at a cost of £4000; yet it seems hardly likely that instrumental music will become a prominent feature in the minster services, so long as the singing retains that high pitch of excellence which it acquired under the late Mr. Young, and maintains under his successor, Dr. Bennett. The two side doorways leading into the north and south aisles of the choir are somewhat earlier than the screen between them. They are beautiful examples of carving, dating from the end of the Early English period. The exquisite openwork foliage which runs round the arch is executed with the utmost skill and care, and is without the laboured effect of so much of our later stone-work. The injured parts were carefully restored about 1770 by James Pink, who was also employed by Essex on the canopy of the reredos. The doorways have modern iron gates: it is probable that the "brass gates" carried away by the Parliamentarian soldiers used to be here. It is well worth while to notice the gorgeous effect of the early glass in the end windows of the aisles, as seen through these doorways. The soft harmony of their lovely transparent mosaic contrasts greatly with the washed-out appearance of the glass in the large window between them. [Illustration: AISLE DOORWAY, NORTH OF ST. HUGH'S CHOIR. _H. C. Oakden, Photo._] [Illustration: THE CHOIR, LOOKING EAST. _S. B. Bolas & Co., Photo._] The ritual choir occupies the four bays built by St. Hugh, crosses the eastern transept, and includes two bays of the Presbytery, or Angel Choir beyond. Passing through the central doorway of the rood-screen, the choir before us is historically of the highest interest, both on account of its architecture and of its builder. One gazes with a feeling of peculiar veneration on the walls which we know St. Hugh to have planned and reared. It is easy to imagine with what just pride and satisfaction the great bishop must have regarded these very walls, the earliest example of the pure Gothic style in this country or in any other (see p. 14). Although worthy of the closest examination, it can hardly be said that, taken as a whole, the work is beautiful; its importance is much greater from an archæological than from an artistic point of view. Certain details are of the highest excellence; but the vault, as so many have pointed out, is positively ugly, and the squat form of the great arches only serves to shew how little reliance can be placed on the outline of an arch as a guide to the date of its erection.