At their first meeting on the subject (24th January) the vestrymen endorsed the proposal of the Bridge Committee by a large majority. At a subsequent meeting, held within a week, public opinion had been aroused on the subject, and the majority was reduced to three. The moral victory for the Church and Borough of Southwark, headed by Bishop Sumner, was secured by the poll there and then demanded, the result of which was announced, in two days' time, as: "For the retention of the building, 380; against, 140; majority for the retention, 240." The retro-choir was saved, and Mr. Gwilt completed the good work by restoring it, giving his services gratuitously. The nave had been already doomed. It had got into such a ruinous state by 1831 that at a Vestry Meeting holden on the 3rd, and confirmed on the 10th, of May, it was resolved: "That the whole of the roof, from the western door to the west end of the tower, called the nave, consisting of ceiling, roof, walls, and pillars, as far as dangerous, be sold and cleared away; the remainder of the walls, pillars, and family vaults to be left open to the weather. And that the choir, north and south transepts, be enclosed, to the eastern part of the church, for divine service; and that the pews, situated in the nave, be removed into such part, for the accommodation of the inhabitants." In 1838 the nave, having been sufficiently operated on by the climate and other destructive forces, was taken down; and in the following year the foundation stone of a mean and flimsy substitute, in the "Gothic" of the period, was laid by Dr. Sumner, then Bishop of Winchester. The interior, thus limited and reduced, was fitted up with timber staircases, wainscoting, galleries, high pews, and a "three-decker" pulpit, which answered the double purpose of obscuring the sanctuary and enabling the preacher to command his audience in the galleries. The barbarous result did not escape the sensitive eye of Mr. A.W. Pugin, the great Gothic revivalist, who gave vent to his indignation in a scathing article in the "Dublin Review." He said: