",l

§ ¦','.-¦1, .,, ^yr-ryr ,

Yale Center for British Art and British Studies

.t, ¦'

NOTES ON THE EESTORATION

OF

ddalmittig ^kiritk

By RALPH NEVILL, F.S.A., F.R.I.B.A.

LONDON :
WYMAN & SONS, 74-5, GEEAT QUEEN STREET,
LINCOLN'S-INN FIELDS, W.C.
1880.

NOTES ON THE RESTORATION

(SMalmtrtjg ^\tmitk

By RALPH NEVILL, F.S.A., F.R.I.B.A.

LONDON :
WYMAN <fe SONS, 74-5, GEEAT QUEEN STREET,
LINCOLN'S-INN FIELDS, W.C.
1880.

NOTES ON THE RESTORATION OF
GODALMING CHURCH.
By Ralph Nevill, F.S.A., F.R.LE.A.

IN the careful restoration of any church it is usual,
through the removal of whitewash and plaster, to
come across many previously unknown evidences of its
date and history. In the case of Godalming, a large
church of great variety of dates, I have, through my
connection with the work and residence on the spot,
been enabled to note so much that, in order to explain
myself, I shall be forced in some measure to repeat the
matter of the excellent paper by Major Heales, published
in the fourth volume of Transactions. I shall therefore
begin these notes from the earliest history of the chui'ch,
omitting as much as possible reference to whatever has
not received fresh light.
We know that there was a church here in the time of
Edward the Confessor, and I am of opinion that the
western arch and wall of the tower were of this date.
The arch was a plain round arch on a simple impost and
of rude workmanship, and the walling of loose masonry
of thin Bargate stones laid in herring-bone fashion,
differing therein and in the inferior quality of the stone
from the rest of the tower. If not of so early, it is
certain that this arch was of the earliest Norman date,
and was in that case probably the work of a rector — the
well-known Ranulf Flambard, the builder of Durham
Cathedral. Some height above the wall and visible from
the ringing floor was the line of attachment of a queen
post roof clearly marked on the east side of wall, and a
stage above that the line of termination of a gable,
B 2

2 NOTES ON THE EBSTOItATIO.Kr OF
showing the original height of the roof over this wall.
It will scarcely be credited that the builders who raised
the next stage of the tower finishing with the heavy
spire never took the trouble to bond their work mto this
old gable except just at the bottom and top, in conse
quence of which an opening averaging about an inch
wide existed along the line of the gable, admitting
through the 3-ft. wall a draught strong enough to blow
out a candle held against it, so that the tower had for
the last 700 years virtually stood on three sides.
In order to make this side secure we have been forced
to in great measure obliterate these roof marks hy
cutting out of the wall and putting bonding stones and
irons across the cracks. I should add that the topmost
gable line has no connection with the present early roof
of the nave.
On the south side of tower wall, corresponding to the
outside of the chancel arch, we found, just above the line
of the nave capitals, some of the original quoins of an
external angle.
These facts clearly show that this was originally the
chancel arch of an aisleless church without central
tower, and judging from the character of the masonry
and the non-cruciform shape of the church, there can I
think be little doubt this was a portion either of the
original Saxon church, or of a church built very soon
after the Conquest, and somewhat in the Saxon manner.
The author of a pleasant but too conjectural pamphlet
on the Church Restoration has, from insufficient and
partial information, fallen into the error of supposing
that this was the west wall of the nave — a clearly un
tenable position ; the continued existence of this older
arch is another example of the prevalent mediaeval custom,
well known to students, of leaving the chancel arch and
doorways unaltered.
A doorway in the north transept, removed from a cor
responding position in the old wall, is, I think, from the
character of the impost, also of this earliest date.
I regret to say that the absolute exigencies of service
in a church from shape peculiarly unfitted therefore.

GODALtoiNG C'lIUECH. 3
forced itiy colleague, the late Sir Gilbert Scott, and my
self most reluctantly to agree to the removal of this
western arch ofthe towei* and the widening ofthe open
ing — a sacrifice which Will, I am happy to think, render
further structural alterations unnecessary.
The eastern arch of the tower has also been somewhat
altered, the arch being lifted from its impost, which is
left in its original position, and refixed on a new impost
at some three or four feet above.
This not being an absolutely necessary work of altera
tion was done against my wishes and without my co
operation, but I am bound to admit that the church has
gained greatly in appearance thereby, and that there
seems to me no valid arch^ological reason against it.
The same plan could not, unfortunately, be adopted with
the west arch, owing to its much narrower size.
The next portion in date of the church is the row of
windows left in each side of the chancel walls, and the
base and part of jamb of a small Norman priest's door
now uncovered on the south side. The arches of these
windows were previously visible, but we have now opened
out the splays, and found on the plaster sides of them
the original colour, of the very rudest description, but
interesting as having been covered up since Early English
date. The eastern window on the north side is suffi
ciently perfect to show the opening and the internal sill.
In the rubble filling of this window we found several ears
of rye, but, unfortunately, containing no corn that could
be experimented with.
High up in the north and south transept west walls
are two small Norman windows that I opened some
years ago when taking down the transept galleries. It
is thus clear that the church was converted into the
cruciform shape, and was at first without aisles. The
fact of the side arches of the tower being pointed is
very peculiar, but seems to show this alteration was of
Transitional date, and it was doubtless executed by the
bishops of Salisbury, after obtaining a grant of the
rectory, aboutlllS.
In the south wall of south transept have been opened
B 2

4 NOTES ON THE EESTORATION OF
some remaitis apparently of Norman work that I am
quite unable to explain, though they are most like
sedilia ; they are left open just as found, with the old
plaster still at back. There are remains of wrought
stones and peculiarities on the east side of this transept,
doubtless connected with the altar that stood there. The
round arched piscina is, I think, of Transitional, but may
possibly be of Perpendicular date. The south-west pier
of this transept had been cut away and built up in brick,
the small piece of the capital remaining showing some
slight carving of an early kind.
The next alterations to the church seem to have been
of very extensive character, and to have comprised the
two chancel and nave aisles, though there ia some differ
ence in date, the whole of the work, however, coming
under the denomination of Early English, for details of
the respective dates of which I may refer readers to
Major Heales's paper.
The original design of the south chancel aisle is clearly
shown, the jambs and parts of the arches of a range of
lancet windows still existing on the south side. These
have been cut about and destroyed by the insertion of the
Early English triplet and two perpendicular windows.
In the east wall were three lancets, the further jambs of
the two outer still remaining.
As much as possible of the splay of these windows has
been opened, and in consequence, on the side of the jamb
of the east light on the south side we have uncovered a
painting of St. John the Baptist, of very early date.
There is also colour on one of the east windows.
Whether the triplet lancet with internal Sussex marble
shafts was originally fixed in its present position, or with
the perpendicular windows was at some time moved there
from other parts of the church, it is impossible to tell ;
all three are, however, shown on the oldest drawings we
have. This chantry must have been of quite similar
character to the chancel of Bramley Church.
Under the triplet we have opened a good piscina and
aumbry in two upper and two lower divisions, with a
pretty Early English shaft. There are some of similar

GODALMING GHURCll. 6
character at Salisbury, which may be looked on as the
mother church.
In the north transept we have found and exposed the
jambs of two tall lancet windows existing before the east
arch was erected.
The original wall of the north chancel aisle ran in con
tinuation of the north jamb of this arch, but was taken
down in 1840, when the aisle was widened. These east
and west arches were opened by myself some years ago,
at the time the transept galleries were taken down. The
north jamb of west arch was built in brick, but has now
been restored. The north wall ofthis transept has been
taken down, and rebuilt further out, in its present
position. The east window of the south chapel had always been
regarded as of its original form, having in the head three
plain circles without cusps. Mr. John 0. Scott, however,
led by experience of a similar window, found on examina
tion that these circles had a wide groove cut in them,
that doubtless contained cusping similar to that which
has been fitted to them and that improves the appear
ance very much. I wish to make it clear that the cusping
has been simply fitted into this groove without any
cutting for the purpose.
Our work of enlargement involved the destruction and
rebuilding of the nave aisle walls, the only old parts of
which were part of the wall on the south side, and the
two west ends containing the two perpendicular windows
which have been removed and re-erected in the north
chancel aisle. The style selected by Sir Gilbert Scott
for the aisles being decorated and the west walls having
to be removed for the addition of a bay, it seemed best
to move these windows into that part of the church that
was mostly of old date, where they replaced some bad
modern perpendicular work, and saved this part from
the intrusion of incongruous modern work. All the old
windows have been very carefully repaired, every piece
of old stone possible being retained, both traceries and
mullions being constantly halved and the inside at least
preserved where the outside has perished. All these

6 NOTES ON THE EESTOEATION OF
repairs have been done in the same material as the old
work, namely chalk, and I cannot refrain from adding a
word of caution and entreaty to all church restorers, in
cluding architects often ignorant of the peculiarities of a
district, to be firm on this point of material. It is most
melancholy to see in numbers of churches in the district
uninteresting copies in Bath stone of old features, where,
in many cases to my certain knowledge, much of the real
old work might have been retained but for a probable
clause in the specification directing that all repairs shall
be done in Bath stone. I have in my mind instances in
this neighbourhood of most wilful destruction of this
sort. The two westernmost arches of nave are new,
being cut out of the wall of 1840, The western window
replaces two bad perpendicular windows of the same
date. To the chancel we have at present done nothing ex
cept move the monuments on the south side, one of
which has been placed on the opposite side and the other
raised higher. By doing this we have opened the sedilia
which had been built up, and having found some of the
arch stones in the filling, have been able to replace them
and complete the series of four. Some of the stones had
left on them a range of late decorated crockets, and as
we found a piece of the label we are enabled to see the
whole design. A carved finial, which has always been
kept loose in the church, turns out, as I had always
suspected, to have belonged to the sedilia. A rude
squint of no interest has been found and opened at back
of sediHa. It may probably have been for the use of the
ringer of the sanct bell, which is said to have hung on the
outside ofthe south-east corner ofthe chancel before being
moved to the outside of the tower. Various fragments
were found built into the walls, notably in the tower arch
part of what was probably a Saxon cross, carved with the
usual Runic knots and of a hard, very shelly limestone.
These are laid on a window-sill in the south chapel, to
gether with the early font bowl that has always been there.
In the noi'th chapel wall were found much of the
remains of the decorated window that is shown in draW'

Tkt* fa-c«. lv«.a b.<.c*^ djepp-c^ oiJo. /

OETAIUS -FROM COD/\L.MirsCi GHUP.CH

.-,w.-iuK ANASTATrd PfflEpfc

GODALMING OHUECH. 7
ings before 1840 as the east window. Two old keys and
a small piece of an oak seat-back were the only curiosi
ties found ; the few fragments of old stained glass were
replaced in their position.
The colour found on the chance windows is interest
ing from its antiquity, but is of the rudest character,
consisting of lines of red and white drawn carelessly with
a big brush ; that in each of the windows is different, the
colour being so drawn as to cover the joint of the plaster
on the stone, the plaster being cut in pattern at the edge
and projecting about half an inch in front of the stone.
That in the south chapel is better drawn, and, as will
be seen, represents St. John the Baptist holding in his
hand a vesica containing an Agnus Dei — this figure is,
however, I believe, popularly supposed to represent
Pontius Pilate. The other jambs were examined, but
had no colour left ; one of the east lancets only having
the head of a canopy and some other work.
Probably few churches are restored without some
such fragments being found, but, unfortunately, they are
generally destroyed ; I am glad to find that here people
generally take an interest in them, and I am sure such
would always be the case, if architects and committees
would only take the initial responsibility of preservation.
The plaster has been secured to the wall with shellac,
and the surface coated with size.
In the body of the church were sundry mural monu
ments which, as they were necessarily moved, have all
been collected and fixed in the two chapels. Many of
the slabs mentioned as being in the nave had entirely
rotted away, being of the treacherous Sussex marble,
and others were probably destroyed in 1840. Those re
maining have been placed in the south chapel, and two
within the rails of the north chapel, now fitted up for
week-day service. The slab under the altar here has no
inscription, but shows no sign of having been an altar
slab. The interesting series of stones in the chancel had
been arranged in a miscellaneous patchwork when the
chancel was repaired by the Ecclesiastical Commis
sioners, and ceased to represent vaults, all of which were

8 NOTES ON THE EESTOEATION OP
filled up ; they have now been cleaned up and laid in an
orderly manner, two brass plates being brought in from
under the tower.
In order to place on record the present state of the
monuments, I subjoin a list of titles, referring the in
quirer to Manning and Bray for the full inscriptions.
In the chancel are slabs to — ¦
Catherine, infant daughter of Sir W™ Eliot, d. 1686. Sussex niarble.
Elizabeth, infant daughter of Sir W™ Eliot, d. 1674. Sussex marble.
William, infant son of Sir W"" Eliot, d. 1668. Sussex marble.
Edward, son of M"^ Edward Leaver and grandson of Christopher
Gore, 1695. Sussex marble.
Elizabeth "Westbrook, infant daughter of W™ Westbrook, 1665.
John Warner, LL,D., rector of Pepperharrow, 1757. Brass es
cutcheon on Sussex marble.
Captain James Stewart (R,N.), brother-in-law of Sir W. Eliot, 1705,
and wife, 1701. Black marble.
Sir W-n Eliot, of Busbridge, and wife, 1697 and 1706. Black
marble.
John Barker, of Sun'ing, brother-in-law of Lawrence Eliot, 1595.
Brass figure on Sussex niarble.
Thomas Purvoche and wife, 1509. Brass figures on a new Sussex
slab.
W™ Eliot, son of Sir W" Eliot, 1705. Stone with armorial.
Mary Eliott, wife of Lawrance Eliot, 1600. Brass plate on new
Sussex slab.
Walter Underhill, citizen and fishmonger, of London, 1679. Brass
plate on new Sussex slab.
Ann Eliot, eldest daughter of Sir William Eliot, 1 709. Stone with
armorial.
Within the altar rails on the north side are tablets on
the wall to —
Susanna, wife of Philip Carteret Webb, of Busbridge, M.P. for
Haslemere, and her husband, 1756 and 1770.
Anthony Warton, D.D,, Vicar of Godalming, " Sacrilegorum
Malleus," 1715.
And an alabaster monument from the opposite side to
Jane Barker, sister-in-law of Lawrance Eliot, 1617.
On the south side is an alabaster tablet with kneeling
figure to —
Judeth Elyott, wife of WUliam Elyott, 1615.

GODALMING CHUECH. 9
In the south transept there are slabs to —
John Coston, parish clerk, 1741.
William Shrubb and numerous family, from 1680-1763.
Hannah Shrubb (on a small stone), 1800.
James Shrubb and family, 1689-1775.
In the south, chapel slabs to —
,Hen. Roberta, 1713.
M>'' Elizabeth Potts, 1826. Black marble.
M" Catherine Lucas, 1714. Black marble, with escutcheon.
Against the east end, as described by Manning —
The altar-tomb of John Westbrook, 1513, the sides of which are a
patchwork of tracery, similar to some at Salisbury.
And slabs to —
M" Ann Duncum, spinster, 1733.
Eliz, Oglethorpe, daughter of Oglethorpe, of Yorkshire, 1742.
W™ Cecil, of Yorkshire, a " near relation of the Earl of Salisbury,"
and probably of the Oglethorpes, 1745.
Susanna, wife of Joseph Lawson, of Cumberland, and daughter of
Oglethorpe, of Yorkshire.
And on the wall are tablets to —
Nathaniel Godbold, inventor of the Vegetable Balsam, 1799 (removed
from opposite side).
Mi'= Elizabeth Potts, 1826.
Harry, infant son of Rev* Charles Boileau Elliot, Vicar, 1835.
In the north chapel are tablets to —
Philip Meymoth, soapboiler, 1760. Brought from outside.
Richard Brown, 1819. Brought from outside.
Rear-Admiral of the Blue, William Pierrepont, 1813, and his son,
1814.
Owen Manning, D,D., County Historian and Vicar, 1801.
Several children of Rev'i W. D. Long, Vicar, 1867.
Within the rails are two Sussex marble slabs, brought
from the nave, the inscription on which is now illegible,
though probably the one on the north side is that of the
Bridger family.
The vaults in the south chapel contained the coffins of
several of the Godbold family, Mrs. E. Pott, and of a
family named Garthwaite.
In the north chapel was a vault of a Shotter family.
On the south-east cant of the spire, near the top, may

10 NOTES ON THE EESTOEATION OP
be^seen some of the original leadwork of the ofdinafy pat
tern, differing from the somewhat peculiar arrangement
of the rest of the spire.
The tower is shown in an old drawing to have had a
stone parapet, but it seemed unnecessary, as it had en
tirely disappeared, to interfere with the present rather
picturesque arrangement. The old stone corbels had
been replaced in parts by oak, which had become quite
rotten, and have now been restored in stone.
The nave roof was partially examined during the pro
gress of work, and I find was originally a tiebeam roof,
which has spread considerably in places in consequence
of the beams being cut away ; the rafters are of a very
massive character, averaging 8 inches square, with an 18
inch space between them.
The ceiling is constructed in so flimsy a manner as to
cause me great doubts as to its antiquity, although the
coats of arms are certainly in great part original.
The author of the pamphlet before mentioned has
adduced reasons that would bring its date below 1537,
and in the time of Henry VIII. instead of Henry VII.
as conjectured by Manning. The font, by-the-by, in
stead of being 600 years old as stated in the pamphlet
and in Brayley, is a poor piece of Post-Tudor work.
In all cases of church restoration so much is to be
noted by an architect or skilled observer that has bear
ing on the history of a church, and that must often of
necessity be covered up or disappear, that it is, I think,
particularly desirable that a full record should be made
at the time and, if possible, published — an office par
ticularly within the province of Archgeological Societies.
A brief record of facts by the architect employed would
be of invaluable assistance to subsequent inquirers, and
might prove a wholesome restraining influence on un
necessary destructiveness. I have, for this reason, had
no hesitation in going minutely into the subject, as many
matters, if not noted now, would probably be forgotten,
and leave no trace behind.
Note. — On reference to Major Heales' paper I find the east window-
described as a group of five lancets ; it is so shown on most old

GODALMING OHUECH. 11
drawings, but one which he had probably not seen shows it clearly as a
perpendicular window, with the usual cusping in the heads. I had
always thought the strip of carving originally in front of the transept
galleries was of perpendicular date as described, but, on taking it down,
found it to be only modern plaster.
In the roof of the tower is preserved the beam of the gallows on
which were hung Chennell and Chalcraft, who committed a horrid
murder here in 1818, as commemorated in various broadsides. An
inscribed plate commemorating the fact has been stolen.
Since the above was written I have heard from Mr. Atfield, who was
foreman of the works in 1840, that the nave roof was altered to its
present form at that time. There was originally a flat panelled ceiling,
with the coats of arms at the junction of .the ribs. The fabric of the
ceUing is entirely new, but the shields were replaced as nearly as
possible in their old positions, new shields being carved for the angles
at the junction of flat and sloping sides. I have no doubt the south
chapel had a similar ceiling, though it had disappeared before this date,
but since the time of Manning. At this time the south wall of the
south chapel was covered with paintings similar to the St. John, but
they, with nearly all the old plaster, were ruthlessly destroyed. Over
the west tower arch were large figures of Moses and Aaron, but these
were of course of modern date.
Under the nave floor is a continuous series of brick vaults opening
one into another. The floor of the north chapel was a mass of broken
coffins and bones, and one workman is said to have collected and taken
away several baskets full of brass coffin nails.
I have mentioned Ranulph Flambard as builder of Durham Cathe
dral ; he was appointed bishop in 1099, but Sir Gilbert Scott, in his
lectures on Mediaeval Architecture, shows that he had not, as had com
monly been supposed, anything to do with the building. He did how
ever, subsequently, build the magnificent minster at Christchurch in
Hampshire.

{Bqn-inUd from the Collections of the Surrey Archaeological Society.)

WV.UAK A>JU SO.VS, PRINTERS, OrEaT Q^Vt'EN STREET, LONDON, W.C,

08854 1348

4

.M-