ted. Fortunately this latter scheme was negatived by a large
majority of the parishioners, and the work of restoration was
committed to the then famous Gothic architect Mr. George Gwilt. He did
his work most carefully and conscientiously, adhering as far as
possible to the original, though hampered throughout his progress by
contradictory instructions from the managing committee, who, like most
bodies of that kind, were apt to fluctuate between motives of economy
and a sense of what was due to the ancient fabric. The Gothic revival
was then in an incipient stage, and Mr. Gwilt, or his committee, must
be held responsible for the removal of the old east gable, with its
five-light Tudor window, erected by Bishop Fox, in place of which a
new window of three lights was inserted. During this restoration the
Church of St. Mary Magdalene was demolished in 1822, together with
some old houses, which are less to be regretted as having encroached
too closely on the walls of the choir.

In 1825 the restoration of the nave began to be seriously considered,
its dilapidated state having been made more conspicuous by contrast
with the restored chancel. Tenders for the work were invited by public
advertisement, but nothing important was done while the vestry were
discussing the respective advantages of "rebuilding" and "repairing,"
and the nave was neglected till it got beyond repair. In the meantime
the two transepts were restored by Mr. Robert Wallace in 1830.

He substituted new designs of his own for the original tracery in the
most important window in the south transept; and (probably influenced
by an economical committee) made the fatal mistake of employing cement
instead of stone for the interior mouldings, and a soft Bath stone for
his repairs to the exterior. The action of time and weather has shown
the false economy of the work. In the same year the "Bishop's Chapel"
was destroyed, as before mentioned. In 1832 a much graver act of
vandalism was threatened by the Bridge Committee in their proposal for
widening the roadway, which meant the entire destruction of the
retro-choir. The suggestion was to leave a space of sixty feet wide,
afterwards extended to seventy, between the east end of the church and
the bridge.[11] This was too much for the inhabitants of Southwark,
who rose to the occasion in a vigorous protest by which the venerable
building was saved.

[Illustration: THE NAVE IN 1831.
_From a contemporaneous Engrav