HL Deb 20 February 1888 vol 322 cc841-51
LORD LAMINGTON

, in rising to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the constitution of the Office of Works and Public Buildings, and to the unsatisfactory state of the public buildings of the Metropolis, said, he brought the subject forward thus early in the Session because of his great disappointment, which no doubt their Lordships shared, at finding that not one of the public improvements connected with the Office of Works had been carried out during the Recess. Whether it was the new Admiralty and War Office, the alterations to be made in Parliament Street, or the new buildings of the National Portrait Gallery, nothing had been done. The facts in reference to the former of these promised buildings constituted a history which read very like a romance. In 1866–22 years ago—the matter was brought before Parliament, and it was decided that new buildings must be constructed. Nothing was done, however. In 1869 a Bill was brought in giving power for the acquisition of a site. In 1872 the question was again brought before Parliament, and in 1877 another Committee was appointed, and the Report which it issued deprecated in strong terms the continuance of the existing state of things. Nothing, however, was done, and nothing material had been done up to the present day. The Government having acquired the Spring Gardens site for £490,000 in 1882, designs for the new buildings were asked for in 1884. No further practical steps were taken, and in 1887 the condition of things remained the same. It should be borne in mind that all this time we were paying £33,000 for the hire of buildings,representing£1,000,000. Only last week a Report on the Civil Establishments was issued, which called attention to the miserably inadequate accommodation and the multiplicity of small rooms in the War Office and Admiralty, as shown by the fact that there were comprised in the War Office 19 houses and 289 rooms occupied by 805 persons. The Report continued— We strongly recommend, in the interest of economy and efficiency alike, the new War Office should not be delayed; nor is the consideration to be neglected that work is at present done under conditions which are not favourable from any point of view, sanitary or otherwise, to its being well done. These observations apply with equal force to the Admiralty buildings, and in both offices we believe that a considerable reduction in expenditure and great improvement in efficiency would follow a concentration of work. A similar story could be told of the action of the authorities in the case of the National Portrait Gallery. When the pictures were removed to Bethnal Green Museum a promise was given by Mr. Gladstone that a Vote should be taken and a permanent gallery erected. Nothing, however, was done, and he now asked whether there was to be still further delay? He did not wish by his observations to reflect upon the management of the Office of Works. It was the system that was at fault. How could it be thought that any special great work would be done when our system was such that in a period of 30 years there had been 18 First Commissioners? He would appoint two eminent architects, men of high cultivation, as permanent officers of the Department of Works, to act with the First Commissioner for the time being, and to this Board should be intrusted the discussion and determination of the plans. Under their supervision we might expect something like continuity in the work of the Department. It was hopeless to look for such continuity under First Commissioners who were changed with every change of Government. At any rate, the present ridiculous way of conducting important works ought not to be allowed to continue any longer, and arrangements ought to be made to obviate present inconvenience and to secure public buildings that should be worthy of the country. He left the question with the Government.

LORD HENNIKER

said, their Lord-ships would be glad to have heard the noble Lord speak upon a subject in which he had taken great interest for many years past. The noble Lord had suggested very great changes in the constitution of the Office of Works. Personally, in the position he occupied, as only answering for the Department in that House, he could hardly give an opinion on the noble Lord's plan, which appeared to involve so much change in the present arrangements as to raise a question for the Cabinet rather than for the Department. The noble Lord had been rather severe upon the Office of Works; but, from his own short experience, he thought the Department hardly deserved the criticisms of the noble Lord. No doubt there had been failures in the Office, as there had been in others. But he must remind their Lordships what were the functions of the Office of Works. They were, first of all, to maintain all public buildings that were at present erected; and, secondly, to provide new ones when they were required. In this way only the Department was an important agency as to architecture; even then in only a few cases, as a great deal they had to do was of a purely utilitarian character. There really was no scope for architectural fancy. With regard to the architecture of important public buildings such as the Royal Courts of Justice, plans and designs were usually obtained by competition, and the successful architect was intrusted with the execution of the work. In these circumstances he felt that the Department might be considered fairly competent to deal with the work it had to undertake. If the Department had the additional officers suggested by the noble Lord, men of high technical and artistic qualifications, it would not be strengthened in any way for the ordinary work of the Office. On what might be regarded as extraordinary occasions every scheme which was put before the Office of Works for new buildings was submitted to Parliament; and, in the opinion of the First Commissioner as well as himself, it was doubtful whether an increase in the number of tastes, if he might so call it, upon the Board would improve the schemes or advance their progress. It was possible that there might be greater activity in the Office, and more schemes might be put forward; but then that raised the question whether Parliament would grant money to carry out these new schemes. In this practical age there was some difficulty in persuading Parliament to spend public money on fine buildings. Therefore, he could not see that there would be any great advantage in increasing the staff of the Office in the way proposed, increasing the expense of the Office, and making it of more importance. With regard to the Admiralty and the War Office, the noble Lord had stated what had happened. A good many plans had been under consideration. The plan of Messrs. Leeming and Leeming was adopted. It was put up to competition as usual, and the work was actually begun. There had been several plans thought of from time to time; at last this plan had been adopted. He might mention that the judges of the plans were Mr. W. H. Smith, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, and two architects—Mr. Christian and Mr. Hardwick; but it was stopped on the appointment of a Committee by the House of Commons in 1885. This Committee did not sit, on account of the dissolution of Parliament; but another Committee was appointed last year, which reported against the plans. The noble Lord could hardly blame the Office of Works for the delay resulting from the action of Parliament. In obedience to the Report of the last Committee, the Office was having plans prepared to carry out that Committee's recommendations. With respect to the National Portrait Gallery, their Lordships would recollect that in 1885 the galleries were pronounced to be unsafe, and nothing could be done but remove the portraits for safety to Bethnal Green, where they had been greatly appreciated. Three or four times as many people had seen the pictures as visited South Kensington Gallery in the same time. It was only proposed that the pictures should stay at Bethnal Green until a permanent home could be provided; and the provision of that home depended upon the necessary grant being made by Parliament. There had been no delay on the part of the Office of Works, whose plans would be ready directly the money was granted. Moreover, the Chief Commissioner had given no pledge that a new building would be erected at once; but he said he would be very glad if a permanent home could be found for this collection. He had, therefore, committed no breach of faith in the matter. The pictures were only on loan where they were. That was distinctly understood. With regard to Parliament Street improvements, the delay had arisen not in consequence of any action of the Office of Works, but because the Company had not as yet complied with the condition which Parliament imposed in the Private Bill before allowing the work to be commenced—namely, that £500,000 should be subscribed before the work was begun. That provision had, no doubt, rendered it difficult for the Company to raise money; but the money would be forthcomig, although it would, perhaps, come in slower than would otherwise have been the case. The Office had no power to pull down houses in Parliament Street. It was purely a matter for the Company to deal with under their Private Act. Meanwhile, they might congratulate themselves that the Office of Works had secured a scheme for pulling down the old buildings in Parliament Street before any other work was begun. This and other advantages his right honourable Friend the First Commissioner had secured for the public. He thought that he had answered the Questions of his noble Friend, and that he had justified the action taken by the Office of Works.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

wished to say a word or two upon this subject, as he had once occupied the position of First Commissioner of Works. He did not think that in calling attention to the condition of Government offices, and in laying to some extent censure on the First Commissioner of Works, the noble Lord had quite laid the saddle on the right horse. Neither was he quite certain that the alterations suggested by the noble Lord were such as to bring about a remedy for the state of things of which he complained. One, at least, of the questions which the noble Lord had dealt with was due to what many of them had cause to regret—namely, the constant change in the Administrations of the country in the last two years. This brought about a change of policy in many respects, and in other offices than the Department of Works. With regard, for instance, to the question of the Admiralty and War Offices, the Government of which he had the honour to be a Member had a policy in which he confessed that it was not very enthusiastic. But it was a policy—the design of Messrs. Leeming & Co. It was a distinct and intelligible policy, and the Government which next came into Office reversed that policy and dismissed the project to the limbo of many other projects. That was the cause not merely of delay in the proper organization of the Admiralty and War Office buildings, but it was also the cause of a very considerable sum of money being expended in the shape of a fine to the architects. He did not think that the First Commissioner who was his Successor could properly be blamed for the change in Imperial policy on the part of successive Governments. As to Parliament Street, that was a very important question, but he thought that his noble Friend who spoke last had amply answered the coble Lord who introduced the subject. The question was not one which was in any degree dependent upon the action of the First Commissioner of Works. The question really depended upon a clause which was inserted in the Bill last year, which stipulated that no part of the buildings should be pulled down until a certain portion of the subscribed capital had been raised. Parliament Street was one of the great permanent questions of the Office of Works. There was the question of the Burlington House Colonnade, but the question of Parliament street was more important than that, and it would always beset the Office of Works until some scheme was brought forward by a solvent company which enabled a profit to be made out of a process of a most expensive kind. There he thought again, that the blame ought to be laid upon the First Commissioner. If the noble Lord had made a practical proposal, founded on the instances he had cited, it would have been a matter of vast importance. If they once let loose a board of architects, as he had suggested, a very strong supervision and control would be required. While such a Board would be going one way, the Board of Treasury would be going another, and he ventured to suggest to the noble Lord that unless his project was sustained by a Board of Treasury, such as he had had no experience of in his short official career—a board of a most blind, lavish, and inconsiderate description—it would be impossible that such a plan could be successful.

LORD HENNIKER

wished to say, with regard to the remark of the noble Earl, that the scheme of Messrs. Leeming was thrown over in consequence of the change of Government, that the Committee appointed by the late Government, of which the noble Earl was a member, was re-appointed last year, and he thought that he had stated that the change of scheme was entirely in consequence of Parliamentary action and not because of any action on the part of the Board of Works.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

admitted that that was so, but said had the late Government remained in Office, and been supported by a majority, they could have carried out their policy with regard to the new Admiralty and War Office.

LORD GRIMTHORPE

said, he entirely agreed with the noble Earl as to the danger of introducing what might be called a Board of Consulting Architects. He believed he was present when the plan of the new Law Courts was discussed more or less by the Royal Institute of British Architects, and he was very much struck with what the President of that day said. He said that he was far from approving the plan, and that probably most of his audience would agree with him; but, inasmuch as Mr. Street had been selected to carry out the plan, it was the duty of the British nation to submit themselves to Mr. Street. He had some dealings himself many years ago with several Commissioners of Works while the Westminster Clock was being constructed. Some of them were extremely capable of carrying on the business, a great deal more so than any architect. He was bound to say that the best of them all was Sir Benjamin Hall, little as he agreed with his political opinions. He could say the same of Mr. Ayrton, who introduced the new form of agreements with architects which prevented the increase in Estimates to which the noble Lord had referred. During the construction of the Westminster clock the solicitors of the Office asked him about a form of contract which was generally made with builders. He told him that form would never enable the Office to control the architects, or prevent the enormous increase upon the estimates which the noble Lord had truly spoken of. And Mr. Ayrton adopted a new one. He suspected, from something he had heard since, that form had been departed from, but to what extent he did not know. He mentioned this as a warning, and urged that Mr. Ayrton's arrangement should substantially be reverted to when any great works were to be carried out. With regard to the new Law Courts, Mr. Street was appointed architect by Lord John Manners, and the competition might as well never have taken place. Although it was given out that convenience was the chief thing to be attended to, Mr. Street's plans were notoriously defective therein, and, architecturally, it was considered the worst great public building in the world, and in the matter of convenience it unquestionably was the worst. Mr. Street was determined to sacrifice everything to his Gothic and ecclesiastical prejudices; and the great hall was made simply to gratify his vanity, that he might say he had made the widest vaulted hall in England, and yet it looks the narrowest, and is utterly useless besides. All this he was afraid he must say was the result of the present system; but he must add that the noble Lord's suggestion for improving the system would, he feared, make it worse. Appointing a strong permanent secretary who would control architects and direct his masters as permanent officials sometimes did, might be an improvement, but that he would not then discuss. As to the plans for the new Admiralty and War Office, he had read the Report of the Committee of last year, and, as far as he could judge, he agreed with it. Perhaps he might be allowed to mention a very humble matter connected with that Office. Some 20 years ago, when he had to come down to that House daily, he used to come down the steps near the Duke of York's Column. He never did so in frosty weather without fear of falling. Somebody persuaded the Commissioner of Works to put up an iron railing on each side in order that people going up and down the stops might be able to lay hold of it; but so simple a thing could not be left to an ironmonger, but some architect must be called in, and, accordingly, a railing as thick as his arm, supported on large square pillars, was put up at some distance from the wall. Thereupon the boys found the railings the most convenient place in all London to slide down, and the rails became useless for everybody else. That might easily have been stopped by putting in a few spikes, which any ironmonger in London could have done in two days. But the ingenuity of the Office and the architect were not equal to that, and so the railings were entirely swept away and had not been replaced to this day. Therefore, in slippery weather he went round another way to avoid those steps. There were steps in various other parts of London, and particularly under Charing Cross station, where the Metropolitan Board of Works had done what was wanted by a simple thin rail, which made the steps quite safe. He hoped, therefore, that the Commissioner of Works would condescend to employ an ironmonger to enable people to go down the steps of the Duke of York's Column safely in frosty weather, and to help infirm people to get up in all weathers.

LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL

My Lords, I wish to make two observations—one in which I quite concur with the noble Lord who has brought the Notice forward (Lord Lamington); one in which I may appear to differ from something he has mentioned incidentally. I much approve the course he has adopted in pointing to the imperfection of our public buildings and of the Board of Works, to which they are in some degree to be attributed. On the whole of that subject, Mr. White, the secretary to the Institute of Architects, not long ago produced a volume which abounds in luminous materials to support the general position of my noble Friend this evening. The noble and learned Lord who has just sat down, in an amusing speech, referred to his own protest against the scheme of the New Law Courts. It is curious that the late Mr. Fergusson—so great an architectural authority—when he became for a short time the regular adviser of the Board, was forced to leave it, because upon that scheme his counsel was entirely disregarded. However, the point on which I cannot go with my noble Friend who opened the debate is as to censure of the Government for not having carried out the Public Offices Site Act and the plan of Messrs. Leeming for a new construction in Spring Gardens. On the contrary, the Government appear to me to merit praise for having left that Act, which is entirely optional, unexecuted. The arguments against proceeding on it have been so often stated that it would be improper to repeat them. They have been given in a number of deRates, and in a Protest which was signed by many of your Lordships. They were repeated often by our lamented Friend the former Chairman of Committees. Beyond that, a deputation of the architects impressed them on the late Lord Iddesleigh when he was First Lord of the Treasury. Last of all, a Committee of the House of Commons has decisively adopted them. If, therefore, anything is said in favour of reverting to that plan, it is necessary to remind the House under what circumstances it has been discarded, so that we may guard to some extent the equilibrium of the Government.

LORD LAMINGTON

explained that he had not suggested that there should be a consulting board of architects, but that there should be a board, two Members of which should be permanent, to assist the First Commissioner in carrying out works which had been determined upon, and for which the House of Commons had voted the money. What he complained of was that under the present system nothing was ever done at all, and decisions made 20 years ago were still unexecuted. He wanted the Government to keep a permanent control over that Office.