§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE,in rising to call attention to the annual expenditure on Public Offices and Buildings, said, he had given Notice of a Motion, which by the Rules of the House he was prevented from moving, to the effect that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the annual expenditure on Public Offices and Buildings in the Metropolis, and to see whether the adoption of a more comprehensive plan for the extension and improvement of the public buildings would not be more economical and advantageous than the present system. He wished to point out that the annual sum expended under the existing system of maintaining the higher public offices amounted altogether to not less than £36,000 or £37,000—that amount being wasted on buildings which were totally inadequate for the purposes of the State. That was quite an extravagant expenditure in view of the alternative of the more comprehensive system which he (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) wished to see carried out in regard to these public buildings. His argument in that direction might be easily enforced by reference to various Departments—the War Office, the Board of Trade, and so forth. The total number of offices was only 45. The War Office occupied about 17 different houses. But he would invite the House to weigh the opinions of Select Committees which had sat upon this subject. In 1831 there was an inquiry into the state of the Foreign Office buildings — the buildings generally in Downing Street occupied for public purposes—and the result was, that they were condemned. Between the years 1831 and 1853 some £24,970 was laid out on these houses in Downing Street, and he believed a similar amount had been laid out since; and yet a Committee which sat in 1855 condemned those buildings as being unfit for the purposes of the State. Before that Committee, of which Sir William Molesworth was Chairman, Mr. Pennethorne, an architect, gave evidence, in which he said—
The Foreign Office at present is in a very dilapidated condition. In fact, all the buildings round Downing Street are in a very bad state, because their foundations are on peat, and everyone of them has settled considerably. 725 All the heavy chimneys have sunk, and the walls having been shaken and split by the chimneys, are in such a state that. although the houses may stand for some time, for 20 or 30 years, they are not susceptible of alteration, and are not worthy of repair.Again, in 1858, the condition of the buildings in Downing Street was brought before a Committee. Before that Committee Mr. Hamond said—That in order to support the floor at any party there were forced to be props placed under the largo room; also under the staircase. When a ball was given the building was obliged to be shored up in Fludyer Street. All our floors on one side of the house are hanging from the roof. There is a large iron truss girder, and all the floors are suspended from it. We have had sometimes very unpleasent alarms from it. At this very moment under one of the rooms the arches are sprung very much indeed.Such was the state of Downing Street 20 years ago; the place was not fit to be inhabited then, and, though these houses were not worth the money expended on them, and a different system ought to be adopted, yet he believed that this year a large sum of money was laid out to make the house in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer resided fit for habitation. In 1868 the Committee over which his noble Friend the Postmaster General (Lord John Manners) presided, concluded their Report thus—The Committee are of opinion that it would be the truest economy, in the long run, for the State to acquire at the earliest opportunity at least the freehold of such adjacent property as will for some time be required for the public service; the system of bit by bit purchase is always the most expensive, as each successive acquisition materially raises the value of the residue.Mr. Hunt (now Sir Henry Hunt) expressed the same opinion, when he said—You ought to buy freeholds at once, otherwise you will have to pay a much larger price when you require the land; for if you buy the freeholds, as you pull down you raise the value of that which you leave, but if you buy it all at once, I think you do the public a great service.Lord John Manners's Committee also said that the Civil Departments should be all concentrated in a line with the Military and Naval Departments on the area bounded by Downing Street on the north, Great George Street on the south, Parliament Street widened by the incorporation of King Street on the east, and St. James's Park on the west. Sir 726 Henry Hunt proposed a much greater scheme, for when examined. before the Committee of 1855–6, he recommended the purchase of all the ground in the vicinity of the Houses of Parliament—not only all the block of houses between Downing Street, Great George Street, the Park, and Parliament Street, but also all the houses on the side next the river, where unfortunately, St. Stephen's Club and the new Opera House were now situated. Sir Henry Hunt was then asked—Supposing the public offices were concentrated on this site, what property do you think it would be desirable for the Government to take power to purchase in the immediate neighbeurhood?His answer was—The ground on the south side of Great George Street bounded by Princes Street on the west, the Broad Sanctuary on the south, and St. Margarets's Church on the east;And he continued—I think it desirable to include in any scheme Abingdon Street, Great College Street, and the houses abutting on Westminster School; also the ground near the Wellington Barracks, which is bounded by York Street and James Street.Sir Henry Hunt went on to say that Victoria Street had partially failed, because enough property was not bought—only sufficient for frontages. "Few people," he said, "will live in Victoria Street, overlooking the wretched property that exists there." All the ground on the south side of Great George Street up to Wellington Barracks Sir Henry Hunt estimated at £642,000. What we wanted was a concentration of the public offices, which Sir Richard Bromley had stated would result in the following advantages:—1. A saving of all the money paid for rent; 2. Economy on the amount annually paid for the repair of buildings; 3. A better arrangement of all public records; 4. Saving of time in the transaction of official business and greater convenience to the public; 5. A more prompt audit of public expenditure; and 6. General economy. Since 1868 there had been no Committee, and in spite of the excellent advice given by the Committee in that year, advice which he (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) entertained and desired to impress upon the House, we found now that even in Parliament Street all the houses had not been purchased up to Great George Street. Thus, by want of foresight and 727 of a comprehensive plan, we had added to the value of the property we required by the bit by bit system we had followed. The Foreign Office, upon which alone the sum of £24,000, already mentioned, had been twice expended since the year 1831, and the India Office were both full of blunders, which would not have occurred if the proper quantity of ground had been purchased in the first instance. The India Office had been aptly described by Lord Russell as containing windows that did not let in the light, and passages that led to nothing. There were passages in the same building which in the day time had to be lighted with gas. Neither would the offices have been built in their present form. It was because we had only a small piece of ground that we had to group as many as we could together. The whole of the property desired, not only up to Great George Street but as far as Westminster Abbey, might have been purchased for the sum of £4,000,000. After deducting £36,000 now spent in the hire of buildings, and about £300,000, which would probably be derived from the sale of certain public offices, the ultimate cost would be reduced, according to his own calculation, to about £3,000,000, for which amount adequate buildings might have been erected. The general feeling was opposed to the system of bit by bit purchase, even on economical considerations. Yet, in spite of the advice which had been given by the Committees to which reference had been made, we had still the old unsatisfactory state of things, and that, too, notwithstanding the enormous increase of business in recent years which rendered the adoption of a more comprehensive system all the more necessary. By the adoption of such a system there could be no doubt that for a sum of money which would be small when compared with what we expended under the existing system we could have a set of public offices which would be infinitely better than the present, and more worthy of the country. The adoption of a more comprehensive system, of the nature which he had indicated, would be attended with various advantages, both in the way of economy and the furtherance of Public Business, and he trusted that the matter would receive the attention of the Government and the House. He hoped the Government would appoint the Com- 728 mittee, and that its labours would do something to improve and beautify the metropolis. He thought that their public buildings ought not only to be an ornament to the metropolis, but a great education to the people.
§ SIR WILLIAM FRASERexpressed an earnest hope that the Government would grant the appointment of this Committee. Good might have been done if Dover House, between the Treasury and the Horse Guards, had been purchased, and the land lying between Parliament Street and Great George Street, and also between Parliament Street and the river. The official buildings of the country had not grown at all in proportion to the Public Business. It was quite necessary not only to give public servants adequate remuneration, but to place them in fairly suitable buildings in which to perform their work; he believed the country would not grudge the money requisite for both objects.
§ SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, the subject was well worthy the attention of the Government, and he thought both the House and the country were indebted to the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) for having brought it forward in the comprehensive and able manner in which he had. There was one point which he (Sir George Bowyer) hoped the Committee, if granted, would take into consideration—he meant the propriety of making public buildings loftier than was now the practice in this country. Land was very expensive, but air cost nothing, and a great deal of money would be saved by erecting buildings higher than was now the custom. A grand effect could not be produced without height. If buildings were made much higher, they would be more capacious, a great deal would be saved in area, and they would be more handsome. Even if the National Gallery were only made twice or three times its present height it would have a certain grandeur. The quadrangle of Windsor Castle was another of the public buildings of the country which was low, and which therefore lost much of the attraction and grandeur of aspect that would otherwise attach to it. This Motion might be considered a call to repentance as regarded the past, and its importance could not be better illustrated than by reference to what had occurred in regard to the site 729 for the New Courts of Law. An enormous area had been acquired; the houses, of which the rents constituted a considerable annual income, had been entirely cleared away, and the new buildings were not commenced for several years, so that they lost not only the rents, but also the interest on the purchase money, which had remained perfectly unproductive. He hoped that would be a warning against similar proceedings in future. He also hoped that one result of the appointment of the Committee would be the adoption of some plan of public buildings without so-called ornamentation, carving, or statues, and that thereby there would be a large saving to the public purse, and more useful and much handsomer buildings than had hitherto been erected.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that though it was true the Forms of the House would not allow his hon. Friend (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) to move, nor the House to proceed to the appointment of such a Committee as he asked for; yet he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was quite prepared to say, in answer to his observations, that the Government would be most happy to co-operate with him in the formation of such a Committee as he had suggested. It might be of very considerable use, and the time which his hon. Friend had chosen for bringing the subject under the consideration of the House was very suitable. He confessed he shared, in common with all Chancellors of the Exchequer, some dread when he heard plans for large and comprehensive public buildings discussed, and he confessed he was not so much impressed with that portion of his hon. Friend's argument as perhaps he expected with reference to the house in which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had the honour to reside. It was no doubt true, as his hon. Friend had said, that it had been condemned some years ago, but it had since done very good service, and was by no means to be considered as valueless to the country. At the same time, nobody could doubt that the time must come when some further changes must be made in our public buildings, and the longer they were delayed, the greater the price they would have to pay for the land ultimately to be occupied. Everyone who looked at the subject must feel the force of the argument as to the very 730 great annual expenditure incurred by renting buildings which were not only not the property of the Government, but scattered very inconveniently over different parts of the town, and in places unsuitable to the purposes to which they were put. Therefore, it was in the interests of true economy that they should deal with this subject in a bold and comprehensive way, keeping in mind the great maxims of economy which he would venture to remind the House ought to guide them as far as they could in this matter. He did not at all undervalue æsthetic considerations. Of course, if they were to have any great construction of offices, they must be suitable to the purpose for which they were intended, reasonably handsome, and appropriate to this part of this great metropolis; but, on the other hand, they must take care not to sacrifice higher considerations or lay too great stress on mere architectural display. He was sure this was the spirit in which his hon. Friend asked for a Committee. It was very heart-breaking when they had spent a large sum in erecting a building of architectural character, to find that two things might have been avoided if they had not uselessly sacrificed them to the fancy of some architect—money might have been saved, and more convenience might have been attained. He hoped the Committee would look carefully into the whole of this subject. He agreed with his hon. Friend that this was a very suitable time for looking into the question. It was some considerable period since there was any such inquiry by a Committee of that House; and in the interval some experience had been gained by the erection of the new Foreign Office, the India, and the Home Offices, There were unoccupied and unfinished portions of buildings to be dealt with, and there was unoccupied ground in the immediate vicinity of the India Office which it was undesirable to leave unoccupied longer than could be helped. The Government would be willing to have a Committee constituted with an intention and Instruction to inquire into the most useful and, at the same time, the most suitable way of providing for the wants of the public Departments, and laying down a plan on which Parliament could act with some consistency. Schemes were proposed, talked over, and sometimes adopted, and sometimes notices 731 were given for the acquisition of land, and, after all, some uneasiness was felt on the score of expense, the matter stood over, and afterwards property had to be acquired at a higher price than would have been given in the first instance. If his hon. Friend would give Notice for an early day, say Monday, of a Motion for a Committee, the Government would assent to it and co-operate with him in the formation of the Committee. In conclusion, he thanked the hon. Member for bringing the subject forward and for the manner in which he had introduced it.