NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
In consequence of the destruction of the two houses of parliament by fire in October, 1834, a select committee had been appointed by the commons, to consider all matters connected with the rebuilding of these edifices. On their report an address had been presented to the crown to appoint commissioners to receive plans, from which they were to select not fewer than three nor more than five, to be submitted to the committee. More than ninety plans had been sent in, and the commissioners had selected four out of that number. On the 9th of February the committee was renewed for the purpose of determining which of these four ought to be adopted. This was followed by a motion of Mr. Hume’s, that it should be an instruction to the committee to consider the propriety of removing the houses of parliament to another site. Mr. Hume, however, only found forty-four members to vote for his motion, while one hundred and forty-three voted against it. The committee thus re-appointed made their report on the 16th of March. On that day they recommended that an address should be presented to his majesty, praying him to institute inquiries as to what would be the probable expense of executing the plan which had been sent in by Mr. Barry, the architect. The committee had not selected Mr. Barry’s plan as the best, but they thought that they could not safely recommend the adoption of any plan till the expense had been ascertained. The proceeding, was, however, a plain intimation that the plan in question was the one which had been adopted by the commissioners and the committee; and a committee also, in the house of lords had arrived at the same conclusion. The manner of proceeding gave great offence to the other competitors, and they brought their complaints before the house of commons on the 21st of June, in a petition which was presented by Mr. Hume. In this petition they stated that they had, in framing their plans, taken the probable expense into account, as an important consideration to which it was their duty to attend; whereas the commissioners declared that they had come to a decision wholly independent of the question of expense, as not an object for their consideration. They further stated that they had given their best attention to the elaborate instructions given by the committee, as regarded the number and dimensions of the offices and apartments, while the commissioners had been guided in the choice by the “superiority of the elevation.” They further stated, that, as well by the general instructions, as by a report of the committee of the house on sound and ventilation, of which committee one of the commissioners was a member, they had constructed their plans with reference to these objects; but the commissioners had declared that they did not allow that subject to have weight in determining their preference. Finally, they arraigned the preference which had been given to the four selected plans, and prayed the house would either hear them by counsel at the bar, or appoint competent persons to examine the grounds of the report of the commissioners before finally adopting any of the plans. This matter was allowed to lie over till the evidence which had been taken before the select committee, by whom the commissioners themselves had been examined, should be laid on the table. The whole subject was brought forward by Mr. Hume on the 21st of July, who, after descanting at length on the conduct of the commissioners, moved for an address to the crown, to direct a new competition of designs, without limits as to the style of architecture, but not to exceed a certain fixed sum as the cost of erection, and that such designs should be examined and reported on by commissioners to be afterwards appointed. The motion was supported by Messrs. Estcourt and Hawes, and opposed by Mr. Tracy and Sir Robert Peel. The latter said, that if the house agreed to this motion, they would strike a fatal blow at the principles of competition, and teach the most eminent of living architects to rue the day when, in compliance with an invitation of the house of commons, they sent in plans which had the misfortune to be found entitled to preference. The question raised was, not whether they should finally resolve to adopt Mr. Barry’s plan, but whether they would declare all the proceedings that had been taken to be null. There was not even an implied engagement with Mr. Barry; there was only a prima facie presumption that his plan was entitled to a preference. Mr. Hume, on seeing the general feeling of the house was against his proposition, withdrew it; at the same time he considered that his arguments had not only been unanswered, but that they were unanswerable.
On the 3rd of May Mr. Grantley Berkeley renewed his proposition for admitting ladies to the debates, by moving a resolution, “that it is the opinion of this house that the resolution of the select committee appointed in 1835 to consider the means of admitting ladies to a portion of the stranger’s gallery, together with the plan of Sir R. Smirke, should be adopted, and that means should be taken to carry it into effect with as little delay as possible.” This resolution was carried by a majority of one hundred and thirty-two against ninety. The chancellor of the exchequer accordingly proposed among the miscellaneous estimates, a grant of £400 to defray the expenses of fitting up an adequate portion of the gallery; but after a few words from the Earl of Lincoln against the motion and Lord Palmerston in favour of it, the grant was refused by a majority of forty-two against twenty-eight.