§ MR. POWELLrose, pursuant to notice, to call attention to the building operations in progress at New Palace Yard, and to ask the First Commissioner as to the nature of the works and the quality of the stone employed. The condition of the building in which the business of legislation was conducted must be a subject of great interest to the country. For several years past the progress of the works connected with the Palace of Westminster had been almost wholly suspended. The houses along the south side of Bridge 1521 Street had been pulled down, and New-Palace Yard had become an open space. They had been informed by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, that a resolution had been arrived at that New Palace Yard should not be occupied by a quadrangle, according to the original plan of Sir Charles Barry, but that it should be left as now, an open space, and that the magnificent view of the Abbey which had now been opened, should thus be secured to ourselves and to future generations. In the course of last Session a Vote of £15,000 had been taken for works in New Palace Yard, and on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) said—
The sum proposed for completing the Clock Tower and New Palace Yard is intended to be spent in this way—the side of the Clock Tower which was now imperfect, would have the same front as the sides towards Westminster Bridge and towards the river. It was proposed to take advantage of the higher level of the ground in Bridge Street, to make a subway by which Members proceeding from Palace Yard might escape the danger of the present passage, and reach the other side without crossing the road."—[3 Hansard, clxxix. 248.]And then the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to give his plan for laying out New Palace Yard, which was partly to be occupied by a cab-stand and partly by shrubberies and a plantation. But there was reason to suppose that there was some change of plan. In the Vote laid upon the table this year it was proposed to take £28,000 for completion of the Clock Tower, for ornamental railings, and other work. He had seen in a public journal, which was supposed to have accurate information of the intentions of the Government on minor matters—The Globe—thatNew works are now in hand for the erection of an arcade in Palace Yard in harmony with the Parliament House, from the designs of Mr. E. M. Barry.No such arcade was spoken of last year—This will extend along the east side of Palace Yard, forming a new base to the building, and rising somewhat higher than the level of the roadway near Westminster Bridge. The centre of this arcade is open as a porch, having a statue on each side, to that portion of the palace; at the same time the arcade will supply a covered way for those who approach the new railway station which is to be erected close to the north-west angle of the bridge. A subway beneath the roadway will render communication easy and safe. This will be commenced as soon as the railway works will admit. It is also proposed to finish the west side of the Clock Tower by panelling; the appearance of the new work will be made to 1522 harmonize with that which already exists. A handsome railing of iron, gilt and richly moulded, will extend along the whole side of Bridge Street, and be perforated by gates, having within, as well as on the west side also, a series of shrubberies.He was glad to find that Mr. Barry was engaged to complete these works, as he inherited the great architectural talents of his father; but it was impossible not to entertain some doubts as to the complete harmony of the design as laid down by him with that of the old building. No doubt, many of the works erected by Mr. Barry had shown his great ability; but Mr. Barry did not entirely represent the same class of ideas as his late father, and therefore it was necessary to ask for some explanation with regard to the harmony of the new designs with those of the late Sir Charles Barry. With regard to the subway, he wished to ask under whose control it would be, and whether the soil would belong to the Government? There was one remaining branch of the Question upon which he desired some information—namely, the quality of the stone employed. He need hardly refer in passing to the sad history of the masonry of the Houses of Parliament. It was well known how long and costly scientific inquiries were made; how they ended in the selection of a certain species of stone; how the stone so chosen was not used in the building; and how many of the stones which were employed were such as an ordinary clerk of the works who was fitted for his duties would have rejected.
§ MR. LOWEBefore my right hon. Friend rises to reply I wish to present an humble petition, to which I beg his favourable consideration. The Members of this House are required to come here on the public business. Some of us are not very young nor so active as we have been, some of us are short-sighted, and none wish to come to a sudden end under the wheels of cabs or omnibuses. Well, I do not think there is a more dangerous crossing in all London than that which leads to the Houses of Parliament; and I think, in addition to the labour of working day after day and night after night, it is rather hard that we should two or three times a day have to run the risk of our lives. The Lord Advocate, for instance, sustained a serious injury two years ago in his endeavours to avoid being run over by a Hansom cab. We often come here in a hurry when we are "whipped up" for a division or under other pressing circumstances. This being the point 1523 of conveyance of the traffic from Birdcage Walk, from Parliament Street towards the Victoria Station, and to and from Westminster Bridge, the dangers which are incurred in crosing to the House of Commons are already great, but they will be still further increased when the Thames Embankment and the new railway station are opened. If something be not done we shall add a considerable quota to the already too-numerous list of accidents which every year occur in the streets of London. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take this matter into his consideration, and will do something to enable a Member to pass in safety from Bridge Street to the House of Commons. I think it is a subject well worthy of the attention of the right hon. Gentleman; scarcely a day elapses that some Member or other does not incur serious danger in endeavouring to reach the House of Commons.
§ MR. TITEasked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) whether the able chemist appointed by the Committee had been able to suggest any expedient by which the stone used in the erection of the House of Commons could be preserved from decay? When the matter was inquired into by a Committee some years ago, a hope was expressed that the decay would, after a time, cease of itself. However, these hopes proved fallacious, and the stone, which had during the long summer ceased to decay, had, since the commencement of the recent wet weather, again began to decay. He did not think the Government were to blame for the decay of the stone; the decay was caused not by carelessness in selection, but by the London atmosphere.
§ MR. COWPERsaid, he was glad the subject had been brought on by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Powell), who had shown a sound and artistic taste in his suggestions for the improvement of the metropolis. In reply to his first Question he begged to state that no alteration had been made in the designs for which money was voted last Session, although a good deal of time had been given to considering how the details of the plan should be carried out. The hon. Member had alluded to the fact that Sir Charles Barry had designed that New Palace Yard should form an inner quadrangle; and he was glad to find the hon. Gentleman was of opinion that the Government had exercised a wise discretion in not building upon the south side of Bridge Street and in leaving the apace open in order that there might be a 1524 good view of Westminster Abbey from the Bridge. This large open space surrounded by noble architecture would become the chief feature of London, and supply its greatest need. The houses on the north side of Bridge Street had been scheduled by the Metropolitan District Railway Company, and would shortly be pulled down; but as that site was the property of the office of Works, he (Mr. Cowper) had stipulated that the buildings to be there erected should be in harmony with the architecture of the surrounding buildings. The proposal now was to put an ornamental railing along the north of Palace Yard of a light character, so as not to intercept the view. The lamps, at intervals, would naturally contribute to the decorations; and niches would be provided in which statues of statesmen might hereafter be placed. That of Sir Robert Peel would be placed near the present carriage entrance into New Palace Yard. It was proposed to make a porch and arcade at the foot of the Clock Tower, so as to give more dignity and massiveness to its base. This would answer for an approach to the subway about to be made from the Clock Tower to the opposite side of Bridge Street. That street being higher than the level of Palace Yard, the subway would not require to be much below that level. This subway would enable hon. Members to reach the House without incurring the risk of crossing a crowded thoroughfare. The property belonged to the Government. [Mr. POWELL: And the road?] Yes the roadway is vested in the Commissioners of Westminster Bridge, who are also the Commissioners of Works, and Palace Yard was a part of the Royal Palace. The subway would take people to the other side of Bridge Street. There would be a flight of steps which would enable persons to ascend to Bridge Street, and thus reach Parliament Street without crossing. With regard to the stone it would be necessary that the facing of the Clock Tower should be of the same sort as that with which it would have to be united, so as to avoid the appearance of patchwork, and every care had been taken to select the best parts of the quarry. The other portions of the work would be executed in Portland stone, which experience had shown was the most capable of resisting the London atmosphere. As to the question of the decay of the stone of which the Houses were built, he did not take quite as hopeless 1525 a view of the matter as the hon. Member for Bath. The decay was only in particular places where moisture collected. Under Mr. Abel many solutions for excluding moisture and hardening the stone were being tested, and some promised to be successful. The eminent chemist engaged by the Committee had already tried several experiments with a view of chocking the decay of the stone on the west front of the building.
§ MR. COWPERsaid, that the entrance to the House would be in New Palace Yard.
§ MR. COWPERsaid, that the passage would remain in the hands of the Government; but it would be premature to say whether or not the public would, under certain restrictions, be allowed to use it.
§ SIR LAWRENCE PALKWould the plans of the buildings now proposed for New Palace Yard be laid on the table of the House?
§ MR. GREGORYasked if the right hon. Gentleman had considered the propriety of giving hon. Members an access to the subway without exposing them to the inclemency of the weather?
§ MR. COWPERsaid, that he intended to propose in the Estimates of this year a Vote for an arcade from the Members' private entrance to the Clock Tower; and it would greatly improve the architecture of the lower block of building, which was rather bare at present.
GENERAL PEELsaid, that before the Speaker left the chair he wished the House to come to a distinct understanding as to the course to be pursued. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) would now make his general statement with regard to the Estimates, and would conclude by proposing Vote 1. As there were many military Gentlemen who were now in the House for the first time, and who would desire to take part in the discussion, it might be well to remind them that before the first Vote was taken they would be at liberty to make any general observations upon any military matters, but that after the first Vote they must confine themselves to the subject of the particular Vote before the Committee, and 1526 could not go back upon any particular Vote, although they might raise any question upon the Report. He would also remind them that they could not propose any addition to a Vote, although they might move to reduce it as much as they pleased.
The MARQUESS of HARTINGTONentirely concurred, but would suggest that it would be desirable that hon. Members should confine themselves upon the first Vote as much as possible to general subjects, and should leave matters of detail to be discussed upon the particular Votes to which they related.
§ Motion agreed to.