This plan, without the second tower, would not be more expensive than the first one which I have described. It meets the requirements of the case, provided the apse is a _sine qua non_, exceedingly well, and would provide all the accommodation which is really needed, without the retention of the galleries, and at a very moderate cost. It has the further advantage of retaining the present approach to the church from the east, which, both from the lie of the ground, and the position of the chief part of our population, is the easiest and the most natural. I have now, I trust, succeeded in showing that the necessity for destroying our Tower, and with it a great portion of the present church, is purely imaginary. There are, as I have explained, at least two methods, by which all that the Parish desires may be provided without this sacrifice, and for the money which the Trustees actually see their way to raise. I have also explained that the luxury, for so it is, of a handsome tower capable of holding a fine peal of bells, may very well be obtained upon either of these plans. Indeed the architectural effect of a church with two towers, as I have suggested, would be unusually fine, and either scheme would give a dignity to our church, beyond its real dimensions, and not unworthy of its admirable position. I have only to add, that in either case the exterior of the nave should be enriched with a balustrade, with proper architraves to the windows, and with pilasters between them. {15} Such a treatment would make the exterior worthy of the interior, and would in itself raise the whole character of the building at a very moderate expense. There is yet one other suggestion which I have to make before I conclude. Should funds be available, from some unexpected source, it may be a question whether it would not be better to erect an entirely new church, upon a new and more convenient site. I should myself incline very strongly to this view, in the case I have supposed. It would be impossible to erect a large and handsome new church upon the site of the present one, without a most deplorable interference with numbers of interments, many of them of comparatively recent date. The site too is not sufficiently central for the district now attached to the church, and it would not be difficult to find one in every way more suitable. In this case the old church would remain as a very serviceable chapel of ease. The galleries might be removed, the pews cut down, and proper chancel arrangements introduced at a very small cost. We should thus be spared the loss of the associations which cling about our old church, and the convenience of an increasing population would be amply provided for. This is too much, perhaps, to hope for. I will only say that such a proposal, provided only it included the preservation of the present church, would have, I feel sure, the cordial support of the parishioners.