This and the next chapter consider church building in London and Lancashire, two areas very different from one another in terms of wealth, social mix, ambitions and challenges, but together they provide important examples of the churchbuilding process before 1830, along with the stylistic debates that accompanied them. Here the focus is London in the 1820s. However, so that the capital's endeavours can be put in context, it is necessary to examine building activity there from the 1790s. This period provides another episode in the gradual movement towards Gothic, but as, at the start of the century, London had the strongest legacy of Classical church building in the country, the change in stylistic thinking reveals a unique set of issues. And as Andrew Saint commented, being the capital city, it ‘was always before the eyes of the bishops, archbishops, peers, commoners, theologians, clergy and plain, concerned churchgoers.’

Three important subjects are examined here: first, although the shortage of church accommodation was acute in the capital, initiatives to build parochial places of worship might be impeded by the spread of proprietary chapels which satisfied much of the middle-class demand; second, London had a long tradition of Classical church building and, initially, 1820s projects continued this pattern; third, Gothic was rapidly gaining popularity, a move both promoted and recorded by the Gentleman's Magazine's prolific and insightful columnist E.J. Carlos, who was hugely significant in shaping the attitudes of those engaged in the church-building process. His published guidance will appear throughout this chapter.

The Classical tradition in London

Francis Bumpus believed Wren successfully ‘found[ed] a school of Ecclesiastical Architecture in England’, one continued so impressively to c.1740 by Gibbs and Hawksmoor in the guise of the Queen Anne churches. ‘Despising medieval styles’, the trio sought inspiration from ‘the Roman school of architecture.’ The best of their churches are outstanding: ambitious, original and commanding; even Wren's more modest, red-brick examples, reflecting a Dutch tradition, generated long-term influence. In addition to stylistic leadership, Wren also provided the basis of the layout that was used extensively to 1840 – and often beyond – that of St James, Piccadilly (1676–84), which the architect commended. And as late as the 1830s, informed critics such as James Elmes and William Bardwell continued to praise them.