HC Deb 25 February 1915 vol 70 cc484-9
Mr. KING

I wish to call attention to a matter of immense importance. A policy is about to be started which, I am quite certain, if put through, will give a great amount of offence to the best judges and cause deep regret for many years to come. I refer to the great question of the roof of Westminster Hall. The roof of Westminster Hall is, as we have been aware for ten months, if not more, in a condition that needs repair. I do not for a moment question the necessity of doing something very extensive in its operation to the roof of that great hall, but I especially want the House to realise that the most sacred secular building in the whole of our history, and I therefore think in the history of the world, is going to be radically changed and altogether altered as a structure, and there has been no Debate in the House upon this most important step since 23rd April, 1914. On that date there was a Debate it is true, but it was a Debate upon the Vote for the Houses of Parliament. It began after half-past seven, which was the time the Division was called before the Debate commenced, and it was interrupted at 8.15 by a private Bill which took nearly the whole of the evening. The discussion, therefore, was most inadequate to the subject, and admitted of nothing but one long speech from an hon. Member whom we are very sorry not to have with us (Mr. Wedgwood Benn), whose sprightly treatment of this and every other subject connected with the Office of Works is a very pleasant memory, and if I may say so with respect to the hon. Gentleman who will reply to me, though we should be sorry not to have him in the same capacity, yet we should very much like to have back the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wedgwood Benu).

It is a very curious thing that in this Debate of 23rd April the plan of the Government was enunciated, and it was not until more than two months afterwards that the report upon their investigations of the actual proposals of the Government was given. The House is therefore being asked to consider itself as having debated a subject on 23rd April which was only laid before it in the report of 13th June. When the report was laid before the House a request was at once made to the Prime Minister that a day should be given for the discussion. Before a definite answer was given the hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood Benn) announced, on 25th June, less than a fortnight after this report was published, that the whole of the recommendations were being adopted, and that therefore there was to be no discussion of them by the House. I want to call the attention of the House, and especially of hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, to the fact that they have not treated us fairly in this matter. If it had not been that this report was published only just before the extremely exciting time of party conflict and the threat of public riot and revolution which we had at the end of June and in July, and if that had not been followed immediately by the outbreak of the War, there would be by this time an overwhelming body of public opinion against this report and its proposals.

So far from the Government taking in hand this plan, and putting it into operation at a huge unnecessary expense, as it seems to me, without any objection by anybody, I am certain we should have by this time a Committee of Inquiry, and we should have had counter proposals, and I am confident that we should have had a different solution of the problem of the roof at very much less public expense. That is my position. If the Government will allow a Committee to be appointed—I do not even say a House of Commons Committee, though under ordinary circumstances I should press that—but if there was a Departmental Committee appointed to look into this report, examine witnesses, and report again before the actual structural work was taken in hand, I should be satisfied. I am confident that the result would be that we should have a different roof from the extravagant and outrageous proposal which is being made. What is the recommendation of this report, and what are my objections to it? I hope that possibly, if we cannot get a promise of a Committee, or further inquiry, we shall, at any rate, have a promise that we shall have an opportunity on an early day, as soon as we get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates, when the whole of this matter may be discussed.

I hope the hon. Member who is to reply will undertake that, as far as possible, the work of vital and decisive character will be kept back until after that discussion. If he gives that undertaking, I shall be satisfied. I admit, of course, that the roof needs repair, but the proposal is to put up a huge iron structure from which the existing roof will be more or less suspended, so that the roof, as we shall see it, will not be the structural roof at all, but old pieces of timber repaired by new timber, but it will not carry the weight of the roof, and it will not support the slates, or whatever may be the material adopted. It will be a structural sham. It will be no more the real roof of the building, but only a certain number of ancient timbers. I object altogether to a great historical building, one of the noblest, probably the noblest, Gothic building in the world, being treated in that way, without any discussion in the House of Commons, and I object to advantage being taken of this War to commit, what I call, an act of artistic vandalism.

Let me give very briefly one or two reasons why I think we might fairly have an assurance from the Treasury Bench that this work will be stopped, at any rate, until there is further discussion, and preferably there should be further inquiry. The first point I wish to raise is that opinions have been already strongly expressed against this report from various different points of view. The report of Mr. Baines—I do not want to say anything disrespectful of that gentleman, for he is a friend of a great many hon. Members, and he is a very capable man with regard to the actual construction and power of an iron roof. As an architectural engineer he is, I have no doubt, an excellent and first-rate authority, and I do not question that the roof he proposes to put in will be strong enough. If we are to have an iron roof from which the present timbers are to be suspended, I am willing to agree that Mr. Baines will carry it out very well. Some men of science have already expressed doubt of the wisdom of this course. I have here a letter—I will not trouble the House by reading it—from Professor Stebbing, of Edinburgh University. He is Professor of Forestry in that university, and he is a great authority, not only on timber, but on the ravages of insects on timber. Professor Stebbing is an authority of the very highest character. I wish to refer, also, to the fact that the hon. Member for Cambridge University, who, I am sorry, has not been present this week, has expressed in the "Times" newspaper his strong feeling that further inquiry and discussion are necessary before this work is undertaken. These are only two of the men of science I could quote. This is not an ecclesiastical building, but it is the greatest building of a secular character in London. I will quote Mr. Lynam, one of the best known antiquarian architects. He says:— This is vandalism, and we ought to draw our swords against the vandals as against the Huns. That shows that he feels pretty strongly about it. I have a communication from Mr. Garöe, the architect to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who has been connected with the repair of most of the cathedrals in the Kingdom. He knows the subject of these great Gothic timber roofs better, perhaps, than any other architect in the Kingdom. He has not been consulted. There was no attempt to approach him by the Office of Works. If we had a Committee we should be able to approach men who know the subject. Mr. Caröe was articled to Mr. Pearce, who placed the roof of Westminster Hall in its present condition. He was, for seven months, every day on the scaffolding of this roof. He has had an experience of the roof which is absolutely unique. He was never asked a single question on the subject. That shows how the Office of Works goes to work. It simply blunders through its officials. I wish to speak with all respect of it, but I think I am justified in making some strong animadversions on it. I wish to say that engineering opinion is not favourable to the making of the roof of Westminster Hall a great work of engineering, rather than of architecture. I wish to quote what "The Practical Engineer" said only in its last issue:— It is now intended to practically build a new roof of steel girders behind the wood and out of sight. For the authors of this proposal some term stronger than semi-criminal is required. Better a naked and unashamed steel roof, than the imposture which has been decided on. I am going to quote a practical man. The House is full of them now. I suppose the practical man who knows more about these great timber roofs than any other is Mr. Gaymer, of Cornish and Gaymer, the firm who are now reconstructing Durham and Canterbury Cathedrals. They have enormous stocks of old timber, and they are one of the two or three firms that can undertake such work as the reconstruction and repair of our great cathedral roofs. Mr. Gaymer was engaged as a young man some years ago in connection with Westminster Hall, and his firm has made an estimate of the cost. This is extremely important. Mr. Gaymer has made a firm offer that he would do the work for £49,500.

Mr. MacVEAGH

Would he do it on commission?

Mr. KING

It is a firm estimate; it is not on commission. The proposal of Mr. Baines in his Blue Book is for £60,000 or £11,000 more. That was a pre-War price. That was the estimate of a gentleman drawing up his own proposals, and naturally not putting them at the highest possible figure. Therefore we should save £10,000 at least by repairing the roof with timber rather than by putting on a new superstructure of steel. I have taken the trouble to go into the matter thoroughly, and to get advice much better than my own opinion. I believe that there is undoubtedly a case for delay, consideration, and further inquiry before this most historic and noble building is transformed from what it is, a grand specimen of Gothic architecture, into a mere sham of modern engineering. I appeal to the House for sympathy. There is a strong case, and I hope that it will get some consideration in the answer which is about to be given.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. BECK (Lord of the Treasury)

I feel extremely sorry on this, the first occasion I have the honour to reply from this bench to my hon. Friend, that I am not able to give him the comfort which he desires. The fact is that he is late in the day. My hon. Friend the Member for St. George's-in-the-East, whose absence we all regret, though the cause of it is entirely honourable to him, made a very lengthy speech in the House of Commons on the 23rd April on the subject of this roof. Not only did he do that, but he did what I imagine no one had done before, arranged for personally conducted tours of Members of this House to go over the roof of Westminster Hall. Further than that, before Mr. Baines' most able scheme was adopted, the Institute of British Architects and the Society for the Preservation of Ancient Buildings were consulted, and if time permitted it would be easy to bring the names of ten famous men to bear against each one that has been quoted by my hon. Friend. The fact is that it is too late. A definite contract has been entered into for the carrying out of the work on the lines proposed by Mr. Baines. The House has had one of the most able statements of that sort which were ever written placed before it on the part of Mr. Baines. The matter was urgent, because we were told by those who are capable of judging that it was almost a miracle that this great and wonderful roof, one of the glories of British architecture, continued to exist at all, so decayed and eaten away was it. Therefore it was felt that not a moment was to be lost in the work of safeguarding it for many generations. Though I am most anxious to meet my hon. Friend, there is no possible way on this occasion, because the contract has been placed, after consultation with all the people who are capable of judging, and the great consensus of opinion was in favour of the plan adopted.

Question put, and agreed to.