When this designation was proved to be incorrect, a reaction took place, and some of our writers went so far as to deny the existence of any building of a date anterior to the Conquest. It was argued by these writers that the English built with wood only, and that, consequently, all their erections had long since perished. But though it is true there is evidence to show that the usual material for building was wood, and that it was sometimes overlaid with lead and other metals, yet we find, on the other hand, in the works of early writers, indubitable proofs to show that stone was also used, particularly in rebuilding the churches and monasteries which had been destroyed by the Danes. Alfred set aside a sixth part of his income for this purpose, and we are told by Asser that "he built the houses majestic and good, beyond all the precedents of his ancestors, by his new mechanical contrivances." [Illustration: THE GATEWAY, BATTLE ABBEY.] It was first pointed out by Rickman that there were a number of churches in different parts of the kingdom which could be proved to be of very early date, while they did not agree in character either with the Roman remains, or with the earliest of the Norman churches; and that, in some instances, early Norman work had been built upon portions of these early buildings, thus affording conclusive evidence that these edifices must be of a prior date to that of the earliest Norman buildings. Strong confirmatory evidence is also offered when we find it stated, in a contemporary manuscript, that a church was built on a certain spot by some well-known ecclesiastic at a given time, and still find standing on this spot a building, or portions of a building, of a style which cannot be referred to that of any subsequent period. We are justified in considering this the building so mentioned; and when we find all these buildings agreeing in certain general features, we are also justified in considering these as constituting the style of the period. Of this documentary evidence, the following are examples. The venerable Bede, mentions the building of a monastery at Jarrow by Benedict Biscop in 681, and we now find standing on the spot a church, of which the chancel is of the rudest construction, and evidently of earlier date than the tower, which, from its style, cannot be much subsequent to the Conquest, and in which portions of the earlier building are built into the walls. The east window is of later date, but the side windows of the church (now blocked up) are of the rudest possible construction--round-headed, with the heads formed of a single stone. These are undoubtedly the work of Benedict. The church of Monkwearmouth is also mentioned by Bede as having been built by the same Benedict, in 676. This church still stands, and bears indubitable proofs of its early date. The windows are divided by balusters, and have other features peculiar to the period.