“I have been the more minute in describing our operations, and the state in which we found the old piers to be, because, when such a work is completed, there is a tendency to forget, or to discredit, the danger which has been avoided; indeed, to any one who sees the piers as now reconstructed, it would be impossible to believe that the tower could have stood on such masses of shattered fragments as those which they have replaced.” At the time that the above description was written the shoring had not been removed. This has now been the case for several years, and the piers, I am thankful to say, have sustained the weight perfectly. When the crushed substructure had been thus rendered trustworthy, we not only proceeded with the restoration of the remainder of the choir, which formed a part of the same contract, but your orders were given to proceed also with the repairs of the upper portions of the tower, which were sadly dilapidated, and with the aisles of the choir, one of which had long been in ruins and roofless, and the other in but little better condition. (For extract here see pp. 16-19, _ante_.) I have had to bear some little ridicule for taking down the dead wall, by which the sides had been heightened, and building it up again. I can only say that the roof having been of necessity temporarily removed, and these additions to the walls, being devoid of any character or value of their own, being a mine of wealth in the debris they contained, I simply worked them _as a mine_, and having obtained the treasure which lay hidden within them, I reconstructed them with their old materials. In doing this we discovered the curious eaves-course and gutters of the original roof, which is of a remarkable construction, and is now exposed to view with some restoration. Among the timbers of the later roof were found portions of that of the earlier date, shewing that it was perfectly plain, though massive, and of the cradled form so usual at early periods. The design of the early stonework of the eastern arm, apart from its intrinsic merits, is interesting from the evidences it presents of its _double_ date, being a union of the original work of Bishop De Leiâ (begun in 1180) with that resulting from the reparations after the fall of the tower in 1220. The tower falling eastward would of course destroy the parts immediately adjoining it, and it would appear that it, by the fall of its upper portions, must also have reached and damaged the eastern wall. We accordingly find that, while the eastward portions of the side walls and the lower parts of the east end are of the original date, the western bays of the sides and the upper parts of the end are of the later date. This is made very manifest on the south side of the clerestory by a triforium passage, originally communicating with that in the south transept, but which was omitted in the reconstructed parts, thus cutting off the communication.