The Palace of Westminster demonstrates that historical tradition serves a purpose | Sam Hall
Recently I was privileged to spend a week at the Palace of Westminster, home to the British House of Commons and the House of Lords. It is an institution that cannot help but inspire awe and wonder. I challenge anyone working within its walls not to feel as if they are a part of something quite special. Westminster Hall for example, was built in 1097 under King William II using techniques that challenge our historical conceptions of what was architecturally possible at the time. The Parliamentary Estate therefore is a museum unto itself, with features that pre-date most modern countries. Yet it is also a modern working environment (save for the lack of air conditioning which renders everywhere but the green benches uncomfortable hot at times. You cannot really open a window!) for the hundreds of MPs, Lords, their staff and the many that support them, from armed police officers to the gift shop manager. It is the mother parliament for our United Kingdom and has inspired institutions the world over. As I shall demonstrate, it embodies historical and practical traditions.
The Palace of Westminster is to politics what St. Peter’s Basilica is to faith; the Palace’s Gothic architecture is known the world over thanks to 19th architects Charles Barry and Augustus Pugin (the latter of whom was a convert to Roman Catholicism and, thus, his instrumental involvement in the design of the majestic interior was hushed for a stern and proud Anglican-majority Victorian Britain). It is a Grade 1 listed UNESCO World Heritage Site. As I have already alluded to, one cannot help but be endowed with a sense of wonderment and insignificance by its stone features- why else do tourists want to photograph it by the thousands each year, as one would take a picture of a beautiful mountain?
A world away from the drab, eye sore of the European Parliament in Brussels (which in turn inspired drab, uninspired politicians) or the horrifically mixture of old and new embodied in the Bundestag. But as I have also mentioned, it is a working building- where thousands of security-vetted people work in many different roles- as chefs, as cleaners, as well as MPs and Lords themselves. It stands proud as an enduring example of beautiful and functional architecture in a city that is increasingly neither functional nor beautiful. That beautiful places to live and work encourages positive behaviour is not a novel concept but one that is often overlooked in modern architectural, preferring flammable cladding over fabulous facades.
Furthermore it is a shining example of tenderly preserving and cautiously changing; when damaged by a German bomb in the latter part of World War Two, MPs could have chosen horse shoe shaped ‘assemblies’ (the very word sends shivers down my extremely British spine) but Churchill insisted on keeping to the old designs, on the basis that ‘'we shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us.' On that basis the chamber continued to have fewer seats than MPs, and the red lines between the two sides of the chamber were kept at a set length, approximately two sword lengths apart.
Indeed Churchill could have altered the Chamber to ensure everyone had a seat and during Prime Minister’s Questions everyone could hear the proceedings (during my time there, I learnt that during PMQs Members are so loud that some have to lean in to the speakers set into the wood to hear proceedings that are happening only 10 feet away). However he didn’t and that helps to not only preserve a little piece of history, but helps ensure that all Members, irrespective of experience, feel at home in a space that’s far more intimate than its European counterparts.
Speaking of glorious Britishness, by tradition the Commons are aggressively separate to the Crown. That is why Black Rod, a position from the traditionally aristocratic House of Lords, initially refused entry to the Commons as part of the state opening of Parliament that takes place every year. This prompts a unique question of physical security- namely whom? Police Officers, as sworn agents of Her Majesty would be refused entry into the Commons, so they are inappropriate.
The job instead falls to wonderfully dressed doorkeepers. Clad in Victorian era white-tie dress and Crown Jewels as their warrant ‘card’ they are responsible for physical security in the Palace as well as some ceremony, being required to recognise every MP by sight. No doubt if some had their way these hardworking doorkeepers (who naturally have to be available the same hours as MPs which can be into the early hours of the morning) would be dressed in a zip-up polo with DOORKEEPER stencilled on their backs. Again I should iterate that many long-standing traditions are so because they serve a purpose- in this case to clearly identify a doorkeeper if one needs help for example, as a distinct role compared to that of a police officer. They are the respectable face of an institution known the world over. It is apt that they represent it well.
On the multiple times I ended up lost in the Palace, I also began to realise something else. Important though the devolved administrations are to the respective nations, there is only really one Parliament on these islands- and it sits in Westminster. I challenge anyone to tour the already stunning parliament that we already possess, and that has functioned on our island home for a millennia, being the mother parliament to so many across the world, and conclude anything other than that. A more accurate term should be an Assembly- they have neither the history, architecture, nor functionality of a true parliament. Many politicians pass through a parliament, many bills are read, and many addresses are delivered from the dispatch box. However, the building and what it stands for endures- it would be important without the politicians that walk its corridors. I would allege that the same could not be said about Cardiff Bay, Westminster, or Stormont.
In summary therefore, the Palace and all its internal workings, however bizarre and quirky they may seem, are part of a most British tradition and like all good traditions serves a most distinct purpose. No matter if it is architectural brilliance that inspired each generation of politicians to strive for the best, specific dimensions to pay homage to history and make and encourage the more timid Members to speak, or particular forms of dress that distinguish the specific roles of staff, it is tradition and purposefully so. Embracing Home Rule has given some the impression that there is more than one Parliament on our island home- but a cursory inspection should denote the exact opposite.
–
If you liked this article and want to help our organisation expand, please consider donating. Every little helps.
