§ (In the Committee.)
§ (1.) £40,000, to complete the sum for Public Offices Site.
§ MR. BOWRINGsaid, he entirely agreed with what had been said the other evening by the hon. Member for 1201 Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) on this subject. When property was to be acquired by the Government, it was most desirable that its acquisition should be made at once, not piecemeal. In the present instance the original estimate had been £104,000; and the revised estimate now reached £147,000.
§ MR. AYRTONexplained that there was an error in the revised estimate. It should be £129,999.
§ MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he had put a Notice on the Paper to urge that this Vote should not be proceeded with until the Committee had a little more information in regard to it. A large question was involved which had been before the House for some years. About twelve years ago it was proposed to rebuild the Foreign Office on account of its dilapidated state. A long discussion ensued, and a great many plans were brought forward. A portion of the land on the other side of Parliament Street was purchased, including part of Fludyer Street and Gardiner's Lane. In 1857, a scheme, almost identical with that of last year, was brought forward. That scheme, of which the expense approached £11,000,000 or £12,000,000, for purchasing the whole property from the Horse Guards to Great George Street, and covering it with public offices, was wholly rejected. The plan was so extravagant—it reached to the Thames and comprised a flower garden. In 1865, the late First Commissioner brought forward another Bill for the extension of the purchase of land from Gardiner's Lane, stating that there was no intention of running into the great scheme of eight years before. The whole expense was then limited to £30,000. In 1866, a short Bill was brought in at the end of the Session by the present First Lord of the Admiralty, then Secretary to the Treasury, for a small acquisition of land. He asked for £20,000, and the estimate for the completion of the purchase was £12,000. In 1866 there was another estimate for £84,000, but no plan was laid on the table. In 1867, the sum which appeared in the Estimates was £104,000. But in the interim a new plan had been discovered by accident, and the great scheme of ten or twelve years ago was to be promoted again. Notices were given and plans deposited in the Private Bill Office for purchasing the whole property right down to Great George Street. This scheme, as he had 1202 stated, would involve the expenditure of from £11,000,000 to £12,000,000. Persons holding very high positions in the existing Government had gone fully into the question, and said it would be a most unwise thing for any Committee to sanction such a scheme without a full statement of what the expenditure contemplated would be, and until plans were laid on the Table. Unless the House looked carefully at what they were about to do, they would find themselves committed by that Vote and by the measure introduced by the Government to an expenditure equal to what had been incurred for the Abyssinian War. They ought to pause before agreeing to a Vote like that, in the total absence of any plans or estimates. Public Business did not require palaces for its transaction; all that was wanted was good public offices. It might be a fine thing to remove St. Margaret's Church because it obstructed the view, but the question was whether the outlay was prudent and desirable. They had the ground requisite for building the Colonial Office and the Home Office, and he denied the necessity of going further with that scheme before those two new public offices were touched. Parliament had not yet assented to that enormous expenditure, and now was the time for them to make a stand on the matter. The Foreign Office and the Indian Office had taken ten or twelve years to complete. There was an equal time before them to complete the Home and Colonial Offices, and until that was done he hoped the Government would not proceed with that Vote, especially as the Committee had no plans and estimates before them, and were, therefore, entirely in the dark.
§ MR. LAYARDsaid, the hon. Gentleman had mixed up two things that were entirely distinct. The present Vote was asked to purchase the site for completing the quadrangle, one-half of which only had been erected, that half containing the Foreign and the India Offices. The Act on the subject was passed, in 1865, and unless the property was purchased this year, the notices which had been served would lapse. Last year Parliament voted £10,000 for the foundations of those two buildings. Those foundations were now laid, and the next Vote to the one now under discussion was a further sum to erect those buildings. Therefore, the Vote now asked for was 1203 merely to complete the purchase of the site required for those buildings which had been authorized by Act of Parliament. Beyond that there was a scheme for purchasing additional land, with respect to which he had introduced a Bill that had been read the second time, and which would to-morrow be considered in Committee upstairs. When that Bill came from the Select Committee it would be brought before the House, and the House would then have a full opportunity of discussing it on its merits, and he would be prepared to state what land the Government proposed to take. He wholly denied, however, that either he or the noble Lord who preceded him in his office (Lord John Manners) ever contemplated an expenditure like that incurred in the Abyssinian War. He thought, indeed, that the expenditure upon the new Foreign Office had been of a lavish and scandalous character; but the estimates for the new Home and Colonial Offices had been subjected to the strictest examination, and he trusted that in regard to the erection of those two buildings there would be no such just ground of complaint.
§ MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he must express himself still dissatisfied. The House ought to be furnished with a plan and an estimate.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought that if the foundations of the Home Office and Colonial Office had already been laid, the future line of King Street must now be determined. He should wish to know whether it was proposed to remove the whole of the block of buildings between King Street and Parliament Street?
§ MR. LAYARDsaid, it was only contemplated to remove a portion of that block at present. Parliament had always contemplated the eventual removal of the King Street block.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he wished to know how far the present Government intended to adopt the scheme of the Treasury Commission appointed in 1866–7, by which an expenditure of £3,300,000 was contemplated. By that scheme it was proposed to put a stop to the ever-increasing demands for hired offices, where the business of the country was conducted under the greatest inconveniences. The Commission was originally appointed in 1866 by the Government of Lord Russell, and it continued its labours under that of Lord 1204 Derby. In 1868, it made its Report to the Treasury, and in accordance with the recommendations in that Report notice was given of the intention of the Government to purchase the block between King Street and Parliament Street, and the announcement of that intention on the part of the Government had been received with satisfaction by both sides of the House. The matter was then left in an advanced stage in the hands of their successors in Office, but up to the present moment he had been unable to ascertain what was the intention of the present Government with respect to the purchase of the King Street block. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Layard) was unable, owing to the late hour, to enter fully into this subject when he moved the second reading of the Public Offices Bill. However, from a map which he had been shown by the right hon. Gentleman, he found that the Government proposed to take only half the property which it had been the intention of the late Government to acquire; but whether that was a permanent or only a temporary arrangement he had been unable to ascertain. The object that the Commission had in view was the continuity of the works, and to avoid anything like a hand-to-hand and bit-by-bit purchase of land for the erection of public buildings. The purpose for which this particular Vote was asked had been sanctioned over and over again by Parliament and by Committees of that House, and he hoped it would now be voted without a division.
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, he wished to know what it was the Committee were voting? He admitted the necessity for the proposed new building; but was it necessary that £48,000 should be expended in clearing the space in front of the buildings?
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, the sum asked for the purchase of this property appeared to have grown from £30,000 to £147,000.
§ MR. LAYARDsaid, that the Committee were now asked to vote a sum to complete the buildings that had been already partly erected. In order to finish these buildings it was necessary that a portion of the King Street block should be purchased.
§ MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that Sir Charles Wood had stated that the House had formerly rejected the scheme of Lord 1205 Llanover to purchase all the buildings between Downing Street and Great George Street, and that the Government were merely seeking to purchase only the amount of property absolutely necessary for the erection of the buildings. The cost of the site, it was added, would be only £30,000, and what he had now to complain of was that the estimate had increased from £30,000 to £147,000. Before the Committee granted money in that reckless way, they ought, he contended, to have some plan before them to show what was actually going to be done.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he was not in the slightest degree surprised to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney); because, when he (Mr. Ayrton) sat below the Gangway, no one had commented more freely than he had done on the conduct of successive Governments in obtaining Votes of money from that House. He hoped, however, that such schedules as that which he had caused to be attached to the present Vote would place the House in possession of the actual state of affairs, and that thus a repetition of what he had frequently witnessed during the progress of Committees of Supply would be avoided. The Committee had, no doubt, in the present instance, been led to sanction a very large expenditure, without being conscious on several occasions of what it was doing. Not only, he might add, had an Act been passed for the acquisition of the property in question, but Votes of money had been taken in previous Committees of Supply for the purpose. The gross amount of Votes and re-Votes, up to March, 1868, was £167,000. That money had not been expended, because the compensation to be paid to the owners of different plots of ground had not been ascertained; but the property had been accurately described by his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works as being required to complete the surroundings of the new buildings. It might be very fairly said that there was a great want of foresight on the part of the Government of the day in giving an undertaking that the land required for the completion of the buildings would only cost £30,000; but whatever might have been the blunders of the past, we had come to the point that those buildings must be erected, and, being erected at a proper elevation 1206 must have a sufficient space around them for the purposes of light and air. He would only say, further, that, in agreeing to the present Vote, the Committee would in no degree be pledging itself to the Bill now before the House for the further extension of the design.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he would leave the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hampshire (Mr. W. F. Cowper) to settle with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken as to the gross blunder which he seemed to think had been committed in fixing upon the estimate of £30,000. The hon. Gentleman was, however, he thought, wrong in saying that the House would not be committed to the plan of the late Government. In passing the present Vote the Committee would be pledging itself to the project of carrying on King Street in a new line, for the foundations of the new Home Office were to be laid in the middle of that street.
§ MR. W. F. COWPERsaid, he thought the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ayrton) could scarcely have taken the trouble to make himself acquainted with the facts of the case when he referred to the estimate of £30,000 as being attributable to a gross blunder. It was capable of a very different explanation. The £129,000 embraced two different Votes for land in four streets, the first being only for a sum of £30,000 for land in Charles Street and Gardiner's Lane. An estimate for building, based on a proper contract, ought never to be exceeded, but the cost of the purchase of land depended on the verdict of juries. It might have been convenient if all the money had been voted in one year, but the amount to be so appropriated in each year was limited. It was clear from experience that to buy land rapidly was to buy it expensively. Time was required for negotiation. When the Downing Street site was bought it was at first contemplated that King Street should remain, but this arrangement would have spoilt the plan, and given an inadequate frontage to Parliament Street; and the right thing to do was to bring the front of the new Foreign Office into continuation with the line of the new Treasury building. Trafalgar Square and Parliament Street ought to be united by a broad and wide street worthy of the capital of this great Empire. He understood that the freeholds of the houses required in King Street 1207 were bought, and that the leaseholds only remain.
§ MR. MONKsaid, he wished to know if the whole of the foundations had been laid. If so, it appeared that the Vote was not required for the site of the Government Offices, but to clear the lands around them. He should like to know what was proposed to be done with the present Home Office and the Board of Trade.
§ MR. LAYARDsaid, that part of this sum—namely, £13,000, was a re-vote of a sum granted last Session, but which had not been expended. The sum was for the block of buildings in Parliament Street, between Whitehall, King Street, and Charles Street, and the demolition of which had already been authorized by Parliament. The amount really required for the purchase of the remainder of the site was not £48,000, but only £35,000. The money was wanted to buy a few houses in Charles Street, and the block ended by Upper Charles Street, so that the view of the new Offices might not be shut out.
§ MR. CANDLISHsaid, he objected to this bit-by-bit purchase of land for public offices, and thought that the Vote should be postponed until the House could see the Bill. It seemed probable that they would be asked to purchase the houses on the western side of Parliament Street, in order that it might not be a screen to the nobler and handsomer building behind.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, this was a re-enactment of a comedy that had been performed there on many former occasions. Whenever there was a new Ministry there was a new policy with regard to public buildings. He wished to know to what extent the Government were pledged. During the last Ministry an architect was appointed to prepare a design for a public building, and a great scheme was shadowed out. But that scheme fell to the ground, and he did not think that further money should be granted till a distinct policy was arrived at with regard to the public buildings. Dover House had lately been acquired by the Government, and it was desirable it should be known whether it was intended to incorporate Dover House with the Treasury buildings.
§ MR. MILLERsaid, he wished to know what would be the cost of the alteration of King Street? He believed that it would 1208 amount to a large sum, as the whole of the buildings between King Street and Parliament Street were, as he understood, to be swept away. It occurred to him that keeping the new buildings a little further back, so as not to intrude upon King Street at all, would have saved a very large sum of money.
§ MR. WHITWELLsaid, he thought the House was entitled to know what the expenditure on the surroundings would amount to.
§ MR. LAYARDsaid, there was no question before the Committee as to the purchase of Dover House, nor of any land or buildings beyond the block of houses in King Street which he had described. The late Government were prepared to recommend the purchase of the whole site between George Street, Delahay Street, and the Park. There was a plan of the late Government as to the space between George Street and Delahay Street. But bypassing this Vote the Committee would pledge itself to nothing but the completion of that for which money had already been voted. It would be impossible to finish the Home and Colonial Offices without removing the block of buildings between Parliament Street and Upper Charles Street. He was not responsible for this purchase; he found the scheme in progress, and the foundations of the buildings already laid.
§ MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he would venture to say that no one understood what they were voting the money for, nor could they do so unless a distinct plan were laid before them.
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, he wished to know whether, as an encroachment had been made on King Street by bringing forward the new buildings, it was intended that there should be a new King Street, and what would be the cost?
§ MR. LAYARDsaid, he thought he had already answered that question. The remainder of King Street would remain as at present. The late Government had appointed a Commission which recommended that the remainder of King Street and the block of buildings between that street and Parliament Street should be purchased, and a Bill for carrying out this part of the scheme was now before a Committee. The estimates for that purchase were contained in the Commissioners' Report. The purchase of the whole property between Parliament Street and the Park 1209 was estimated at £1,200,000, but there was no intention on the part of the present Government to recommend the House to go to that expense.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he had a firm conviction, if the policy of the present Government as he understood it was carried out, in a very few years the country would have to pay a far greater sum than if the proposal of the Commission were adopted. Had the right hon. Gentleman been proposing a new Vote he, no doubt, would have been prepared with a plan, but it was clearly unnecessary to produce plans for a scheme already sanctioned by Parliament.
§ MR. W. F. COWPERsaid, the plan in question had been laid before Committees of the House of Commons in 1865 and 1866.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (2.) £22,000, to complete the sum for New Home and Colonial Offices.
§ (3.) £20,000, to complete the sum for Public Record Repository.
§ (4.) £2,435, to complete the sum for Chapter House, Westminster.
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, he wished to know how it was that the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, who formed a very wealthy body, were not left to repair and decorate their own Chapter House?
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, perhaps the hon. Member would be satisfied when he was informed that for 600 years the Dean and Chapter had had nothing whatever to do with the Chapter House, and Parliament everything. For about 300 years the Chapter House had been the House of Commons, and when 300 years ago St. Stephen's Chapel had been converted into a House of Commons the Chapter House was not returned to the Dean and Chapter, but was used as a Record office. The result was that one of the finest buildings in the country had been brought to a state of ruin. A few years ago the nation undertook to restore it, and year after year Parliament had cheerfully voted the money, and now the building was nearly completed. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the reason of the vote being decreased by £2,000. He hoped there was no attempt at cheese-paring or scamping the work.
§ MR. LAYARDsaid, that he was under the impression that the decrease arose 1210 from the fact that the painted windows had not been executed.
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he doubted whether the work could be called a "restoration," for he did not think the building had ever been like what it was now.
§ MR. CANDLISHsaid, he wished to know whether this Vote would complete the work?
§ MR. LAYARDsaid, he expected that it would do so, with the exception of the painted windows, which was a matter for future consideration. The sum of £25,000 had been granted for the restoration, and the present Vote exhausted that sum.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
(5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £5,264, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for Expenses connected with the Probate Court and Registries.
§ MR. LAYARDreplied that he had no personal knowledge of the matter, and that, therefore, the question had. better be put to the Secretary for the Home Office on the bringing up of the Report.
§ MR. MONKsaid, as no reply was vouchsafed to the question that had been put he should move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £238, the additional sum asked for cleaning.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £5,026, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for Expenses connected with the Probate Court and Registries."— (Mr. Monk.)
§ MR. W. F. COWPERsaid, that as the Offices of the Registrar would shortly have to be moved to the new Courts of Justice, he should move that the Vote be reduced by the sum asked for providing additional accommodation for that Office.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. W. F. COWPERmoved that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,500. 1211 He did so, he said, because he thought it would be unwise to grant money for the erection of a building to contain certain documents before it was decided whether that building would be devoted to such a purpose or not.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,764, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment daring the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for Expenses connected with the Probate Court and Registries."—(Mr. William Cowper.)
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he should admit the force of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks as applied to an original outlay under circumstances like the present; but that which the Committee were now invited to do was simply to vote £1,500 for the purpose of completing a work on which £16,500 had already been expended.
§ MR. GOLDNEYpointed out that the original estimate was only £11,000, whereas £16,500 had been laid out on the building. The question was whether it would not be the wisest course to pursue not to go further in such an expenditure under all the circumstances of the case?
§ MR LOCKEsaid, he was of opinion that as the building was nearly completed, it ought to be finished. If it were not used for this purpose it might be for some other.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the £1,500 were not required to complete the building, but to make an addition to that already completed—an addition which might never be required.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, the Vote was really for additions to the principal Registry.
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he thought the money already expended would have been thrown away if the further trifling sum of £1,500 were refused for the completion of the building and the rendering it thoroughly useful.
§ MR. LAYARDsaid, the Estimate was not his. He found it prepared by the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners), when he came into Office.
§ MR. GOLDNEYsaid, it was necessary some plan should be adopted to stop 1212 these increased expenditures over estimates.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 137: Majority 71.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (6.) £19,048, to complete the sum for Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland.
§ (7.) £46,000, to complete the sum for National Gallery Enlargement.
§ (8.) £20,000, to complete the sum for University of London (Buildings).
§ (9.) £13,000, to complete the sum for Glasgow University.
§ (10.) £7,000, to complete the Industrial Museum, Edinburgh.
§ MR. LOCKE KINGsaid, he thought the City of Edinburgh should provide for its own museums. In the absence of any statement or explanation he thought that the sum should not be granted.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the late Government made an agreement with the Town Council of Edinburgh that if they would widen a street in the neighbourhood of the museum the Government would propose a Vote for increasing it to a certain extent. The Town Council complied with the condition, and the present Vote was, therefore, a matter of good faith.
§ MR. CANDLISHsaid, that if a Government entered into engagements of this kind they took away the option from the House of Commons, which had not been consulted in the matter.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the agreement bound the Government to submit the Vote to this House, and to support it. If one Government did not accept the bargains made by another, within certain limits, people and public bodies would refuse to deal with any Government.
§ MR. W. H. GREGORYsaid, he thought that when so much public money was spent upon London, they ought not to be too chary in respect to giving money to be expended in the capitals of Edinburgh and Dublin.
§ MR. MILLERsaid, that the money asked for was not for widening the street, but for the Industrial Museum attached to the College. The Town 1213 Council agreed with the late Government to spend some £50,000 in widening the street.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that when the late Government came into Office the negotiations on this subject were going on, and it was found impossible to enlarge the Museum, unless the miserable street in question was altered.
§ COLONEL SYKESsaid, that the Vote was for the extension of the Industrial Museum, and as they had been liberal in granting money for the British Museum and for the Kensington Museum, they could not refuse some aid to the capital of Scotland.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
(11.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £54,834, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for erecting a new Building on the site of the wings of Burlington House and for New Buildings for the occupation of various Learned Bodies.
§ MR. GOLDNEYasked what amount they were going to spend upon these buildings. It was originally agreed to give accommodation to three learned societies at Burlington House, and the accommodation ought either to be extended to other learned societies or the amount should be reduced. He moved to reduce the Vote by £18,000.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £36,834, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for erecting a new Building on the site of the wings of Burlington House and for New Buildings for the occupation of various Learned Bodies."—(Mr. Goldney.)
§ MR. LAYARDsaid, accommodation had been provided in Burlington House for six learned societies. The question had already been discussed, and the House had decided that these buildings should be erected, and they were now being erected.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. GOLDNEYproposed to reduce the Vote by £6,194, the sum that had been incurred in the purchase of certain chambers in the Albany, the light of which had been interfered with by the new buildings.
§ MR. LAYARDsaid, that the difficulty was one that could not well have been foreseen by the architect, and had only arisen after the commencement of the building. The claim was so doubtful that it had to be decided by a court of law.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, though the chambers had been purchased they would be either re-sold or re-let, and the ultimate loss would be a very small one.
§
Motion made, and Question put,
That a sum, not exceeding £48,640, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for erecting a new Building on the site of the wings of Burlington House and for New Buildings for the occupation of various Learned Bodies."—(Mr. Goldney.)
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 118: Majority 39.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
§ Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.