The tower of the chapel--the only part yet undescribed--was evidently designed for a broached spire, as is shown by the squinches within. But a settlement, owing to the close proximity of the river, evidently not only prevented further weights being imposed, but caused the south-west angle buttress to be added which is so prominent (_vide_ p. 82). Of the collegiate domestic buildings there only remain a few vaults, except a single entrance, with a four-centred arch, to the north. THE BISHOP’S PALACE. After crossing a bridge to the north-west of the cathedral we pursue a most picturesque alley, whence a good view of the tower and north side is obtained, and shortly, on the left-hand side, we come to the entrance to the =Bishop’s Palace=.[94] In the times before Gower (1328-47), who built the whole of this once magnificent palace, there undoubtedly was some [Illustration: THE BISHOP’S PALACE, 1779. _From an engraving after Paul Sandby, R.A._] sort of episcopal residence or guest-house, as Kings Henry II. and Edward I. were here entertained. However, not only is there no trace of a pre-existent building, but this of Gower is a superb ruin. It is said that we have to thank the scandalous Bishop Barlow (1536-49) for initiating the work of destruction, removing, as he did, the lead from the roofs to provide marriage portions for his daughters who married five bishops. He also attempted to remove the see to Carmarthen. “Barlow’s letter to Cromwell on this subject strongly urges the removal, partly on account of the inconvenient situation and partly because the hopes of Protestantism rested on getting rid of the _religio loci_.”[95] “It is hardly necessary to say that many churches, even of inferior ecclesiastical rank, greatly surpass St. David’s Cathedral in extent and in positive beauty, though certainly there is none which could so well occupy its peculiar position; of the Palace, on the other hand, it is hardly too much to affirm that it is altogether unsurpassed by any existing English edifice of its own kind. One can hardly conceive any structure that more completely proclaims its peculiar purpose. It is essentially a palace and not a castle; we have not here the moat, the tower, the frowning gateway, or any feature proclaiming, if not an intention of hostility, at all events a state of things involving the necessity of defence. The prominent parts are the superb rose-window of the hall and the graceful spire of the chapel, importing an abode, not of warfare, but of hospitality and religion.”[96]