1 Daniell, A. E., London City Churches (London, 1907), pp. 349–50Google Scholar.

2 Londinensis, Palaeophilus, ‘Historical Account of the Church of St Peter le Poer’, The Gentleman’s Magazine (April 1789), p. 300 Google Scholar, with a view of the ‘East End’, and in the May 1789 issue, p. 410, of the ‘West End’, both dated 6 March 1789. For histories of the medieval church see Jenkinson, W., London Churches Before the Great Fire (London, 1917), pp. 133–34Google Scholar, and Huelin, G., Vanished Churches of the City of London (London, 1996), pp. 55–56 Google Scholar.

3 Paterson, J., Pietas Londinensis: Or, The Present Ecclesiastical State of London (London, 1714), p. 233 Google Scholar.

4 R., and Dodsley, J., London and Its Environs Described, v (London, 1761), p. 182 Google Scholar.

5 Harrison, W., A New Universal History, Description and Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster (London, 1775), p. 422 Google Scholar.

6 The Journal of the House of Commons, XLIII, p. 193, 7 February 1788.

7 Guildhall Library, London (henceforth GL), MS 2863, Committee Book, unpaginated, under 5 February 1788, refers to ‘purchasing Houses and Ground in Crown Court in order to Set the … intended new Church back by which the … Street will be widened’. The site is shown in Rocque, J., A Plan of the Cities of London and Westminster and Borough of Southwark (London, 1746), sheet 5BCGoogle Scholar.

8 Hagger’s address is given as 9 Great Winchester Street, off Bond Street, Mayfair (Essex Record Office (Chelmsford) D/Q19/28, 26 February 1787).

9 GL, MS 2863 records under 5 February 1788 only that the committee met several times and ‘appointed Mr. Gibson as Surveyor to assist them in the Business’. On 10 February 1790 he received £150 ‘on Account of his Commission as Surveyor’ (GL, MS 21,741/1), but the total amount of his fee is unrecorded. Colvin, H., A Biographical Dictionary of British Architects 1600-1840 (New Haven and London, 1995), pp. 408-09Google Scholar.

10 GL, MS 2863, under 5 February 1788.

11 The Journal of the House of Commons, XLIII, p. 261.

12 The Journal of the House of Commons, XLIII, p. 545. Stat. 28. Georgii III, c. 62, 1788. The Act was considered by the parish committee on 19 June (GL, MS 21,741/1, Minutes of trustees for rebuilding 1788–1819, unpaginated, which is the source of all subsequent building references unless otherwise stated).

13 Colvin, Biographical Dictionary, pp. 290, 418 (spelt Goreham in GL, MS 21,741/1, under 5 February 1788), 708-09, 1124-28, respectively.

14 However, on 4 April 1792 the committee approved a ‘Drawing of the Iron Railing round the Altar now produced by Mr Charles the Smith’, with the proviso that ‘there be a Mahogany Rail on the Top of the Ironwork’.

15 Godwin, G., The Churches of London, 11 (London, 1839), p. 2 Google Scholar, records an engraved plate under the organ inscribed ‘This church having been rebuilt, was consecrated by the Right Rev. Beilby, Lord Bishop of London, Nov. 19, 1792. The Rev. James Simkinson Rector.’ The building costs are given in J. Britton and Pugin, A., Illustrations of the Public Buildings of London, 11 (London, 1828), p. 73 Google Scholar, and Godwin, The Churches of London, p. 2, respectively.

16 GL, MS 2863, 21 February 1789.

17 GL, MS 2863. With no room on the site for a churchyard, the committee decided on 13 November 1788 to sink a foundation 15 feet below the ground-level of the new church to create a burial vault (MS 21,741/1).

18 GL, MS 2863.

19 GL, MS 21,741/1. The oak gallery (Godwin, Churches of London, p. 2) was removed in 1888, except for the segment at the west end housing the organ (Danieli, London City Churches, pp. 349-50; Plumley, N. M., The Organs of the City of London From the Restoration to the Present (Oxford, 1996), p. 196 Google Scholar, a pre-demolition photograph).

20 Colvin, Biographical Dictionary, pp. 380, 867-68, 922.

21 Friedman, T., ‘The Golden Age of Church Architecture in Shropshire’, Shropshire History and Archaeology, LXXI (1996), pp. 96–97 Google Scholar, pls 13, 17-19.

22 ‘Remarks on the Best Form of a Room for Hearing and Speaking’, c. 1803, in Van Horne, J. C. and Formwalt, L. W. (eds), The Correspondence and Miscellaneous Papers of Benjamin Henry Latrobe, 1 (New Haven and London, 1984), pp. 403-06Google Scholar.

23 Plates 8–15, p. iv, described as ‘capacious and convenient’. Friedman, T., James Gibbs (New Haven and London, 1984), pp. 55–57 Google Scholar, 310-11, pls 28, 292.

24 Vol. II, pp. 73–74, suggesting that a ‘light turret rising immediately from the socle above the pediment, would have been preferable to this steeple’.

25 As shown in Prattent’s view, dated 1 February 1799, in The European Magazine, vol. 35 (1799), frontispiece, and Shepherd, T. H., London and Its Environs in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1829), p. 96 Google Scholar, which called the front ‘elegantly simple … surmounted by an elegant bell-shaped dome’.

26 Colvin, Biographical Dictionary, pp. 287,419.

27 Dodsley, , London, 1, p. 339 Google Scholar.

28 ‘No advantage has been taken of this form externally, the body of the church being quite shut out from view by the adjoining houses, so that until he enters the building the visitor is not aware that it is a rotunda’ ( Britton, and Pugin, , Illustrations, 11, pp. 73, 75–76 Google Scholar). Earlier writers had characterized Wren’s St Stephen Walbrook in the same way: a ‘very plain, and not at all decorated’ exterior ( Rev.Reeves, G., A New History of London … By Question and Answer (London, 1764), p. 76 Google Scholar), yet on entering the domed body ‘One is surprized … to see such dignity in the construction’ (English Architecture: Or, The Publiek Buildings of London and Westminster (London,1758, p. 25). Joseph Gwilt remarked that ‘the walls are a mere case for the exquisite interior they enclose’ and the entrance ‘is sombre, and without any beauty to prepare the spectator for the brilliant interior’ ( Britton, J. and Pugin, A., Illustrations of the Public Buildings of London, 1 (London, 1825), pp. 35–36 Google Scholar).

29 Britton, and Pugin, , Illustrations, 11, pp. 75–76 Google Scholar.

30 Godwin, Churches of London, p. 3.

31 Moffatt and Leeds, writing about St Peter-Le-Poer ( Britton, and Pugin, , Illustrations, II, p. 76 Google Scholar).

32 The painted arcading and other ornament shown in photographs in M. J. Peel, Bishop Tait and the City Churches, 1856-1868, The Ecclesiological Society (1992) and Plumley (note 19) was added after the gallery was removed in 1888.

33 Britton, and Pugin, , Illustrations, 11, p. 75 Google Scholar. Godwin, Churches of London, p. 3, also found the altarpiece ‘mean and ugly’.

34 GL, MS 21,741/1, painting specification dated 4 April 1792.

35 Britton, and Pugin, , Illustrations, 11, p. 75 Google Scholar. There is no evidence that this embellishment was executed.

36 Britton, and Pugin, , Illustrations, 11, p. 75 Google Scholar. Krautheimer, R., Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (London, 1986), pp. 67, 92, figs 28, 48–49 Google Scholar.

37 Ware, I., The Four Books of Andrea Palladio’s Architecture, Fourth Book (London, 1738), p. 100 Google Scholar.

38 Ware, Four Books, p. 91.

39 Hart, V. and Hicks, P., Sebastiano Senio on Architecture (New Haven and London, 1996), p. 396 Google Scholar.

40 December 1792, p. 1147, adding that the building ‘does great credit to the different persons concerned with its erection’.

41 Plate 106, erroneously stating that the church had been ‘Rebuilt by Mr. Gibbs’.

42 Londinium Redivivum; or, an Ancient History and Modern description of London, iv (London, 1807), p. 567.

43 Britton, and Pugin, , Illustrations, 11, pp. 73–74 Google Scholar.

44 Friedman, T., ‘“Acrobatic Architecture”: St Mary’s, Paddington’, Westminster History Review 2 (1998), pp. 23–27 Google Scholar; Jeffery, P., ‘The Later History of St Martin Outwich, City of London’, London Journal, Vol. 14, Pt 2 (1989), pp. 160-69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.