PRESERVATION OF THE CITY CHURCHES.

Report to the Court of Common Council from the Committee appointed in relation to Churches and Benefices within the City of London.

THE unparalleled project for a wholesale demolition of the Churches in the City of London, having been signally defeated, it may be thought unnecessary that we should recur to the subject; but, since the spirit of destruction, though foiled for the present of its assumed powers, is still in existence, we are induced to place upon record, from the unwilling testimony of the Committee itself, some account of the extraordinary course of proceedings adopted by the promoters of the scheme.

This Report, which was received and confirmed by the Court of Common Council on the 13th of February last, commences with certifying, that Mr. R. L. Jones had, previously to the reference to the Committee, two interviews with the Bishop of London, who promised to consider the subject; that his Lordship, by his Secretary, wrote to Mr. Jones, on the 15th October 1833, stating that, until a formal proposition was submitted to him, he was not prepared to say more than that it might possibly be expedient to extend the application of a principle which had theretofore been acted upon in more than one instancefor consolidating certain parishes where joint population was of small amount, and that he would give his best consideration to any definite plan calculated to promote the residence and increase the efficiency of the Clergy.

It may be remarked that the Bishop of London here expressly guards himself from further proceedings, until some definite plan was submitted to him; and now we shall see what the heads of that plan were, as referred to in the Report. The following is an abridgment of them in one column, with some remarks by way of comment in the other.

HEADS OF PROPOSITIONS submitted to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Bishop of London.

1. That the Parish Churches in the City being more numerous than required for the population, the number should be reduced, in order that the charge of maintaining and repairing may be decreased, proper Rectory houses provided in the parishes to be united, eventually augmenting the value of the Livings, and securing the residence of Incumbents; and the public streets widened and improved.

2. That Commissioners be appointed One to carry the Act into execution. moiety by the Corporation, and the other by the Ordinary.

3. Power to take down the parish churches of [not naming them, although a sweeping number of thirteen are named at the end of the Report, as the first to be taken down] OR such as may be agreed upon between the Ordinary and the Commissioners.

4. Upon giving notice, the Church to be taken down, the materials sold, and the produce vested in the Commissioners, for the purposes of the Act.

5. As soon as the Church shall be taken down, the site thereof, and of the Burial ground, to vest in fee simple in the Com

REMARKS.

1. Where the duty is efficiently performed, there are not more Churches than would be required by even the decreased population of the city of London. Many Churches are maintained and repaired at small expense to the Parishioners; and although additional rectory houses might be provided, and the value of livings augmented by union, yet there are many serious objections against the further union of parishes without the consent of the Parishioners, and above all, Churches should not be destroyed, and the remains of the dead desecrated, for the mere purpose of widening streets.

2. This proposition shews completely the aim of its proposers, and would give them a power which the Archbishop and Bishop by their letter of the 7th of January, at once refuse to sanction.

3. This extraordinary power is also refused to be sanctioned by the before named Prelates, and four of the parishes in the list immediately remonstrated against the design.

4. No comment is necessary on the arbitrary nature of this proposition. The Parishioners are not once mentioned as having a claim to be consulted.

5. Again the Commissioners are to exercise unlimited authority, both over the Church and Burial ground, and parts of

* If this curious stipulation is meant to apply to the Parish Clerk of St. Michael, Crooked lane, where the London Bridge Committee, or some, or one of them, attempted to make sad havoc with the remains of the dead, reference should be made to the Churchwardens and Parishioners of that Parish for a true statement of the facts.

widen or improve the streets; with liberty to build within ten feet of any ancient light abutting upon such ground.

16. Power to purchase any Glebe or other property adjoining, required for the improvements.

17. The Corporation to pay the expence of the Act.

with a gravelled walk, turf, and one or two green trees; but now, as if a breathing place was too great a luxury in this dense city, the sites of both Church and yard, with their sacred contents, are to be devoted to building leases or the transit of

commerce.

16. If these modern (miscalled) improvers take the Church, it is of much less moment to take the Glebe-but they seem to talk of their spoliation with as much ease and freedom as if the sacred ground was a piece of mere waste land, or was unworthy of respect and regard in a Christian country.

17. No-Messieurs Corporators, this will not do; the reflective part of the community will spurn your money, and leave you to ruminate upon the ill success of your ill-digested, inconsiderate, and wanton scheme, praying that, as you grow older, you may grow wiser and better.

Let us now return to the Report.-The Committee of the Corporation state, that they agreed to the Heads of a Plan (it is presumed those which have been just enumerated, and, if so, it is no wonder that they were speedily repudiated by the Archbishop and Bishop), and transmitted them to the Prelates, and a Deputation waited upon their Lordships on the 19th of Nov. last, to confer thereon, when it is stated that both the Prelates appeared fully to concur in the principle of the reduction of the number of Parish Churches; the Archbishop wishing that some plan could be adopted for rebuilding the Churches in populous districts in the neighbourhood of the Metropolis, and the Bishop stating that Stipends for the Incumbents might be procured. It is evident, however, from this ex-parte statement, that some misconception of the sentiments of the Prelates must have occurred, inasmuch as those stated are at variance with their Lordships' letter of the 7th of January, stating that "they entertain strong objections to the demolishing of buildings which have been dedicated to the service of God."

The Archbishop and Bishop are then represented as requesting further information, particularly an estimate of the value of the Churches proposed to be taken down; the list of the Churches being discussed and left for future consideration. It is clear therefore, that up to this time the Prelates had not committed themselves to the Heads of Propositions submitted to them; but required further information and a definite plan.

On the 3rd of December last, Mr. R. L. Jones wrote to the Bishop of London, that, as near as he could calculate the sites of Churches proposed to be taken down might be estimated at about 2000l. each. He then proceeds-" but I take the liberty of observing, that, according to the view which the Committee and self (Ego et Rex meus) have taken of the subject, this is not to be considered in any respect a sacrifice of the property of the Church; which will receive, if required, in lieu of it, Parsonage houses, intrinsically worth more money, exclusive of the other and numerous advantages resulting from a change which will ensure to the inhabitants of so many parishes resident Ministers, and eventually stipends sufficient, &c." and after alluding to the benefit to the cause of religion from his proposed plan, he adds, "that the Corporation offering themselves as joint Trustees for the accomplishment of such a measure, seek no advantage to themselves," (what made him think of this?) "it being a part of their proposition that such surplus as may arise, be applied to any other ecclesiastical objects that may be determined upon by your Lordship or the Legislature." All this would not do: it must have been obvious that a Christian Prelate could not be induced to sacrifice and barter away a Church for 2000l. for building houses upon its site, even with the temptation of a Parsonage house. As to the cause of religion, much depends, under Divine Providence, upon the Clergy themselves. As to the Corporation being joint Trustees seeking no advantage to themselves, the Prelates do not seem inclined to trust them; and as to surplus

of produce from the sale of the site of a Church, being applied to other ecclesiastical objects beyond those mentioned, it is absolute delusion. But observe how much the main object, that of the mere widening of streets, is placed less prominently before the view of the Prelates, than those of an ecclesiastical nature which were considered to have greater effect upon the minds of those excellent dignitaries.

The result therefore came like a thunder-bolt upon Mr. R. L. Jones and his coadjutors. We find that on the 7th of January last (shortly after the indignation of the Inhabitants and Parishioners of London, had extensively been evinced against the plan), the Archbishop and Bishop communicate their sentiments to the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor in the following letter,

"Lambeth, January 7th, 1834.

"The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London beg leave to inform the Lord Mayor that, having maturely considered the proposal on which they had the honour of conferring with his Lordship and the Deputation from the Committee of the Corporation of London at Lambeth, and having looked at the subject in every point of view, they could not feel themselves justified in consenting to a plan, which would entrust individuals, however respectable, with the power of taking down an indefinite number of Churches. They entertain strong objections to the demolishing of buildings which have been dedicated to the service of God; and from representations which they have received (and in particular from the Parish of Allhallows the Great) they are led to believe that they share this feeling in common with many highly respectable inhabitants of the city of London; at the same time they assure his Lordship, that should any plan be brought forward for widening and beautifying the streets of the city, with reasonable expectation of its being carried into immediate effect, they would not refuse to consider proposals in respect to any particular Church which might stand in the way of any great and necessary improvements, and which might be removed without inconvenience to the Parishioners, and with their consent."

The Deputation then endeavour to explain by letter, and a second conference in order to shake the determination of the Prelates-they urge that the widening and beautifying the streets (which their Lordships had justly considered to be the main object) was subordinate to the other objects of increasing the incomes of the Clergy, providing suitable residences without additional charge upon the Parishioners, relieving small parishes from maintaining and repairing Churches which from the diminished number of actual inhabitants are no longer necessary, reminding the Prelates that in the years 1816 and 1819 the Clergy of the City applied to Parliament for an increase of income, and that the want of suitable residences was constantly urged as an objection to residence-that it was not proposed to take any indefinite" number of Churches, but only such as might be selected by the Legislature, and that it was a matter of indifference to whom the power might be entrusted provided the objects were obtained.

Could any powers of eloquence or persuasion be more aptly exerted to shake the resolution of the Prelates? The Deputation, therefore, went no doubt full of hope to the Archbishop on the 21st of January, stating that "after the sentiments expressed by the Archbishop and Bishop at the former conference, the letter which the Lord Mayor had received had occasioned considerable regret,” but not adding that it had been received with nearly universal joy throughout the City. The Archbishop stated that he had certainly considered the improvement of the public streets was the principal object, but that he was now undeceived; that his Grace wished it to be understood, that in not "intrusting the power to individuals, however respectable,of taking down an indefinite number of Churches," both himself and the Bishop of London were included, and that by" an indefinite number of Churches,' an unlimited number was not meant, but that the particular Churches to be taken down were not then defined; that his Grace thought that in all cases the feelings of the Parishioners ought to be consulted; and that, although he could not sanction a general plan unless the Churches should be built in some other place, he would at any time be ready to consider a proposal for the removal of any Church which it was intended immediately to remove for the purpose of any public improvement.

GENT. MAG. VOL. 1.

5 G

Thus then this wholesale scheme of demolition by the firmness of the Archbishop and Bishop utterly failed. The Deputation returned home no doubt with elongated faces and disappointed looks. They then proceeded to call their brethren of the Committee together, and they agree to report to the Court of Common Council

"That they have since considered the subject, and that, although they were of opinion that the plan suggested by them would be attended with very great benefit, since it would not only improve the streets, but reduce the Church rates, and increase the efficiency and respectability of the Parochial Clergy by supplying them with residences and increasing their Stipends, they could not recommend the Court to take upon itself the heavy burthen proposed by their Lordships, that of erecting as many Churches out of the City as might be taken down; being of opinion that the Court could not with propriety be required to do more than defray the expenses of obtaining the necessary legislative powers [it should have been added, if Parliament thought fit to grant such obnoxious ones], they were of opinion that it was inexpedient for the Court to take further proceedings upon the subject."

What then is the true state of the case? The intention was undoubtedly that of taking down at least a large number of the City Churches for the widening of streets, under the pretence that it would promote the cause of religion, and benefit both the Clergy and Parishioners. The object was perseveringly, if not pertinaciously pursued, after the numerous remonstrances publickly made against it. The strenuous exertions to destroy the Churches were worthy of a better cause; and so as the design could be accomplished, it is not too much to say, that the parties were not very scrupulous of the representations and means they employed. "Down with the Church! Down with the Church! we care not how, but down with the Church!*" appeared by fair construction to be the cryand the public in viewing the object of raising money to widen streets by pulling down a Church, cannot fail to apply the moral of a well-known story." My friend, get money, get it by honest means if you can; but if not, get money." The Report for not proceeding any further in this unhallowed project is dated 29th of January last, but it was not presented and agreed to by the Court of Common Council until the 13th of February. At a Court held on the 23d of January, John Sydney Taylor, Esq. was heard as Counsel for the Rector, Churchwardens, and Parishioners of the United Parishes of St. Clement Eastcheap and St. Martin Orgar, in support of their Petition against the measure, in a short, clear, and argumentative speech. It is much to be regretted that the forms of the Court would not admit of a reply by the learned Counsel to the unjust observations of the promoters of the scheme, and that William Paynter, Esq. Counsel for other Parishes against the measure, was not also heard upon that occasion. Petitions were likewise presented to the Court from the United Parishes of St. Benet Gracechurch, and St. Leonard Eastcheap, and the Parish of Allhallows the Great. The Parishes of St. Gregory by St. Paul (united with St. Mary Magdalen, Old Fish-street), St. James, Garlickhithe, and St. Mary at Hill, likewise published resolutions strongly deprecating the measure, and numerous other Parishes were ready to follow their example,† and a volume might be collected if necessary, comprising able arguments not only of the learned counsel, but from daily and other periodical journals, shewing the unjustifiable nature of the scheme of demolition. As a foil, indeed, to the almost universal feeling, an attempt was made by an isolated petition from the united Parishes of St Mary, Somerset, and St. Mary Mounthaw, Upper Thames street, for the removal of their Church, to endeavour to shew that the obnoxious measure would meet with general concurrence. Upon this part of the subject, something may be said at a future opportunity.

The cry seems also now to be " Down with Temple Bar !" the last memorial of the chartered precincts of the City, and another fine Architectural Work of Sir Christopher Wren.

We are happy to notice that the church of St. Edmund in Lombard-street, which was one of the condemned, has recently been not only efficiently repaired, but adorned with two stained glass windows (containing figures of St. Peter and St. Paul), which harmonize with the old East window, erected in the reign of Anne.