Richmond Enquirer

DESTRUCTION OF PARLIAMENT HOUSE—Strong Language!

The Liverpool Standard, it will be seen by the following extract, EXULTS in the destruction of the two Houses of Parliament, the Throne, &c.—The particulars of the calamity, we gave in yesterday's Gazette.

The throne is burnt; the proceedings of the reformed parliament, all their worthless records, all their bills and motions, and notices of motions, are hurled into oblivion; the woolsack is destroyed, and the House of Lords, as well as the House of Commons, is now a heap of smouldering ashes! In one night all that was venerable in the Armada tapestry, all that glittered in the canopy that covered kings, all that was ancient or dear to memory in the chapel of St. Stephen, and all that was repulsive in the benches and boards recently trampled upon and degraded by the tools of the Irish priests, and by the Faithful Buckinghams, Bulwers, Roebucks, Humes, Wilkes, Bishes, Whittle Harreys, Morrisons, and such persons, all, all, the good and the bad, the time-honored and the mob-polluted, has been consigned to the flames, and the walls and rafters which sheltered the "collective wisdom" of the nation will shelter them no more! The place has disappeared like the gourd of the prophet, and we have only to regret that the reminiscences of the deeds of those who have brought so much humiliation upon their country have not perished with them. The hand-writing is on the wall, and though we have lost the temple, those who dishonored it, and made it a reproach to the intelligence of the age, still remain!

How the fire originated has not transpired. The ministerial papers are extremely anxious to have it believed that it was purely accidental. We question this, and in the absence of proof we must hold by that opinion until it is changed by satisfactory evidence. Well knowing the situation of the different buildings, the thickness of the stone walls, the servants in attendance, and the assumed absence of heated flues during the prorogation, it appears to us almost incredible that houses so disjointed, and in many respects fire-proof, should all at once have been involved in one awful and general conflagration.

It is but fair, however, to wait and mark the result of the inquiry:

In other respects we can hardly imagine that there is a single individual in the country who is sorry at what is called the "calamity." The conductors of the London press generally, who have lately, and particularly since the passing of the abominable poor law bill, been increasing in their distrust and dislike of the House of Commons, seem to amuse themselves like Nero who fiddled when Rome was burning. They are quite facetious over the ruins of the two houses. The Times rakes together all the jests perpetrated on the occasion. The poor Chronicle, that never aspires to wit, and cannot appreciate it in others, treats the affair with unusual coolness. The Globe is in its ordinary way flippant over the fire, like a penny-a-liner at Bow-street on a Monday morning. The True Sun rejoices as Boatswain Surri would at the burning of a gin palace, or a house of doubtful reputation. The Morning Post is as merry as a sailor who has escaped shipwreck; and our excellent cousin of the Standard is laughing in his sleeve as Caleb Balderstone did at the comical and politic conflagration of Wolfscrag. The Herald alone is sentimental, like an old apple woman overturned in the streets by an omnibus.

But last of all, the Morning News is not quite inconsolable, although it is under some apprehension, that as the philosophers have ruined the trade of London, and driven it to Liverpool, the incendiaries may send the houses of legislature in a similar direction.

And why not? What claim has London, at the extremity of the island, to be the exclusive seat of legislation? It may be convenient for certain official people—for lawyers and linen-drapers who are senators—for men who shelter themselves in the impenetrable recesses of the metropolis—to have the houses of parliament within a few miles of the French coast; but these are not sufficient reasons for dragging nine-tenths of the lords and representatives in parliament so far from their homes—

Now that St. Stephen's is burnt, and the Tapestry of Queen Elizabeth consumed, and all that was worth recollecting consigned to the flames, we see no reason why a better local situation should not be selected, and the future parliament of the United Kingdom removed beyond the obnoxious influence of the mobs of London. Windsor is the best place for holding courts—it is but two hours' drive from St. James'—and the new houses would be well located six or seven miles north of Windsor. If this should prove inconvenient, why not move still farther north, and fix upon Oxford. Parliaments have sat there before!

Be this, however, as it may, we quite agree with our contemporaries of the metropolis, that little or no harm has been sustained by levelling to the ground the unsightly, the tasteless, the ugly, and inconvenient pile of buildings, which formed the two houses of Parliament. Such ill-contrived, unhealthy, ill-ventilated, uncouth, and stupid erections, were the disgrace of England. From the gallery of the House of Commons, down to the bar of the House of Lords—from Bellamy's smoking rooms above, to the stables at a distance—from the library to the lobby—from the vote office to the scattered committee rooms—from the sleeping galleries of St. Stephen's, to all the intricate passages which it required a year's study to be enabled to thread—the whole was a mass of deformity. Even the House of Lords was a shabby room, decorated without taste, and marred by temporary erections, destitute of utility or convenience. We do not grieve, therefore, that they are swept away.

It is strange, but no less true than strange, that few, if any improvements in the public buildings of England, take place without a fire. Even in the widening of a street, a fire is the precursor. If not a fire, then there must be a murder. An old house overhanging the street is seldom removed, until its walls have buried a few passengers under the ruins. It must tumble down and kill a few worthy citizens, before any idea is entertained of repairing it. There must, in all improvements, be a catastrophe, before any efforts are made to remedy an impending evil or a glaring nuisance.

We are not informed whether more than a few lives have fallen sacrifices to the burning of the two Houses of Parliament; but enough has transpired to convince us that Lord Althorp's scruples are now overcome, and that near a million of money will be expended before buildings worthy of the age and adequate to the accommodation of members can be erected. This will call for fresh taxes, but we have the consolation in knowing that the money which gives employment to the laborer will be well spent. Half the sum expended upon useless commissions, and upon trumpery investigations and worthless parliamentary returns, would serve to erect buildings that would reflect merit upon the declining arts of a sinking country.

The next consideration is, how are the unhoused members to obtain even a temporary accommodation? The King has offered them Buckingham Palace; but there is no house in England worse arranged for the purpose. There are not two good rooms in the whole pile, and not one that would contain the members of the House of Commons. St. James's Palace is little better, for there they would be puzzled to find committee-rooms and other apartments. The Penitentiary at Millbank is spoken of but it would have evinced better taste to have named the House of Correction at Spafields, not by any means an ineligible spot, seeing that it contains a treadmill. To send a member to the mill for cockcrowing, or spitting on the floor, or being convicted of lying, would be a proper punishment. If every low-nostrum vender, every political barker, every puffer living by quackery and fraud, every trader upon rotten pretensions, every school-master, who, like Thelwall, lectures as he goes, and cheats the natives by false pretences—all these fellows, passing as honorable members, and fleecing the public by every species of delusion, would be properly treated if placed under the control of Sir Charles Sutton, and sent, in the ratio of their respective and peculiar impositions, for specific periods, to the mill.

But if this, our wholesome advice, be unattended to, and the House of Correction be deemed an unsuitable locality, what objection can there be to housing the members in the large, commodious, and empty warehouses of the East India Company? They may be had almost rent free. In the present forlorn state of the national finances, when the fund-holder has more of promise than of available funds to look to for the payment of his dividends, we feel satisfied that the East India Company would willingly give their empty buildings of brick to the members of the reformed parliament. The east end of London is certainly an unfashionable place, but this, surely, can be no objection on the part of reformers and patriots. They must despise any thing like aristocratic apartments. They will find themselves quite at home in Wapping, and in the near vicinity of Billingsgate. They might indeed find more conveniences in the Tower, but it would be inexpedient to disturb muskets and other munitions of war, in order to make room for men who hold these articles in great contempt. The warehouses present the best retreat, and upon principles of economy, we are confident Lord Althorp will be of this opinion.

At any rate a curious difficulty arises from the circumstance, that on the 23d of this month the commissioners of the privy council are bound to meet and prorogue Parliament to a certain day. Where are they to meet?—Where can they meet? The Houses of Parliament have no locality. There is no throne, no house, no footsteps leading to the place of Majesty, left. It would be unseemly to meet in a coffee-shop, in a new beer-house, in a tavern smelling of beef-steaks and onions—but where are the Lords Commissioners to meet to prorogue Parliament? They have no power but as the representatives of the King, and the King's presence alone can give authority to the place of their meeting. But we leave them to answer the question. Come what may, there must be confusion, and a stretch of constitutional and legal powers.