HC Deb 07 March 1833 vol 16 cc370-9
Mr. Hume

rose to submit to the House the Motion of which he had given notice, for referring to a Select Committee the Report of the Committee of last Session, relative to the pro- priety of erecting a new House of Commons. He observed, that a gallant Officer, not then a Member of the House, together with many other Members had felt, that it did not afford sufficient accommodation for the Members who were called on to assemble, and that, in consequence, they could not discharge their duties comfortably. A Committee was therefore appointed to inquire whether any and what alterations could be effected, and what improvements could be made in the present House for the due accommodation of the Members. The Report of that Committee would at once show the object which they and he had alke in view. The Committee was occupied for a considerable time in ascertaining whether the House in which they now met could be altered so as to afford the accommodation required, and the evidence which he then held in his hand must satisfy every person, that neither as regarded space, ventilation, and other conveniences, was it possible to make such alterations in the existing House as would meet the object proposed. It was stated, that the length of the chamber might be extended fifteen feet, by which seventy or eighty Members would be accommodated, but that there was no mode of increasing its width. From the evidence of Sir Geoffry Wyatville, it would appear that the House was only thirty-three feet in width, by forty-nine in length; and that as to accommodation, it could not fairly hold much more than one-half of the Members. It seemed that 348 individuals, not including those in the strangers' gallery, might be inconveniently crowded together. But, if the seats were placed at such a distance as to enable Gentlemen to pass each other easily (which it was impossible for ordinary-sized men to do at present) then, it was stated, that only 294 persons could sit comfortably. In no place where such important business was transacted was the accommodation so exceedingly bad. On this point he would refer to the experience of every Member who recollected what passed a few nights ago. On that occasion every seat below the gallery was quite full, and yet only 366 Members had anything like accommodation. The space between the seats under the gallery were only one-half the ordinary width, so that it was almost impossible to pass. The Members were, in fact, wedged in, almost like herrings in a barrel. It was a shame that the business of this great country should be transacted in a situation so extremely uncomfortable. Men who were attending to their duties for twelve or fourteen hours in that House ought to be assisted with every possible accommodation. He could state, from his own observation, that several Members had fallen sacrifices to the discharge of their duties in that inconvenient and ill-ventilated place. He believed the ablest men in England, though they had failed in effecting the object, had been employed to ventilate and purify that House thoroughly. The Committee to whom this subject had been referred came to an almost unanimous resolution; the Chairman alone, he believed, remained of a different opinion. They resolved, first "That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the present House of Commons does not afford adequate accommodation for the Members." He believed, that scarcely one dissentient voice could be found opposed to this resolution [No, no.]. If there were any Gentlemen who dissented from it, certainly their ideas of accommodation were different from his. The second Resolution was, "That no such accommodation or improvement as the necessity of the case called for could be made in the present House of Commons for the general convenience of the Members." Looking to the situation in which they were at present placed, he calculated that they lost from twenty to forty minutes in pursuing the old practice of dividing, which rendered it necessary for one party to go into the lobby. It was frequently with the greatest difficulty, and sometimes not without using gentle force, that the Members were got out. If they continued the rule of sending out the minority, in which number, he feared, he should be generally found, the consequence would still be, that individuals who came early would be deprived of their seats, on important occasions, and others who had not so attended would take possession of them. In the case of private bills, he had known men to sit and vote contrary to their inclinations rather than run the risk of losing their seats by going out. He had known Members to have remained fast asleep in their places, and to have been counted as supporting the very Motion to which they were opposed. If on divisions they could save half an hour it would be a matter of very considerable importance, pressed as they were with a variety of business. Now, with respect to building a new House, he understood that the expense would not be 20,000l. more than would be required for altering the old. Three ideas were thrown out on this subject. One was, to extend the House by taking in the lobby. Next, it was suggested, that it might be enlarged in the direction of Cotton-garden, where the house of Mr. Ley would afford an excellent site for a building. But they wanted proper ventilation; and in the latter case the air would be obstructed by the House of Lords and the long gallery; that was, therefore, objected to. Finally, it was proposed to build in a direct line between that House and the river. To that proposition he believed there was scarcely a dissenting voice. In England they were very deficient with respect to public buildings; but he could not have a moment's hesitation in saying, that where business of such immense importance was transacted, those by whom it was transacted should be allowed the utmost possible accommodation. Therefore he felt no unwillingness whatever on the score of expense—to him that consideration was a mere bagatelle. Looking to the national expenditure, considering the manner in which the public money was applied, he conceived that the propriety of devoting a sum to the purpose which he had described would not admit of any question. Many Gentlemen, he knew, cherished a strong recollection of events that had passed in that House, and were, in consequence, very anxious that no change should take place. He could readily enter into the feelings of Gentlemen on that point, but, in his opinion, utility was what they ought principally to keep in view, and, on that ground alone, he was anxious to bring this subject forward. There was a part of the House where idlers invariably resorted. In whatever plan might be adopted, he hoped that the inconveniences at present felt would be remedied. How ever, that would be a subject for future consideration; he did not wish anything to be done hastily. He thought it would be evident to every one, from the few observations he had made, that better accommodation than the House now afforded was necessary. He proposed to move, that the Report of the Select Committee of last Session, for making the House more commodious, be referred to a Select Committee, and that the Committee be instructed to report their observations and opinions thereupon to the House. He believed, that the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) approved of this course. The Committee could call for further information, and have plans and estimates laid before them. There had been a proposition to remove the House to another situation, and he felt satisfied that a better building might be erected elsewhere, but they could not well alter the situation of the Commons without changing that of the Lords at the same time; and as he believed they were not prepared to remove the Lords just yet, it would be better to preserve the present locality of the House of Commons. The hon. Member concluded, by moving for a Committee.

Mr. Warburton

seconded the Motion, and referred to the evidence of Mr. Smirke, from which it appeared that there was not accommodation for more than 350 Members in the House, deducting the space under the gallery, and allowing two feet by three-and-a-half for each individual. 560 Members divided the other night, and, according to the calculation, 210 of the Members could not have found convenient places. He was aw are that some persons thought a space of one foot eight inches by two foot eight inches sufficient for each Member, and upon that supposition the House would accommodate more than 350, but he did not consider the space allowed by Mr. Smirke too much; and it should be borne in mind that Members who frequented the galleries usually required six feet by two rather than three feet by two—a consideration which, if taken into the account, would show that there was not accommodation for more than about, 300 Members. He objected to the oblong shape of the House, as inconvenient and every way inferior to a semicircular form, which would admit of a better position for the Speaker than that which he now occupied. "Sir," continued the hon. Member "you have not, like Janus, eyes in the back of your head, and therefore cannot always see in every direction. I say, Sir, you have not eyes in the back of your head, and you cannot see what goes on in that part of the House behind the Chair which is called, I suppose from the superior wisdom of its occupants, Solomon's porch. There, and at the bar, there Is frequently the greatest disorder, which might be prevented if you could have your eye on every Member." On these grounds, because of its deficiency of accommodation, inconvenient shape, and bad arrangement, he found fault with the present House. One of the recommendations of the plan held in view for constructing a new House was, that it could be carried on without interrupting any of their proceedings, either in the House or in the Committee-rooms, and it might be completed by the commencement of the next Session.

Lord Althorp

said, but for the call made by some hon. Members it had been his intention not to speak on this question, which he thought a question for the Members themselves to decide, being altogether one connected with their accommodation and convenience—not a Ministerial one. He certainly could not deny hut that when there was a full House, the Members suffered great inconvenience. For himself, he must confess—perhaps it might be the effect of a sort of prejudice—that he should be strongly averse to changing the locality of the House, though he should not object to having alterations made in the present House. However, he had not the slightest objection to refer the matter entirely to the Committee.

Sir Robert Inglis

thought with the hon. member for Middlesex, that as a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, there could be no objection to the alteration proposed; the expense would be a mere trifle, supposing a necessity for that alteration; but he did not see that any such necessity existed. He did not, of course, mean to say, that there was sufficient accommodation for such full Houses as assembled the other night; but these only occurred two or three times in the course of a Session; and, therefore, the question amounted to this—was it necessary to build a House large enough to accommodate the whole body of Representatives, who only assembled as a collective body on very extraordinary occasions—sonic two or three times a year? For the remainder of the year's business this House was better adapted than any building he knew. There were most important matters discussed when only 150 or 200 Members were present, and this number the House could accommodate excellently. The hon. member for Middlesex had founded his calculation upon the whole number of Members returned to this House; but he would ask hon. Gentlemen whether 658 Members had ever met together in this House for the purpose of deliberation? If the hon. member for Middlesex could mention any precedent of ancient or modern times in which 658 Members had ever constituted a deliberative assembly here, he would then enter into the consideration of the change which the hon. Member proposed. But believing, that human nature always would be the same, and that they could not reckon upon having, on ordinary occasions a full House, he did not see that the Motion was necessary. He was sure that they should never find 658 men prepared to deliberate upon every subject—they must rely upon the occasion; many men relinquished their right to speak upon questions in which they were not peculiarly interested or with which they were not intimately connected. He for one would gladly relinquish his right to speak upon many subjects. He could not, either, altogether lose sight of the change of moral feeling, which would be experienced on leaving this House. He was not ashamed to say, that he looked at these walls with reverence; and he believed that the feelings which the associations connected with that House excited in the mind were not without their influence upon the minds of those who entered it for the first time. He believed that every hon. Gentleman must be occasionally actuated by feelings of reverence or sympathy, while sitting within walls which had echoed to the eloquence of some of the greatest and the wisest men who ever dignified a deliberative assembly. He thought that the feelings excited by such recollections, would prevent them from readily' accommodating themselves to a House, the idea or notion of which would have been borrowed from the new—and he might add vulgar—legislative assemblies on the other side of the Atlantic. They would not like to convert a forum to which the greatest men who ever lived had imparted a lustre by their presence, and which they had enlightened with their eloquence—into a degraded Council Chamber unworthy of the Legislature of such a country as this. He was he must confess opposed to the Motion. He was quite sure that, after the want of satisfaction which attended the inquiry of former Committees on this subject, they should engage in a very useless inquiry if they consented to the proposition of the hon. member for Middlesex.

Mr. Trevor

thought, that as all the Representatives of the country ought duly to assemble whenever there was the least question concerning the welfare, the happiness, or the misery of the people, there ought to be a House sufficiently large to contain them. Sir Robert Inglis had stated the number of extraordinarily important occasions for the assembly of the whole House at about three times a Session. He thought there was much more frequent occasion for their meeting. He should, therefore, advocate the erection of another building.

Mr. Cutlar Fergusson

coincided in opinion with the last speaker. The present building might be large enough for the discussion of Turnpike Bills, Road Bills, and so on. but it most certainly was far from affording adequate accommodation for the reception of that collective body of Representatives whose duty imperatively called upon them to be present at the discussion on every important question. An hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis) had seemed to argue that the Representatives of the empire in leaving these sacred walls would leave behind them the inspiration thrown over them by the glorious recollections of the great men who had rendered this pile illustrious by the splendor of their eloquence. This was all very well; and if he (Mr. C. Fergusson) had been happy enough to find that the present Members were rendered one jot greater or more illustrious by the memories of the great men—of the Pyms and the Hampdens—whose presence had dignified this House, then would he be the last man to propose any alteration in locality; but as he had not found this beneficial result, and as be considered the question as a pure matter of accommodation and convenience, he should certainly support the proposed alteration. Some of the Members the other night had been told they must not speak on a question of the utmost importance, because they were not in their places; a great number of hon. Members, according to this rule would nightly be prevented from delivering their sentiments, for in the present building there were no seats for half of them.

Mr. Philip Howard

said that, with great deference to the hon. member for Middlesex, he did not conceive any benefit would arise from his Motion "for appointing a Committee for considering further of the expediency of building a new House." He had had the honour of a seat in three Parliaments, and had found that on very few occasions had there been any deficiency of accommodation. He confessed the reasons he had heard were insufficient to justify him in supporting the plan for constructing a new House, which would entail a heavy charge on the public. The building in which their deliberations were then held was endeared to the sons of freedom, not less by the triumphs it had witnessed than by the struggles it had seen. It had been argued by the hon. member for Bridport, that every Member should be allowed in the proportion of two feet three inches each, for sitting room, whilst it was well known that in the army each man occupied only eighteen inches. In reference to the feelings of former times, he observed, that the Romans never altered their Forum Vetus or Forum Romanum, and in that they evinced not less patriotism than sound philosophy. He was not disposed to do away with this unassuming House. He did not use that term as applied to its Members. He objected to pulling down that building hallowed by its recollections for the purpose of erecting in its stead a semicircular theatrical edifice like that proposed. For hearing, and the transaction of business, the House of Commons was preferable to the French Chamber of Deputies. Supposing, however, a new House, constructed on the most approved plan, there was nothing so difficult as to ensure its being a house well adapted to hearing, for there were instances of rooms built exactly on similar plans and proportions, one well fitted for hearing, the other extremely defective; it was a kind of mystery in the science of acoustics; on the whole he conceived the present House to be as well adapted as any which could be devised for the purposed of legislation. The very House, too, showed that theirs was not a Constitution of yesterday. In that Chair, in which they beheld the present able Speaker, the celebrated Sir Thomas More once presided—from that Chair he had nobly maintained the independence and dignity of the Commons against all regal infringements. That day and the day before, which might be termed average houses showed how little call there was for acceding to the views of the hon. member for Middlesex.

Mr. O'Connell

rose to say one word to the House in sober sadness. He asked the House whether it was not desirable, that whatever was done in that House, the public should be made acquainted with it, in order to know the proceedings of their Representatives? How could that be done if there were not sufficient accommodation for that portion of the public by which alone the whole could learn." It was desirable that accommodation should be given, and not that the communication should be made by stealth. The thing was now done. The public would not suffer that it should be discontinued. If it were a matter of such decided necessity that it could not be discontinued without causing a revolution, should they not provide convenience for those who gave the Debates to the public? He would give such accommodation, if it were only that it might not be said: "The hon. Member was inaudible." If there were no other reason but that, he should say they ought to make sufficient accommodation. He could not carry back his historical recollections of the House so far as some hon. Members, but he thought the hon. Baronet, the member for the University of Oxford, did not carry his far enough hack. The hon. Member forgot that the House was called St. Stephen's Chapel, and that at a former period mass was said in it. How could the hon. Member bear a spot which had been consecrated to the worship of the Catholics? However, they had now come to common sense. The question was, was the accommodation sufficient? He cared nothing about Cromwell and Pym having sat in the House; he wanted to know whether the Representatives of the people had a convenient place or not for transacting the public business." He believed not; and there was only one remedy—to send 105 of them back to Ireland.

Captain Deans Dundas

would never consent to vote away 130,000l. of the public money while the people wanted bread. He did not expect that a Motion of such a description would have come from the other side of the House.

Mr. Maurice O'Connell

reminded the hon. and gallant Gentleman that lie had voted away large sums of the public money. [When?] The gallant Officer had voted against the motion of the hon. member for Middlesex for the reduction of sinecures.

Captain Deans Dundas

was happy that he had an opportunity of explaining the vote he gave on that occasion. He had been asked by several of his constituents why he had not voted for Mr. Hume's Motion; and the answer he gave was, that he understood from the hon. member for Tralee, or some other hon. Member who spoke on the same side, that it would be proper to increase the pay of the officers of the Army and Navy. He belonged to the latter; and being persuaded that the officers of the Navy, to which he belonged, should be paid as they now are, he had voted against the Motion.

Question agreed to, and Committee appointed.