when the ground came into the founder's hands. A similar case occurred in 1497, when Bishop Alcock of Ely obtained a House of Benedictine Nuns, and founded Jesus College, Cambridge. He remodelled the conventual buildings to make them suit their new purpose. But he preserved, though he altered, the chapel, which was built E. and W. Sir Walter Mildmay, on the contrary, deliberately turned the old Dominican Chapel into the College Hall, and built a new Chapel (or used the old Refectory) with the chancel towards the NW. "Whereas all the Chappells in the University are built with the Chancell Eastward, according to the uniform order of all Christendom the Chancell in yt College standeth N. and their Kitchen Eastward." Sancroft (afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury), who was Master in 1662, speaks of this as "that great mark of singularity, which all the world. so talks of," but it clearly shows the Puritan feeling with regard to orientation in 1586, i.e. fifty-five years before Hindley Chapel was built. Had the Puritans changed their minds in those fifty-five years? (2) We will next consider the case of the Presbyterian Chapels built at Tunley (1691), Park Lane, Wigan (1697), Hindley (1700), and Rivington (1703)-i.e. about the same time after the building of Hindley Chapel as Emmanuel Chapel was before it. What was the feeling of the builders of those chapels with regard to orientation? At least three are built E. and W., but I am satisfied, after careful examination, that the original internal arrangements were such as may be seen to-day unaltered in the very interesting Rivington Chapel-the pulpit being placed in the middle of one of the long sides,' and the pews facing it, as the centre, from every point

1 In speaking of the early Nonconformist chapels, Dr. Halley says: "The pulpit was generally placed against one of the longer walls of the meeting-house."-Vol. ii. p. 298.

of the compass. It is unnecessary to point out how very different this is from the original arrangements of Hindley Chapel-" the chancel turned

towards the east." Consequently we conclude that since, half a century before and half a century after the building of Hindley Chapel, orientation was disregarded by the Puritans, the probability is that they would disregard it in 1641, and the fact that it was carefully observed by the builders of the Chapel seems to afford at any rate a very strong presumption, if not a positive proof, that nonconformist Puritans did not build it, and that Churchmen did. For that Churchmen were careful about orientation both in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is capable of ample proof.

It may, of course, be objected that there were Puritans and Puritans; Puritans like Warden Heyricke, of Manchester, who liked stained glass and carved oak; Puritans like the godly Mr. Bruen, of Bruen Stapleford, who greatly objected to such things, and replaced the ancient glass in his chapel with clear glass; Puritans, again, like the mother of Oliver Heywood, who "obtained leave of the officers" to break the windows of the churches near Bolton; Puritans who broke windows without obtaining any leave; Puritans who kept the Church festivals; and others who put down even the keeping of Christmas with

a high hand. And it has been suggested to me by a learned and thoughtful Roman Catholic friend (private letter, January 9, 1907), that the orientation of Hindley Chapel may be accounted for thus: "Hindley was not only in the diocese of Chester, but in Bishop Bridgeman's own parish, so that he was doubly responsible; and it was just under his eyes, so that, as he was a strict disciplinarian, and something of a Laudian, even the Puritans had to use certain 'protective devices, such as orientation (you regard them differently; the above is my view), so as to secure the Bishop's consent to the erection of a building for worship. The important matter was the Minister, and the one appointed1 adopted the Presbyterian discipline as soon as it was established. I believe this is a correct statement, but I shall be glad to be put right if not. If it is correct, I think it obvious that the people who built the place were Puritans. They satisfied the Bishop by some purely external compliances, and satisfied themselves by the minister they secured." This is, of course, worth thinking over; and we are not denying that some at any rate of the builders may have been on the Puritan side rather than the Laudian, "Evangelicals" rather than "Puseyites." We only join issue with Mr. Brooke Herford's statement that the builders were Nonconformists. But, after carefully thinking over my learned friend's letter, I cannot say that it convinces me that Mr. Herford is right.

There the Chapel stood at the time of the lawsuit in 1697, with its "Chancell builded at the East End of the sd Chappell of Hindley, which is narrower in proportion than the sd Chappell itself." 2 This fact could not be questioned; it was patent. Now if there was one thing upon which all Puritans were agreed, it was their hatred of Eastward worship. In a schedule annexed to a petition presented to Parliament from the County of Nottingham, complaining of Grievances (1641),3 they objected (7) to "Drawing worship or reverence to external things aforesaid, according to such supposed holiness (at least) to be directed immediately towards the same, as especially in bowing or praying towards the East, bowing to the altar upon approaches, in coming or kneeling to the rail for the Sacrament."

Praying towards the East is here classed with other things against which they steadfastly rebelled.

The same objection is made in the Humble Petition of many of the inhabitants of Kent to the Commons, 1636; in the Articles of Impeachment against Bishop Wren in the same year; in a

1 We do not know who was the minister appointed in 1641.

* Prescott's evidence, Documents, p. 14.

Quoted by Hierugia, vol. v. pt. iii.