to Rainald's portion only. In most of the entries respecting other counties we find "Terra Regis," but in Cheshire and Shropshire they do not occur. In Somersetshire the names of the tenants, as enumerated at the beginning, do not answer to the arrangement of the return, and at the beginning of Cheshire they are omitted altogether. In vol. ii., Essex, p. 17, ten names are entered, and erased by two lines saltirewise; but the reason for this erasure is not patent, as the names agree with the owners and run in right order, unless it was found that the list had been given on page 1. The erasures, however, furnish information which is wanting in the list on page I in three instances-Berch in Berchingis, Aldreda, the name of the patron saint of Ely Abbey, and Martin, the name of the patron saint, De Bello (Battle Abbey). The returns, however, fortunately, also contained these names. Domesday is also silent about the castles of Halton and Durham, though made caputs of baronies by Hugh Lupus. Now where Domesday proves too much: "In Sciropesberie (Shrewsbury) 'civitate facit Rogerius Comes Abbatiam; et eidem dedit Monasterium St. Petri ubi erat parochia civitatis.' In the church of St. Peter here alluded to Roger of Arundel, alias R. de Belesme and Roger de Montgomery, in 1083 vowed the construction of an abbey, placing his gloves upon the altar in token of his intent." Such is the account of Ordericus Vitalis (Dug. iii. 513). On turning to Cal. Rot. Pat., p. 109, 4 E. III., we read that the king confirmed to the Abbot of St. Peter's, Salop, certain manors, &c., including "Medietatem piscariæ de Merse," near Thelwall, granted to him by Ranulf, sometime Earl of Chester; and in the same volume, p. 201, 3 R. II., more ample confirmation of all previous grants to the Abbot of Salop, "Et notandum quod Hugo Comes Cestriae fuit fundator ejusdem in anno. 1087, et anno. 20 Willi Conquestris." This note was made, evidently correcting the statement, three hundred years after Domesday was written. There is also the inquiry, "Who founded the monastery, and who the abbey?" The copying was only partial, or only part of what was copied has come down to us, for Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmoreland, and Durham are not described in the survey, neither is Lancashire under its proper title; but Furness and the northern part of the county, as well as the south of Westmoreland, with part of Cumberland, are included with the West Riding of Yorkshire. That part of Lancashire which lies between the Ribble and the Mersey, which in 1086 comprehended six hundreds and one hundred and eighty-eight manors, is subjoined to Cheshire, and strange to say, part of Rutlandshire is described in the counties of Northants and Lincoln. At the end of the Atiscross Hundred in Cheshire we find North Wales occupying four lines only (269a), and there are eleven manors included "in Marcha de Walis" on 1866 in eight lines only. On folio 269 there are three entries respecting manors in Cheshire "nunquam geldavit nec hidata fuit." This is also applied "In hoc eodem in est silva una nunquam geldavit, nec hidata fuit.” It must therefore be universally regretted that the more ample record has not been handed down to us instead of the imperfect one before us. E NOTES ON CHURCH RESTORATION. IN BY ROBERT LANGTON, F.R. HIST. Soc. N the following paper I have sought, first, to point out to some extent the wrong that has been done under the mistaken notion that in the repairs to the fabrics I shall mention (our fine mediæval churches) they were being restored to their original condition; and in the second place to embody a few notes on the so-called restorations of some of our ancient and more important churches, which have come under my own notice during the last thirty-five years. I need scarcely remark that the few instances I shall have time to mention are by no means exhaustive of the theme, but are, on the contrary, merely an introduction to a very sad story of spoliation and wilful destruction. Any one who has at all studied this subject of church restoration will, I think, cordially agree with me that, while in many modern instances satisfactory reparation and even renovation has been made, yet in far more numerous cases during the last half century irreparable mischief has been wrought on some of our stateliest ecclesiastical buildings over the whole of England. I have no hesitation in saying that in by far the greater number of our beautiful parish churches, and in many of our cathedrals, which have passed through this ordeal of restoration, the lapse of time, indeed whole centuries of neglect, has done far less damage than the misdirected zeal of the well-meaning enthusiasts, who like to see everything about them dazzlingly new and bright. This destruction of our finest monuments of antiquity has, however, been going on much longer than fifty years, though it is within the last forty years that the overwhelming wave of restoration has accomplished the greatest mischief. Ninety years ago, Mr. John Carter, in the pages of Sylvanus Urban, was deploring the wanton destruction inflicted on our most precious monuments of English ecclesiastical architecture. In these papers of his the incongruities introduced into the restorations and rebuildings of his time are scornfully, but truthfully, described as "The fantastic order of architecture." If "An Architect," as John Carter signed himself, had lived to these days, how would his gentle spirit have been exercised by contemplating the “fantastic tricks" played in many cases by persons (in some cases by parsons) who ought to have known better? As far as my reading on this subject goes, Carter was the first professional architect to perceive and to raise his voice against the Vandals who, under the pretence of restoration, were, even in his days, rapidly destroying "all the houses of God in the land." Since his time, however, real students of pointed architecture have arisen who have done very excellent work in the judicious repair of many of our famous churches. Amongst the earliest of these were Rickman, the Pugins, father and son, followed by the Scotts, father and son, and in the present day by a host of clever, sympathetic architects, whose names will occur to all. But the days of wanton destruction of our ancient parish churches are by no means at an end. There are still occasionally to be seen in these so-called restorations examples of the "fantastic order of architecture;" and this danger, lamentable enough at all times, is, I am sorry to say, fostered by a portion of the clergy, who, having but little real love for antiquity, and a weakness for everything that is smart and new-looking, are constantly going far beyond substantial and necessary repairs, and are in many cases. turning our venerable, "solemn temples" "into something new and strange." They are, in fact, gradually bringing our really fine old parish churches to that oppressively glaring state of gold and colour thus described by Robert Herrick in his Hesperides So that where'ere ye look ye see Or frieze, from this fine fripperie. Some thirty years since (May 1st, 1855), at a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries, the following memorandum was drawn up and printed. It is too long, perhaps, to give it in its entirety, but here is an extract : "The numerous instances of the destruction of the character of ancient monuments (including, of course, churches) which are taking place, under the pretence of restoration, induce the executive committee, to which the Society of Antiquaries has entrusted the management of its 'conservation fund,' to call the special attention of the society to the subject, in the hope that its influence may be exerted to stop, or at least moderate, the pernicious practice. The evil is an increasing one; and it is to be feared that, unless a strong and immediate protest be made against it, the monumental remains of England will before long cease to exist as truthful records of the past. Though time and neglect may impair, and eventually destroy, they do not add to a building; nor do they pervert the truthfulness of monuments. Restoration may possibly, indeed, produce a good imitation of an ancient work of art; but the original is thus falsified, and in its renovated state it is no |