In 1842 the systematic cleaning of the windows was begun, under the direction of the same artist, and continued from year to year, until 1849, by which time ten windows had been cleaned, exclusive of the half window'. The operation, as conducted by Mr Hedgeland, was not confined to the mere removal of dirt, and renewal of lead-work, but included a reproduction of the shading that had been destroyed by age, and in many instances the substitution of new glass for old. Objections to this mode of treatment were raised from time to time, but without effect, until a writer in "The Guardian" newspaper drew public attention to the "work of destruction going on." Mr Hedgeland published an answer in the same journal; and a long correspondence ensued between him and the College, in which he attempted to justify the course he had pursued. Experts were consulted, and notwithstanding some difference of opinion, it was finally decided that the work should not proceed. The offer to fill the west window with stained glass was made by Francis Edmund Stacey, M.A., formerly Fellow, 9 February, 1869. The design, by Messrs Clayton and Bell, was accepted 22 October, 1872; but the glass was not completed until 1879, when, 22 April, the conclusion of the work was celebrated by a special service. WOODWORK. The Will of King Henry the Sixth provides for a Roodloft 14 feet broad, and as wide as the Chapel, with 36 stalls on each side, for 70 Fellows and 10 Conducts. They are to occupy 90 feet, measured from the Provost's stall to the step called "gradus chori" (D, fig. 42). A lower range of stalls tended to call it "Mr Davidson's Chapel Fund," but afterwards, at Mr Davidson's own request, it was agreed (15 Nov.) that his name should not be prefixed to it. He gave a further sum of £1200 to this fund 6 Jan. 1826, and 1000 18 Oct., "with liberty to apply the same or so much of it as may be necessary for a stained Glass Window on the South side of the Chapel near the Provost's old Lodge."] 1 [They were windows VIII.-XII. on the north side, and VII.-XI, on the south side. The average cost of the restoration was nearly £200 for each whole window. One of the College Orders is worth quoting, as shewing the way in which the glass had been displaced on some previous occasion. 2 June, 1843. "Agreed that Mr Hedgeland be employed to repair, on the terms for which he has already contracted to restore two other windows, the tenth window on the North side of the Chapel, as some of the glass in the eleventh window on that side has been misplaced, it evidently appearing that it originally belonged to the tenth window."] 2 [See The Guardian, 7 Nov. and 21 Nov., 1849.] "De is not mentioned, and, from the words of the 45th Statute, modo standi in choro," was not intended. It is there directed that if distinguished strangers should be present, and so the number of stalls be insufficient, then the Fellows are to stand "in front of the stalls in the choir." Nor is the number of stalls to be placed against the Screen specified in the Will, but, if we suppose that 4 on each side were intended, we shall obtain a total of 80 stalls, the exact number required. The estimate quoted in the ninth chapter goes into the matter with far greater detail. It specifies on each side of the Chapel 5 "headstalls,"—that is, stalls set against the screen; 32 principal stalls with tabernacles (canopies) over them; and 28 lower stalls with desks; making a total of 130 stalls. The total cost of stalls and roodloft, exclusive of the value of the timber, which, as being in stock, is not calculated, is to be £1333. 6s. 8d., equivalent to about £16,000 at the present day. As £1000 is assigned to the stalls, and only ICO to the roodloft, we may infer that it was intended that the former should be richly ornamented, and the latter comparatively plain. The number of stalls is now less by 12 than that described in the estimate. There are only 4 "headstalls" on each side, 30 principal stalls, and 25 lower stalls, making a total of 118. The screen, or roodloft, is exactly 14 feet deep, as directed in the Will; but the distance of 90 feet now includes the roodloft, instead of representing the length of the stalls only. The accounts for the reign of King Henry the Eighth are unfortunately imperfect, and contain no reference to either screen or stalls. We must therefore content ourselves with internal evidence for their date. Among the ornaments on the screen are the arms, badge, and initials of Anne Boleyn, with the rose, fleur-de-lis, and portcullis. This leads us to conclude that it was executed when her influence was at its height, namely, between 1531 and 1535. We have seen that the glass, finished in 1531, represents wholly the work of the executors of Henry VII. With the woodwork that of Henry VIII. commences1. The general plan of the screen, which, to judge by the style, 1 [Anne Boleyn was married to Henry VIII. 14 November, 1532; and beheaded 19 May, 1536. For some reason that I have not been able to discover, the Screen is sometimes said to have been set up in 1534. Cambridge Portfolio, p. 434.] was executed by foreign, perhaps by Italian artists, will be understood from the drawing of one compartment of the west side (fig. 51). The compartment selected is that next the centre on the north. The upper part projects 3 feet beyond the lower, and the curved panelwork, with which the under surface of the projecting portion is ceiled, is elaborately ornamented. This portion was found to be too delicate to be shewn successfully in a drawing on so small a scale, especially in shadow, and the details of it have therefore been omitted. The general treatment of the ornamentation is the same throughout, but most of the arabesques and bands of foliage are different, exhibiting the most exquisite variety in their details. There is no evidence that a Rood was ever set up upon it. The erection of an organ on the roodloft dates from 1606, when we find a separate account at the end of the MundumBook for the year, headed, “The Charges about the Organs." From this we learn that the maker's name was Dallam'. He came to Cambridge with his men, and began to work 22 June, 1605. The materials were all brought in the rough and made up on the spot. The price of each article, such as tin, lead, ebony, box-wood, ash-wood, leather, etc., "bought in divers places of the Citie," is set down separately. The men were paid for 58 weeks' work, ending 7 August, 1606, when we may suppose that the Organ was ready for use, although further charges occur in subsequent years. The cost was £371. 175. Id. The following items, having reference to the case of the organ, are the most important for our purpose: 1 [Mr Carter suggests that this was Thomas Dallam, who made an organ for Worcester Cathedral in 1613, and that he was probably the father of the three celebrated organ-builders of the same name. See Dr Rimbault, History of the Organ, in "The Organ," by E. J. Hopkins, 8vo. London, 1855, for notices of these and the other builders mentioned. The separate account referred to above, has been printed by the Rev. T. Brocklebank, M.A., Fellow, in the Ecclesiologist for 1859. The Organ used previously had been sold by order of Queen Elizabeth's Commissioners, as Provost Goad (Provost 1569-1610) states in his answer to the complaints made against him. Heywood and Wright, p. 233. Mundum-Book, 1570-71. Receptio forinseca. "Item pro Organis C.s." "Item rec' for thold organ pipes xlv. x."] 2 [Dallam and his men spent 8 weeks in Cambridge, in 1613-14, in which year Andrew Chapman also, who had wainscoted the Hall of Trinity College in 1604, did work to the Organ.] Fig. 51. in King's College Chapel. To face p. 518. Vol. I. |