§ MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.)asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he will take into consideration the advisability of widening the lower portion of Charing Cross Street between the National Gallery and St. Martin's, either by cutting off an angle of the National Gallery, or removing the steps of St. Martin's, as the road is there reduced, where the traffic is heaviest, from a width of 130 to 45 feet?
§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET) (Dublin University)Everyone must, I think, agree as to the advisability of widening the lower portion of Charing Cross Street between the National Gallery and St. Martin's Church; and it seems to be obvious that this could be best accomplished by the removal of the steps of the church, which now project into the road at the corner where the traffic must be much heavier than on the western side. I myself believe that such a change might be made without any architectural disfigurement; but I have no authority in the matter. As to cutting off an angle of the National Gallery, if my hon. and gallant Friend 1068 means by that pulling down a portion of the building itself, I should feel bound to resist such a proposal. If he means cutting off part of the enclosed space in front of the building, that is a question for the Metropolitan Board of Works, whose property it is.
§ SIR RICHARD PAGET (Somerset, Wells)inquired whether notice would be given to the House before anything was done in regard to the removal of the steps?
§ MR. PLUNKETI have no authority in the matter. An Act of Parliament would be required.
§ MR. KING-HARMAN (Kent, Isle of Thanet)asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the question of cutting the steps of St. Martin's Church was brought before that House some years ago; that it was fully debated; and that the scheme was thrown out by a large majority?
§ MR. PLUNKETThere was a Bill before the House and that clause was dropped; but whether there was a strong opposition to it or not I do not know.