The Sun.
London, England, 1834-04-28 00:00:00

TEMPLE BAR.

" TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE LORD
MAYOR, THE WORSHIPFUL COURT OF
ALDERMEN, AND COMMONS OF THE CITY
OF LONDON, IN COMMON COUNCIL AS-
SEMBLED,
" THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE UN-
DERSIGNED INHABITANTS OF FLEET-
STREET AND ITS VICINITY.
" SHOWETH-That the great benefits resulting to the
trading and commercial interests of the city of London,
from a free and uninterrupted communication in the prin-
cipal thoroughfares, are now universally admitted, while
the great injury arising from obstructions is no less ac-
knowledged.
" That so strongly was the force of these principles felt
nearly a century ago, that the whole of the ancient gates
of the city were removed with the solitary exception of
Temple-bar.
" That without impugning the policy of former ages,
which induced the continuance of a barrier denoting ex-
clusion at a period when the city of London contained
within itself nearly the whole of the wholesale and retail
trade of the metropolis, your petitioners feel that the im-
provements which have taken place within the last twenty
years westward of the city by the substitution of
noble and spacious streets for narrow and inconvenient
ones, and the erection of splendid edifices for shops, have
called into existence a competition of the most powerful
description, which it is much more judicious to meet by
corresponding improvements in the city, than to resist by
persevering in a system of exclusion highly injurious in
itself, and altogether opposed to the expanding spirit of the
present age.
" That Temple-bar is the extreme point between the
city and the western portion of the metropolis, and it is
built over one of the most important thoroughfares in the
city, along which there is an immense traffic.
" That in consequence of the building occupying a very
great portion of the space between the houses on either
side of the way, the intermediate space is so contracted
that no more than two carriages can conveniently pass
through it at one time, and the speed of all vehicles, whe-
ther heavy or light, is necessarily decreased on approaching
it, from the impossibility of the drivers seeing what is corn-
ing in the opposite direction, owing to the depth of the
building, which is about twenty feet, and the extreme low-
ness of the arch, combined with the obstruction to the sight
offered by the superincumbent building, which is in fact
an unbroken screen extending over the whole carriage and
foot way.

.‘ That the practical effect of this is, that at this parti-
cular point the progress of all vehicles, both cominn•
and going out of the city, is impeded ---'
tinual stoppages and ob' •
from Temo-

__, ',own causes con-
ucuons, extending repeatedly
r. oar to St. Paul's Church-yard ; and in its
most mitigated consequences, it produces a constant con-
fusion among the carts and carriages along the whole of
that line of thoroughfare, particularly since the introduction
of omnibuses.
" That the obstructions and annoyances arising from.the
continuance of Temple-bar, operate to the exclusion of a
very valuable species of trade from the city, exemplified
by the reiterated complaints of individuals that they cannot
come in their carriages to the city, from the great danger
of being damaged to which they are exposed from the fre-
quent obstructions in the carriage-ways of the city, and
especially near Temple-bar.
" That more than one-half of the footway is taken up
by this building, and there is only a narrow passage about
five feet wide for all the pedestrians to pass along one of the
leading thoijoughfares of the metropolis ; and although
much has been done of late years to prevent robberies and
nuisances, yet the narrowness of this passage still affords
facility for the commission of offences, and the building
itself helps to screen a nest of infamous houses.
" That your petitioners consider the removal of Temvle-
bar would remedy all these evils, and at the same time
promote a free circulation of air, which, seeing how much
the approaches to the city are choked up by buildings, is

row of great importance to the health of individuals whose
avocations compel them to reside in the city.
" That the structure itself (tees not possess any
valuable point of architectui al bornity, and is wholly
destitute of all consiti3ration of an' iqui-y, it being compara-
tively a modern building, and rot asT:;c:ated with the re-
collection of events which humanity werild wish obliterated
from the national records.

" Your petitioners therefore rafthis honoVatle court
to cause Mille-bar to be removed, and your petitioners
shall ever pray, &c.:"

COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL.

SIR onitEW AONEW'S SABBATH BILL.
On Siiiiirday a Court wit§ held for the purpose of
receiving Vthibus 1.4)&0, amongst which was the re-
port of the committee Of prierlil purposes, recommend-
ing the Court not to petition Vai-liaraent, in favour of
Sir Andrew Agnew's bill, designating it as thiiieCessary,
mischievotii, and uncalled-for. The Court vtas
crowded, a great deal Of thriosity having been excited
by the subject.
Mr. RICHARD TAYLOR strongly re-tVintended the
adoption of the report, and declared that it h 01; been
found impossible to get up a public meeting in favOtw
of this extrdOrdinary tneasure, which had so long and
so obstinately occupied ate mind of Sir Andrew. The
petitions presented in support of the bill had been ob-
tained fraudulently by an insidious and private appli-
cation to weak and ignorant individuals.

Mr. HUNTER could not approve of the bill in queS-
tion, but thought that Mr. Taylor's description of the
manner in winch the petitions in favour of the bill had
been got up was by r 6 nlearig accurate or fair.
Mr. WILLIAMS (of Cordwaifiers Ward) thought it
would be better, before the committee censured, as
they had, Sir Andrew's bill, that they should read it.
Alderman HARMER thought the bill quite uncalled
for, and that its provisions were highly mischievous.
{Hear, hear.)
Mr. CHARLES PEARSON, presuming that Sir Andrew
Agnew was a well-meaning but mistaken man, was
sorry to be obliged to acquiesce in the terms by which
the report designated the miserable attempt at legisla-
tion which bore his name. The bill was mischievous,
because it was grossly partial and unjust, and inter-
fered with the recreations and enjoyments of the poor,
while it left the amusements of the rich untouched.
( Hear.) Steam-boats and stage-coaches were the
victims of Sir Andrew's legislatorial fury, while the
carriages of the opulent enjoyed the benefit of his pro-
tection. ( Hear.) If Sir Andrew Agnew wanted the
Lord's Day kept in a more appropriate manner by the
labouring classes, he bad better legislate so as to im-
prove their condition, to diminish their hours of labour
on the remaining six days, to devote some of the re-
venues of the church establishment to the advancement
of education and the improvement of the mind.
Mr. WIRE was connected with a society instituted
for the suppression of Sunday trading, and could
assure the Court that that society did (as did nearly
every other body of petitioners) deprecate the imprac-
ticable nature of Sir Andrew's bill. They deemed it
unwise, harsh, and mischievous, calculated to defeat
its avowed object, and to bring religion into contempt.
After some observations from other members, the
report was almost unanimously agreed to, and the
Court adjourned.