solid, bonding as far as was thought desirable into the core of the pier. Other portions of this pier were also refaced from time to time, and bond-stones inserted as far as was practicable, considering the loose and rotten state of the core.

"Almost the same remarks apply to the north-west pier, where the works which ultimately became necessary exceeded that to the south-west pier.

"It was felt from the first, that an amount of bad construction in the old piers had to be contended with, which presented serious difficulties; but it was apprehended that work which would stand with the facing detached, would be stronger when the facing was again made part of the work. However, in point of fact, and in the end, we see that the rottenness of the old work exceeded all experience.

"I have now placed before you fairly the facts of this part of the case, and I will only add that it is a satisfaction to me to know that the whole matter is at present the subject of inquiry by some of the most scientific authorities in the kingdom, and to believe that the result will ere long be made public.

"I will only add a word of explanation as to the position of certain parties whose names have been connected with this business.

"It was an accident that first brought my friend Mr. G. M. Hills into connection with the matter. He was in Chichester on private business; and knowing the cathedral well and being interested in the restorations, as a friend of mine, he went over the works.

"His great knowledge of the building, and my confidence in his practical skill, induced me to ask him to watch the work closely and suggest any extra precautions which should seem to be necessary from time to time. The ability and zeal with which he assisted me in directing the operations of the builders are beyond all praise, and are well known to all.

"With regard to Mr. Bushby, I may say, that when more urgent measures than had been previously taken became necessary, I at once selected him as a clever and energetic builder, with whom I have had the greatest reason on several former occasions to be highly satisfied. Mr. Bushby has a large business, and I judged from this, that he would be able, should occasion require, to increase his staff of workmen at the cathedral to any extent that might be thought desirable. I have every reason to be satisfied with the exertions both of Mr. Bushby and his men. I must not, however, omit to mention that he was not employed to the exclusion of others. Mr. Johnson, of Chichester, with his foreman and men, were on the works previously, and continued most active and efficient to the last. Mr. Kitson, of Chichester, also rendered much valuable assistance with his men—indeed I cannot speak too highly of all those who were engaged on the work at such a critical time. "I think it is now unnecessary for me to say more; I will therefore conclude, hoping that you will have the kindness to insert this letter, which I am not without hope may remove the prejudices of some of your readers, and throw some light upon a few of the questions relative to this business, which have, as yet, needed some explanation from me.

"I am, sir, your obedient servant,
"WILLIAM SLATER.

"4, Carlton Chambers, Regent Street, London,

March 11, 1861."