HL Deb 18 July 1889 vol 338 cc674-87
* THE EARL OF WEMYSS

My Lords, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government the question of which I have given Notice, I have to apologize to your Lordships for again obtruding myself upon your notice. I ask your indulgence the more as, in bringing this subject forward, I am acting on behalf of friends of mine in another place who have taken great interest in this question, and who are anxious to move in another place that the objectionable structures in Westminster Hall to which my questions refer shall be removed; but the period of the Session and the business in another place are such that it is impossible for them now to bring the subject forward. I have therefore been asked to do so in your Lordships' House. Now, my Lords, besides this question of the structures themselves, I hold that there is a very grave question involved as to the management of public building and the constitution of the Department of Her Majesty's Office of Works. In regard to what has been done in Westminster Hall opinions possibly may differ. I can only say as regards myself that I dislike these structures. I hold that they in themselves are unsightly, and that they destroy the breadth, simplicity, and grandeur of that noble Hall. I have read somewhere that He never really loved, Who loved not at first sight. I think there is much truth in that. But if one can love at first sight one can hate also. But I had heard nothing of what was going on, and knew nothing about it. There was a hoarding round the structures which had concealed the whole thing from the public, and when I first beheld the staircases I own that, to use a common term, I was "flabbergasted" at what I saw, and there being nobody else near to whom I could express my feelings, I could not resist saying to the policeman as I went through St. Stephen's Hall, "I don't think the Fenians could have done worse." The policeman replied, "Well, my Lord, I don't think they could." That, my Lords, was my first impression upon seeing these staircases. But I ask you not to be guided by my opinion, for there is a general concensus of opinion in this matter. "With the exception of Mr. Shaw Lefevre and the Minister of Works, there is not, I believe, a member of the other House who has a word to say in favour of what has been done in Westminster Hall. Mr. John Ellis brought the subject forward, and moved a reduction of the vote. He objected to the rooms, said that the arrangement was bad and inconvenient, that they were badly lighted, and were more like elongated passages than rooms; that on the ground floor there were only a few cellars, that there was a ridiculous arrangement for members' carriages and horses, and that the declivity made it difficult to take horses there. He objected also to access to the rooms by these steps, and said that there was no foundation for the suggestion that they had previously existed. Mr. Ellis said that Mr. Shaw Lefevre had intended that there should be a model, but it was not made that; all the work was boarded off as if some "deed of darkness" was going on behind it, and was being concealed, and members could not see what was going on; but "now the structures could be seen in all their hideous deformity," and "they entirely spoilt the vista down the hall." Mr. Cavendish Bentinck described the staircases as unsightly and an obstruction, and added that the large erection was a copy of the pulpit used by Mr. Spurgeon. Mr. Causton hoped it was not too late to have these ugly staircases removed. Mr. H. Gardner said that the staircase in the interior was nothing less than hideous; and Dr. Farquharson that the stairs were in themselves not beautiful, and that they marred the majestic simplicity of the whole interior. Mr. Labouchere said, with regard to the staircase, that there was a pretty general opinion in the House that it ought to be taken away, and he therefore hoped the Chief Commissioner would have it removed. In short, my Lords, there is such a consensus of opinion on the subject in another place that if a Motion had been made for the removal of these structures, I believe it would have been carried. There has been another opinion expressed on this matter which I should like to quote—the opinion of a noble Lord, a Member of your Lordships' House, who is a great authority on architecture, and especially Gothic architecture. I mean Lord Grimthorpe. I was in hopes that he would have been here, but as he is absent I will read to your Lordships a letter he has written to me. He says:—

"8th July, 1889.

"Dear Wemyss,—Bentinck asks me to write to you about the Westminster Hall 'spoilation' (as a Doncaster Alderman called the Municipal Reform Act), as I cannot come back from St. Albans merely to make a speech which will not be reported, and on which nothing can be voted. The view I expressed all along in the Times four years ago was that the right thing to do was to keep the six old doors into the courts, and rebuild proper large rooms in the style of the hall in their places. Their floors were at the proper level, a few steps above the street. They would not have been passage rooms like the new ones. But one large new one might have been made where the present great north-west room is—the only really handsome one. But Pearson and Lefevre could not be content with such a simple plan as that, and would have two stories, of which the lower one is half a cellar, and unfit for civilised use. They stuck up a model of one low storey only to show a bad contrast with their two, and of course it looked too low. Another consequence is that the windows of the new rooms are all so low and mean, as modern architects make everything look. As for the staircases, I see new faults every time I look at them. They are in every way incongruous with the simple and grand style of the hall, and, still worse specimens of the said capacity of architects for frittering away everything into little bits. There is one famous model of a staircase, with a door under it (not that there ought to be any here) in Beverley Minster, which you may see in Hickman's 'Architecture'—simple and perfect, and not exhibiting sham ends of steps sticking through the wall, as this one does in the middle of the hall. As for the 'dreadful figures,' Plunket's good answer to Sir G. Campbell has given them a reputation which they certainly do not deserve for their own merits. They want dynamiting, and if half-a-dozen 'eminent architects' were put on the stairs beforehand it would benefit the nation. That is the substance of all that occurs to me to say, except, by the bye, to remark on that hideous north-west turret, with its little windows divided into 'littler' bits, in the fashion, which architects delight in for pulpits—to hide the preacher's dirty shoes, I suppose,

Yours very truly,

GRIMTHORPE."

Now, my Lords, I think I have at least shown to your Lordships that there is unquestionably a concensus of opinion against what has been done in Westminster Hall, and I urge that these structures should be removed. But it is not only what has been done, but the way in which it has been done, showing how the office of Works has proceeded in this matter to which my question points to the fact that although there was a model of the outer portion with the buttresses, no model of the staircases inside the Hall was shown. Furthermore, I have been informed by those that are concerned that a design showing the elevation was never shown. Though the ground plan was shown to the Committee there was nothing at all—so far as I can see—professing to represent the structure. Surely the inner part of the Hall—which is more precious thantheoutside—shouldhavebeen treated with the same care, and a model should have been provided to invite expressions of opinion, as was done with regard to the outside. Instead of that, the whole thing was shut off by a hoarding, so that what was going on could not be seen. But besides these new objectionable staircases we have to complain of the removal of the iron work on one side of the broad steps at the end of the Hall and the substitution of a solid wall and terrace, which looks strong enough to form a platform for carrying a 45-ton gun. It has entirely destroyed the symmetry of the hall. Then, further, there is this point: on the right hand side of the Hall, where these changes have been made, the stonework, from some cause or other, had decayed—I have heard it attributed to the mephitic air which came out of the Divorce Court. This has been refaced. I wonder why the impaired surface could not have been chiselled off, leaving it practically new stone. But no; for some reason or other it has been refaced with stone, but with small instead of large stones, as on the other side. Now, I ask if the Hall required refacing why should not the refacing or renewing have been carried out so as to make one side identical with the other? But such are the fads and caprices of architects in these days that one side of the Hall has been left in its original state with a wall composed of large blocks of stone, and on the other they have put in new stones, wholly differing in size and in colour from the others. A word now as to the outside. A model of the proposed buttresses, &c. &c, was put up, actual size, and we were thus enabled to judge of the general effect of the proposed alterations; but we find that a buttress-has been stuck against one side of one of the Towers at the end of the Hall, which entirely destroys that portion of Sir C. Barry's work, so little respect do architects pay to each others' buildings. Really this is one of the most monstrous, things that was ever done in architecture, and I cannot help thinking that, if the model had shown this, it would have been seen at once that the buttress ought to be removed. So much for Westminster Hall. But, my Lords, my question also refers to a totally different subject, although the principle upon which I am bringing it before your Lordships is very much the same. My question also refers to the subject of the arch on Constitution Hill. I venture to ask whether any steps are being taken to remove from London the reproach of having a triumphal arch standing as that arch does. I defy any architect to point out any arch, railway, or otherwise, which has one leg shorter than its fellow, as this arch has; for being built upon a slope, one side is 12, or 18 inches higher than the other. I hope then, as. Constitution Hill is about to be opened, and roadways are to be made on each side, of the arch, that it will be under pinned and levelled. These are points to which it is necessary to call attention, because I am anxious not only to call attention to the things which are done, but to the system under which they are done. I should have thought that on a question such as this, affecting a great historic hall in which your Lordships have certainly not less, interest than those sitting in another place, there would have been a Joint Committee of both Houses appointed who should have had the plans before, them. Now, my Lords, if any of us look back, as I am afraid I can for a good many years, what do we find with, regard to the appointments which have been made to the office which has the management of public works? Is it the case that the man appointed to fill the high post of First Commissioner of Works is usually selected from the fact of his having given his mind to these subjects, from his knowledge of landscape gardening, or of architecture? Nothing of the kind; the office is always one of political convenience, and as regards the influence of the holder, he is seldom or never in the Cabinet, and hence he does not exercise the influence which he ought. Looking back for well on for 50 years, I do not know of any single holder of that office whom any noble Lord in private life, if he were building a house of his own, would have consulted as to what he ought to do—except one. I shall not name him, so that every surviving holder for the last 40 or 50 years may imagine that that one is himself. Now, my Lords, there is something radically wrong in the system which produces such hideous structures, and renders it possible for any First Commissioner of Works without the knowledge of the public to evolve out of his inner consciousness such structures as these, to which I have called attention. Really, my Lords, it should not be in the power of any First Commissioner, even if he were a man who has given his whole life and attention to such, matters, to deal with our public buildings is the way in which Westminster Hall has been dealt with. Something more is wanted. Take the case of a late Commissioner, Mr. Ayrton. When he came to office he boasted that he had no training of any sort for it, and that he had no taste for architecture or anything of the kind. And yet he proprio motu, without anyone's knowledge, cut down 40 of the old trees in Kensington Gardens, divided the main walk, and thus destroyed the whole plan of the garden. Now, all this shows the necessity of some changes in the constitution of the Office of Works. I once had the honour of being a member of a Royal Commission which recommended that there should be a Committee of Advice attached to the Office of Works. Something of the kind I think, my Lords, is certainly wanted—it might be a Standing Committee of Advice of both Houses—thus assuredly many mistakes might be prevented, and it would not be necessary in future for any one to trouble your Lordships as I have had to do on the present occasion. I have to apologise for having taken up so much of your Lordships' time, and I beg to ask the noble Lord who represents in this House the Office of Works: "Whether the designs for the staircases recently erected in Westminster Hall were ever submitted to any Committee of either House of Parliament, or to any other body, for consideration and approval; whether previous to the commencement of the work any models of the proposed structures—full sized or other—were made and exhibited to Parliament and the public; and whether, seeing the dissatisfaction that has been publicly expressed regarding these staircases, the Government will cause them to be removed, and devise some means of access to the new rooms more in keeping with the original character of the Hall; also whether, inasmuch as the approaches to Constitution Hill from Hyde Park Corner are about to be altered, the Government will cause them to be so formed as to admit of the levelling of the base of the arch at the entrance to the drive, which, since its removal to its present site, enjoys the unique privilege among similar structures of having one side considerably shorter than the other consequent upon its being built upon a slope."

* LORD DORSHESTER

My Lords, I only desire to add a few words. I must endorse in the most emphatic manner the remarks of the noble Earl as to the necessity of having a Committee to consider these architectural works, and that they should not be foisted on the nation—seeing they were to endure for years—without some justification and consideration. It should be an impossibility for such an occurrence to happen in connection with one of the proudest monuments in the world as the erection of these hideous structures. Some of your Lordships may remember the outcry which was made when Sir Charles Barry put up the staircase at the end of Westminster Hall, but that was a sheer necessity, and another outcry occurred with regard to the Courts of Justice. My Lords, I venture to say these few words in addition to what has fallen from my noble Friend as to the necessity for having a properly authorised body to consider these works, and that such things should not be allowed to go on without protest. It was my privilege to serve on a Committee with regard to the removal of the Wellington Monument. The late First Commissioner promised me that five plane trees which stood in front of Lord Rothschild's house should not be cut down without notice, but those trees were cut down and replaced by small ones, such as the nurserymen could put in. That the right hon. Gentleman, who had, perhaps, taken his ideas from the West of Ireland, where there are very few trees, should pledge himself that the trees should not be cut down, and then that they should be cut down and replaced by broomsticks within two years, is a public scandal. But, my Lords, that is not the question now; the question is whether these particular works which have been designed and approved without being submitted for an expression of public opinion, or to some authority such as has been suggested, should be allowed to remain.

LORD LAMINGTON

My Lords, I can only express a hope that the discussion will induce the Government seriously to consider the question of the reform of the Office of Works. The only Board that ever did anything for the Metropolis was the Metropolitan Board of Works, and now it is gone, I do not know what is to be expected from the County Council.

* EARL FORTESCUE

My Lords, I desire to express entire concurrence with what has been said as to the vandalism of cutting down those trees which were opposite to Lord Rothschild's house. It is not only that what might have been a very great improvement to the communication of the Metropolis has been very much spoiled as a matter of beauty, but that the inconvenience owing to the utter want of practical knowledge on the subject of Metropolitan communition (and I speak having years ago been a member of a Committee on Metropolitan Communication) has caused a constant block at the meeting of Hamilton Place and Piccadilly. All the traffic from Hamilton Place went either from the south or west, that is, either went to or from Grosvenor Place or to or from Knightsbridge, practically none to or from the east; and the object should have been to provide for a separate continuous communication along Piccadilly. I remember protesting against the undue narrowing of the new extension of the roadway between Hamilton Place and Park Lane. I did so before the railings had been fixed, and when a slight extension of some 18 feet would have afforded great facilities for the traffic, which, in the graphic words of a policeman there to me, would disentangle itself in the wide space opposite Lord Rothschild's. The answer given was—"It has not been sufficiently tried, and therefore it is premature to express any opinion"; but no time was lost in going to the great expense of fixing the rails in the wrong direction. The opening of Constitution Hill will, I hope, a little relieve the traffic, but the main defect is the want of one line of continuous traffic along Piccadilly. The vandalism of cutting down the handsome trees affording welcome shade was only equalled by the want of practical good sense in the arrangement of the details of the new communication. With regard to the staircases, I concur in every word that has been said as to their ugliness and their marring the character of Westminster Hall. To what do they lead? I do not know whether your Lordships have taken the trouble to examine them, but they lead to a set of perfectly useless rooms opening into each other with no separate passage outside. Although I am bound to say that the architect has certainly shown great taste in some of his ecclesiastical works, he in this case evidently considered first what would look well, in his opinion, from outside, and he cut up the space within afterwards; but it never occurred to him that the first object should have been to arrange a convenient and rational plan. The result is that when it was laid out a large mass of building has been added to Westminster Hall, which is, as regards the tower, perfectly hideous, and is also perfectly useless from the want of common sense in the arrangement of the interior, large as that is. I entirely agree that it is most unsatisfactory that we should have the buildings of the Metropolis at the mercy of chance political agencies. In the course of fifty years—and my memory goes back, I am sorry to say, for fifty years or more—we have had, as my noble Friend truly said, very few heads of the Departments of Woods and Forests, or of Works who had had any previous training at all, or who had anything to do with the laying out of grounds or the arrangement of buildings till they suddenly found themselves for political reasons put into an cilice of this sort, and naturally they were under the practical ascendency of some permanent officials whose zeal is more remarkable than their taste or practical skill.

LORD HENNIKER

I regret, my Lords, that in the course of this conversation, a general attack seems to have been made upon the Office of Works. As far as I am concerned, I am much too humble an individual to venture to discuss matters of taste with my noble Friend, or to venture to give an opinion upon the internal arrangements of the Hall, but I will, as shortly as possible, answer the questions which my noble Friend has put upon the Paper. He asks me, first of all, whether the designs for the staircases recently erected in Westminster Hall were ever submitted to any Committee. In answer to that question, I have to tell your Lordships that the arrangement of the staircases at Westminster Hall was submitted to the Select Committee of the House of Commons, and the plans were approved by that Select Committee. If your Lordships will look at the Blue Book which has been published by that Committee, you will rind that the staircases are set forth in the plans marked No. 5a, No. 6a, and No. 8. The only difference between the staircases approved of by the Committee and the staircases erected is this, that they do not project quite so far into Westminster Hall as they were originally intended to do. The next question my noble Friend asks is whether models were made of these staircases. Of course, I am quite ready to admit that it is a very good thing indeed on all occasions when possible to have models of important buildings. But my noble Friend must remember that to have models entails a great deal of expense and trouble, and in this matter of the staircases it was not thought necessary to incur that expense and trouble. My noble Friend has made a general attack upon all the plans of Westminster Hall; but I would remind him that those plans were approved of by the Select Committee. I am perfectly well aware that, although he made a general attack upon those plans, the chief cause of objection, both in the House of Commons and elsewhere, has been all along with regard to these four staircases. Therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I will just say a few words upon this subject. I would venture to remind your Lordships that it is not at all a new departure having these staircases at Westminster. The four staircases existed from the earliest times in Westminster Hall. Henry III. put up two flights of stairs, and two more were erected at a later period to give access to the rooms which, have now been re-erected under the buttresses. All the staircases that are put up in Westminster Hall now are shown on the old plans that are in existence. Notably they will be found in a plan which had the Committee's, approval, No. 18. To show that this is not a new departure there is this curious fact. Henry III. cut a doorway at the head of a very large flight of stairs. Mr. Pearson designed a doorway exactly in the same place, not knowing that a, doorway was extant, and when he went in and began to put up his doorway he found the old one which had been built up a great many years ago by an architect called Searle. He has now opened this doorway built by Henry III., a doorway from one of the staircases, and it now fills its original purpose. I think this shows that at all events these repairs, or whatever you call them, at Westminster Hall were intended as reproductions, and not as a new departure. I must repeat once more that all these plans were approved by the Select Committee. My noble Friend has quoted the opinion of Lord Grimthorpe in a very characteristic letter, but I must remind the noble Lord that opinion with regard to these staircases is not all on one side. There is a great deal of division upon this subject, and I think as the noble Lord quoted several opinions against these staircases, I may be heard also to quote one or two names which I think deserve attention. Mr. Shaw Lefevre, when he was First Commissioner of Works, had several letters from leading architects. Mr. Euan Christian, then the architect, was at first very much against these staircases, but after he had seen them he changed his mind. Another name which I think will command respect, is that of Mr. Waterhouse, who strongly approved of the staircases. Professor Brooks also approves of them, and also Mr. Bloomfield. These are only a few names out of many who approve of the staircases. I think I have shown your Lordships that opinion is divided, and that it is not, us the noble Lord seemed to suggest, all on one side. Finally, my Lords, I would say, that on the grounds that these repairs have been done according to plans approved by the Committee, and that Mr. Pearson's plan restores as nearly as possible the old approach to the rooms, and forms—I think I may say—the best means practicable of access to these rooms, the First Commissioner of Works has decided that he will not remove these staircases. I have only one more question to answer, and that is with regard to the arch at Constitution Hill. The fact that one side of the arch appears higher than the other has not escaped the notice of the First Commissioner of Works. It is intended at once to level the front of the Constitution Hill side of the arch by the workmen of the Office of Works, and we have a promise from the Vestry of St. George's, Hanover Square, that they will level the other side in the same manner.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

My Lords, I must say that I think the very discussion that has been raised by my noble Friends, who are chiefly responsible for the taste of this House, does illustrate in a very striking manner the unadvisability of accepting their general suggestions. Now, I do not pretend to know whether these staircases are in consonance with Westminster Hall, whether they are good or whether they are bad; but this I do know—that they were arrived at very much by the process which my noble Friends would recommend as an alternate to the present method of procedure. The First Commissioner of Works did not act on his own responsibility, he acted on the advice of the Select Committee of the House of Commons. That, as I understand, is very much what my noble Friend on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) desires to carry out Complaint is made of the unaided responsibility and power of the First Commissioner; and my noble Friend wants him to be assisted by a Council of taste as I understand, whereas it is this very method of procedure which has brought about the state of things of which he complains. I do not know how this Council of taste is to be constituted, but I do not suppose it will be much better than a Committee of the House of Commons. The House of Commons is, as we all know, composed of 670 of the most intelligent men in the country. A Committee of taste chosen from the House of Commons would therefore imply all that is most desirable from that point of view. But, my Lords, suppose you went outside the House of Commons for a Council to take off responsibility from the First Commissioner of Works. I do not say that the present is an ideal method, but I venture to say this, that it shines in comparison with this suggested alternative. The ordinary First Commissioner is supposed to be a man of business, not unversed in public affairs, who will take a commonsense view of the situation, and get the opinion of experts as far as he can. He is at full liberty to consult with every architect, every man of taste, every ingenious person whom he can call to mind, or who is willing to make spontaneously suggestions to him. Now let us take the alternative. The alternative is to establish a Council on the model, I suppose, of the Council of India. Well, opinion is not unanimous in praise of that Council, and, indeed, I believe Her Majesty's Government are at this moment in process of endeavouring to reduce it. This Council would, I presume, be composed of men of taste. Now, we have heard Lord Grimthorpe's letter to-day. I venture to ask what would be the position of a First Commissioner in whose Council Lord Grimthorpe happened to play a not unimportant part? They say that councils of war never fight. I venture to think that this Council of taste would do nothing else. There would be Lord Grimthorpe, there would be my noble Friends who chiefly inhabit the Cross Benches, and who always speak in these Debates, and there would finally be the dozen architects whom Lord Grimthorpe is so anxious to blow up on the very steps of Westminster Hall which my noble Friend is so ready to condemn. The Office of Works is at present a peaceful abode, and has a chance of doing good work; but I venture to say that if the recommendation of my noble Friend were adopted, it would become a hotbed of turbulent contention from which no plan would ever issue, because it would be absolutely impossible for the Council of taste ever to come to a conclusion.

* THE EARL OF WEMTSS

I would, with your Lordships' permission, say a few words further. I repeat that the designs of these staircases were not shown. There were plans shown, but the designs were not shown. The only thing in the shape of a design that was shown was the plan of the staircase at the end of the hall, but no design whatever was shown to the Committee of what is the main subject of offence—namely, the staircases in the centre of the Hall. As to the argument that it is simply restoring the Hall to its original position, I will point out to your Lordships plan No. 22, in the Report of the Committee for 1884–85. Your Lordships will see that there is, no doubt, a doorway, and that doorway is in the centre of the Hall, but this one is not, which is a material difference. Again, there are steps, but what are the steps? There are two steps, certainly, but not a double flight of steps, or anything of that kind. Again, the old doorway in the Hall had a Gothic ornamentation round it. Therefore, it is trifling with your Lordships to say that this is simply a restoration of what existed before. I have no doubt my noble Friend can get architects to back up that statement. There are trades unions in architecture as in everything else, and one architect, as a rule, will back up another in questions of this kind. As regards models, I am surprised to hear my noble Friend say that they are costly. Any man who is building his own house would take good care that he had models of almost everything, small and large, before he went on with the building. My noble Friend says that the present constitution of the Office of Works is perfect. I cannot conceive its being worse. Judge them by their works; judge them by the Kensington Gardens. In spite of all that has been said, I still think that the present system is faulty, and that something in the nature of a Council of advice should be constituted.