the existing school buildings, it involves the pulling down of the
Quingentenary Memorial Building, erected some twenty years ago, and
of some old houses in Kingsgate Street. Some consider such a drastic
destruction to be unfortunate, but, says _The Times_, it is "necessary
if any scheme worthy of the occasion is to be carried out." Moreover
it is proposed to re-erect the Quingentenary Memorial on a new site,
"where it will certainly look as well as ever."

The greatest event in our history, as the writer finely observes,
cannot be worthily commemorated by any timid compromise. Winchester
has set a splendid example, but it is perhaps too much to expect
that it will be followed by London, owing to the inevitable clash of
conflicting interests in our unwieldy metropolis. The erection of
a new Pantheon on the site of St. Paul's and the removal of WREN'S
massive but _démodé_ structure to Hampstead Heath, where it would
certainly look as well as ever, is, we fear, however much _The Times_
may desire it, beyond the range of practical politics. But example is
infectious, and if only the Winchester authorities would expand their
scheme and carry it out with Dantonesque audacity to its full logical
conclusion, other towns and cities might ultimately fall into line.

Winchester Cathedral, as we need hardly remind our readers, has only
been rescued from subsidence and collapse at an immense cost by a
lavish use of the resources of modern engineering. The building itself
is not without merits, but its site is inconspicuous and the swampy
nature of the soil is a constant menace to its durability. The scheme
which we venture with all humility to suggest is that it should be
removed and re-erected, in the same spirit though in the architectural
language of our own day, on the summit of St. Catherine's Hill,
where it would look better than ever, and be connected by a scenic