CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS. (Hansard, 30 April 1866)

§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN
said, he was glad to see this Vote inserted in the Estimates, for it was quite time that the University of London should have not only a name, but a local habitation. He wished, however, to know where it was intended to erect the proposed building?

§ MR. COWPER
replied, that the site would be on the northern side of the garden of Burlington House. As Burling- 185 ton House had been purchased by the country for the purposes of science and art, it seemed to be a most appropriate spot for the erection of the London University.

§ MR. COWPER
said, the University of London had been of immense use in this country, and had rendered good service to the cause of education and science; but still, those whose attention had not been particularly drawn to the subject could see no building in which the University was maintained. It was at present located in the two wings of the court-yard of Burlington House, and the rooms were totally inadequate for the examinations annually conducted there. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary that further rooms should be provided, and it appeared essential that the University should be placed in a more commodious building. The University of London, he might remark, was founded in consequence of an address from that House to the Crown. It was founded by a charter, and was made a Government establishment from its very beginning. The Government undertook to provide a building in which I it might carry on its operations. It had been removed from Somerset House to Burlington House, and the time had now come when it was necessary that sufficient accommodation should be provided in the neighbourhood of that building.

§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN
thought a better site for the University might have been found on the new Thames Embankment, where every one might have been able to see the building.

§ MR. POWELL
asked, what architectural arrangements had been made.

§ MR. COWPER
said, that a calculation had been made as to the amount of accommodation that would be required, but no steps had yet been taken to obtain an architectural elevation. It was necessary to take a Vote before any decision could be come to.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
further asked, whether it was intended to take any pains at all as to the architecture?

§ MR. HENRY BAILLIE
thought the back of Burlington House was not a site worthy of such a building.

§ MR. TITE
said, the rooms now used by the University belonged to the Royal Society, and were used for the meetings of the Royal Society on Thursday evenings. All that the University wanted was a convenient building in which examinations might be held and degrees conferred. 186 Though he should like to see the building on the Thames Embankment, it was obvious that the central position of Burlington House, which was convenient of access, was well adapted to the purpose—indeed, he did not know of any better place.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
inquired how far the allotting of the ground in Cork Street for the London University would affect the removal, which had been long anticipated, of the National Gallery to Burlington House? Some years ago it was proposed to locate the National Gallery in Burlington House Gardens, and to leave the site in Trafalgar Square wholly to the Royal Academy; but this sensible and cheap plan had been overthrown in the House. It was then understood that the Royal Academy was to go to Burlington House Gardens, and that the National Gallery was to be rebuilt in Trafalgar Square, and although that did not seem to be quite the cheapest and most practical plan, at any rate it provided two sites for the two buildings. If the National Gallery was to be rebuilt, and the London University was to take the Cork Street front, what was to be done with the Royal Academy? Was it to go to Brompton to that large Yorkshire pie, which was to be called the Hall of Science and Art, in which a good many gentlemen had invested sums varying from a hundred to a thousand pounds, and which would, no doubt, be a source of great amusement, if, possibly, not of dividend? Where was the Royal Academy to be located if not in Burlington House Gardens or Trafalgar Square?

§ SIR LAWRENCE PALK
had been under the impression that this outlay of £20,000 was for the London University, but it had just been explained that it was merely for class-rooms, in which the University of London was to conduct its examinations.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
observed, that the University of London was only an examining body.

§ SIR LAWRENCE PALK
said, that rather strengthened his argument. The building was not to be of a character of any great magnificence. The requirements of the University were at present satisfied by the use of a large room in Burlington House; and, if so, he wanted to know how it could be necessary to spend £65,000 for any such purpose, and why it was necessary to fix upon one of the most valuable sites in London for the building?

MR. GOLDSMID
, as a graduate of the University of London, wished to say that the rooms it now occupied were totally inadequate for its purpose. Some of them who presented themselves for degrees were examined in a rifle shed; and some were sent to taverns and other places where they could not be under the eye of the examiner. There was a vast amount of business to be transacted daily by the registrar and other officers of the University, and the present rooms were totally inadequate for the purpose. In the course of a year there were some seventy or eighty examination days. The University required a building in a central, but not a noisy situation, and one that was easily accessible. It had been decided by successive Governments that the University ought to have a building of its own, in the same manner as the Queen's University in Ireland possessed one; and, as the University was dependent upon the House, it was a reasonable proposal to erect a building at a cost of £65,000, of which £20,000 was to be spent this year.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
said, that there was no objection to the University having a building, but there was an objection to that building occupying the site which it was expected that either the National Gallery or the Academy would have had. Thirty years ago, when University College was provided with a building, the design of Mr. Wilkins consisted of a centre and two deep wings. The wings were as yet unbuilt, he supposed because they had not yet been wanted; but now, why not build them and give them to the London University? That would be the most sensible and cheapest way of meeting the requirements of the University, and would be a compliment to its oldest College.

§ MR. CHILDERS
replied, that the students who came to the examinations at the London University came from many Colleges, and belonged to different religious denominations, and surely the hon. Gentleman would not wish the building used for those examinations to be made an adjunct to a College founded upon particular principles. Such a proposal would be most distasteful to the members of King's College; and it was one which had never before been suggested. Last year, the University examined more than 1,000 students, on thirteen different occasions, the examinations extending over fifty or sixty days. The accommodation now provided was entirely insufficient. The 188 University asked for proper rooms for meetings of the senate and for business offices, a large hall for examinations, which should not be less than the large hall in Burlington House, and a smaller examination hall, with the necessary class and anterooms. It would be impossible to construct a building to meet the requirements of the University for a less sum than that now asked for.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
was surprised to hear an argument which savoured so of religious intolerance proceeding from such a quarter, and did not see why physical contiguity should affect religious principles. If they built the walls thick enough between the old building and the new wings, there was no fear of the students of the Protestant King's College of London, or the Roman Catholic students of Oscott, being contaminated with any religious rinderpest. He mentioned the fact that he, who was, he flattered him self, not particularly latitudinarian, had been a party to negotiations for transferring an architectural museum to University College, as a good site for an artistic collection.

MR. OTWAY
had always understood that a considerable sum of money had been paid for Burlington House, and that the building now belonged to the nation. He had also always understood that the Royal Academy was to be established on that site; but if the Royal Society had acquired rights there, it would be well for the House to know the fact; and he thought that, before proceeding further, the House ought to be told more about the plan which was to be adopted.

§ MR. COWPER
observed, that the London University had enlarged its operations of late years. Its importance was daily increasing, and it was absolutely necessary that it should have a new building, where its examinations could be properly conducted. The estimate had been framed with the view of giving all the accommodation which the Senate of the London University required, and of constructing a building of such dignity as was befitting for a University. It was a mistake to suppose that the erection of this building in the Garden of Burlington House would at all interfere with the arrangements made with respect to the Royal Academy. The site was no less than three acres in extent, and the building would be erected, not on the Quadrangle, but on the northern side of Burlington Gardens. This was the site 189 which the authorities of the University most desired, while the Royal Academy only wanted the Piccadilly front. They did not wish to go to the Thames Embankment, where probably the noise would be so great that the business could not be properly conducted; nor did they desire to go to Grower Street, even supposing the site in that quarter were not private property. They wanted to have a Building of their own, and not to be associated with University College, for such an association would keep up the delusion that the London University was nothing but a College.

MR. BARING
confessed that he felt very jealous of any allotment on the site of Burlington House, for he thought that the requirements of the Royal Academy ought to be first considered. The Senate of the London University only wanted rooms on certain occasions, but the Royal Academy was a permanent institution, and was to be removed from another locality.

§ MR. COWPER
repeated, that the portion of the site proposed to be given to the Senate of the University of London was totally different from that on which the Building of the Royal Academy would be constructed, and that there was not the slightest danger of the two Buildings interfering with each other.

§ MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS
thought it would be very disadvantageous to the metropolis that the buildings on the important site in question should be overcrowded; and he wished to know whether the main building of Burlington House, facing Piccadilly, was to be devoted to the Royal Academy?

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
was of opinion that before this Vote was agreed to, the House should be in possession of some general scheme for occupying the ground facing Piccadilly and the Gardens behind. He thought it would be desirable for the Government to postpone the Vote for the present.

§ MR. TITE
said, that the arrangement with respect to the Royal Academy was, that their Building was to have a front next Piccadilly, with a row of galleries running along the east side of the ground. The Vote now under consideration referred to the appropriation of a portion of the Gardens on the west side.

§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE
observed, that already three or four different societies were located in Burlington House, and, as it was now proposed to have buildings in 190 Burlington Gardens, it became very important to know whether the available space would not be too crowded. It might, eventually, be found necessary to buy up houses in order to open the locality.

§ MR. REARDEN
suggested that the Vote should be deferred till a uniform scheme was produced for the whole building. At the same time, he must say anything would be an improvement on the dead wall which had so long disgraced Piccadilly.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
admitted that the suggestion for deferring this Vote till a scheme was produced for the disposal of the whole of Burlington House was certainly not in the face of it unreasonable. He ventured, however, to hope that the proposal would not be insisted on, for a reason which he would presently state. But, first of all, he must say that the caution about not crowding buildings, though very good and sound, must be taken with some reserve. The Government having expended large sums for the acquisition of valuable sites in London, a necessity existed for making an economical use of them. The country would not be satisfied if, after having given a large sum for Burlington House, although he thought it an extremely advantageous purchase, its accommodation were not properly taken advantage of. Besides providing for the University of London and the Royal Academy, the available space would do a great deal more. It was necessary to take this Vote, because the case of the University of London was urgent in point of time. If they were not allowed to take a Vote until they could produce a plan for the appropriation of the whole site, there would be a loss of a whole year, and even then the object in view would not be attained. The Royal Academy was going to build out of its own funds, and it would require a good deal of time to settle the mode of filling up the intermediate portion of the site. The great question related to the frontages to the north and south. Though great architectural questions might not be involved, there would be a good deal of adjustment and arrangement of details, involving either a very wasteful or economical apportionment of space. Suppose, for instance, that half a dozen learned societies held meetings more or less numerous, to propose that each should have halls adapted to its purpose would necessarily require a great deal of space. It might, however, be possible 191 to let the several bodies use the same large halls, but that arrangement would require a good deal of time. On that account he should like the Committee to pass this Vote. But he accompanied that with this arrangement. His right hon. Friend had already the ground plan prepared, and there would be no difficulty in immediately proceeding with the preparation of the designs, so as to give hon. Gentlemen what opportunities for criticism they might desire before any step was taken in the erection of the buildings.

§ GENERAL DUNNE
hoped the Vote would be postponed. He protested against the extravagant expenditure of money drawn in part from the taxation of Ireland upon the embellishment of London. He could not see why they should have selected so expensive a site for the London University. He could not see that the site offered any particular advantage, except its proximity to the Arcade and the Blue Posts; and, in fact, it would be better out of London.

§ MR. BENTINCK
wished to know who was to be the architect of these buildings? Burlington House was the work of a very eminent architect; and it would be a matter of very great regret if Lord Burlington's fine front were pulled down without something very good being substituted for it.

§ SIR LAWRENCE PALK
agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Burlington House was a valuable site, and ought to be made the most of; but could not conceive a more extraordinary proposal than that of having different styles for the two fronts. Surely the best plan would be to have one plan and one style of architecture. Burlington House ought not to be sacrificed, however, unless it was absolutely necessary, which he did not think had been proved.

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
did not attach so much importance to the two fronts being in one style, as they would be some distance apart. Burlington House was a fine specimen of its style, and every endeavour should be made to preserve it. He would throw out one more suggestion before this desultory discussion closed—that the First Commissioner of Works, who had acquired daily instalments of popularity in proportion as he had added architect upon architect to the competition for the New Courts of Justice, should make a sort of "Consolation Stakes" for the design of this University building wherever it might be placed for three or four of the architects 192 who had been excluded from the competition of those courts.

§ MR. READ
wished to know if he was correct in understanding that no plan had been drawn out?

§ GENERAL DUNNE
suggested that as only £10,000 was proposed for a similar object in Ireland the present Vote should be reduced to that sum.

§ MR. COWPER
, in explanation, said, the matter had occupied a great deal of his attention, and that of his architectural adviser, Mr. Pennethorne; and, though he had not thought it necessary to mature the plans before the House sanctioned the principle that the London University was to have an adequate building, he could assure the House that the plans would be completed before any of the work was commenced, and he would promise to place them within the reach of hon. Members, so as to show the portion that would be occupied by the Royal Academy on the southern side, that occupied by the London University at the northern end, and the intermediate space which would accommodate the learned societies. The plan might be executed at different times, but the whole would be settled before any part was commenced. The Royal Academy building would be designed by their own architect, subject to the approval of the Board of Works, and care would be taken that it harmonized in character and general arrangements with the University building. They need not be identical in style, but all the buildings that would cover the site would be viewed as one composition.

§ MR. BENTINCK
thought it would be much better to have but one architect for the whole building.

§ MR. COWPER
was surprised at the hon. Member's wishing to confine the work to one man, either by imposing the Board of Works' architect on the Royal Academy or vice versâ. It was surely sufficient to have the two architects work in concert.

§ MR. HENRY SEYMOUR
wished to know how far this system was to be continued, and whether the Government intended to propose grants for Colleges in all the large towns, like the Lyceums in France? He could not see what distinction could be drawn between the metropolis and other large towns, and, whereas he had always understood that only the education of the poor was to be aided out of the public purse, this grant introduced a new principle. If the London University was wanted, as he believed it was, and if the Government 193 withheld their hand, he was sure that benefactors would come forward as in the case of other great national institutions, and that a sufficient sum would be raised to locate it. At present it appeared to be an airy being, which, though it had a name, had no habitation.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the Vote did not involve the principle of grants towards the foundation of Colleges in London and elsewhere. The London University had been in existence some years, and was an essential part of the educational institutions of the country, and what was now proposed to be done was in reality only carrying out what Parliament had agreed to twenty-five years ago, but there was no intention of founding other establishments out of the public purse.

§ GENERAL DUNNE
had had no answer to his question as to the Vote to the London University being £67,000, while that to Ireland, under precisely similar circumstances, was only £10,000.

§ MR. CHILDERS
explained that the London University had from 1,000 to 1,100 students, while the Irish University had about 300, and the accommodation required for the two institutions was therefore very different.

§ MR. BENTINCK
, observing that this was a large sum of money, asked how it was to be laid out, and to what purpose it was proposed that the Chapter House, when restored, should be applied?

§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE
thought the Vote was a very moderate one, for the restoration of perhaps the most beautiful and venerable of our ecclesiastical buildings—a building in which that House had sat for 300 out of its 600 years, and which was therefore, as none other could be, identified with both Church and State. The I work of restoring it was promoted by Dean Trench and now by Dean Stanley, and it would, he thought, be a crying scandal if Parliament refused to carry that work into effect.

§ GENERAL DUNNE
wished to know to whom the Chapter House belonged.

§ MR. COWPER
said, it was the property of the Government, into whose hands it had come after the dissolution of the monasteries, when it was taken possession of 194 by the Crown. It had been used for a long time as a record office, but since the erection of the new building in Fetter Lane it was no longer required for that purpose, and it was thought desirable to restore the building.

§ MR. BENTINCK
asked, to what use it was intended to devote the building when restored? Was it to be given back to the Abbey, and who was the architect to be employed in its restoration?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
replied, that the Government deemed it to be their duty when asking the House from time to time to vote money for the construction of new buildings of befitting splendour not to lay themselves open to the charge of being guilty of waste, and barbarism by allowing one of the most beautiful edifices ever erected to remain unrestored to a state worthy of its origin, its authors, and the period to which it belonged. The Government had not entered upon the consideration of the use to which the building might be applied—and they now only asked the House to recognize the propriety of its restoration—and the House would be competent to pronounce any opinion it might please as to the use to which the building should hereafter be put. The architect to be employed was Mr. Scott, who, as the Committee was well aware, had devoted much of his time to the acquisition of a knowledge of the Abbey—which for many years had occupied the first place in his mind—and everything connected with it, and whose appointment, therefore, must be regarded as highly satisfactory.

§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN
took occasion to say that several complaints had been made of the irregularity of the Irish mails between London and Dublin, and also of the high rate of the fares charged between the two capitals, which were only a few shillings less than those charged between London and Cork. The contractors for the former service saved, he believed, 195 £20,000 a year, owing to their being able to evade the payment of the fines to which they were liable for non-punctuality in the performance of their contract, owing to the fact that the Harbour at Holyhead was not completed, and it was of importance, therefore, to know when the works would be finished and when the contract held by the service would expire.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, he could not say exactly at that moment when the contract would terminate. He had been in communication with the contractors with the view of fixing upon a proper system of penalties, and he hoped to make some arrangements on the subject which would be satisfactory. As to the works at Holyhead harbour their construction was attended with considerable difficulty. Of late there had been successful endeavours to carry out the contracts.

§ GENERAL DUNNE
hoped that in future good bargains would be made for the public, and that fines would be inflicted upon both the railway and the marine company for non-fulfilment of their respective contracts. Many works had been carried out for the purpose of facilitating landing, but he did not look upon them as permanent, as most likely they would be swept away some time or another; and, in fact, vessels moored to them were in danger every stormy night.

§ GENERAL DUNNE
wished to call attention to the small sum that was expended in Ireland for Parks and other public works. He admitted that the agricultural districts were equally neglected in this respect.

§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN
asked the Attorney General for Ireland whether there was any intention on the part of Government to erect a new Probate Court in Dublin? The question had been put by the hon. Member for Sligo to the Attorney General for Ireland last Session, and the reply was that the matter was then under the consideration of Government. He wished to know if any steps had been taken in the matter. The-existing Probate Court was universally condemned by the Judges, the bar, and the public.

§ MR. CHILDERS
, in the absence of the Attorney General for Ireland, could not give a full reply to the question.

§ GENERAL DUNNE
observed, that these buildings were very nearly completed. It was very important that the records should be got in at once, and, therefore, he hoped everything would be done to carry out that object.

§ MR. CHILDERS
could assure the hon. and gallant Member that everything that the Treasury could do to forward the completion of the buildings had been and should be done.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, that some difficulty had occurred in obtaining a desirable site for the erection of these buildings. The Government had asked for such a sum as would be necessary to carry out the building when a proper site was obtained.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, that the law had imposed upon Government the duty of repairing the canal, but had not directed in what manner they were to dispose of it when the repairs were completed. When completed it would have either to be sold or transferred to the counties. He expected, however, that some arrangement would shortly be come to in reference to it.