I have windows on all four of my sides, and until lately (1866), when the Church was so thoroughly restored, I had an eye in my lower eastern portion which enabled me to view the changes which have taken place in the interior of the Church. Long, long ago, I noted the dilapidation of the Chancel, and its final demolition and removal (in 1581), on a bargain being made by which the parish was allowed to take all the remaining lead, stone, and other materials (for some parochial charity) belonging to it, on condition that the Dean and Chapter were no longer to be held liable for its repair. This _Chancel_ I had the pleasure of seeing rebuilt in 1866, mainly through the beneficence of Rev. Canon Ripley, then incumbent of the vicarage, when also the Church was finely restored, and reseated. You are aware that the years 1903–4 represent the five-hundredth anniversary of the giving of a Mayor to the City of Norwich. Several St. Giles’s inhabitants have held this important office, as well as that of Sheriff, during all those centuries, but I will only specially mention the names of _Richard Purdaunce_ and of _Robert Baxter_, who were very early Mayors, in 1420 and 1424 respectively, and who were interred in the nave of this Church, with brasses over their tombs. These still remain, and are of considerable interest as showing the costumes of the period. And now as to the parish of St. Giles itself, in which I stand, I cannot but recall with satisfaction the large number of residents who have been in their day most important and influential citizens in various departments of life. As public men I will only mention the names of a few such departed neighbours whose careers and public services I have watched. Let us only recall the names (given alphabetically) in public life of such examples as Baxter, Beevor, Bolingbroke, Cadge, Chapman, Churchman, Cole, Crosse, Day, Foster, Herring, Kinghorn, Johnson, Lubbock, Offley, Purdaunce, Ranking, Rigby, Suffield, Taylor, Wilkins; or as ornaments of the literary and artistic world, such names as Brand, Blomefield, Borrow, Crossgrove, Charlotte Elizabeth, Daniel, Ninham—and now we may add that of Bateman. This, you will agree with me, is a goodly list, and marks out St. Giles’s parish as having been one of the most important residential districts in the city, and as having largely contributed to its welfare and general reputation. And in this regard we may well regret that so many of the fine parish residences have been or are being absorbed by public companies or other bodies; and that in consequence, the most actively important men of the city are gradually being driven to other and more distant localities. And we may even note here how the neighbouring and almost historical old “Norfolk Hotel” has been swept away, and its site occupied by a modern variety theatre.