§ Motion made, and Question proposed,
§ 4. "That a sum, not exceeding £40,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Houses of Parliament Buildings." [NOTE.—£34,000 has been voted on account.]
55§ Mr. KINGI do not think any excuse is necessary in bringing before the Committee the important work which has been begun, in Westminster Hall, upon the roof. This is by far the most important work that the Office of Works has now in hand, if not in size and expenditure at any rate in the historic interest and artistic importance of the work, as I shall try to show. I think there is a great number of points in connection with the way this work has been undertaken and decided upon which are open to the strongest suspicion, and, probably, censure. Westminster Hall roof has existed in its present state for about 500 years. It is undoubtedly the most magnificent piece of Gothic carpentry in the world, and it covers a spot which is perhaps more sacred to members of the British Empire than any other spot to be found on the earth's surface. Therefore, any proposal to deal in anything like a drastic way with this great historic roof ought to have been put before the House, and laid before, the public with a much greater fulness of opportunity for discussion and modification than has been afforded by the Office of Works. We are aware that for more than a year Westminster Hall has been full of scaffolding, and some of us have mounted the scaffolding and have seen that wounderful roof, and also the deplorable state into which parts of it have fallen. But the House is probably not aware that it was only in June last, after the work had been decided upon, that the full report of Mr. Baines, the very able architect and surveyor who, under the Office of Works, had reported upon this great structure, was laid before the House. In July, a fortnight after, we were in the midst of a great internal political crisis, and a month after that again we were in the throes of the War.
It is perfectly obvious, therefore, that the House and the public had no opportunity of considering this large expenditure of £60,000, or of considering the artistic and architectural question involved in this great undertaking. I want, in the first place, to stand here in protest against the Office of Works, and in support of the rights of the House of Commons. No such work as this has been undertaken before without a Select Committee of Parliament inquiring into it. Let me state the case of the external alterations and additions which were made to Westminster Hall in 1885. In that year the old Exchequer Court was removed, and a number of tumble-down buildings 56 outside Westminster Hall were taken away, laying the old walls bare, and an expenditure of only £30,000 sufficed to put up an external wall as additional. But that was not decided upon without the appointment of a Select Committee of the House of Parliament. That Committee was one of the strongest, I think, that this House ever appointed. It was under the chairmanship of Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, the then Chief Commissioner of Works; there were also among the names of the members of the Committee Mr. Walter, of the "Times," Sir John Lubbock (the late Lord Avebury), Sir Richard Wallace, to whom we owe the magnificent Wallace collection, Sir Edward Reid, the great naval constructor, Mr. Beresford Hope, one of the most distinguished archaeologists and antiquarians of his time, and Lord Randolph Churchill. There were other members, but those names show, I think, that the House of Commons in those days would not touch one stone of Westminster Hall without the most elaborate investigation by a powerful Committee. How different it is to-day. Ministers, secure in their majority, which, however, has always been quite what it ought to have been, have thought that they could carry on this work without coming to the House of Commons for its advice. In these days I suppose it is unpatriotic, or at least one's loyalty may be suspected, if one breathes a word of suggestion that our Ministers have ever done anything but what was wise and right.
Upon this matter I have no hesitation in saying that I think the Office of Works have got a case which they must meet; they have explanations which they must give; and I, for my part, shall not be satisfied until I know why no investigation of a public character was attempted before this great roof was touched. It is not only that we have had no opportunity of public inquiry, but there is also the fact that the Office of Works have studiously avoided any view or suggestion but what would support an already foregone conclusion. Apparently they made up their minds that this being an age of iron and steel, they would have an iron and steel roof over Westminster Hall. Why has no architect who has been engaged on the great roofs of our cathedrals—why has no architect who has repaired York, or Winchester, or Durham, or Canterbury, of which the roofs have had large structural repairs recently—been called in? Then again there is this fact: There exists a very powerful society in London for the 57 protection of ancient buildings. That society asked at an early stage that they might be allowed to visit the roof and form their own opinion upon the investigations which were going on. They were flatly refused any chance of doing what any of us Members might have done, namely, mounting to the roof and seeing for themselves. I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell us why was no outside authority consulted, and why were no competent judges, who asked to visit and inspect the roof, allowed to mount the scaffolding? There is the further point. The assistant to the late Mr. Pearson, the Royal Academician and architect to whom we owe the beautiful external walls of Westminster, was engaged day after day, I think for something like a year, upon Westminster Hall and its roof when the repairs and additions were undertaken by the late Mr. Pearson. That architect was never even approached. He probably knows the whole work of Westminster Hall better than anybody else. He was himself a witness before the Parliamentary Committee that I have spoken of as having sat in 1885. Why was that gentleman never approached and never even asked for his opinion while the criticisms which he has put forward in the public Press have simply been ignored?
To my mind there is no doubt about the fact that the Office of Works, having decided to give an opportunity for a very able engineer to put an iron roof above the present good roof, simply allowed him to put the case in favour of that iron roof, and have not allowed those others—who, like myself, believe that the magnificent wooden roof which has lasted for 500 years ought, if possible, be so repaired that it might last another 500 years—opportunity to make their views known. Though I very much deprecate and condemn the procedure of the Office of Works, yet for one thing I must give them their full share of credit, namely, the investigation which they undertook into the nature of the ravages of the beetle and the moth which have so damaged the timbers in late years. That investigation was very thorough, and the report of Mr. Baines, which gives a very large amount of valuable information, is no doubt extremely able and complete as to the present condition of the roof. I admit that something had to be done. The ravages of the beetle Xestobium Tessellatum and of the goat-moth necessitated something being done.
58 The question naturally arises, why have the ravages of the beetle and the moth been so very much accelerated and increased during recent years? That question, which I venture to think is a very important one, has never been met. Why is it that those timbers which have lasted 500 years, and which probably had from the beginning those insects which are now devouring them, become suddenly so much more susceptible to their ravages? That question has never been fairly answered, and it is not even asked in Mr. Baines' report. I believe it is due to two things which have been suggested to me by authorities with whom I have had an opportunity of discussing this subject. I believe the first cause is that in recent years the dust has been persistently removed from the beams. I believe that that dust while it remained was a great protection against the ravages of the beetle and the moth. What they wanted was wood-fibre, and if they had to get through a lot of dust they did not care to go on. Though we pay many hundreds of pounds to have the dust periodically removed, in my opinion it was a very great mistake to do so, and it ought to have been left there.
The second reason I believe why those ravages have been so increased is this, that in the last few years there have been a great many more prolonged Sittings of the House during the winter months than previously. Why should that affect the roof of Westminster Hall? It is for the reason that if you have these timbers in a perfectly dry state the beetles' ravages are stopped or modified, but when we have this House sitting and heated with hot air during the winter, then you have aqueous vapour and an amount of condensation on the roof of Westminster Hall and on the timbers thereof that largely facilitated those insects. That theory may be right or may be Wrong, but I believe that at present it is the only one that has been put forward, and therefore it may be said to hold the field. I admit that something was necessary to be done to Westminster Hall. One method of doing so was to give to a clever official like Mr. Baines the opportunity to carry through some scheme of his own, a scheme which I have no doubt will preserve the appearance of the Hall as to a certain amount, a large amount, of the timber, but it will certainly cost a great deal more than employing honest old wood, and therefore is a larger job for the Office of Works. The other alternative 59 was this: They might have supported the roof with the large amount of scaffolding of iron and wood which was already in the Hall, using that to shore up the beams. That would have enabled inquiry and would have opened up the questions as to the various alternatives and would have allowed expert and interesting opinions to be made known, and then we should have really been satisfied, those of us who are unconvinced as I am, that at any rate we had a fair hearing. That course was not adopted and I ask again, Why was no alternative to the course adopted suggested?
4.0 P.M.
There are many points which incidentally come in in connection with the alternatives I suggest and which have altogether been ignored by Mr. Baines and the Office of Works. There is, for instance, the important point of what should be the external covering of the roof, Westminster Hall was, of course, originally covered, like all great buildings, with lead, and that was the case up to less than a hundred years ago. Then, unfortunately, slates were put upon the roof. I believe that we ought to return, and we could have returned, to the covering of the roof with lead if this opportunity had been used for that purpose. Lead has one great advantage. Though it is one of the heaviest of metals, yet it is almost the lightest roof you can have and is far less weighty and far less a strain upon the timbers than either tiles or slates. Therefore, if there was any danger of the timbers being so eaten away as to be no longer safe, there was obviously a very good reason for considering whether we could not on this occasion revert to the old covering which would have restored the original character of the roof, and put on lead instead of slates, thus lessening the strain upon the timber. That point is not really discussed in the Report at all. I look upon it as a minor but certainly a very important consideration that the Office of Works have missed a unique opportunity of restoring the outside of this magnificent building to its pristine character. They have missed it altogether. Why is it not referred to in the Report of Mr. Baines? What has the hon. Member on the Front Bench to say to that question? Nothing at all. I doubt whether it has ever occurred to his Department, or whether they have ever considered the beauty of this ancient historic building from the point of view of restoring it and keeping it as nearly as possible in its old condition.
60 I submit that there is a very grave case—I call it nothing less than vandalism—against the Office of Works in connection with this roof. They have worked in the dark. They have refused the opportunity of a public inquiry, and to my mind, from the point of view of a real lover of architecture, they have made a great mistake in deciding to alter the character of the roof. From below it may look the same, but it will no longer be an existing piece of Gothic art. It was until recently a magnificent piece of oak carpentry, which had remained good for 500 years. In a week or two it will no longer be that; it will be a great fraud. It may look as fine; it may light up as well; but the real Gothic antiquarian character of the roof will be gone for ever. It may have been necessary; something had to be done; and I am open even now to be convinced that the roof as a piece of carpentry was beyond repair. But no question of that kind, involving this inestimably glorious piece of work, ought to be decided hugger-mugger in any office, the authority and experience of men interested in the matter being scorned. I have studied this report and found it a solace and consolation. As a variety from War news which one could not believe, one turns to Blue Books with which one cannot agree. I have given full, and, I believe, fair, consideration to the report. That has not clouded my judgment, nor has it made me less conscious that the Office of Works, in the undertaking which it is now proceeding with in Westminster Hall, has flouted Parliament, ignored all expert opinion, and gone on its own way, simply because the public mind was so occupied in another direction that it could do so without risk of serious criticism. I shall not move a reduction of the Vote, although I would like to see not a single penny given for this work. In view of my reasonableness in the matter, I will simply press the representative of the Office of Works to try to meet some of my points. I asked why there was no Parliamentary inquiry, why there was no consultation with Gothic church authorities who might have thrown a great deal of light on this work, and why the Department is destroying once and for all the Gothic character of this noble structure.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI want to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Beck) to an item of £8,800 for the provision of wood block 61 paving in Old Palace Yard and St. Margaret's Street. When I left this House a month ago there was a completely good macadam pavement on that road. [A laugh.] An hon. Member seems to doubt that statement. It was good enough for me, at any rate, and it ought to have been good enough for anybody, in view of the times in which we live. To my astonishment, yesterday, I observed there was an extremely good wood pavement. It may be the correct sort of pavement to have there, but why was this particular time chosen to put it down? The Government have set up a Committee with instructions not to allow any new works of any kind unless they are absolutely necessary. Why, then, have they insisted on doing this new work, which no one can say is absolutely necessary, seeing that the old pavement could have gone on for another year? It is an extremely bad example to local authorities, public companies, and other people, to see that, while they are being told that they are not to expend money on new works, the Government incur expenditure on something which is absolutely unnecessary. I am much obliged to the hon. Member for the answer he gave me just now on a somewhat similar question. I hope he will impress on the Office of Works that they must not undertake new works of this kind at the present moment unless they are absolutely urgent. Unless that is done it will put some of us in a very awkard position. I hope the hon. Member will speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter. I do not suggest that the work on the roof of Westminster Hall should not be proceeded with. That is an urgent matter; it was begun before the War and cannot be stopped. Therefore I raise no objection to that; but I strongly object to works of the description to which I have just referred being carried out at the present moment.
§ Mr. JOHN O'CONNORI desire to draw the attention of the hon. Member representing the Office of Works to a subject to which I referred some years ago, namely, two pictures in the Royal Gallery, which, to the regret of everybody who takes an interest in them, are fading away. The House may be curious to know why I am interested in these pictures. London is much indebted to Irishmen for its embellishment in the way of art. From the Albert Memorial to Trafalgar Square and St. John's, Adelphi, 62 may be found many works of art the product of Irish hands. The two panels to which I refer represent the death of Nelson and the meeting of Wellington and Blücher on the field of Waterloo. They are very fine panels indeed, and are the work of a fellow citizen of mine, Dan Maclise. Apart from my interest in all works of art, I am especially interested in these, because Dan Maclise was my fellow citizen. Although I had not the honour of meeting him, he having died before I was active in the world, I have met many of his contemporaries and many more of his pupils. Some of these pupils have spoken to me with sadness in their voices, and one indeed with tears in his eyes, because these masterpieces of their great teacher were likely to be non-existent in a very short time, because of this fading away. It is some years ago since I first drew the attention of a predecessor of the hon. Gentleman opposite to this matter. The result then was that Sir Arthur Herbert Church was asked to examine the paintings and make a report. The hon. Member will find that report in one of the pigeon-holes of his Department. In consequence of that report, attempts have been made to patch up these pictures. I have come here, when the House is not in session, and seen artists patching these pictures. I do not object to that; they are worth preserving anyhow. Not only do they represent two great historic occasions, but they show to the present generation the characteristic uniforms and equipment of the armies at the time of Waterloo. That is always interesting from an artistic point of view. When we compare the treatment of these two masterpieces with the treatment of pictures recently placed within the precincts of this House there is reason to complain. I have observed that in the passage leading from the Outer Lobby to the Inner Lobby the new panels have been covered over with glass as a precaution against surroundings which certainly make for the destruction of the pictures.
It is sometimes said that Dan Maclise used a pigment which is not standing the test of time. It is sometimes said that he used canvas which is destructive of the pigment. It is said, I think with more reason, that the atmosphere which surrounds this House is one that is destructive of paintings. It is not only destructive of paintings, but also of the building itself. The outer structure of this building is being fretted away; it is rotting 63 away by reason of the acid contained in the smoke which is sometimes wafted in this direction from the chemical works of the late Sir Henry Doulton. There are numbers of works across the river, a little above here, and the smoke, and the acids that they contain, arising from the manufactures that are therein carried out, are affecting the whole structure of this building. They are said by many experts to be penetrating the walls, rotting away the canvases, and destroying the paintings. What I am going to propose to the hon. Member would not have the effect of preventing that. But I would draw his attention to the panels in the passage to which I referred a moment ago. The panels from here to the other place are glassed over. Why, then, are not Dan Maclise's pictures glassed over; that is a question I ask to-day?
That is the question I asked before Sir Arthur Church was requested to make his report. That is the question I repeat today. Why, if glass is put over other pictures—why should not these masterpieces be also saved, in so far as they can be saved by the glass? I do not expect the hon. Member to make me a full and complete answer about these pictures to-day. He has occupied his present office—upon which I congratulate him—but a very short time. He cannot know everything—which other people pretend to do. But if he promises me that he will make inquiry, and again consult Sir Arthur Church, or some other wise philosopher and expert in these matters—that he will put the whole subject before them—I shall be satisfied for the present. I do think the matter is one of sufficient importance to engage his attention, or the attention of those who are best able to give him advice concerning these masterpieces of a man whose fame extended throughout the continents of Europe and America, who had no superior in his day, and whose fame has stood the test of time. By doing so he will also confer a compliment upon the country that is proud to boast of Dan Maclise, who was one of its most celebrated painters.
§ Mr. SOAMESThe hon. Member for North Somerset has made a speech of an extraordinary character in discussing this matter of the ancient building of Westminster Hall, now that this important building has, through the lapse of time, come into a state of disrepair and it has become evident that something must be 64 done. There is no question that the problem is a very great and difficult one. The principle, I think, by which those before whom the matter is put should be guided—and I think I shall have no difficulty in carrying everyone with me in this—is that we should try to preserve so far as possible the old works of our forefathers. It seems to me that in this case the Office of Works have gone on perfectly sound lines. I do not usually stand here as an apologist for the Office of Works. I have on occasions found serious fault with what they have done. But it seems to me that on this occasion they are acting on proper and right lines; therefore I feel moved to say one word on their behalf.
What is going to be done is to put a very slight steel bracing behind the old timbers, so that every cubic inch, almost, of the present timbers as they exist, and have existed for many years, will be preserved to us and to our children practically in appearance as they are to-day. But I understand that my hon. Friend proposes, instead of that, to cut out either the whole or a very large part of the existing roof and reconstruct it. It is true that when the scheme prepared by the Office of Works, and described in the very admirable report of Mr. Baines, appeared one letter from an architect did appear in the "Times." The writer of that letter found fault with the scheme, and suggested the rebuilding of the whole roof. I am bound to say that I read that letter from that architect with the greatest astonishment. I was astounded that any man with any architectural pretensions should propose to destroy and reconstruct this roof, when it is possible to keep the old roof in existence by simply bracing it together with steel and so keeping it, apparently as we have known it for many years past, and on for the benefit of our children and grandchildren. The hon. Member, in proposing his scheme, went on to say that the Government had ignored all expert opinion. I cannot quite understand how he came to make such a statement as that.
§ Mr. KINGI said all expert opinion on Gothic architecture. I do not mean to say that they ignored the whole body of experts. They consulted experts in entomology, botany, and forestry, but they did not consult one eminent architect in the work of our cathedrals, or builders at work on Gothic architecture.
§ Mr. SOAMESNot very long after this letter appeared in the "Times" there appeared a letter in support of the action of the Government from two of the most eminent architects of the present day—Mr. Reginald Blomfield and Sir Aston Webb, who perhaps have been occupied with more important public buildings in this country than any other man.
§ Mr. SOAMESI beg the hon. Member's pardon. My knowledge is gained from personal experience. I was in the same office with Mr. Reginald Blomfield's uncle, Sir Arthur Blomfield, and the whole of the work he dealt with was Gothic. Therefore one feels that Mr. Blomfield has a very excellent knowledge of Gothic architecture. Thus two perhaps of the most eminent architects that could be selected at the present time have both approved of the present scheme. Their weight and authority is undoubtedly in favour of the Office of Works. The suggestion was thrown out, not in so many words, but practically so, that the Office of Works had a preference for an iron and steel roof, and having that preference set to work to devise a scheme to carry it out. After reading the report of Mr. Baines it appeared to me, as an independent person with no prejudice at all on the subject, that the matter had been gone into with exceeding carefulness and very thoroughly, that the report was a very able one, and that the decision arrived at was one arrived at on the evidence of the facts that were found upon inspection. The hon. Member says that if the present existing roof is preserved in its entirety, simply braced together with a slight steel structure, that the whole of the antiquarian character will be gone. What he wants to do is to take away a great part of it and put up a new building; then apparently, in his view, the antiquarian character will be preserved! That, I am bound to say, is a matter of reasoning which I cannot understand. I do not really know what the hon. Member would really have. I should have thought that if he had the anxiety that he expressed to preserve the antiquarian character of the old building he would most certainly, instead of asking for the destruction of a great part of it, approve the scheme of the Office of Works, which would preserve the whole of what we have now for many, many years to come.
§ Mr. BECKThe House, I think, will be much obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Soames) for the speech he has made out of his great knowledge; indeed, so far as that point goes, I do not feel that I can, without impertinence, add anything to what he has said. But really my hon. Friend (Mr. King) is entirely mistaken in suggesting that there was anything either hurried or surreptitious about the treatment of the Westminster Hall roof. As he knows, and as I told him the other day, the step was taken of personally conducting Members around the Westminster Hall roof. Many Members availed themselves of that opportunity. Finally, after ample opportunity had been given for consideration, this House deliberately included the sum of £10,000 in its Estimates for starting the work which is now in hand. Further than that, before Mr. Baines' plan was adopted—and Mr. Baines' report was one of the most able of this sort ever produced—I am told that by a competent judge—it was submitted to the Ancient Monuments Board. The Ancient Monuments Board is, as everybody knows, one of the most eminent bodies of this sort in the country—in fact, the most eminent body. It includes people of the kind far removed from official influence, and numbers such men as Lord Crawford, whom we all know as a great authority in these matters, Prof. Letherby, the architect of Westminster Abbey, Prof. Haverfield, of Oxford, Sir Hercules Read, of the British Museum, Mr. Smith, of the British Museum, Sir Aston Webb, Mr. Blomfield, and Mr. Charles Trevelyan, who was in the Government a short time ago. These men carefully considered Mr. Haines' report. They then asked that from a technical point of view it should be submitted to Sir Aston Webb and Mr. Blomfield. These two eminent architects again went into Mr. Baines' report and agreed that his suggestion was a most valuable one, and one that would preserve this great monument in a most admirable manner. I do not wish to enter into the reasons for the destruction of the West-minster Hall timber, but I can assure my hon. Friend of this, that the Office of Works was not guilty of sending housemaids into the roof to remove the dust. The great removal of dust took place in the dynamite explosion of 1888. The Office of Works is not responsible for that crime.
§ Mr. BECKCertainly; but the great removal of dust was as I have said. Doubtless the hon. Member knows that the Westminster Hall roof was practically inaccessible unless an elaborate system of scaffolding was set up. Mr. Caroe's investigation of it did not extend to the top part of the roof at all. I do not really think, after what I have said, that anything that I can say or any argument that I can bring forward would be very weighty or add anything to the decision of the experts, but it is, as the hon. Member who has just sat down said, really a very strange idea to suggest that instead of preserving these old timbers, the actual timbers which our ancestors put into the roof, which they felled and so magnificently designed, and put in their place for us and those who come after us, that we should put in other timbers like them, and destroy the old beams that are there. My hon. Friend is also very much mistaken when he talks about the timber being a magnificent work of carpentry until Mr. Raines' scheme was adopted. That is not so, if by carpentry he means solely wood. As a matter of fact, when Barry restored the roof he used very much the same methods to a certain extent as are used now—that is to say, he used iron and steel in order to strengthen the roof, in just the same way as it is proposed to do now, and, as regards the lead roof, that is a mere matter of expense. I do not know that it would add very much to the exterior, but I dare say it would be very interesting to restore the lead roof, though only slates have been on the roof for some 200 years; and I do not think that this is a propitious moment for the carrying out of a great restoration of the lead roof. I do not think really my hon. Friend can expect me to say anything more on this subject. I can only repeat what I said. But if my hon. Friend's criticisms are right—and I submit they are wrong—it is too late, because Parliament has voted the money, the orders have been given, and the whole thing is well on its way. It would be stultifying ourselves to go back from a decision we only arrived at last year.
§ Sir CHARLES HENRYCan my hon. Friend tell me how long these repairs are likely to last?
§ Mr. BECKI am afraid I am not quite sure. I will see that my hon. Friend is 68 informed. As regards the point raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir Frederick Banbury). I do not know that my answer will convince him, but it is a fact that the road in question has been the subject of very grave complaint for a great number of years. Moreover, it is also a fact that no less than twice a year it was necessary to undertake extensive repairs to the macadam road, and it has been felt for a long time that the moment it was possible to get the Treasury to agree, it was very desirable to replace it by an up-to-date road.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe road will be quite good, but it should not have been done so soon.
§ Mr. BECKI can assure the hon. Baronet it will lead to a very considerable economy in the long run. I now come to the very interesting speech of the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. John O'Connor) in regard to the frescoes in the Royal Gallery. I am sure that the House, and the country generally, will be obliged to him for having raised this point. All I can say is that, as a matter of fact, the frescoes are not neglected. They were given to us at a time—from 1841 to 1863—when various frescoes were given to us, and when this particular art in the form of pictures was rather experimental. There has been, I am informed, a great difficulty in preserving all these pictures; but the pictures are being very carefully watched, and I will certainly see that the hon. Member's suggestion for glazing them is put forward. I will personally undertake to see that it is, and I understand the Office of Works will immediately consult Professor Laurie, of the Heriot-Watt College, as regards the pictures. I can assure the hon. Member we will not neglect them, that we do quite appreciate them as pictures of great value to a very large section of the public, and that, both from an historic and an artistic point of view, we shall be very sorry if they disappear more than it is possible to avoid.
§ Question put, and agreed to.