alternatehistory.com

I was watching a TV show earlier which mentioned the 1834 fire in the Houses of Parliament, which destroyed much of the existing interior (though the roof was saved due to heroic work by firefighters).

As we know, they were eventually re-fitted/re-built. However, it was mentioned that the king of the day, William IV, tried to get rid of Buckingham House (as it was then known), due to increasingly expensive refits going on at the time. He did so by seizing the opportunity, and offering the royal residence as a new home for the Houses of Parliament, given the extent of the fire damage in the Palace of Westminster.

The programme made it clear that the government of the day politely, but firmly, refused, feeling that the structure was far too large for Parliament (thoug it would certainly have plenty of accommodation - no more absentee MPs), and included far too much room for the public to spectate. Keep Parliament small and exclusive, was the idea - we all know the trouble they had over in France when the plabs were allowed to get too involved...


So. What if the government had accepted the idea, and moved to Buckingham House?

What sort of difference could this have made, in terms of: public participation; MPs' responsiveness to public opinion; the image of Parliamentary government in Britain; any other issues?


PS: I'm not sure whether they said/speculated on where, exactly, each House would go in the existing building of the day, or where MPs might be housed, have offices, etc. Others here will know much better than I how it could all be arranged.
Top