HC Deb 15 May 1868 vol 192 cc391-405

SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

(1.) £32,760, to complete the sum for Public Offices' Site.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, he rose to call attention to the manner in which the sites of public buildings were purchased. The practical result of the system was that the surveyors were restricted in the amount they had to spend, and the purchase of the land they had to deal with. The property was dealt with in sections, and as soon as section A was purchased section B was quadrupled in value. He thought it would be much better to vote the requisite sum and take the land at once, and suggested the propriety of postponing the Vote and bringing in a supplementary estimate.

MR. COWPER

said, he thought it would be unwise to purchase and clear land that might never be wanted; and that it would be unfair to the tenants of buildings to get rid of them before the property was actually required for public purposes. He wished to know what immediate use was to be made of the site to be acquired; and also whether the architect had completed the buildings he had commenced; and whether the new offices about to be erected formed part of the whole design?

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he thought the suggestions of his hon. Friend (Mr. Goldney) deserved consideration. He was not wedded theoretically to the present system of land purchases, but it was necessary under the existing mode of keeping public accounts, which was approved of by men of great financial ability. So long as the custom prevailed at the Treasury of taking back those portions of the Votes not really expended up to the 31st March, he did not see how the system advocated by his hon. Friend could be carried into practical effect. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper's) Question, the Commission had been at work up to the other day, and the final Report would be in print in the course of a few days. It was proposed to devote the open space at the Foreign Office to the Colonial and Home Offices, and Mr. Scott had been appointed architect to them.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

recommended the noble Lord to purchase whatever land would be required by the Government at once, and not in driblets.

Vote agreed to.

(2.) £11,764, to complete the sum for Probate Court and Registries.

(3.) £23,000, to complete the sum for Public Record Repository.

(4.) £44,000, to complete the sum for National Gallery Enlargement.

MR. LAYARD

said, of all the architectural blunders which had ever been committed in this country that connected with Burlington House was the most considerable. In order to preserve the house entire, a large space of ground had been sacrificed, and after all the building itself would be so altered as to retain few of its original features. The House of Commons having decided that the new National Gallery should be built on its present site, it had been determined that rooms for the Royal Academy, for the London University, and for the learned societies should be built at Burlington House, but instead of building them in one group under one architect, and having one design, three architects had been employed, and there were three designs. The London University was in a fair way of being finished. The Royal Academy was nearly completed, and he believed that the annual exhibition would be held there next year; but the building for the learned societies was not yet commenced. It was now found necessary, in order to reconcile Burlington House with the buildings around it, that it should be made into something else. It was to have another story, and at the bottom an arcade, a ridiculous and absurd thing, after so great a sacrifice had been made to keep the building as an architectural monument. He wished to know whether there was any prospect of an arrangement being made, so that the library of the Royal Society which stopped the way might be removed, and proper access to the Academy building might be afforded; also whether in the event of the Royal Academy being ready at Burlington House next year, there was any prospect of the rooms at the National Gallery being-liberated for the national collection of pictures, which were now cramped from want of space in Trafalgar Square and at Kensington? He was quite sure the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) would do his best to facilitate that result.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

said, that Burlington House would be entirely spoilt by the addition of another story and an arcade. It had better be pulled down than thus disfigured. The proportions were now very beautiful, but the addition of another story would dwarf the basement. There were not so many correct structures in London that we could afford to spoil one of them. He regretted, too, that the other buildings which were to stand on the ground would not be in the same style.

THE CHAIRMAN

reminded the Committee that the Vote before them related to the enlargement of the National Gallery, and not to Burlington House.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he wished to ask what the intentions of the Government were in regard to the enlargement of the National Gallery? He understood that a Commission was appointed last year to procure architects to compete for the new building or for altering the present one; and that the designs sent in had been disapproved of, and consequently nothing had been done. There had been no mention of the matter during the present Session, and the consequence was that the national pictures had no location. He would be glad if her Majesty's Government would afford some information upon the subject.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that the hon. Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) evidently had in his mind the designs exhibited a year or two ago, which, owing to the strenuous exertions of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) had been set aside at considerable expense to the country. In answer to the complaint of those two hon. Members, that an additional story was going to be put on Burlington House, he would only say that last year, before the Government proposed to take any Vote whatever for the building, they were very careful that the whole of the plans should be placed in the Library for the inspection of every Member of Parliament who might choose to examine them. The House, after having had this ample opportunity of inspecting the plans, had sanctioned the scheme as a whole; and no part of it could now be altered without materially interfering with its completeness. In answer to the questions of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) he had to say that it had unfortunately happened that, owing to unforeseen legal technicalities, the building designed for the reception of the Royal Society and the other learned bodies had not been commenced. Those difficulties had now, however, been overcome, and the works would be proceeded with as fast as possible. In answer to the question whether access could not be given through Burlington House to the new rooms for the Royal Academy in the rear of that building, which were being proceeded with rapidly and with great success, he could assure the Committee that the Royal Society, the Royal Academy, and the Government, were anxious that a satisfactory arrangement should be come to; and he was sanguine in the hope that, as soon as the rooms were ready, some means of access would he provided. The hon. Member behind him (Mr. Bentinck) had asked him what prospect there was of the building for the new National Gallery being commenced, and what course the Government intended to take with reference to the competition held last year? The hon. Member would see from the terms of the Vote that the Government had not yet obtained possession of the ground upon which a part of the new building was to be erected; and, as they did not think it right to pull down the existing building until they had obtained possession of the whole of the site upon which the new building would stand, the works had not yet been commenced. In his opinion it would be better not to hurry on the selection of an architect, especially after what occurred last year. Two competitions took place at the same time last year, and both came to an untimely end; and in both cases the Government found themselves in a difficult position. He believed that he should be best discharging his duty by not giving any positive answer as to the intention of the Government upon this subject.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

remarked that the noble Lord had not informed the Committee whether a new story was to be added to Burlington House.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said there had been no alteration in the plans exhibited last year, which included the erection of an additional story.

Vote agreed to.

(5.) £22,000, to complete the sum for University of London, Buildings.

MR. LAYARD

inquired whether there was any intention of opening Vigo Street for carriage traffic when the building was completed? The thoroughfare was very much blocked up at present.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that all street improvements had been handed over to the local authorities by Act of Parliament.

MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE

objected to public buildings being erected in situations which had no approaches to them. He disapproved altogether of leaving the question of approaches in the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works.

MR. M. CHAMBERS

also complained of the difficulty there would be of getting to the new buildings, and suggested that the different bodies interested should come to some arrangement for providing greater facilities of access.

MR. COWPER

said, he could not allow the Committee to entertain the idea that the University of London would be placed in an inaccessible position. The fact was it was in one of the best positions to be found in Loudon. It was not in a thoroughfare where carriages were continually passing and making noise; but that was so much the better. The way to get to it from Regent Street would be through New Burlington Street. With respect to Vigo Street, it was so narrow that scarcely any advantage would be gained by opening it. If this was a matter which concerned the general traffic of the metropolis, the making of new approaches devolved upon the Metropolitan Board of Works and the parishes, and not upon the Government.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that all the carriages coming either to the Royal Academy or the learned societies would approach through Piccadilly. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the London University did not require the same kind of access as other public buildings. In all the communications which he had had with the authorities of the London University since the site was selected they had never suggested that additional means of access were required.

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

remarked, that the University of London had had a Member given to it, and there might be a contested election.

Vote agreed to.

(6.) £8,000, to complete the sum for Chapter House, Westminster.

MR. DILLWYN

said, he wished to know what use would be made of this Chapter House for which so much money was wanted?

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, the building when restored would be used as a Chapter House.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

inquired, whether any public benefit whatever would be derived from this outlay, or was the money to be expended solely for the advantage of the Dean and Chapter? He had been told that this restoration would be a very elaborate thing, and he hoped the noble Lord would be able to explain what it was for. It was all very well to put their hands into their own pockets to gratify a peculiar taste; but it was a serious matter to put their hands deeply into the public purse for the purpose of decorating a fancy place like that at the cost of the nation.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, that some years ago, before either the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Alderman Lusk) or himself had come into Parliament, there had been a good deal of discussion on this subject, and it had been determined to vote £25,000 for restoring the Chapter House as a work of art. The present Vote was the annual instalment of that sum. That being so, he did not think it competent for hon. Members to enter on the subject now.

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

corroborated this statement.

Vote agreed to.

(7.) £25,400, to complete the sum for New Palace at Westminster, Acquisition of Land.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, that this land was to be acquired for the purpose of making a decorative garden at the end of the Palace. He hoped that the freeholds would be purchased, as tenancy would be objectionable. But as this might be termed a fancy Vote, he hoped the Government would give directions that the rest of the land should be acquired as the interests fell in very gradually.

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

said, the land was not to be acquired for ornamental purposes, but for the absolute protection of the Palace of Westminster, and he, therefore, hoped the noble Lord would lose no time in securing and clearing it. If the hon. Member only took the trouble to walk to the end of the Palace, he would see a large collection of straw and hay there, which would be a cause of the greatest danger if a fire was to break out. He wished to know from the noble Lord whether St. Margaret's Church, which he and the noble Lord himself looked upon as a great disfigurement to Westminster Abbey, could not be taken down and re-built on the land which it was proposed to acquire. If he was not mistaken, the noble Lord had stated last year that it was desirable that St. Margaret's Church should be removed.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman was quite correct as to what he had stated about St. Margaret's Church. He thought, however, he should have been exceeding his duty if he had entered into any negotiations on the subject. But the hon. Baronet would see in the Report of the Commission on the concentration of Public Offices that there was a recommendation to the effect he had suggested.

Vote agreed to,

(8.) £51,000, to complete the sum for Burlington House.

MR. MONK

asked, whether it was intended to take down the blank wall in front; of Burlington House and to erect some ornamental railings instead?

MR. BENTINCK

said, he would suggest that as nothing had yet been done to Burlington House, not a single stone having been removed, and as the design exhibited last year was generally disapproved, it would be better to remit the question to Messrs. Banks and Barry, that they might see whether they could not improve upon the plans already submitted to the House. Representations had been made to him in favour of preserving the fine gateway of Burlington House, and he therefore asked the noble Lord not to let it be destroyed, but, if it must be taken down, to place it in some other position in the metropolis where it would be seen to advantage.

MR. AYRTON

said, that if hon. Members were not too fashionable to travel east of Temple Bar they would find that many of the buildings erected in the City during the last five or six years showed that we had very good architects; and if Burlington House were pulled down a similar or a superior building could be erected anywhere else. He did not think that the gateway was one that should be allowed to stand in the way of a great improvement. There were two buildings of a Moorish construction, one on each side of Burlington House; and so long as they were there he thought that it was desirable to keep up the wall and to have the gate shut. He asked whether these two extraordinary structures were not to be excluded from the observation of persons who looked at Burlington House?

MR. COWPER

hoped that the noble Lord would break through all this superstitious and conventional admiration for Burlington House, and would pull it down entirely. As an Italian villa residence for a private gentleman the house was all very well; but as a public building it would be an entire failure.

MR. LAYARD

said, he was inclined to agree with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cowper), more especially as another story or an attic was to be added to Burlington House as a place of exhibition for the Royal Academy, which would entirely change its architectural character. The interior of Burlington House was very inconvenient even for a private residence. Unless they completely altered both the interior and the exterior, it would be impossible to make anything of it. It would have to be treated like the Irishman's knife, which was fit for nothing till it got a new handle and new blade.

COLONEL FRENCH

also thought it would be better to get rid of the present structure as not suited to its position. When it was originally built its owner was asked why he had expended so much money on a house so far out of town. The noble Lord's reply was, "I have gone so far in order to make it certain that no person will build beyond me."

MR. FLOYER

said the hon. and gallant Gentleman must have forgotten that half a century at least before Burlington House was built Clarendon House and Dunkirk House had been erected far to the west of it. If it were a question between retaining Burlington House and pulling it down, there might be some reason for hesitation, for it was a building of considerable pretensions, of much interest, and of a character of which not another specimen could be found either in London or its vicinity, But if it could not be preserved in its integrity it had better not be preserved at all.

MR. DENMAN

said, he had very often passed an evening listening to discussions of this kind, though he had not taken part in them. He hoped that the noble Lord would be guided in the matter by considerations of economy, which did not seem to be much regarded by persons of æsthetic tastes. This very night it had been recommended that St. Margaret's Church should be pulled down; but it seemed to him that it would be an act of reckless extravagance to incur the expense of destroying that building merely because its appearance offended a few extremely fastidious eyes. With regard to Burlington House it would be extravagant to preserve it on æthetic grounds alone and still more extravagant to tinker it. If, in either case, it was not fit for the purpose for which it was intended; if it should be found not worth retaining, he hoped that it would not be preserved merely from a regard for its reputation as a specimen of classical architecture; but, if well suited for the object desired, he did not see why it should be pulled down.

MR. BENTINCK

said his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Denman) misrepresented him, because if there was one thing against which he continually protested, it was expenditure on æsthetic grounds.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that the main suggestion which had been made in the discussion would be fatal to the whole scheme and absolutely impracticable. If he had the least idea that Burlington House would have been brought into the discussion he would have had all the plans and elevations brought down, in order that hon. Members might see what had been proposed and sanctioned last year. Before the Government took any Vote upon it they clearly explained what they proposed to do. As far as the Royal Academy was concerned, what was proposed was that they should at their own expense build rooms in the rear of Burlington House. The Academy had executed their part of the contract, and the buildings were nearly completed; and they would shortly enter into possession of Burlington House and the ground behind under a lease for a long term of years. The Royal Academy had undertaken to re-model Burlington House according to the plans exhibited in the Library last Session. As soon as the Royal Society could make way for the Academy, the latter would take possession. No money was being spent on Burlington House itself by the Government. The Committee were not asked to vote a single sixpence for that purpose. All the Government had undertaken to do was to build on the sides of Burlington House accommodation for the learned societies. There would be a fine archway in front, through which Burlington House would be seen from Piccadilly.

MR. AYRTON

asked whether the Moorish brick buildings would be covered by the buildings proposed to be erected?

LORD JOHN MANNERS

replied that when the new buildings were erected the brick buildings of which the hon. Member complained would be hidden.

Vote agreed to.

(9.) £23,905, to complete the sum for Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland.

MR. DILLWYN

complained that the sum asked was in excess of the Estimate. The original Estimate having been £103,000, £118,000 had been voted already, and £25,000 was wanted this year.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, that the Estimate had certainly been exceeded, but the Government had a strict eye on these works with a view to keeping down expenditure. The charge was undertaken because half the cost of County Courts in England is borne by the Consolidated Fund.

COLONEL FRENCH

asked why Scotland should receive one-half the costs of these Courts, while Ireland pays the whole cost of analogous Courts?

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

hoped "the act of justice to Scotland "would be emulated in reference to Ireland.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

did not intend to represent the Vote as an "act of justice to Scotland."

Vote agreed to

(10.) £31,252, to complete the sum for Rates for Government Property,

(11.) £77,470, to complete the sum for Post Office and Inland Revenue Buildings.

(12.) £10,000, New Home and Colonial Offices.

(13.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1869, of a Grant in aid of the New Buildings for the University of Glasgow.

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

wished to know, if any part of the sum to be applied for this purpose would be expended in the building of houses for the theological Professors? If the hon. Gentleman could not answer that question he would move the postponements the Vote, especially as the Lord Advocate was not present.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, the Vole was taken for the purpose of proceeding with the buildings now in progress. He could not say what buildings would be constructed under the Vote. Negotiations had been going on for some time on the subject, and as the object was one of importance, and as the Vote was a reasonable one, he hoped the Committee would agree to it

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

said, that as it was important that the question should be answered, whether any portion of the Vote was to be devoted to theological teaching and as the Lord Advocate was not present, he would move that the Chairman report Progress.

Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Colman O'Loghlen.)

MR. DALGLISH

said, he hoped the Motion would not be pressed. The Vote was for the benefit of the whole of the West of Scotland, and a great many Irish students, especially those intending to enter the medical profession, were educated at Glasgow University. The citizens of Glasgow had already subscribed almost as much as the Parliamentary Grant, and he believed they would eventually subscribe considerably more. £72,000 had been granted to the University of London.

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

said, that it was not the Grant but the "theology" he objected to. He should withdraw the Motion, but he should take an opportunity of putting a question to the Lord Advocate on the subject.

MR. DILLWYN

asked whether that was to be the beginning of a system of subsidizing the Universities in all parts of the country?

MR. AYRTON

asked for an explanation from the Government of the policy on which these Votes were made. It seemed as if they were about to establish the novel principle that, wherever a body of persons subscribed a certain sum for the foundation of a College, the State was to be called upon to contribute a similar amount to wards it.

MR. DISRAELI

said, the principle of supporting institutions for the promotion of learning was not a new one, but had always been recognized in this country. The application of that principle was a matter of discretion. Every second-rate town or obscure place, merely because it might subscribe a certain sum for a College, was not, as a matter of course, to receive a Vote of public money; but a degree of discrimination was to be observed in these eases. The policy of supporting institutions of learning in the kingdom of Scotland had certainly been followed in other instances. The University of Aberdeen was one example of that. A considerable sum had been appropriated to the re-construction of the buildings of Aberdeen University, and they were this year voting the final sum required to complete the amount originally proposed to be applied for its benefit. The case of Glasgow had been examined by the Government. It was the case of a poor University, with a very spirited community, who wished to place the institution on a basis suitable to the wants of the age, and who had subscribed in a very munificent manner. It was therefore thought that the State might be fairly asked to second the exertions made by the inhabitants of Glasgow for such an important public purpose.

MR. HARDCASTLE

said, he did not admit that, because Aberdeen had obtained a Vote of public money, Glasgow ought to receive one also. The University of Glasgow was not, in the proper sense of the word, a University, but merely a College.

SIR JOHN GRAY

said, that no Vote could be more properly granted by the House than a Vote to sustain the foundation of a great University. He was glad to see that the Scotch Members were united in supporting the Vote for the University foundation in Glasgow; and he trusted that when the First Lord of the Treasury proposed a University foundation for Ireland, in accordance with the feelings of the Irish people, the proposal would receive the unanimous support of the Scotch Members.

MR. JACOB BRIGHT

remarked that Owen's College in Manchester, was deserving of the consideration of the Committee, and when money was granted for this College in Glasgow, he must remind them that the College in Manchester had an equal claim upon them.

MR. CRAUFURD

said, that the proposal was in strict accordance with the principle upon which the Education Grant was distributed throughout the country—namely, in the encouragement of local subscriptions. In this case, munificent subscriptions had been raised in the city of Glasgow itself, and to reject the Vote would have very much the aspect of a breach of faith.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(14.) £3,200, to complete the sum for the Wellington Monument.

MR. LAYARD

asked for explanations. He did not wish to say a word against Mr. Stephens, whom he believed to be a man of considerable talent; but it was plain, from the number of years that had passed, and from the amount voted in excess of the original Estimate, that there must have been considerable laxity when the contract was originally entered into. The original Estimate was £14,000; £22,800 had been voted, part of which, however, had not been spent.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he was happy to be able to return a satisfactory answer to the question. Mr. Stephens was making very rapid progress with the completion of the work, and hoped in a short time to commence the necessary preparations in St. Paul's.

Vote agreed to.

(15.) £1,000, to complete the sum for the Palmerston Monument.

MR. BENTINCK

expressed a desire for information. What was to be the nature of the monument, and who was to be the sculptor? When they saw the lamentable memorials erected to the memory of such men as Mr. Cobden, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, Mr. Thackeray, and others, they could not help feeling un easy as to the character of any proposed additions. Westminster Abbey was chokefull already; and the question really was, whether it would not be better to remove to a different site the memorials of all who were not actually buried within the Abbey precincts?

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that the House, upon the occasion of the lamented death of Lord Palmerston, gave expression, in a practical manner, to its desire that some fitting memorial of that statesman should be erected. No portion of the money then voted had been expended; and, accordingly, it became necessary to re-vote the amount this year. The artist selected was Mr. Jackson.

MR. LAYARD

asked the noble Lord, having regard to the number of failures which had taken place in our public statues, to give an undertaking that a cast should be erected in Westminster Abbey before the statue itself was executed.

Vote agreed to.

(16.) £133,259, to complete the sum for the Public Buildings, Ireland.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said he had last year called attention to an item of £500 for "catching rats, inspecting fire-engines, and sweeping chimneys." This year the rats had disappeared, and all these items were put down under the head of "Miscellaneous Expenditure." He objected to this method of keeping accounts, as deceptive, and unworthy of a great Government.

Mr. G. MORRIS

, referring to the portion of the Vote applicable to Coastguard stations in Ireland, hoped that some improvement would be effected in these dwellings, the condition of which, in many instances upon the West coast of Ireland, was really disgraceful.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said that a larger portion of this Vote would be applied to the purpose referred to by the hon. Member.

MR. G. MORRIS

said, what he complained of was, that no portion of it seemed to be intended for the Coastguard stations in the West of Ireland.

Vote agreed to.

(17.) £6,000, to complete the sum for the Queen's University, Ireland.

(18.) £4,300, to complete the sum for the Ulster Canal.

In reply to Colonel FRENCH,

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, the Ulster Canal had come into the possession of the Government in consequence of those interested in the Canal having failed to pay interest on the sums advanced to them by the Government. He regretted to say that the attempt to induce the Canal Company to complete the canal works had been so far unsuccessful.

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

observed that the sum now asked for was only part of an amount which had been sanctioned by Act of Parliament.

Vote agreed to.

(19.) £7,500, to complete the sum for the Portland Harbour.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;

Committee to sit again upon Monday next.