By 1342 the work was probably finished to the north, and forty years later the whole must have been completed. It has been said that the old cloister was inferior to those of Worcester and Gloucester. But they must have had considerable merit if Mr. Pearson's restoration really represents, and there is little doubt it does, the old structure. It is curious that the cloister, certainly the least offensive and not the most beautiful part of the cathedral, should have suffered so severely at the hands of the Puritans. For on the whole the cathedral proper escaped with but small damage. Professor Freeman, in discussing the alleged desecrations suffered by St. Mary and St. Peter, after the entrance of Fairfax and his army into the city, writes thus: "The account in Mercurius Rusticus, which has given vogue to the common story is wholly untrue." He further adds: "Some fanatic soldier may, indeed, according to the story, have broken off the head of Queen Elizabeth, mistaking her for our Lady. But no general mutilation or desecration took place at this time. And at Exeter, one form of mutilation, which specially affected the west front, was not the work of enemies but of devotees. For ages the country folk who came into the city loved to carry home a Peter stone for the healing of their ailments." It is only fair to add that Archdeacon Freeman refers in very different language to the result of the occupation by the Puritans, but though the decorative portions of the cloister may have suffered, we cannot account for the disappearance of the exterior walls without a better reason for their destruction. It should be noted, however, that in the fifteenth century the Dean and Chapter bitterly complained of the conduct of the Exeter boys, who played "unlawfull games as the toppe, queke, penny pryke & most atte tenys" in the cloister, whereby they were "defowled & the glas windows all to-brost." But at this time the cathedral and municipal authorities were far from friendly to each other. Dr. Oliver writes of the ruins in his day that they "have disappeared with the exception of part of a fluted column at the west corner of the carpenter's shop." With the debris small and mean houses were built. On the 30th of October, 1657, we are given a hint as to what may have been the meaning of this wanton destruction. Apparently the ground set apart for "the convenience of the studious and contemplative" was found to have valuable attributes as a market-place, for on the above day the "Friday cloth market for serges and other drapery" was ordered to be held in this place. Commerce did not triumph for long, though, as only three years later the buyers and sellers were bundled back into South Street. [Illustration: THE EAST GATE, PULLED DOWN IN 1784.]