..) The First Directed Itself Toward The Restoration Of What Was Believed To

..) The first directed itself toward the restoration of what was believed to be the most desirable or 'perfect' form of the building. The second was concerned with preserving intact what had been inherited from the past, by rejecting all unnecessary interventions.
Further to this already problematic state of affairs the nineteenth century projects suffered from inadequate legislation concerning the nature of what could or couldn't be restored and/or preserved. Salvin's work was born out of a period where there was a demand for show and dramatic representation in art and architecture in conjunction with a lack of guidelines or legislation. Even later in the century and into the early twentieth century additions which affected the aesthetic appreciation of the cathedral do not appear to have been monitored. Of a series of statues which were added just before the first world war, Dearmer comments on as having 'toned down so much that they are commonly regarded as of the date of the building.' (Bell (ed) 1922, p.114). By today's standards an object in need of being 'toned down' would not be added in the first place.
Certainly at Wells the Victorian restoration projects appear to have concentrated more on the idea of what an aesthetically pleasing restoration and less on the preservation of original materials. For example, sometime between 1824-45, the east and south walls of the Hall in the Bishop's Palace were demolished 'to make a more picturesque ruin.' (Colchester 1987, p.159). As seen earlier in Salvin's use of Bath stone instead of Doulting stone, not enough care was taken to ensure the use of the correct materials. A further example can be seen in 1872 when Kilkenny marble was used to replace the earlier Blue Lias shafts on the West Front. (Wells Nat. History and Arch Society 1974, p.5) The marble is a Carboniferous Limestone and did not exactly match the colour of the former stone. It was criticised for its 'slate-pencil whiteness' but weathered in time to a dark grey, not too incongruous with the surrounding Doulting Stone. Furthermore, the original stone of the building which did remain was not preserved - this arose out of a lack of knowledge, foresight and scientific preservation techniques. As a consequence the deterioration of the stone monuments was not adequately monitored or controlled. We see in a comment by Reid in 1963 that since the recording of Jewers in 1892 of inscriptions on the monuments in the cloisters, that many were subsequently lost due to decay and falling from rusty staples (Reid 1963, p.115).
Nineteenth century restoration, as it does today, depended largely on the amounts of funding available to the particular projects.