HC Deb 30 July 1879 vol 248 cc1655-61
MR. E. JENKINS

rose to call attention to the present form of the buildings for the Natural History Museum at South Kensington. He had given Notice of a Resolution, which he could not, owing to the Forms of House, now move— That it appears from their existing state that a deception has been practised on this House in relation to the plans and estimates, and that a Select Committee be appointed to investigate the matter, with power to call for papers and to examine witnesses on oath, and to report to this House. He said he was sorry to stand between the House and the Committee of Supply; but the terms of his Motion were of such a startling character that he deemed it advisable to bring it forward at the earliest moment. In 1870 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Lowe), in answer to a Question from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Beresford Hope), said the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the disposal of the Natural History Collection at the British Museum, which recommended the erection of a Natural History Museum on the Thames Embankment, could not be carried out without taking a considerable quantity of ground belonging to the pleasure ground on the Embankment, and that no steps had been taken to carry out the Report. The Government for the time being were of opinion that a Natural History Museum would be better situate in the suburbs than in some central place in town, where people might conveniently get at it; and, consequently, that all-absorbing place, South Kensington, was selected as the site for a Natural History Museum. The original Estimate for £350,000 included a description of an entire building. The next reference to the building showed that that Estimate had not included fittings, and that the cost of the building would be increased by £45,000. After accepting certain estimates and plans the Government had been induced to make additions to them without first consulting Parliament. Last year an enormous Estimate was sprung upon the House for £171,000 odd for internal fittings, and that was only an approximate Estimate. He wished to know who was responsible for the deception of Parliament? He had seen the building the other day and found that the scaffolding was being stripped off before the two towers were completed—and without any intention of completing them—in order that the two annexes might be added to the building. Immense factories had been erected in the centre of the ground, for what purpose he knew not, except it might be to boil whales. The House had, year after year, been jockeyed into expenditure on South Kensington. It might have been desirable that that expenditure should take place; but the House had not been dealt fairly with. The matter was one of some importance, considering how much money had been spent on Museums at South Kensington.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, he had listened with much interest to the ingenuous speech of the hon. Member. It was refreshing to hear a young mind brought to hear upon the existing state of things with so slight a knowledge of the antecedent circumstances. The hon. Member had drawn a very formidable indictment against two delinquents whom he wished to crush—namely, the South Kensington authorities and Her Majesty's Government; only it was unfortunate that neither of them was at all concerned in the matter. The building in question was a branch of the British Museum, and the persons who had brought about the present state of affairs were the Members of the Liberal Governments under which the country had flourished till five years ago. Parliament became pledged to this particular way of dealing with these collections on one memorable occasion some 15 or 16 years ago—when Lord Palmerston, for one night only, left the Leadership of the House in the hands of his Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gladstone), who succeeded in inducing the House to purchase the site of the Exhibition building, and then tried hard to get them to buy the building itself also, only that they turbulently declined to make the purchase, notwithstanding the subsequent persuasion of Lord Palmerston, who, on return, pointed out that if they would only buy the building, and stick a little plaster on, it would make a very decent Natural History Museum. With regard to the Natural History Museum, it had much better have been placed on the Embankment. A forlorn hope was led in behalf of this good course by his noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), who obtained a Committee of the House to inquire into the matter. This Committee, on which he (Mr. Beresford Hope) served, reported favourably of the plan; but it was too late, and the plea of expense prevailed. Still, if it was necessary to erect the building at South. Kensington at all, it was much to be regretted that, owing to Mr. Ayrton's parsimony, it had been found necessary to build it in a hole. He believed that for no greater sum than £7,000 the ground on which the Museum stood might have been filled in to the level of the roadway. Part of the expenses of which the hon. Member complained was due, no doubt, to the fact that the design originally adopted was by Captain Fowkes, who was an engineer, and not an architect, and that, though clever, it was found to be impracticable, and that it was, consequently, necessary to commission the architect, Mr. Waterhouse, who had been called in to carry it out, to prepare an entirely fresh one. On the subject of the increased expense the House might, perhaps, be enlightened by the Government, who probably knew of the matter by tradition, or they might be informed by some Member of the Opposition who could speak from actual experience. He could not see what room there was for deception in the erection of a building ostentatiously carried out, with the full knowledge of successive Parliaments. If it was necessary to boil whales in the interests of science; it must be done, and even the hon. Member for Dundee could not do it in a tea-kettle. The building itself was to be a central school of science, in many of its most important branches, and not a place for furriers' refuse. The annexes, no doubt, were not specially artistic, and a great deal might be said against the buildings at the back, and in particular against the chimneys that had been made to look like bell towers; but, after all, the grand collection of the Museum would be exhibited satisfactorily, and then its first object would be gained. The question of cost was one that never could be settled à priori, but had to be determined by a tentative process. Probably too small a sum had been originally asked for. That was the whole grievance, and he trusted he had been able to throw some light on the subject.

MR. GERARD NOEL

maintained that the charge of deception had not been borne out by the facts the hon. Member had brought forward. The facts as to the plans and estimates were these. In 1864 architects were invited to compete with designs for the Natural History Museum, and the first premium was bestowed upon Captain Fowkes, who was directed to put himself into communication with the Trustees of the British Museum. Unfortunately, however, he died, and Mr. Waterhouse was appointed to carry out his plans. But when the matter was gone into further it was found that Captain Fowkes's plans were totally inadequate; and a printed Correspondence on the subject, which was moved for by the present Judge Advocate General, clearly showed that they were dropped and others substituted in their stead, and that Mr. Waterhouse was appointed architect. It also appeared that certain features of the original design were left out of the Estimate. The salary of the Clerk of the Works, to which exception had been taken, was not included in the original Estimate. As to the Estimates themselves, the first Vote taken was for a sum of £6,000; that was in 1868. But on the 2nd of August, 1870, when a further sum was asked for, it was stated in a foot-note that the total Estimate and the details of the scheme were then still under consideration. This was when Mr. Ayrton was First Commissioner and when Mr. Waterhouse was appointed architect. All this appeared upon the Papers, so that it was not true that Parliament had been deceived. Parliament had known exactly what had occurred from 1868 until the present time. In 1871–2 £40,000 was voted, and £350,000 was the sum named for the total Estimate. In 1872–3 a further sum was voted, and tenders were obtained which amounted to £395,000. Mr. Ayrton at that time struck out many details, among which were the central towers. The original contract had been made in 1868; but it was found in 1872 that since then the prices of labour and materials had risen, so that in 1873–4 the Estimates had to be revised, and £43,000 additional was added to cover the increased prices and to include the salary of the Clerk of the Works and the expenses of warming, ventilating, &c. In the present year, he (Mr. Gerard Noel) had moved to increase the Estimates by £14,000, on the ground that the building would be very incomplete and imperfect if the centre towers were not added, and the Vote was passed two or three months ago. As to the fittings, it had always been understood that those which were necessary for the accommodation of the specimens had never been included in the Estimate. The fittings to which the hon. Member alluded as being so included were doors and other things which were required in any ordinary house. The contract with Mr. Waterhouse expressly stated that it was made exclusive of fittings. With regard to the architectural design, he need not express any opinion, as it had been settled long before he had come into his present Office. He believed it, however, to be worthy of the British Museum and a credit to the architect.

MR. RYLANDS

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Beresford Hope), in a burst of his accustomed eloquence, has attempted to draw the attention of the House away from the main point which my hon. Friend had in view in bringing this matter forward. I am one of those who always listen to the criticisms of the hon. Gentleman with reference to questions of fine art and architecture, upon which he is necessarily so great an authority, with the greatest respect; and I am also not unwilling to make allowances for him for the pains he has taken on this occasion for throwing on the former Government the responsibility of the large expenditure which has been incurred on account of the Natural History Museum. The hon. Gentleman has gone out of his way to make an attack upon Mr. Ayrton in connection with these plans. I will, however, say this of Mr. Ayrton—that the country is very much indebted to the late First Commissioner of Works for the constant care and attention which he gave to the expenditure for national purposes, and the control which he brought to bear upon enthusiastic Gentlemen, who, like the hon. Gentleman opposite, are inclined to spend public money upon anything which appears to them to be good and useful in the most lavish way. But I venture to say that all the remarks which the hon. Gentleman has made with regard to national improvements of this sort are in no way questioned by my hon. Friend, and they are certainly not questioned by myself. I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely that in this sort of national expenditure it would be false economy to stand in the way of any arrangement that might be necessary for the proper care of such a Museum which is to give the opportunity to the public of taking advantage of studying these collections. Upon this point there is not the slightest question. But what is the question? It is not a question, let me say, between the political occupants of the Treasury Bench, whether on one side or the other. We are perfectly aware that when right hon. Gentlemen come into Office for a certain period they find permanent officials of the Government at the Offices. Those permanent officials are continually taking steps which often result in a very large expenditure for certain objects; and what we complain of is that the Government are misinformed by those permanent officials themselves, and, in consequence, bring Estimates before the House in such a manner as to keep the House without full information as to all the facts of the case. That is the complaint which my hon. Friend makes, and I must say that I think my hon. Friend has substantiated his complaint. It may be that the expenditure has been perfectly justifiable; but what we complain of is that the whole amount of the expenditure was not stated at first. It is no answer for the right hon. Gentleman to say that, owing to certain changes in the plans, there has been a considerable addition to the original Estimate. [Mr. GERARD NOEL: I did not say there had been any change of plan.] The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in correcting me. There is, practically, no change in the plan. The Estimate to which my hon. Friend called attention—the first Estimate of £350,000—was the plan which was approved by Mr. Water house; and, therefore, there is no question as to the previous plans which were adopted by the Government. Our complaint is, in terms, that the whole amount was not stated, and that when the House of Commons considered the matter there was a suppressio veri. We see that by the subsequent proceedings, and we are entitled to say that the Votes have been inconsistent with the statements made by the Department.

MR. GERARD NOEL

I said that the first contract was made in the year 1868, and that the tenders were invited in 1872—four years afterwards. During those years the price of terra cotta, labour, and other things, had risen, and there was also the salary of the Clerk of the Works.

MR. RYLANDS

It is true that the contract was made in the year 1868; but we are alluding to the year 1871. It was in the year 1871 that this Estimate of £350,000, for carrying out Mr. Water-house's plans, was accepted. That is the Estimate which was laid on the Table, and it was laid on the Table as the total Estimate for the work which had been decided upon, including the "architect's commission, salary of Clerk of the Works, fixtures, fittings, warming, lighting, ventilation, &c." Those are the words. Now, I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman. He certainly is not responsible, because it was done long before he came into Office. But I must say that I do not think any sufficient answer has been given to the complaint of my hon. Friend. I hope, now that the matter has been brought forward, the right hon. Gentleman will look more closely into the Estimates before giving information to the House.