HC Deb 10 August 1857 vol 147 cc1295-312
MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, he rose to move an Address to the Crown for a Commission to consider the site and plans of the proposed new public offices. Although his own name had come before the public in connection with certain recommendations, yet he did not take this Motion with any intention to persuade or entrap the House into any particular plan of rebuilding the public offices. His sole object was to obtain a full and complete investigation of the subject, a fair trial and patient hearing, which had not yet been granted, but without which it was possible the rebuilding of these offices might cost the country hundreds of thousands, and yet prove an abortion after all. He was aware it was late in the Session to come forward, but the Report of the Judges had not been long printed, and he had therefore no earlier opportunity of raising the question. The recent exhibition in Westminster Hall had made every Member familiar with the matter. It was curious to ascertain what Parliamentary sanction existed for an undertaking which would cost the Government £5,000 in prizes, and the competitors tens of thousands in producing their drawings. In looking over the pages of Hansard, the only notice he found taken of this matter in Parliament in 1856 was that on the 4th of April, in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Invernesshire, the Minister of Public Works made a statement to the effect that it was the intention of the Government to rebuild the public offices on a large scale, and that they meant to bring the matter before a Committee. So obscure were the circumstances connected with the appointment of this Committee, that he actually found no record of it in Hansard. However, it was named, and sat seven times, first on the 30th of May, and lastly on the 18th of July, and in the course of these seven times examined two witnesses, occupying two days in their examination, besides putting four questions on a third day, and two more on a fourth to one of those witnesses. On the evidence of these two witnesses the Government seemed to have founded all they have done. The first witness was Mr. Hunt, the official surveyor of public works. The other witness was Sir C. Trevelyan, a man of great official experience, but still in architectural matters but an amateur. The Government seemed to have acted very much on the advice given by Mr. Hunt, while the plan recommended by Sir C. Trevelyan was in many material respects widely different from that which they had followed, and in certain points resembling that which he (Mr. Hope) advocated. Sir Charles Trevelyan in his examination recommended the appointment of a committee of persons, carefully selected on account of their experience and ability, to act as advisers to the Chief Commissioner of Works and the Government, first of all as to the relative positions of the different offices, which he looked upon as a matter of great consequence. The Commission for which he was moving precisely answered to the recommendation. Sir C. Trevelyan also recommended that before anything was done in the matter of rebuilding the public offices some comprehensive plan should be agreed on, combining administrative efficiency, perfect accommodation, and architectural beauty, and that the buildings should be raised gradually, one after another, as necessity called for them. The Report of this Committee was presented on the 20th of July—too late for any discussion to take place in regard to it before the end of the Session, and the evidence was not printed till the recess. And yet it was upon this slender foundation that the Government had committed itself to the undertaking. During that recess came forth the extraordinary scheme of the Board of Works, in which three entirely different and discordant classes of prizes were offered for a block plan for a War Office and for a Foreign Office. A great number of drawings was sent into Westminster Hall, and then, and not until then, were a board of examiners appointed. These judges discharged their duty ably and conscientiously, but being bound by their instructions they were obliged to give prizes to three plans, totally different from each other, and incapable of being fused together. A French gentleman got the first prize for the block plan, including both Foreign and War Offices; an Englishman got the prize for the Foreign Office, which was incapable of being worked into the block plan; and another Englishman got the prize for a War Office, which was equally at variance with the block plan and with the Foreign Office. How then was this embarrassment to be solved! He understood that the block plan was to be thrown aside and that the discordant War and Foreign Offices were to be run up check by jowl. An excuse had been made that to carry out the block plan of M. Crepinet would involve an extraordinary amount of expenditure. He could not deny that if this plan were carried out in its integrity it would cost a sum which would stagger the Legislature, but, besides the scheme for the re-adjustment of the Public Offices, this plan contained "A scheme for the rearrangement of the approaches considered particularly with a reference to the rebuilding of Westminster Bridge," which was not an essential part of the block plan, but which the competitors had been invited, in the instructions to competitors, to contribute over and above the main design. It was not certain, however, that the scheme of the Government would be much less costly. It certainly would be much cheaper, in the long run, to lay down some great scheme which might be carried out gradually, as the national resources would allow, than to run up two independent and distinct offices, which would be finished in 1860, and which before 1861 had gone round we should devoutly pray that some earthquake would destroy. When first this scheme was started the cry was for a centralisation of the public offices, meaning thereby, as he understood it, the bringing of them together under one roof, as the two Houses of Parliament were brought together, so that there might be ready communication between them, and time and labour—and thereby money—might be saved. But now the proposition was to build entirely separate buildings for the War and Foreign Offices, each of which must have four distinct facades, besides the disadvantage of windows ending in nothing, which in a united building would open into each other. He had heard something, too, in a mysterious way, first from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and then from the First Lord of the Treasury, about a third building, which was to be raised for the Colonial Office, which had not been named before, nor brought into competition. If this were to be built we should have three independent buildings, with twelve distinct facades. With regard to the expense, the judges observed in their Report that they had no knowledge of the sum which the Government proposed to expend upon these works, and that the designs were unaccompanied by estimates, and did not admit of accurate calculation as to cost. Therefore this competition had been entered into—architects had been invited to send in designs—the judges were called upon to adjudicate, and yet the first essential of a practical undertaking, the imposition of a limit as to how much it was to cost, and requiring architects to conform thereto, had been entirely overlooked. They had heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that all that was to be done now was to rebuild the War and Foreign Offices and to erect a new Colonial Office. If that were so, the work might, according to his own (Mr. Beresford Hope's) suggestions, be done upon plans much more economic than those which had received the sanction of the Government. According to the estimate which would come under their notice that evening, the site of these offices would cost £170,000. According to the plan which he had recommended, the War and Foreign Offices might be built upon the Parade in St. James's Park—a plot of ground which already belonged to the Crown—and therefore would cost nothing, while their erection upon this area, so far from requiring the demolition of the existing Colonial Office, would not only permit its continuance, but also allow the present Foreign Office to be thrown into it in order to provide any additional temporary accommodation which might be required. This he should propose only as part of the greater scheme of concentrating the new offices between the Treasury, and the Admiralty, and the Horse Guards, making one harmonious pile of buildings, and leaving the space upon which the Government proposed to erect these buildings for that continuation of St. James's Park to the river which it was absolutely necessary should be carried out, if not in our generation, at least in some future one, in order that the architectural beauty and sanitary arrangement of London might be placed upon a proper footing. To this scheme it might be objected, that the Parade being the private property of the Crown could not be dealt with as though it were under the administration of the Woods and Forests Department, and that the public would brook no interference with any of its open spaces. But surely an arrangement could be made with the Crown to exchange the Parade for the future river-side park, and the public would be amply compensated by the addition which this extension would make to their means of enjoyment, and to the beauty and health of the metropolis. There were some persons who objected to the rebuilding of the public offices as needless and extravagant, and their votes he invited on the ground that, unless that House made a protest, it would, in the eyes of the country and in those of the competitors, of the judges, and of all who had not examined into the technicalities of the plan, stand committed to the rebuilding of the War and Foreign Offices on this superb plan. Whether the Government was right or wrong, the matter had not been fairly brought before that House or before the nation. Whether they adopted the decision of the judges or not as to the plans which should be ultimately carried out, further inquiry on the part of the House of Commons ought to take place. He thought circumstances had recently occurred that should make the country more chary of its resources than it had been a few months ago. And if on that ground it should be deemed advisable to postpone these works, what could be more reasonable than that they should occupy the intervening time in ascertaining how these could be carried out so as, with a due regard to economy, to conduce to the practical utility, and the artistic and sanitary improvement of the metropolis. It was the duty of that House thoroughly to investigate the subject, to explore its heights and sound its depths, and to see how far the features of architectural grandeur and magnificence, by which the plans were characterised in their crude form, could be combined with those more mature arrangements which would save money and increase effect. He therefore moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to consider the site and plans of the proposed new public offices, and particularly the Foreign and War Offices, and to report on the same.

MR. PINNEY

seconded the Motion.

Amendment proposed,— To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to consider the Site and Plans of the proposed New Public Offices, and particularly the Foreign and War Offices, and to report on the same," instead thereof.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

;—The hon. Gentleman who has made this Motion calls upon the House to rise to a height worthy of the emergency, and with a view of meeting the requirements of the occasion he moves the appointment of a Royal Commission. Now, the effect of this Resolution, if carried, would be to take this question out of the hands of the Executive Government and virtually to place it in those of the Commissioners, whose duty it would be to decide with respect to the cite and plans of the new public offices. Unless her Majesty's Government have shown themselves unworthy of the confidence of the House with respect to this matter I trust that this Motion for an Address to Her Majesty will not be assented to. In determining the sites and proposing plans for these public offices the Government would have two things to consider. First, we have to consider the inefficiency of the present offices, and more particularly that of the Foreign Office; and then we have to consider what would be a convenient site on which to erect a new building, and what is the plan best adapted for supplying all the wants of a public office. Now, in determining this question, and deciding what shall be our ultimate proposal to Parliament, we have to consider not only what appears to be the most convenient site for a new Foreign Office, but also what reasonable amount of architectural decoration we think ourselves justified in proposing, as well as what amount of public money we shall think ourselves justified in calling upon Parliament, to apply to the purpose. If, on the other hand, this House take the course of advising Her Majesty to appoint a Commission, that Commission, if appointed, would proceed by a different course. A Commission would not unnaturally consider what would be the best mode of carrying out our object, and in all probability the most expensive mode would in their view be the best. They would take the best site which the Metropolis afforded, and then, having adopted the largest plan for the erection of the Foreign Office, they would then consider how it could be made most conducive to the decorum and embellishment of the town. It would form no part of their duty to consider what expense would be reasonable for the purpose, and that question they would naturally leave to the executive Government. They would say that in selecting out of the plans submitted to us the most useful and ornamental we are discharging the duty for which we were appointed, but we have nothing to do with the question of expense. But what, on the other hand, would be the course which it would be necessary for the Government to adopt? The Government would have to consider not only which was the most magnificent and ornamental plan, but also whether it would accomplish the object of a public office, and whether it fell within a reasonable limit of expenditure; for we should certainly not be justified in engaging this House in any useless or unnecessary expense not justified by the object which we wish to accomplish—and our scheme is a far less magnificent one than that which the hon. Gentleman has sketched out. I think, therefore, that the House, by agreeing to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, would only be encouraging delay by laying before the Government a second set of plans framed upon so extravagant a scale and involving so much ornament and decoration that the Government would be unable to adopt any of them, having a due regard to economy. I trust, therefore, that the House will not think it worth their while to depart from the course that is ordinarily adopted in such matters, but that they will leave this matter in the hands of the Executive Government, who, before they submit any plan to this House, will have to consider the subject in all its bearings, and not entrust it to a Commission, which will not in any way be called upon to consider the question of expense. What the Government proposes to do is this. We propose in the present Session to ask for such a Vote as may enable us to acquire a sufficient space for the erection, in the first place, of a new Foreign Office, and, in the second place, of one or two other public offices, in order that we may erect upon it buildings suitable for the purpose. The want of the present moment is a new Foreign Office, and to supply that want is the extent of our ambition. I am afraid that we shall incur the censure of the hon. Gentleman, in not considering that we ought to seize the occasion offered by the want of new public offices to embellish the metropolis with a series of magnificent palaces, for the accommodation of the public department. Our object, then, lying within a very narrow compass, I trust that the House will allow us to follow out the plan which we desire, and will not sanction a course which would either lead to indefinite postponement or else to incurring an expenditure altogether unnecessary for the object which we have in view.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

Although I certainly do not agree with the proposal which has been made by the hon. Gentleman, yet I must say that I think he has been led into it by the somewhat strange course the Government have adopted with reference to this subject. It appears from the statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and the statement was a very reasonable one—that the object of the Government is first to obtain a site, and then to erect a commodious building for a Foreign Office—handsome also if possible—and afterwards to erect any other offices which might be wanted. But, although my right hon. Friend makes that statement, the Government have done the very thing to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded. They have proposed a system of competition for plans of buildings of a very handsome character, and the architects who responded to that invitation, very naturally gave play to their fancy, and a series of beautiful plans and sketches of buildings, embellished with every costly architectural decoration, had been sent in, of no other use, in my eyes, than to gratify the sight of the public, and to show the comparative ingenuity and ability of the French and English architects. Now, that does not appear to me a practical mode of dealing with the subject. If you wish to spend a certain reasonable sum of money upon the erection of new public offices, it appears to me that the best plan to adopt would be to fix upon a site, and then say, "We want plans suitable to the site and to the purpose for which the buildings will be required," at the same time stating the expense which you are prepared to incur. If you had done that, you would have obtained some practical plans instead of these magnificent schemes for the public offices. One suggestion which has been made by the hon. Gentleman I think is well worthy of consideration. I have been told that the noble Lord at the head of the War Department thinks that no new Office for that department is necessary; but, if it is contemplated to build a new War office and a new Colonial office, I think that it would be very convenient to unite the two, thus having only four façades instead of eight. What I hope, however, is that the Government will throw aside the whole of these plans and consider what accommodation it is they want, and what sum of money they are prepared to propose to Parliament, and then let them obtain plans suited to the expenditure they propose. The plans which they have at present are, without doubt, exceedingly handsome; but, to speak plainly, they seem to me infinitely more adapted for palaces than public offices. I recollect what happened with regard to building a new palace for Her Majesty. Buckingham Palace was built upon the proposal of Lord Ripon, who was at the time Chancellor of the Exchequer. He then stated that the Government did not propose to build a new palace, but only a large house, sufficiently commodious for the Queen Dowager or the Prince of Wales. Well, Sir, a very strange building was constructed, with two wings coming out in a most ungraceful manner, and afterwards the space between the extremities was filled up by a fourth side, and then £100,000 spent in the construction of a large ball-room, which is very inconvenient, and ill suited with the rest of the structure. The result is, that you have a large disjointed building instead of a handsome and commodious one, although you have expended nearly a million of money upon it. I hope, therefore, that in future the Government will, in erecting new buildings, consider exactly what is required for the purpose to which the building is to be applied. With regard to the matter of the Palace, I recollect the late Mr. Hume saying in this House that he believed that it was proposed to build a new palace in the Park. I had at that time the honour of being the First Lord of the Treasury, and I asked the late Sir R. Peel whether he had ever thought of proposing a new palace? His answer was that he had thought about it, but he had seen so large an increase in the Miscellaneous Estimates of late years, amounting to nearly £4,000,000, that he had given up all idea of proposing such a palace. I informed Her Majesty of that opinion, and stated that I concurred in it, and Her Majesty, with her usual thonghtfulness and forbearance, immediately desired that no additional expense should be cast upon her subjects. We have now schemes proposed for the erection of buildings far more like palaces than public offices, and I trust that the Government, recollecting the still large increase which has taken place of late years in the expenditure, will readily yield to the more reasonable views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and propose only to erect buildings suitable for the purposes for which they are intended.

SIR DENHAM NORREYS

said, that it appeared to him that the simplest plan for the Government to have adopted would have been to fix upon a ground plan, and then to take plans for the erection of buildings upon the site so chosen, at a named expenditure. What he would suggest was, that the House should have some general plan before them, that they should adhere to that plan, and that all the separate buildings to be from time to time erected should have reference to it. It did not appear from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the new offices were to be built with relation to keeping Westminster Bridge in its present position. He thought the question ought to be viewed as a whole; and therefore, he should be glad to know whether it formed any part of the Government plan for the improvement of Westminster.

SIR. BENJAMIN HALL

said, he thought it was only just to the Government and himself that he should be permitted to state the course taken last year before the Committee of that House, which sat on the subject, and the course taken by himself since. For many years past, as his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) must be well aware, great complaint had been made of the insufficiency of accommodation in some of the public offices, and especially in the Foreign Office, the War Office, and the Colonial Office. He (Sir B. Hall) would undertake to say there were no public offices in the world which were so inconvenient or in so ruinous a state as our own. The state of the Colonial Office was such that it would have to be wholly rebuilt, and a large sum of money laid out for that purpose. The Foreign Office was inconvenient and insecure, and as regarded the War Office, it was desirable, instead of having several branches of that department located at different places at the West-end, to have all its various departments concentrated so as to facilitate the despatch of public business. Last year the Committee decided that it would be desirable to concentrate the public offices, and they added that if there was to be any rebuilding of those offices it would be advisable to call in competition the talent of the whole world in order to obtain the best possible design for such an undertaking. He communicated with the Government, and he was informed that it was their desire that steps should be taken to prevent the inconvenience which resulted from the various branches of the War Department being scattered over different parts of the town, and also that a new Foreign Office should be erected. In consequence of the suggestion of the Committee he called on surveyors, with the sanction of the Government, to send in plans for laying out the ground intended to be devoted to the rebuilding of the public offices; and surely it was desirable that the House should have a general outline of a plan, in order that if anything was to be done it should be done in conformity with such a plan. With regard to the buildings, his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) complained that designs had been sent in on too large a scale. Before he (Sir B. Hall) sent out the requisite specifications he put himself in communication with his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office and with his noble Friend at the head of the War Office, and he requested that they would inform him in detail of the amount of accommodation that would be required for transacting the business of those departments. They did so; elaborate specifications were drawn up for that purpose, and the result was that all the different designs sent in had been strictly made with the view that the buildings, which were to be the subject of those designs, should occupy no more space than was required for the transaction of the public business, and as indicated by the authorities at the Foreign and War Offices. Then, with regard to the architectural elevation, surely it was desirable, if they were to rebuild the public offices, that they should have some design for an elevation which should really be worthy the country, seeing that the constant complaint was that the public buildings in the Metropolis were such wretched abortions. He had had those designs exhibited, and he believed they had met with considerable favour, but it was for the House of Commons to say whether they would carry them out. If the House thought them too grand or expensive they would not be proceeded with. Although the buildings represented in those designs might look large, the size of the buildings had only been determined by the requisitions sent in by the different departments. What the Government proposed to do at present was simply this, to have some ground set apart in the neighbourhood of Downing Street on which two or three public offices might hereafter be erected; but no steps would be taken in regard to the expenditure until the House of Commons had sanctioned the proposal. He proposed during the recess, to look at the designs which had been approved by the judges, and endeavour to ascertain the expense of carrying them out; but nothing further would be done until the House was informed on that point. He therefore submitted that nothing had been done in this matter, either by the Government or himself, which justified the censure implied in the speech of his noble Friend.

MR. HENLEY

said, he felt that they were in somewhat of a difficulty already, but he thought they would only be getting into a greater difficulty if they adopted the Motion of the hon. Member for Maidstone, for he entirely agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that by so doing they would be led into an indefinite field of expense and responsibility. When the subject of the public offices was first mooted in that House, the House said they would do nothing until they had a plan before them, and that led to the appointment of a Committee on the subject. That Committee, to which the right hon. Baronet had referred, came to a very magnificent resolution in relation to the public offices; and he (Mr. Henley) did not think the Government could do otherwise than take some steps to act on that Resolution, so far as the procuring of designs went; but he thought the skilled gentlemen who had been invited to send in those magnificent plans, embracing such a vast area of ground, might say, and would say, that they had been very hardly treated in being put to the expense of drawing those plans when the Government had no intention at all of carrying any of them out. He did not think that it was an honest course towards those gentlemen to call for competitive plans under such circumstances. The House had been told that the Foreign and Colonial Offices were likely to tumble down. Why, with respect to the Colonial Office, they had been told that for the last twenty years. There was, however, no doubt as to its being in a bad state of repair. It was also stated that it was desirable to concentrate the War Departments; but he did not think the House was likely at present to take a very satisfactory course to carry out this object. They were now asked to buy the ground; but no definite plan had been adopted as to the buildings to be put upon it, and at present they knew not whether the ground they were asked to buy would be too much or too little for the purpose. He thought before they voted the money for the ground, they ought to know what it was that was to be put upon it. That was the first thing to be decided. The Government ought to make up their minds as to what sort of a Foreign Office, Colonial Office, or War Office they wanted, and when their minds were made up as to the requisite area it would be time enough to come to Parliament and ask for the money for the site, because, until they had made up their minds, how could Parliament know whether the piece of ground would at all suit these magnificent buildings which were to be an ornament to the town? Perhaps some low buildings would intervene between these fine elevations and George Street. People of taste would cry out, "What an abomination!" and call upon the Government to sweep away the miserable buildings which spoiled the effect, and thus Parliament would be dragged gradually into carrying out magnificent schemes which Government did not avow their intention to carry out. The only safe course was this:—Let the Government state—"This is the accommodation we want; this is the plan intended to provide it, and this is the area of the ground upon which we want to put it." The House would have the whole question before it, and could give a fair answer to it. But it was not a fair proposition to ask the House to sanction the purchase of a three-cornered piece of ground, which would not suit a square building, or of a square piece of ground for a circular building which would not fit it. The more reasonable course was for the right hon. Baronet to satisfy himself that the requirements made for these public offices were necessary, to determine, with the Members of the Government, whose business it was to advise, what was the proper scheme, and when that was done to lay the scheme upon the table, and ask for the money to carry it out. He did not quite gather from the right hon. Baronet whether he thought the requirements reasonable and proper. He did not pretend to give any opinion himself, because he had not given to the plans any very minute examination, but he thought some of the plans comprised accommodation, upon a very much more enlarged scale than ordinary men would conceive to be necessary. If the hon. Member's proposition were adopted, the House would only be dragged into another question.

MR. BRISCOE

said, that, having given great attention to this subject, he would beg to be allowed to say a few words. He thought it right to remind the House that they would shortly be asked, in Committee of Supply, to vote a sum of £38,000 for the purpose of purchasing a site, when the question could be more properly discussed. At the same time he felt bound to express his satisfaction at the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, and of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire. He had no wish to join in any censure upon the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Board of Works in reference to the plans which had been submitted to the examination of the public in Westminster Hall; but he could not help thinking that some of the architects had not adhered to the specifications. In the plan for the Foreign Office, which had received the first prize, he noticed the first floor was proposed to be partially appropriated to reception rooms, 245 feet by fifty, to a grand promenade, twenty feet wide, and to a central hall, fifty feet high, for music and supper parties. He agreed with the noble Lord that the public offices should be appropriated to the transaction of public business. The perspective elevation, which was very attractive, was nothing more nor less than a copy of the Hotel de Ville at Paris, and it seemed as if the architect had also contemplated the balls which were given in that edifice. Balls and receptions would involve great expense, and it might happen that a person who was Foreign Minister might not possess large property; and then there would be a further demand upon the public purse for that purpose. Another competitor suggested that the bed of the river should be turned into a flower garden, and the Thames diverted into two canals on each side of it. Architects who indulged in such poetical designs could not complain of their plans being rejected. From the best information he could obtain he understood that the Foreign Office only was required, and that ground could be easily purchased for the enlargement of the present War Office in Pall Mall. It was most important that each department of the Government should be perfect and complete in itself, but that would not render necessary the removal of the War Office. He should reserve his remarks on the proposed Vote of £380,000 for the site, until it was before them; but he strongly objected to it, and in opposing it he believed he should be performing an office grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

MR. TITE

said, he agreed that the proper time to discuss this question was on the Estimate, which was coming on. They would have a Vote for £380,000 for a site for new public offices, a large part of which was for pulling down a portion of Parliament Street northward as far as Charles Street. Notwithstanding that, he thought that a competition for a block plan was a right course, and that the country would not have been satisfied with any other. In his opinion, the block plans sent in for competition were a failure; and, if the Government adopted either one of those which had gained a prize, the cost would be from £5,000,000 to £10,000,000, and he believed no prudent country would embark in such a scheme. One of the prize plans was, to a certain extent, a copy of the Hotel de Ville, in the renaissance style, and the other in a very ornate style of half French, half Italian architecture; and to build on either of these plans would create a great incongruity with Sir Charles Barry's building: what no man of taste would for a moment sanction. There was no doubt they were embarking in a large outlay, and he was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that they were not to act without consideration. He would urge on the House that they ought not to embark in it without a distinct and well-considered plan. The Government had had the benefit of the suggestions of many architects;—there was the plan of Sir J. Soane, that of Mr. Pennethorne, and also the plans in the present competitive exhibition. If the Government would take all these materials they might form a general plan. For £100,000 the ground between Downing Street and the Park might be obtained, which would give an area which it would require a sum of £400,000 to cover. If to this was added the £380,000 which was now asked in the Vote about to come on, it would be found that you were embarking in an undertaking which would cost a million. The Government might make use of the suggestions which were at their disposal, and come to the House next Session with a well-considered plan; and they would be then in a position to enter upon their schemes like men of sense and business. It was determined, and very properly, that Westminster Bridge was to go on; and it was said that certain offices must be constructed, at a cost of a million; or, at any rate, that the Foreign Office must be rebuilt. It was said that the expenditure on the Houses of Parliament was caused on account of their having been begun without any fixed plan; and although that was not so in reality, yet as they had, with an estimate of £850,000, come up to an expenditure of a million and a half, there must have been error somewhere; and therefore he hoped the Government, in their future proceedings, would take warning by what had then occurred. With regard to the Motion of the hon. Member for Maidstone, he could not agree to it; and he must say, that the proposition of that hon. Gentleman, to cover the space behind the Horse Guards with buildings, would hardly be agreed to by the country, when there was space enough for public buildings to be obtained at a moderate expenditure, without interfering with what was one of the features of the town. Therefore, although he did not altogether approve of the course which the Government had taken, he could not support the Motion before the House; and the more especially as it would necessitate further delay, and introduce a new element of debate into this much-vexed question.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON

said, as a member of the Committee which sat on this subject last year, he wished to make a few remarks. The Committee did not enter into the architectural question, but mainly confined the evidence before them to the question of the propriety of acquiring a site and sufficient land to carry out what might be desirable with reference to public offices. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire said, that, when a Foreign Office was wanted, it should be built; and when a War Office or Colonial Office was wanted, it should be built; but he was afraid that, if the right hon. Gentleman had heard the evidence before the Committee, he would hardly have recommended that course. The ground which the Committee recommended the Government to buy was covered with mean buildings; and if that was bought, and the Foreign Office built in the first instance, a great addition would be found to have been made to the value of the neighbouring property when you came to buy it hereafter. The Committee distinctly recommended that the architectural details should be left to public competition. He would admit that the patriotic zeal of the competitors had induced them to indulge in too costly and palatial a style, but that objection ought to have been taken when the specifications were published, and it was hardly fair now to lay the blame entirely at the door of the architects.

MR. BENTINCK

said, without troubling the House with the expression of an opinion upon the merits of any of the schemes under discussion, he wished but to make one remark. It appeared to him objectionable that such a scheme should be brought under discussion at this particular time. Now, what was the situation of the country? The fact was patent to every one. The state of our affairs in India, in consequence of our false economy in the way of troops and ships, was one of a very serious character. With those facts staring us in the face, it was monstrous and absurd to propose to sink a large outlay of money in the purchase of ground in this neighbourhood, and in the erection of new Government buildings. He was of Opinion that such a proposition was one which should not be for one moment entertained. Let the state of the Foreign Office be what it might, it might, no doubt, by the judicious expenditure of a very moderate sum, be touched up and made available for all useful purposes. It had gone on for a very long time, and would probably go on for many years longer. He was decidedly opposed to any irrational outlay of money on public buildings, when a portion of our territory was in danger. He hoped that the House would not sanction one shilling outlay for this purpose. He for one would give any such proposition his most determined opposition.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes 138; Noes 8: Majority 130.