The minster, for all its size, age, and importance, contains curiously few tombs of interest. Though most of the earlier bishops were buried within its walls, not more than three of their monuments are really remarkable. Only one member of the royal family, William of Hatfield, the infant son of Edward III., lies there, and very few persons of distinction. It is not proposed therefore to give a description of any tombs, except such as are notable for beauty or interest. #Monuments In The Nave.#--In the north aisle, three bays from the west end, is a monument of late Perpendicular work, said to be the tomb of Archbishop Roger, who died in 1181. It is possible that his bones were transferred here from the choir, though there is no record of such transference. This tomb was opened and restored in 1862, when some bones and remains of ecclesiastical vestments were found in it. The restoration appears to have been arbitrary and inaccurate. [Illustration: Effigy of Manley.] The tomb is recessed in the wall of the aisle, and consists of a lower storey for the coffin with a flat top, with a front of open stone work in eight divisions, each containing a quatrefoil. Above is a very obtuse arch with plain mouldings, with a row of "Tudor flower" ornaments on the top, and a figure of the Virgin in the middle. There are two birds holding scrolls in their beaks on either side of her. These have been changed by the ingenious restorers into eagles bearing ears of wheat. All other monuments of importance in the nave were destroyed by the Puritans, or at the Reformation. A word must be said, however, as to the tomb and shrine of St. William, the patron saint of the minster. William Fitzherbert was a great-grandson of the Conqueror, and an opponent of the monks. He was expelled from his episcopacy in 1147, but returned to it in 1153. He is stated to have performed a miracle immediately on his return, and died about immediately afterwards in 1154. He is said to have been poisoned, whilst celebrating mass, out of the holy chalice itself. It was perhaps the peculiar atrocity of his end which gave him so great a reputation for sanctity. During his life he does not seem to have been distinguished above other archbishops for learning, piety, or good deeds. He was not canonised until 1284. It is difficult to understand either why the minster had not obtained a patron saint before this time, or why the choice eventually fell upon St. William. No doubt the authorities felt the want of a shrine fit to be enriched by the visitations of pilgrims, and were encouraged by the example of the shrine of St. Thomas of Canterbury to obtain one as soon as possible. We can only suppose that they chose St. William for want of a more distinguished patron. At all events, his shrine never obtained the celebrity of that of St. Thomas of Canterbury, and in after years was probably regarded as inferior in sanctity and interest even to that of Archbishop Scrope in the minster.