CHAPTER VII

.

THE NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER.

I. HISTORY OF THE GROWTH OF THE DESIGN.--Influence of external circumstances on the design--Lowness and irregularity of site--Limitation of choice to Elizabethan and Gothic styles--Choice of Perpendicular style--Original conception of the plan--Question of restoration of St. Stephen’s Chapel--Use of Westminster Hall as the grand entrance to the building--Simplicity of plan--Principle of symmetry and regularity dominant--Enlargement of plan after its adoption--Conception of St. Stephen’s porch--The Central Hall--The Royal Entrance and Royal Gallery--The House of Lords, its construction and decoration--The House of Commons, and its alteration--Great difficulty of the acoustic problem--Enlargement of public requirements--Alterations of design in the River Front--The Land Fronts--The Victoria Tower--The Clock Tower--General inclination to increase the upward tendency of the design, and the amount of decoration. II. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTUAL BUILDING.--Its dimensions--Its main lines of approach; the public approach--The royal approach--The private approaches of Peers and Commons--General character of the plan--The external fronts--The towers--Criticisms on the building by independent authorities.

I. In considering the growth of the design of the New Palace at Westminster, it is necessary to remember, that it was not left entirely free, to be determined by the taste of the architect or the requirements of the building, but was influenced by the site, by the existence of Westminster Hall, of the Courts of Law, and of a portion of the old St. Stephen’s Chapel, and by the limitation to either the Elizabethan or Gothic style dictated by the judges.

The disadvantages of the site were so obvious--so obvious, that proposals were made to rebuild the Palace on other sites, among which may be noticed the high ground in the Green Park and Trafalgar Square. But in the end the feeling for the old site prevailed, and architectural effect was not unnaturally sacrificed to historical associations.

The site chosen was low; approached moreover from the higher ground of Trafalgar Square, and (in close juxta-position with the principal front) from Westminster Bridge, the parapet of which was then so high as actually to conceal a large portion of the front on the first view from the Surrey side of the river, and to give it the effect of being completely sunk. In some degree this defect might be, and has been, remedied, by the erection of a bridge (as at present) at a much lower level of roadway, and with low parapets; and this was a plan which Mr. Barry always strongly urged. But the only effectual remedy would have been to raise the building on a great terrace (as is done at Somerset House), so as to bring it on a level with the parapet of the bridge. It would have been a costly scheme; but high cost would hardly have deterred him from recommending it. The fatal objection was, that it would have left Westminster Hall and the Abbey, so to speak, in a hole; and this could not have been tolerated. The lowness therefore of the site might be mitigated, but could not be remedied.

Moreover, the site was irregular, almost wedge-shaped in form; and on the land-side Westminster Hall and the Law Courts (the former not parallel to the river front), made a continuous elevation impossible. These points presented great difficulty in plan, especially to one, who held to regularity and symmetry as main principles of design. The Law Courts might be and (he thought) ought to be removed; the other difficulties still remained inevitable.

Between the prescribed styles of Elizabethan and Gothic there was no long hesitation. The former appeared a bastard style, unfit for a building of such magnitude. Gothic was at once chosen. Of all its styles Mr. Barry admired most the Early English; but he then thought it hardly fit for other than ecclesiastical purposes. Finally he chose Perpendicular, thinking that it would lend itself most easily to the requirements of the building, and to the principle of regularity, which he intended to introduce in his design. But, if he could have had a site to his mind, and had been left free to choose his style, there is little doubt that he would have preferred Italian. The example most frequent in his thoughts was Inigo Jones’ grand design for the Palace at Whitehall; his own general ideas were manifested in the great design for the New Public Offices, which was the last important work of his life. He actually prepared some sketches and studies for an Italian design, in defiance of the instructions to the competitors.

But he felt that, under all circumstances, Gothic was the style best fitted for the New Palace, and, if Westminster Hall was to be made a feature in the design, the only style possible; and he was consoled for the loss of Italian mainly by the thought of the facility given by Gothic for the erection of towers, the one method by which he thought it possible to

[Illustration: NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER.

PLAN OF THE PRINCIPAL FLOOR.]

redeem from insignificance a great building, in which convenience forbade great general height, and for which a low and unfavourable site had been provided.

Under the limitations thus imposed from without, his mind began to work on the conception of a design. The original idea of his plan was sketched out on the back of a letter, while he was on a visit to Mr. Godfrey, one of his early friends. Even this contained the germ of all that was to follow. But the first plan, which he drew out with care, exhibited every one of the great features of the executed building; and even at this early stage his views extended beyond this plan with a view to the completion of the design. He proposed to enclose New Palace Yard, erecting at the angle a lofty gate-tower, visible from Bridge Street to the Abbey. Beyond this point was to be a grand quadrangle, in which the Victoria Tower should be the principal feature, and from that Tower a grand approach was to lead straight to Buckingham Palace.

In considering the plan, Mr. Barry at once saw that Westminster Hall must either ruin any design, or form a principal feature in it. St. Stephen’s Chapel was in ruins; it was difficult to restore it with certainty; and if it were restored, it was natural that it should be reclaimed to ecclesiastical purposes.[90] This he therefore thought it better to avoid; but the crypt remained, to be preserved and rescued from its former use, as the Speaker’s Dining-room, to a more worthy purpose.[91] He therefore resolved at once to make Westminster Hall his great public approach, and to carry the public through it, and through a hall occupying the site of St. Stephen’s Chapel, right into the centre of the site provided. There were difficulties in the way; the position of the hall and chapel at right angles turned the line of approach; there was a want of parallelism in the one, and of perpendicularity in the other, to the line of the river front, and so to the principal axis of the building; the vast dimensions of the hall itself would tend to dwarf any other hall to which it formed the entrance. But he felt that these were secondary considerations, not worthy of counterbalancing the grandeur and the appropriateness of the general conception. The verdict of public criticism, both at the time of the competition and subsequently, has fully justified his determination.

These points determined, the rest of the plan followed naturally. The Commons must be on the left of the Central Hall, their private entrance in New Palace Yard, and the Speaker’s residence beyond; the Lords on the right, their private entrance in Old Palace Yard, and the Royal approach again beyond this. The suites of libraries and committee-rooms could nowhere be so well placed as on the river front. This general plan was at once adopted, and from its main features he never swerved. He disliked, as an error of principle, the necessary duality of design, and the need of carrying on the great line of approach to inferior rooms, while the Houses of Lords and Commons lay on the right and left. He would have preferred some one feature incontestably the chief, so as to give the unity which he craved. But the plan adopted was recommended by grandeur, simplicity, and convenience;[92] and these considerations kept him firm and unhesitating in his adherence to it. In fact, he was surprised that none of his competitors had adopted it.

The plan and style being thus fixed, the composition of the design next suggested the question, whether there was anything in Gothic style which ought to interfere with the principles of symmetry, regularity, and unity, so dear to his artistic taste. Many (and his friend Pugin especially) contended for irregularity, picturesqueness, and variety. They would have had a group of buildings rather than a single one, or at any rate a building, in which there should be a general unity of style, rather than an actual symmetry of design, which they stigmatized as “clothing a “classical design with Gothic details.” But Mr. Barry’s notions were widely different. He conceived that, if certain first principles were true, they could not vary in different styles. He believed that symmetry and regularity were essential to unity and grandeur; and on this conviction he acted throughout, though sensible at the time that it would meet with opposition, and occasionally disheartened by the increasing strength of the opposition in after years.[93] This is, of course, no place for the discussion of so difficult a question in the abstract. All that is needful is to indicate the principle, which, as a matter of fact, guided and controlled the design, and which probably accounts for the existence of certain actual features, and the omission of others which might have been looked for.[94]

The character of the building was, of course, to be palatial. There were however but fragments of Gothic palaces to be found in England. Italian Gothic had not yet attracted much observation. The town-halls of Belgium occurred to him, and he went over to that country to see and to admire them, especially those of Brussels and Louvain. They recurred to him afterwards, as examples of visible roofs, and general enrichment. But at the time they did not affect his design, which was mainly “castellated” with embattled parapets, concealed roofs, and an absence of all spires. The great tower, one hundred feet square, was to be treated as a “keep;” the clock-tower differed little, except in size, from the same general character. With his great love of unity and regularity he might have desired a central tower,[95] but it must have been over the central hall, and there it would have been too far back to form a centre to the great river front, and half its height would have been concealed. He always thought that great towers should be seen from their parapet to their base; accordingly, he was content to place his towers in positions where they would form natural and prominent features, without interfering with each other, or with the great river front.

Such were the views which dictated the great outlines of the prize design. He made countless variations, drawings literally by hundreds, as studies of its prominent features, in the course of its formation; but the main principles were deeply fixed in his mind, and to them he always returned.

As soon as he was appointed to carry out the work, he was instructed to remodel his plan. More accommodation was needed, and the Government determined to extend the site southwards. This step had the additional advantage of enabling the architect to enlarge the courts, required to give light and air to so extensive a building. It was the first of many alterations, some undertaken with direct authority, others more or less on his own responsibility, with the strong feeling that they were real improvements, dictated by an “architectural necessity,” and that as such they must eventually be sanctioned.

This willingness to accept responsibility was shown in the first change. The river line was not at right angles to the main approach through St. Stephen’s Hall. If both were strictly preserved, much distortion was inevitable. To diminish it as much as possible, he not only set back the line of the embankment at the southern end, but advanced it at the other end, near the bridge, so as to encroach on the river; and this he did, without consulting either the Conservators of the Thames or the Government. This bold step, sanctioned by its success, still left some remains of the objectionable distortion at the entrance from St. Stephen’s Hall into the central hall. There it still exists, but, owing to the octagonal form of the latter hall, and some contrivances of detail, it is hardly to be detected.

The next important alteration introduced one of the noblest features of the present building. In determining to use Westminster Hall as a public approach, he had feared that any important alteration might rouse opposition; he had therefore proposed merely to enlarge the existing entrance under the great south window. But now the grand idea of St. Stephen’s porch was conceived, the great window was set back, and the present noble entrance to the building was the result. He had proposed also to raise the great roof of Westminster Hall,[96] being thoroughly satisfied of the practicability of the process, and the great improvement of proportion which must result. Considerations of expense alone interfered with its execution.

For the embellishment of the hall he had, as has been shown in the last chapter, grand dreams; frescoes, trophies, and statues, were to have met the eye, “set” in profuse enrichment of colour and mosaic, and the whole was to have formed a British Walhalla.

The central hall was originally intended to be far more lofty than at present; the lowering of its proportions is one of the many changes necessitated by the claims for ventilation made by Dr. Reid.

The most important alteration of all was made in the royal entrance. The tower in the first design was one hundred feet square, the sovereign was to have alighted within it, and the royal procession, turning round a central pillar, was to have returned by the way it came. The reduction of the size of the tower to seventy-five feet square set this plan aside, and it was then arranged, that the sovereign should pass through the tower into an inner hall, and alight at the foot of a grand staircase, leading straight to the robing room immediately behind the throne. But on consideration Mr. Barry grudged the great sacrifice of space, and the interruption of communication on the principal floor, for a staircase, which could be used only twice a year.[97] He conceived the notion of the Royal gallery, as a hall for the use of the House of Lords, for the viewing of the royal procession, and for the display of architectural effect, unrestrained by the encumbrances which business renders necessary in the Houses of Lords and Commons. To these considerations he sacrificed the greater magnificence of the original staircase, and on his own responsibility proceeded with the work.

This was the first alteration which excited discontent and opposition. The nature of that opposition is referred to in the previous chapter; its only effect however was to produce a still further alteration, by the formation of the anteroom behind the throne (the Prince’s chamber) for the convenience of the House of Lords. This involved the curtailment of the Royal gallery, and the insertion of a comparatively small room in the royal approach, and was never entirely satisfactory to the architect.

In the House of Lords no great alteration was made, except in height. In the original design the roof was kept low, in deference to authorities in acoustics; but on more careful inquiry it was found that they differed widely from each other, and the architect not unnaturally thought that certain beauty of proportion need not be sacrificed to a doubtful acoustical advantage. The roof accordingly was raised. It could not be made open, because of the requirements for ventilation; but, in fact, even in Gothic buildings Mr. Barry was disinclined to employ open roofs. For inhabited rooms he preferred a coved or arched ceiling, and believed that, in the abstract, a cove was the best method of connecting a horizontal ceiling with vertical walls.

In the gorgeous decorations of the house not a little was due to the work and the influence of Mr. Pugin, which added a stimulus, hardly needed, to the architect’s own love of enrichment. The carved and metal work, and generally the purely ornamental details, were designed by Mr. Pugin, under Mr. Barry’s direction, and subject to his frequent alterations; the painted windows were not only designed by Mr. Pugin, but carried out under his superintendence, the architect only stipulating for a sufficient amount of white glass to produce the “jewelled effect” he admired in many ancient windows.[98] The unsightly black effect of these windows at night was a great difficulty; a system of external gas-lighting was adopted to remedy it, but it has since been disused. The ceiling was a subject of much consideration; Mr. Barry wished to produce as much as possible the effect of solid gold, the enrichment of colour being purely subsidiary. His notion always was that decoration, if begun, should be thoroughly carried out, and that only by failure in this respect, and by partiality of decoration, was the effect of tawdriness produced.

The House of Lords he considered as not a mere place of business, not even a mere House of Lords at all, but as the chamber in which the sovereign, surrounded by the court, summoned to the royal presence the three estates of the realm. He thought, therefore, that it should partake of royal magnificence, and lavished upon it all the treasures of decoration.

The House of Commons underwent many changes. The accommodation required by the original instructions, and the recommendation accompanying them, that every member should be brought as near to the Speaker as possible, necessitated enormous size and a nearly square form; but, on consultation with the authorities of the House, it was found that they considered the accommodation, both for members and for strangers, as unnecessarily and inconveniently large, and that the preponderance of their opinion was in favour of the old oblong form. On their authority the width and available accommodation of the House were greatly reduced. The difficulty really lay in this, that, whereas some accommodation must be provided for each of the six hundred and fifty-eight members, yet, for business purposes, the House must not be too large for the comparatively small average attendance. The Government seem to have dwelt more on the former consideration, the authorities of the House, who knew its practical working, on the other. The architect inclined to obey the latter, especially as their orders coincided with the claims of architectural proportion. The consequence of this reduction, as has been elsewhere stated, was great disapprobation by the House of Commons, and the consequent alteration of the chamber, fatal to its architectural effect.

On the subject of the acoustic properties of the House it is right to remark that the difficulties were great and peculiar. In rooms where the speaking is to be from one or two quarters only (as in churches, theatres, or law-courts, in legislative assemblies, where the speaker mounts a “tribune,” &c.), the task is comparatively easy, though even here failure is not unusual. But in the Houses of Parliament a speaker must be audible from every part of the House, even when using that conversational tone which our method of Parliamentary speaking tends to foster. To this is to be added the consideration above alluded to of the fluctuating nature of the attendance. The House of Lords must contain the peers themselves, the sovereign and the court at the upper, the deputies of the Commons at the lower end; yet it is attended usually by a few peers who speak quietly across the table. In the House of Commons the variation of members is less, but the greater pressure of business makes its inconvenience more serious. Add to these the undoubted fact, that very few persons, especially in short conversational remarks, take the trouble to speak distinctly, and use proper modulation of the voice, and that in the case of a new building a certain time seems to be needed (which in the House of Commons was certainly not given), to “season” the House, and accustom the speakers to its pitch, and it will be seen that the architect was not without some plea, to oppose to the censure with which he was so freely visited. Theories he found to be discordant, and time was hardly allowed for experience and trial of remedial measures.

Such were the modifications of plan voluntarily made by the architect; others were rendered necessary by circumstances. Some additional residences were introduced, refreshment rooms and offices were re-arranged, provision was necessary to meet the immense extension of the business of Parliamentary Committees, alterations made in order to provide for the whole of the public records, and, above all, changes in plan and elevation were necessitated on every side by the enormous claims, both upon the space and arrangements of the building, made by Dr. Reid for his schemes of ventilation. The central tower was wholly due to these requirements; many other parts of the building were carried up, and many smaller turrets were introduced, to meet the requirements of his system. The spaces under the Houses, intended for the horses and carriages of members, were surrendered to him, and the want of them is severely felt. On the whole it has been already noticed that he absorbed one-third of the cubical contents of the building. All these things involved frequent changes, constant thought and labour, and no slight increase of expenditure.

These alterations of plan were naturally followed by considerable alterations of design; some, in fact, necessitated by them, others dependent on certain changes of idea in the mind of the architect himself, and in the general feeling as to Gothic architecture.

Both these kinds of alteration were manifested in

[Illustration: NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER.

GENERAL VIEW, FROM LAMBETH PALACE.]

the river front. The great increase of extent required some device for breaking the monotony and comparative lowness of this long front. He was strongly averse at all times to setting back the wings, or greatly advancing the centre of an architectural front, so as to break its line, when seen in perspective, and interfere with its apparent size. He was reduced therefore to attempt variation in outline, by slightly raising the whole centre, by heightening into towers the masses which flanked it, and by introducing visible roofs and turrets. This last change was one of principle; the “castellated” form necessarily disappeared at once, the parapet became subordinate, the turrets, originally battlemented, now terminated in tops, which, after many trials, and with some reluctance, were made of the ogee form. An upward tendency was given to the whole. The towers of the front remained for some time without visible roofs, and when the roofs were introduced they were so kept down (in deference to the advice of others) in relation to the angle turrets, that some confusion of principle resulted. He regretted afterwards that he had not kept down the pinnacles, and made the roofs boldly predominant. At the same time a change was made as to the buttresses of the whole front. They had no thrust to sustain, they interrupted the cornice and string-courses, and interfered with the panelling. For these reasons Mr. Barry himself disliked them, and, external criticism coinciding with his own feeling, he resolved to change them into turrets, which were free from all these objections, and which would tend at once to elevate and break the sky-line, and by their greater projection to relieve the flatness of the front. These turrets, once introduced, must of course prevail throughout; they made their appearance accordingly in the prominent masses of the wings, and so the change of the whole character of the front was complete.

This alteration may be considered to have been more or less occasioned by the extension of front; other changes were made without any such ground. In the original design the windows of the two principal stories were set in arched recesses, with no string-courses to mark the divisions of the stories, united, as it were, under one head. This was now altered; the internal arrangements were manifested by the complete separation of the two stories; the recesses and the pointed heads of the windows of both stories were abolished, and in the attic story of the centre the continuous arcading was changed into sets of triple openings, so as to harmonize with the three-light windows below. These changes were less generally approved, as tending to give a flatness to the front, which the changes noticed in the preceding paragraph were not sufficient to remove.

The lower story of the whole front was made very solid and plain. It was indeed originally intended to contain a fire-proof range of vaults for the public records. Plainness of design indicated its use; it harmonized also with the principle which he always advocated, that the basement line should be as unadorned as possible, and that richness should increase with elevation; and it seemed to him more than usually necessary in the case of the river front, in order to increase the effect of the embankment, and give the appearance of elevation of site.

Such were the principles which governed the design of the great front, and this design to a considerable extent determined that of the others. The front in New Palace Yard differed chiefly in the adoption of square buttresses, and (as the rooms looking into it were smaller) in the division of the whole building above the basement into three stories instead of two. This division not only suited convenience, but appeared to him more accordant with true principle; and he rather regretted that it could not have been adopted in the river front.[99] The front to Old Palace Yard, with the Victoria tower at one end and Westminster Hall at the other, might have given opportunity for greater variety of design; but the same general character still was made to prevail, only varied by the advancement of alternate bays and by the porch of the Lords’ entrance, which was required for convenience, and which is little else than a portion of the basement advanced.

The great Victoria tower underwent repeated alterations. It had been originally treated with all the solidity of a “keep;” but the reduction on plan was compensated by increase in height, and the whole character of the design was necessarily changed. The entrance had been of moderate dimensions (professedly designed on the model of the Erpingham Gate at Norwich), and the top of the niche-band ranged with the cornice of the building. It was now raised to its present magnificent dimensions; the niches remained; and the upper part of the tower was divided into three large and two smaller stories. The design and arrangement of these cost incalculable trouble before it assumed its present form, divided into three windows, and the upper story rendered the prominent one by the arched and canopied heads of the windows.

As the tower approached completion, he felt some longing for a high pyramidal termination. But circumstances prevented his realizing this idea, and reduced him to the high roof and the great flagstaff. In the tower, however, as it stands, he always felt pride and pleasure, and trusted that it would be the great feature of the building, by which his name would be best known hereafter.[100]

[Illustration: NEW PALACE AT WESTMINSTER.

VIEW FROM ROOF OF HENRY VII.’s CHAPEL.]

The tower was at first intended to contain such of the public records as were not frequently in use, and was arranged accordingly with two lofty internal stories. Subsequently orders were given to accommodate all the records; not without great inconvenience, but with much ingenuity, accommodation was provided by the insertion of numerous floors and other contrivances. After all, the intention was abandoned by the authorities, and all the trouble and expense were thrown away.

The clock-tower was the one feature of the building which gave the greatest trouble, and for which design after design was made and rejected. It was to be what its name implied: the clock was to be the one prominent feature, not a mere accessory--treated as an architectural ornament. For practical purposes it was to be raised on the highest story, and made of immense size; the ornamental character of the whole front required that the lower part of the tower should be faced with delicate panelling, and yet a “top-heavy” effect must be carefully avoided. It was at once decided that the lower part should be solid, with but slight openings. To make the clock-story duly prominent all sorts of devices were thought of, till at last an example was remembered in which the whole clock-story was made to project beyond the body of the tower. The suggestion was eagerly caught at; the example quoted differed in almost every respect from the character of the tower to be designed, and endless modifications were needed; but the general principle was preserved, and the result is one of the most striking features of the building. Still the termination remained; designs and models were tried over and over again; some forms appeared deficient in lightness, others were rejected as too ecclesiastical; till at last the form was devised which we now see. On the whole he felt satisfied with the tower, only thinking that the outline would have been improved by raising both the bell-chamber and the terminal portion of the roof, and regretting the angular projections on the face of the turrets below, which are terminated abruptly by the clock-story afterwards devised. His work on this and the Victoria tower gives a striking specimen of the process by which the whole design was worked out; no labour, no delay, no expense, seemed excessive in the pursuit of what he thought perfection, even in the minutest detail. They were temporary; the censures they might provoke were also temporary; the result was lasting, and worth any temporary sacrifice.[101]

Such were the reasons which led to modifications of the original design in the chief portions of the building. Besides these, however, two general tendencies must be noticed.

The first was the desire to increase as much as possible the upward tendency of the lines of the design, to elevate and vary the skyline throughout. Every ventilating shaft was taken advantage of; every turret was heightened, till the central lantern, itself an insertion, was surrounded by a forest of louvres and spires. The whole character of the design was changed; and the change arose, partly from original predilection for the spire form, partly from advancing knowledge of Gothic architecture, but principally from practical experience of the great architectural disadvantages entailed by the site, and the comparative lowness of the building itself. The change has been generally recognised as an improvement.

The other tendency was to profuse ornamentation. His notion was that a general spread of minute ornament, a kind of “diapering” of the whole, was rich, but more simple, because less likely to interfere with the main outline, than ornaments on a large scale more sparingly employed. In the particular case before him he thought that smallness of scale in details would help to give an appearance of size to the building. But his feeling always was that ornamentation, if right in kind, could not be overdone; he did not recognise the value of plainer portions to act as a “setting” of the decoration; to him they appeared as “neglected spots;” and partiality of ornament he considered as tawdriness. In the internal courts he carried plainness out, even to excess; but he would not unite the two principles.

The effect was visible over the fronts of the whole building, the more so, because his great idea was, by the aid of the sister arts, to make the New Palace a monumental history of England. Sculpture without, sculpture, painting, and stained glass within, were to preserve the memorials of the past, and declare the date and object of the building.[102]

Nothing provoked more criticism than this high ornamentation of the design; but, in spite of all such adverse criticism, he still held to the principle as the true one, and believed that it would eventually be recognised as such. It was once remarked by M. Guizot that the work was a “mélange de finesse et de grandeur.” Such was certainly the leading idea which inspired its design.

II. The preceding section has described the principles which governed the original conception and subsequent modifications of this great design. It remains only to give a brief description of the building as it exists, so far as is necessary to serve as a guide to the annexed plan.[103]

The whole building occupies an irregular site of about eight acres. Its longest front (the river front) is 940 feet in length, each wing having a frontage of 120 feet, and the terrace occupying the remaining 700 feet. Its greatest width (exclusive of Westminster Hall) is about 340 feet. It contains above 500 rooms, and includes residences for eighteen different officers of the two Houses, of whom the principal are the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Serjeant-at-arms, the Usher of the Black Rod, and the Librarians of the Houses of Lords and Commons. It thus provides for a resident population of about 200.

This large mass of building receives light and air, not only from its external fronts, but from eleven internal quadrangles, many of considerable area. In actual size, and in the extent and variety of its requirements, it is equalled by few buildings of modern times.

The only portions of the old building, which it was found possible to retain, are Westminster Hall, the Cloister Court, and the crypt of St. Stephen’s Chapel, under the present St. Stephen’s Hall.

The main lines of the plan will be easily discerned, suggested as they are by the nature of the site, the position of Westminster Hall, and the duality of the object of the building. The first and most important is the line of public approach through Westminster Hall. At the end of the hall there is an ascent by a grand flight of steps to a landing under the great window (to which there is a shorter public communication through St. Margaret’s porch, from Old Palace Yard), and thence by another flight into St. Stephen’s Hall. This hall is ninety-five feet in length, twenty-nine in width, and forty-three in height to the pitch of the groined roof. It contains several statues of celebrated statesmen, most of which are very beautiful as works of art, though executed on so large a scale as to be detrimental to the effect of the hall. It is intended to cover with appropriate frescoes the panels and the large arched recesses at the end of the hall.

An archway at the east end gives entrance to the central hall, octagon on plan and vaulted. Its vault is the largest octagon vault known, in which a central pillar is not used, and the lantern is sustained by a cone of brickwork rising above the vault.

From this point the public approaches diverge. To the right and left corridors open into the lobbies of the Houses of Lords and Commons. At the east end another corridor opens into the “witness hall,” from which access is had on the principal floor to the Peers’ libraries and committee-rooms and the Commons’ libraries, which, with a central “conference room,” occupy the whole curtain of the river front; a staircase leads to the upper floor, containing another long range of committee-rooms.[104]

The next great line is that of the royal approach. The royal carriage drives under the great Victoria tower, and the sovereign ascending the royal staircase enters the robing room, and thence emerges into the “royal gallery,” a room one hundred and ten feet long, forty-five in width, and forty-five in height, with panelled ceiling. This gallery is open to the public at the opening and prorogation of Parliament, and was intended to be the entrance to the House of Peers. For the convenience of the peers an anteroom, the “Prince’s Chamber,” was added, through which the sovereign passes to the throne end of the House. Somewhat small in itself, and accordingly ornamented with small and delicate detail, it has been much injured by the large statue of Her Majesty, with the figures of Justice and Mercy flanking her throne, designed by John Gibson, Esq., R.A., and placed in this chamber.

The two Houses are approached, either from the central hall, or by private entrances for the members. The private entrance to the House of Peers is in the centre of the Old Palace Yard front, and there is another from the south-western angle of St. Stephen’s Hall. The entrances to the House of Commons are by the Star Chamber and Cloister Courts, and by an archway on the western side of Westminster Hall. Each House has its lobbies, corridors, and refreshment rooms, with ready access to its committee-rooms and libraries.

The two Houses themselves are of very different character. The House of Peers, as being, not only one chamber of the legislature, but the presence chamber of the sovereign, is of considerable size (ninety feet in length, forty-five in width, and forty-five in height), and decorated with lavish magnificence. The House of Commons, not presenting the same characteristics, is smaller in size (seventy-five feet in length, forty-five feet in width, and forty-one feet to the central line of the ceiling), while it provides much larger accommodation in the galleries and lobbies, and its decoration, though careful and elaborate, is less magnificent in character. The official residences are, of course, grouped round the Houses to which they are appendages. The offices of the Lord Great Chamberlain are on the south front, the residences of the Usher of the Black Rod, and Librarian of the House of Peers, at the south end of the river front, and that of the Serjeant-at-arms on the Old Palace Yard front. At the north end of the river front we have the Speaker’s house, and the houses of the Serjeant-at-arms, the Librarian and the Chief Clerk on the north front and the front to New Palace Yard.

The plan generally, though having great intricacy in detail, an intricacy increased by constant variation of requirements, and by the elaborate ventilating system originally imposed on the architect, is yet perfectly simple and practical in its main lines. He adopted it from the first as the only one which could be effective or satisfactory, and never wavered in his approval of its great features; for it showed that characteristic which has been noticed in all his works, the preservation of the leading principle of “stateliness,” subordinating, often with great skill, variety of requirement and of contrivance to a general unity and repose in effect. And, although there are inevitable defects in detail, such as difficulty in obtaining sufficient light in some parts of the building, miscalculation of the amount of accommodation required, &c., yet experience appears to have confirmed his opinion and justified his confidence in the leading principles of his plan.

The first grand external feature is undoubtedly the great line of the river front, which has been noticed above, and is illustrated, so far as the scale will allow, by the view given. The other great front, the west or land front, has never as yet been presented to the eye as a whole. It is interrupted by the law-courts, the days of which appear now to be numbered. When they are removed, it is to be hoped that due care will be taken to substitute some front harmonizing with the building, on which the present erection forms an excrescence. In any case this front will present a more broken line, which will probably, considering the height of the building, conduce to beauty and picturesqueness of effect. One extension of it, shown on the plan, has never yet been made; for New Palace Yard, which Sir Charles hoped to form into a great architectural quadrangle, is now to be enclosed merely by an ornamental railing.

The other important features are the three great towers. Of these it is to be remembered that the central tower was an after-thought, necessitated by arrangements over which the architect had no control; otherwise it is possible that, as has been suggested, it would have been so enlarged as to form a principal feature of the design. It has been a subject of some surprise, that the general principle of symmetry followed in the plan and river front, has not been preserved in the case of the two original towers; but from the very beginning of the design this was otherwise arranged. The architect probably regarded each as an almost independent feature, likely to group not with the symmetry of the river front, but with the necessarily broken line of the land front. In their design they present a marked contrast, massiveness and grandeur being the characteristic of the Victoria tower, lightness and elegance of the clock-tower. Each has its admirers. It is perhaps generally thought that the clock-tower, from the smallness of its detail, harmonizes better with the adjacent front, while the Victoria tower, magnificent in itself, would have tended less to dwarf the rest of the building, had it stood almost independent of it, connected only by some grand cloister.

Such is a brief notice of the actual features of the building. The task of criticism must be left to others. At first very greatly praised, it was for a time somewhat recklessly condemned. Already it is clear that it is taking the position due to it. Critics of very opposite schools show their appreciation, both of the difficulties of the task assigned to its architect, and the degree of success with which that object has been attained. Mr. Fergusson, in a vehement anti-Gothic chapter, regretting that the style of the building was to be Gothic at all, concludes that, “taking it all in all, it is perhaps the most successful attempt to apply mediæval architecture to modern civic purposes which has yet been carried out.” Mr. Scott, in his work on Gothic architecture, does not hesitate to speak of it as, “on the whole, the most successful of our modern public buildings.” An article in the ‘Saturday Review,’ immediately after Sir C. Barry’s death, written in kindliness of feeling, but written also with care and discrimination in criticism, expresses pretty accurately the verdict of the educated public taste. “In spite of the shortcomings, which just critical taste or captious antagonism can find in the details and the mass of the work,--in spite of the disadvantage of the primary idea of the style in which it is built having been revolutionised in the course of its progress--yet the Palace of Westminster stands alone and matchless in Europe among the architectural monuments of this busy age. From the border of the Thames, from St. James’s Park or Waterloo Place, from Piccadilly or the bridge across the Serpentine, the spectacle of that great square tower, of the central needle, and far away of the more fantastic _beffroi_--all grouping at every step in some new combination--stamps the whole building as the massive conception of a master-mind.”[105]

##