[Illustration: Fig. 4. Plan of St Michael's, Coventry. A. St Andrew's Chapel. B. Girdlers' Chapel. C. St Lawrence's Chapel. D. Drapers' Chapel. E. Dyers' Chapel. F. Cappers' Chapel. G. Mercers' Chapel.] [Illustration: Fig. 5. Plan of Holy Trinity Church, Coventry. A. Archdeacon's Court. B. St Thomas' Chapel. C. Marler's Chapel. D. Lady Chapel. E. Tanners' Chapel. F. Jesus Chapel. G. Corpus Christi Chapel. H. Butchers' Chapel. I. Holy Trinity Chapel.] § 26. Thus, by the gradual addition of chapel after chapel, the plan of these magnificent churches, some of the finest productions of English art, grew until, as at Burford or Holy Trinity, Coventry, it lost all likeness to its original state, and seems at first sight to be a collection of buildings heaped together without much method. It would be interesting to trace the growth of churches like St Mary Redcliffe or Ludlow, as we have traced that of Cirencester and Burford. In these cases, it is impossible to give too much emphasis to the part played by lay benefactors in the development of the fabric. Cirencester, Burford, and the Coventry churches, were appropriated to monasteries: St Mary Redcliffe was merely a chapel of Bedminster, appropriated, like Grantham, to a stall in Salisbury cathedral. At Cirencester and Coventry the churches were close to the religious houses to which they belonged. But the growth of the churches was the result of lay devotion: the founders of chantries of whom we hear, like the famous William Canynge at St Mary Redcliffe, were men who had made money in business. The part of the monasteries in church-building was never, so far as parish churches were concerned, very active. As the middle ages went on, their connexion with the fabrics became still slighter; and their interest in the church, apart from the profits which they received from it, and from an occasional litigation about the advowson, was probably confined to the periodical presentation of a vicar. The highest state of development which the parish church attained, in such buildings as have just been described, or in the great churches of Norfolk and Somerset, was the consequence of a long series of beautifications and improvements, in which at first, no doubt, the lay lords of manors took the leading part, but afterwards were joined by wealthy parishioners, who could find no more fitting employment for their wealth than the enlargement and decoration of the house of God. And it should not be forgotten that not merely the rich, but the poor, shared in this work of benefaction. In some places, at Oswestry, for example, chantry priests were supported by the devotion of servants or husbandmen, each of whom paid his yearly share of the endowment.