It is the riverside frontage of the Houses of Parliament that is possibly the most widely recognised icon for the United Kingdom. What is now on view from Westminster Bridge or the Albert Embankment across the river replaced a Palace that had been severely damaged by fire. It is the work of Sir Charles Barry (1795-1860) and this 872ft long facade is as it was at his death. He worked in collaboration with August Welby Northmore Pugin (1812-52) who had particular involvement with the decoration of the interior. The Commission which was created in 1835 to judge the competition for the design had in their terms of reference only to consider those in the Gothic or Elizabethan style. The term 'Gothic' was understood, and exemplified by the neighbouring Abbey. The term 'Elizabethan' was less clearly defined. Barry's design was the unanimous selection as the winner. The requirement for a new building built specifically for the accommodation of the legislature had been expressed for a hundred years. There is not a lot to suggest that without the intervention of the fire of 1834, or something like it, the prevarication would not have continued for another hundred years. In the event the speed with which a new chamber was available for the Commons was almost remarkable. They moved into it in 1850. What was less remarkable was that they promptly moved out again because they didn't like it. That was despite the continuous involvement of committees of members in the supervision, meaning delay, of the development. Barry had had to respond almost daily to some parliamentarian, civil servant or committee. Changes to the Commons Chamber, which Barry considered vandalised his design, were made by him over three years on the instruction of the members. So, that major element of the interior which the MP's are inclined to call 'Barry's Chamber' is the least his, made more tenuous by the fact that the 1853 version was destroyed by bomb damage in 1941 and rebuilt by Sir Giles Gilbert Scott (1880-1960). This new Palace of Westminster was however in marked contrast to the old. It was constructed as an integrated whole rather than being a ramshackle accretion of structures built for all sorts of purposes through some eight centuries. A survey of the structure of the old Palace in 1800 had found parts which consisted of a timber framework covered by painted sail-cloth. Barry's problems were not only those of answering to so many masters but also: the need to allow the legislature to continue to function on the site as the remnants of the old building were destroyed and the new built; and the problems arising from the nature of the ground on which the new palace is sited. The main axis of the new Palace is significantly east of that of the old. The riverside facade is only the few feet width of the members terrace from the river embankment and that embankment is well within the old tidal coverage of the Thames. So the new building is substantially outside the boundary of the old Thorney Island and rests on reclaimed land and the island's sandy shore. Barry did use to great effect some advantages available to him at that time: cast iron beams could be used to frame large spaces allowing their construction without arches and buttresses; Pugin's genius and industry produced detailed designs for, and ensured the best execution of, the decoration of those spaces; what the building was to be used for and how that happened was reasonably clearly understood so what was provided follows a pattern recognisable in the plans of the old Palace; and, triumphantly, the magnificent medieval Westminster Hall could be incorporated as an integral part of the whole. A number of pages on this web-site give details of several of the main parts of what may be comfortably called 'Barry's Buildings'.

O/S Co-ords:3030.7950
Source(s):

Westminster Palace and Parliament