The Destruction and Rebuilding of the Old House of Commons Chamber

During the Second World War, the German Luftwaffe launched a series of bombing campaigns against major British cities. London, Bristol, Coventry, and Belfast were among the cities hit, but it was the East End of London where extensive bombing took place due to its proximity to the docks. Beyond these cities, the House of Commons in the Palace of Westminster in London was also a target. The old Victorian chamber, hallowed ground for centuries, met its end due to these relentless bombings.

The Legacy of the Second World War

The London Blitz was a catastrophic period, which included the bombing of Buckingham Palace and the Palace of Westminster. While the German forces managed to cause significant damage, they failed to break the morale of the British people. The devastation was particularly widespread in London, where the East End, home to the docks, was one of the areas subjected to intense bombing. The impact on the House of Commons was so severe that the old Victorian chamber was irreparably destroyed.

The Canadian Parliament: A New Era

The Canadian Parliament building, similar to the House of Commons, faced its own challenges. In 1916, it burned to the ground, but a replacement was built based on its predecessor, though much larger in scale. This highlights the resilience and adaptability of parliamentary buildings in the face of disaster. Today, York University in Toronto is housing a massive renovation of Parliament Hill, aimed at revitalizing and reworking the Centre Block. This renovation is expected to span until at least 2030 and will cost up to 5 billion CAD to complete. These renovations underscore the enduring importance of such historic buildings to democratic governance.

The 1834 Fire: Not a Justification

While the 1834 fire that consumed the old Palace of Westminster provided no justification for the destruction of the old House of Commons chamber, it did leave a lasting impression. The fire's devastation was captured by T. Baynes, who provided vivid impressions of the extent of the damage. Despite the massive destruction, a significant shell of the original building survived. George Scharf's depiction of the fire's aftermath, particularly the old Commons chamber, reveals how much of the original structure remained intact. This left the possibility for a potential reconstruction, but the reality was different. The issue was not the damage from the fire but the growing inadequacy of the old buildings.

The Decision to Rebuild

By the time of the fire, the old Parliament had been far too small for its purpose for years, if not centuries. The concept of conservation and listed buildings had not yet taken root, and practicality was prioritized over preservation. The decision was made to demolish the old houses entirely, with the exception of Westminster Hall, which had sustained minimal damage. The architect decided to rebuild on an entirely new and much grander scale. This decision was influenced by the need for a more functional and imposing building that could accommodate the growing needs of the legislative body.

Architectural Changes and Design

One of the interesting features of the old Palace of Westminster was that the House of Commons, also known as the old church of St Stephen, was its central feature. The Lords originally occupied small side chambers, which later grew into slightly larger ones. However, the House of Commons remained significantly smaller than its modern counterpart. It was not until the construction of the new Palace that the Lords gained more grandiose accommodations compared to the Commons. The footprint of the old Commons chamber is preserved in the new architecture, but it is now used only as the entry hall, a mere gateway leading from the St Stephen's entrance to the central lobby. This comparison highlights the dramatic changes in the layout and design of these historic buildings over time.

Conclusion

The destruction and subsequent rebuilding of the old House of Commons chamber serve as a reminder of the continuous evolution of architectural and functional needs in democratic institutions. While the destruction was a result of wartime devastation, the rebuilding came about due to the increasing impracticality of the old buildings and a shift in architectural thinking. These changes reflect the evolving nature of governance and the desire for a more fitting and effective legislative body.