LONDON BRIDGE APPROACHES BILL. (Hansard, 13 February 1832)

§ Mr. Briscoe
said, that he wished to have the Committee on this Bill postponed for three weeks, and if the hon. member for the City would not consent to that, he should oppose the second reading. Mr. Rennie, in stating his opinions with respect to the New London-bridge, had particularly alluded to St. Saviour's Church, and the beautiful chapel attached to it, which had recently excited so much public attention, and had remarked, these objects, would form a fine architectural feature by being opened to public view. But would the House believe that the London-bridge committee were now about to shut out the prospect of that church altogether? Within the last two years, a sum of 30,000l. had been expended on this church, and this ought to weigh with the House not to allow of its exclusion from public view. He (Mr. Briscoe) only asked the Bridge Committee to give up the small space of 130 feet. The Bridge Committee were willing to give seventy, and surely the additional sixty feet could not be any great object when the subject was properly considered.

Mr. Alderman Wood
said, that it was rather odd in the hon. member for Surrey to oppose the second reading of a Bill which was to give permission to make the opening he sought. At present the Committee had a bill which would close the view altogether, and this was to remedy that omission. The Committee, far from being blameable, had actually gone to a great expense in having Mr. Smirke to 259 make plans, and had fully satisfied the people of the Borough, by giving seventy feet for an opening. Let the Bill be read a second time, and if there were anything in the case, let it be examined in the Committee up stairs, which had the power of adjourning from time to time until they were fully informed on the subject. If the Bill were not passed, the City would be deprived of a great and noble street opening from the river into the heart of the town.

§ Mr. Cressett Pelham
would not give his assent to a grant for more money than was actually necessary, and he thought Gracechurch-street was quite enough.

§ Mr. Hunt
said, that the Bill was for the London side of the bridge, and moreover the Committee had given those at the Surrey side all they had asked for. He was no Antiquarian, and though he might be considered Gothic, he must say that, in his opinion, what was called the Lady Chapel was a nuisance, by shutting out the view of the beautiful church.

Mr. Davies Gilbert
thought the Bill ought to be read, and, either in the Committee, or on the third reading, any clauses deemed advisable might be introduced.

§ Mr. Briscoe
said, with that understanding, he would not oppose the second reading.