The Sun.
London, England, 1853-10-27 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE MORNING CHRONICLE.

SIR, —ln your leading article of Monday last, on the
subject of the removal of Temple-bar, you insist very
properly on the necessity of a new thoroughfare from
the City to the West-end, running parallel to Fleet-
street and the Strand. You will, perhaps, allow [me,
as one whose daily duties oblige him to become cog-
nisant not only of the crowded state of the Strand be-
tween St. Mary's Church and Chancery-lane, but of the
miserable condition of the worst part of the district
which you point out as the site of the new thoroughfare,
to call your attention, and that of your readers, once
more to this subject.

I believe that I am correct in stating that two plans of a
thoroughfare in the direction which you point out havebeen
already submitted to Government in connection with an
extension into the City. The first plan crosses Fetter-lane,
skirts the new Record-office, perforates Chancery-lane
opposite Carey-street, widens that street on the north
side, and runs on into Long-acre, after giving off a wide
branch into Holborn in a line with the west side of
Lincoln's-inn-fields, and two or more branches into the
Strand, one of which opens at Pickett-place, within a
stone's throw of Temple-bar. The second plan differs
from the first, partly in widening Carey-street on the
south instead of the north side, in order to avoid the
new buildings at King's College Hospital, and partly in
opening out fewer thoroughfares. This more economical
arrangement is understood to be dictated to the toard
of Works by want of funds, and as there is reason to
fear that even the second and less costly plan may not
be carried out for some years to come, I am anxious
to suggest the great relief which would be at once
afforded to the traffic of the Strand and Fleet-street,
in the neighbourhood of Temple-bar, by the opening
out of a loop line joining Newcastle-street, in the
Strand,- to Fetter-lane. As you walk into the City,
Newcastle-street is on your left hand, immediately be-
yound St. Mary's Church. It is a thoroughfare of re-
spectable width, and ends to the north in Houghton-
Street, which terminates by a cul de sac. The removal
of two houses at the end of this street would open a
way into St. Clement's-lane, and give direct access to
King's College Hospital. The further removal of the
four houses which form the north side of George-court,
opposite the south front of the new hospital, and of two
houses in Carey-street, would open up the entire length
of this last-named street as far as Chancery-lane. Be-
tween this point and the Record-office a small block of
houses only intervenes, and bars the access to the south
end of Fetter-lane. The destruction of about a dozen
houses, some of them of very little value, would, therefore,
supply us with a very sufficient present relief to the crowd-
ed thoroughfares on each side of Temple-bar. Whenever
the Strand and Fleet-street, between Somerset House
and Fetter-lane, happen to be obstructed by falling
houses or disturbed pavements, this new thoroughfare
would discharge very efficiently the duty now so slowly
and imperfectly performed by Holywell-street.
Allow me briefly to point out some of the advantages
attendant upon this improvement. In the first place,
two important public buildings would be rendered ac-
cessible—l mean the new Record-office and King's Col-
lege Hospital. In the next pace, a commodious access
would be gained to Lincoln's-inn from the Strand, and
to Somerset House a-od King's College from the northern
parts of the metropolis. At present, any one whose
business takes him, as mine does, northward from
the neighbourhood of Somerset House, must tra-
verse some one or other of the filthy and crowded
streets which constitute that nuisance of nuisances and
standing disgrace of the central parts of the metropolis
—Clare-market. One advantage of the thoroughfare
which you so ably advocate would be the destruction of
this most disgraceful assemblage of miserable lanes and
broken-down sheds. My more modest improvement
would lead ultimately to the same result.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
October 25. VIATOR.

This, and nothing short of this—for a southern
line is, we suppose, hopeless, with the solid ob-
struction presented by the Temple—would relieve
the traffic. Let us see how far Temple-bar inter-
feres with it. As everybody knows, it is a struc-
ture of three arches—a roadway and two footways,
divided by two piers, each 4 ft. 6 in. wide. Now
the real nuisance of Temple-bar is the footways,
which are little more than five feet wide. The
whole possible obstruction which Temple-bar can
offer to the traffic consists in that part of the pier
which projects into the roadway—that is, about
nine inches on each side. Temple-bar, then, is an
obstruction to the extent of exactly a foot and a
half. Were it pulled down to-morrow, the road-
way could not be enlarged two feet in the clear,
for any diminution of the present footway, even
with the pier space added, would be simply impos-
sible. If Temple-bar were pulled down, the road-
way would be only 20 feet wide.
The question then arises, is the magnificent gain
of two feet worth the destruction of the Bar ?
Unless the present roadway could be stretched 10
feet—that is, so as to make Fleet-street at that
point 30 feet wide, and thus allow the width '
of another omnibus or waggon—not a single inch
would be gained, nor the remotest relief given to
the traffic. We question whether a roadway three
carriages wide is of much use. A street four car-
riages wide is something ; but, with room for only
three, there is always a struggle on the opposite
lines of traffic for the odd space. It is proposed to
pull down the whole north side of Fleet-street from
St. Dunstan's Church, and all the houses in the
Strand as far as the commencement of St. Cle-
ment's Crescent—that is, to give room for two car-
riages going eastward and two westward. This is
a sensible plan, and it is quite worthy of being
entertained. But this is a very different thing
from the demolition of Temple-bar. The mere
destruction of the gate, leaving the fauces between
Child's bank and the barber's shop as at present,
would not relieve the traffic one hair's breadth.
And all that is now proposed is to pull down that
structure—not to widen the street.
But it is said that the Bar is ugly, and there.:
fore ought to come down. To which it is replied,
It was built by Sir Christopher Wren, and there-
fore it ought not to come down. e know not
whether the attack or the defence is the most irre-
levant. Its ugliness, which is a matter of taste,
is no sufficient reason for its demolition ; nor is the
fact that it is Wren's handiwork enough to retain
it. The matter ought to be settled on very differ-
ent grounds. Wren erected as many hideous
buildings' in which every principle of art is vio-
lated, as he built structures which prove his sur-
passing genius. And if all ugly buildings are to be
destroyed, as such, we had better make a clean
sweep, and level London from Tyburn to Mile-end.
As to ugliness, the jest of the Common Councilmen
destroying a building because it is, in their judg-
ment, unsightly, is a little too absurd. The Cor-
poration which destroyed the Guildhall Chapel,
and which permits the Guildhall to be what it is,
to talk of Temple-bar as ugly ! The Bar may be
ugly, or it may not ; but the City authorities are
no Judges. When they have opened the roof of
Guildhall, and pulled down its ridiculous front,
we will allow them to think of passing judgment
on a work of architecture. At present they are
quite incompetent to deal with the subject.
But Temple-bar obstructs the ventilation, we
think we have heard it said. Not nearly so
much as the church just beyond it ; and if
the Bar is to be sacrificed on this ground,
we tremble for St. Clement's, and even for St.
Mary-le-Strand. The best argument which can be
urged in favour of Temple-bar is, that it is better
than nothing. In a bare, naked, hideous agglomera-
tion of dirty brick walls, which London is, we can
scarcely afford to lose one single inch of cut stone,
or of anything which affects ornament. Anything
which relieves the eye from the painful monotony
of range after range of grim brickwork, tastefully
diversified with oblong window slits, is not to be
lightly flung away. If we were now going to set
up a new archway or a barrier, it is possible, per-
haps probable—though after all doubtful—that the
artist of the Coal Exchange and of Billingsgate
might build a better gateway than the existing
Temple-bar. But as we are not likely to be blessed
with Mr. Bunning's triumphal arch—which might,
or might not, be better than Wren's, we had rather,
on the whole, have Temple-bar than nothing at all.
Its friezes are not perfect, but they are better than
the leaden sky. Its statues are not equal to
Michael Angelo's, but they are something. Temple-
bar cannot quite compare with the Doge's Palace,
or with the Flemish Town-halls • but still, any
structure of Portland stone—anything which looks
massive, and suggests labour and expense—any-
thing which breaks the horrible reiteration of dirty
house and clingy shop—is better than nothing. It
Is, at the worst, a very harmless solecism. It
obstructs neither traffic nor air. It has certain
historical associations. It recalls the days when it
had a purpose. It is the last relic which suggests
that London ever was a walled town. Stir-
ring old memories of murdered Jacobites and
non jurors are connected with it. It is iden-
tified with the recollections of that great trader,
the first Child, who was the father of political
science. It does nobody any harm, and there are
at least as many who think it not so very ugly as
there are high architectural purists who denounce
it. At any rate, if it is to be destroyed, let it perish
in the consummation of some grand plan for re-
arranging the whole neighbourhood. What is at
present proposed is pure, wanton, ignorant icono-
clasm, for no purpose or gain whatever either to
trade or taste.
Having said thus much in favour of the retention -
of the gate, we fear that we shall neutralise our ad- ILLNESS OF THE Sewer© an attack of
vocacy, in the eyes of the gentlemen who met on prelate has been suffering froNLo
1 to postpone a course
Friday last to protect the poor old unoffending illness that he has been
hcobmep
had made arrangements.
BISHOP OF NORWICH. —The right rev.
' Bar, if say that we cannot sympathise with their , of confirmations for
pleas for it. They may all be resolved into the de- 1 NAVAL AND AT iL rarnivF
sire to retain "the ancient barrier and landmark ' year the
between the city of Lend= and Westminster"--a —a S annuities _
' services were ,
31 625 - pensions for naval and military
PENSIONS.—It seems that last

By the by, if Temple-bar must be removed, why not
set it up again, as a memorial of old times and Sir
Christopher Wren, within a stone's throw of the present
site, at the entrance to Pickett-place ? It would be in
no one's way there, it would block up no man's light,
and it would be an object from the Strand somewhat
like the Porte St. Martin in Paris, as seen from the
Boulevards. Some day or other, the opening at Pickett-
place must extend itself till it becomes a street leading
northward from the Strand into Carey-street.