LONDON BRIDGE APPROACHES BILL. (Hansard, 6 June 1839)

§ Sir R. Inglis
objected to the bill, and to the circumstances under which it was introduced to the House. His objection was not to its title; but by clause 71 of this bill, power was given to the Governor and Company of the Bank of England to destroy a church attended by not less than 700 persons, and in which there was also service four times a-week, and 700 persons had attended it last Tuesday morning. He was ready, though 6 unwillingly, to consent, that part of the church — namely, the tower — should be pulled down for such a purpose; but he was not willing to consent to give power to the Governor and Company of the Bank of England to traffic with consecrated ground, and to appropriate it to such a purpose, as that of making a Sun fire office. He believed, also, that an alteration to such an extent would be perfectly unnecessary, as a space of 40 feet could be given without destroying the church, which was also wider than many of the thoroughfares of the city. He had been told in the House, that the bill, as it stood, had the consent of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and of the Bishop of London. He admitted to the House, that no one could feel more strongly than he did the merits of the Bishop of London; but though he had confidence in the present Bishop, as to this measure, he could not have the same confidence in the Bishops of forty years hence. A great number of persons would be deprived of their place of worship by this measure. It was, also, a very interesting church to this country, Sir Miles Coverdale, the first translator of the Bible, being buried in it. In the course of the last ten years, three churches had been pulled down in improving the approaches to London Bridge, and in the course of the last century, twenty other churches for the same purpose. The former great desecration was no ground for asking for powers for further desecration. He, therefore, moved, that the words in the preamble of the bill, giving power to pull down the whole or part of St. Bartholomew's Church, be altered, by leaving out the words, "whole," and retaining only "part," and that the 71st clause, be omitted.

§ Mr. Herries
was not surprised at the opposition of the hon. Baronet, knowing, as he did, the interest which he took in every measure connected with the Established Church. But he could assure the hon. Baronet, that the committee on the bill had sanctioned the bill in its present shape, with the best feelings towards the Church. His hon. Friend had, however, overrated the importance of the particular church in question as a place of worship. He doubted not that 700 persons attended divine worship there on Tuesday last; but usually the numbers who frequented it were about fifty or sixty, and indeed, extremely limited. The leading considera- 7 tion that determined the committee was, that the bill gave an alternative power to pull down the church, or only part of it, as circumstances might require; that the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishop of London were appointed trustees, and the church could not be removed, unless these reverend Prelates saw that such a step was unavoidable.

§ Viscount Dungannon
said, the church to which this bill applied was one of long standing, and he entirely concurred with the views expressed by the hon. Baronet. The precedent sought for was of the most dangerous nature. He would not object to the removal of the tower; but it was too much to ask for the demolition of the whole of the sacred edifice, and he should support his hon. Friend in any amendment, to shew his feelings upon the subject.

§ Mr. Sheppard
said, that the pulling down of a church for such purposes as those contemplated by this bill, would be attended with the ruin of the best interests of the country.

§ Mr. Estcourt
considered that it was a most monstrous proposition, to call upon the House to sanction the destruction of a church upon such inadequate reasons. It had been said that 5,000l. had been subscribed to replace it by a new church, but that was to be erected in a different parish, and would, therefore, be of little or no avail, to those who frequented the existing one. Parliament, the public, and the Bishop of London, had declared there was an alarming want of church accommodation in the metropolis, yet power was sought by this bill to destroy one church. He must oppose any such measure.

§ Sir R. Inglis,
after the explanation given by his hon. Friend who had moved the third reading of the bill, would not press his amendment to a division, although he certainly was not by any means reconciled to the measure.

§ Viscount Dungannon
was exceedingly sorry to trouble the House, by calling for a division on this bill, particularly after the withdrawal of the amendment by the hon. Baronet; but he considered the precedent which would be conveyed, by its passing to be of so serious a character, that he should deem himself to be neglectful of his duty, if he did not press for the sense of the House. The bill proposed to disturb the remains of the dead, on the plea 8 of adding to the public convenience. He should be acting contrary to his conscience if he should allow such a bill to pass, and, therefore, moved as an amendment, that it be read a third time that day three months.

List of the AYES.
Abercromby, hn. G.R.	Jervis, J.
Aglionby, H. A.	Jervis, S.
Ainsworth, P.	Law, hon. C. E.
Alston, Rowland	Lowther, Lord Visc.
Archbold, Rob.	Lushington, C.
Attwood, T.	Lygon, hon. Gen.
Bailey, J.	Mahon, Lord Visc.
Baines, E.	Martin, J.
Barnard, E. G.	Martin, T. B.
Barron, H. W.	Mildmay, P.
Beamish, F. B.	Palmer, C. F.
Berkeley, hon. H.	Parrott, J.
Blake, W. J.	Pattison, J.
Blakemore, R.	Philips, G. R.
Busfield, W.	Phillpotts, J.
Butler, hon. Colonel	Pryme, G.
Canning, rt. hon. Sir S.	Redington, T. N.
Chester, H.	Russell, Lord C.
Clay, W.	Sanford, E. A.
Codrington, Admiral	Sheil, R. L.
Crawford, W.	Speirs, A.
Davies, Colonel	Stanley, E.
Dennistoun, J.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Duncombe, T.	Staunton, Sir G. T.
Easthope, J.	Steuart, R.
Eastnor, Lord Visct.	Stuart, Lord J.
Ellice, rt. hon. E.	Stuart, V.
Ellice, E.	Strickland, Sir G.
Evans, W.	Style, Sir C.
Finch, F.	Thornely, T.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Wallace, R.
Grosvenor, Lord R.	Ward, H. G.
Hall, Sir B.	White, A.
Hastie, A.	Wilshere, W.
Hawes, B.	Winnington, T. E.
Hector, C. J.	Winnington, H. J.
Heneage, E.	Wood, T.
Herries, rt. hon. J. C.	Yates, J. A.
Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.	Young, J.
Hodges, T. L.
Hoskins, K.	TELLERS.
Hutt, W.	Maule, Fox
Hutton, R.	Wood, Sir M.

List of the NOES.
Acland, T. D.	Duffield, T.
Alsager, Captain	Du Pre, G.
Ashley, Lord	Estcourt, T.
Bagge, W.	Glynne, Sir S. R.
Broadley, H.	Grimsditch, T.
Bruges, W. H. L.	Hale, R. B.
Cole, Viscount	Hodgson, R.
Courtenay, P.	Houstoun, G.
Darby, G.	Jackson, Mr. Sergeant
De Horsey, S. H.	James, Sir W. C.

Lincoln, Earl of	Perceval, hon. G. J.
Mackenzie, T.	Plumptre, J. P.
Mathew, G. B.	Round, J.
Maunsell, T. P.	Sheppard, T.
Miles, P. W. S.	Yorke, hon. E. T.
Pakington, John S.	TELLERS.
Palmer, G.	Inglis, Sir R. H.
Perceval, Colonel	Dungannon, Ld. Visc.