the building, which were Sir Gilbert Scott's principal authority upon
which to base his restoration of this portion of the tower, were made
from work which had already been once rebuilt. But why was this part
of the church rebuilt, and by whom? Two alternative suggestions for
the reason have been offered.

[5] Walcott, p. 15.
[6] Author of "Architectural Parallels."

Evidently, if the upper part of the tower did not fall, it is
apparently certain that it was reconstructed, in order to carry the
additional weight of the larger tower. But in examining the
documentary evidence offered us, we find some further help. The
teaching of archaeology shows that the portion of this tower above the
main supporting arches and up to the bottom of the parapet was
executed between 1225 and 1325--that is, it was finished not very long
after the new part of the south-west tower was completed.

The cathedral statutes show that between the years 1244-1247 Bishop
Ralph Neville was much concerned about a "stone tower" which he wished
to see completed. They tell us, too, that the same bishop had himself
expended one hundred and thirty marks upon the fabric, [7] and that his
executors, besides releasing a debt of £60 due to him and spent on the
bell-tower, gave £140 to the fabric of the church. Ralph died in 1244,
so it is concluded that the work in which he was so interested was
none other than the central or bell-tower of the cathedral, and that
the earlier tower, with its supporting arches, must have fallen, else
it is not likely that the work would have been rebuilt from below the
spring of these arches before the new superstructure could be added;
for we are obliged to take the customs of mediæval builders into