§ (1.) £31,745, to complete the sum for Royal Palaces and Marlborough House.
§ (2.) £76,064, to complete the sum for Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens.
226§ MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)thanked the Secretary to the Treasury for the very clear and useful Memorandum he had issued dealing with these Votes. With regard to Bushey Park, which came under the Vote before the Committee, he wished to mention that complaints had been made of damage done in the Park by shooting parties. He thought those shooting parties should be stopped, and that the Park, which belonged to the people, should be given to the people, instead of to some members of the Royal Family.
§ *SIR RICHARD TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)hoped his right lion. Friend the First Commissioner of Works would take that opportunity of explaining the arrangements he had made for the admission of the public of Kingston and Surbiton to the Home Park at Hampton Court under certain reservations. In the interview which the right hon. Gentleman had been good enough to give to a deputation which he had had the honour of introducing, the right hon. Gentleman gave, in general terms, a very kindly reply to the request of the deputation; and, no doubt, he had been able since then to bring the arrangements for the opening of the Home Park to a satisfactory conclusion. He also desired to urge on the right hon. Gentleman the opening of Kew Gardens at an earlier hour than noon to the general public. The only persons admitted to the Gardens between 10 o'clock and 12 were members of artistic and scientific associations, who received special tickets from the Director. He was as alive to artistic and scientific considerations as any man, and he did not think that scientific research or artistic research in the Gardens would be interfered with by the admission of the public at an earlier hour than at present. The objection that it would entail additional expense might be raised. He would be sorry to make any recommendation which would involve additional cost; but he could not help thinking that if there was any real desire on the part of the authorities to admit the public to the Gardens between 10 and 12, no means would be found to carry it out without any appreciable extra expenditure.
§ *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE,) Bradford, CentralI have great pleasure in 227 being able to take this opportunity of informing the Committee that I have the permission of the Queen to say that Her Majesty has given her approval to the throwing open of Hampton Court Park to the public. I think that this will be recognised as a great boon, not only by the inhabitants of Kingston and Surbiton and the surrounding neighbourhood, but also by the public of London generally, who visit Hampton Court in large numbers, especially on Sundays. The Park consists of about 500 acres, and has some magnificent avenues planted by Charles H. Hitherto the public has been excluded from the Park, but now, with the exception of two or three meadows by the river side, which are not suitable, the whole will be thrown open to the public. As there are no roads at present, the Park will be open only to pedestrians. An additional expense will be entailed for park-keepers and in making access to the Park; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has willingly assented to this addition to the public cost. It will not be necessary, however, to apply for a Supplementary Estimate during the present Session. I may say that Her Majesty opened the Hampton Court Gardens to the public early in her reign, and she opened Kew Gardens about the same time, so that in now opening the Park at Hampton Court Her Majesty is only carrying out the policy she has pursued all through her reign. As to Kew Gardens, I am afraid that I cannot give an answer which will be thought to be so satisfactory. The earlier opening of these Gardens would be attended with additional expense, and I think that the hon. Baronet ought to be satisfied with the intimation I have just made as to Hampton Court Park, and not expect the Government to incur additional expenditure at Kew. To the question asked by the hon. Member for Peterborough I hope to be able to give a satisfactory reply. The sporting rights in Bushey Park are vested in the Queen, and I have no more right to interfere with them than I would have to interfere with the rights of any private individual with respect to private property. Her Majesty gives the sporting rights to her friends, and of late years the right of shooting has been granted to Baron Pawel Rammingen.
§ MR. A. C. MORTONWho is he?
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREHe is the husband of the Princess Frederica, a near relation to the Queen. In the course of last winter a member of a shooting party authorised by the Baron unfortunately shot a young man in the park. When the incident came to my notice, and having regard to the use made by the public of the Park I thought it desirable that the preservation of game should be discontinued, I brought the subject to the attention of the Queen. With that consideration for the public which she always shows, Her Majesty took the same view of the matter. Her Majesty has withdrawn the permission to shoot from the Baron, and the preservation of game in the Park for shooting purposes has come to an end.
§ MR. FREEMAN-MITFORD (Warwick, Stratford)hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to his decision not to open Kew Gardens earlier. There was absolutely no necessity for the early opening of the Gardens. The Gardens contained the finest botanical collection in the world. Scientists visited it from all parts for the purposes of study, and it would be impossible for that state of things to continue if the Gardens were opened two hours earlier simply for the benefit of the children and the nursemaids. Besides, it would be a more costly arrangement than at first sight appeared, and if any additional expense was to be incurred on this head it should be borne by the ratepayers of the district, and not by the general rates.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 3. £33,095, to complete the sum for Houses of Parliament Buildings.
§ MR. R. G. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)said, that under this Vote the question of the accommodation of Members within the House had been often discussed; but the subject of the alteration of the House had never been closely considered. In 1867–8 a strong Committee was appointed by the House to investigate this matter, and among other recommendations that Committee received was one from Mr. Edward Barry, who stated that the House could be rebuilt during the Recess for a sum of about £120,000 so as to give accommodation for 569 Members, whereas now they were only able to seat 430 Members. They were told that the House was not always full 229 —for instance, during the discusiion of the Estimates and other matters; but whenever an important discussion took place the House was not near large enough to afford accommodation for the Members, many of whom had to stand below the Bar and behind the Speaker's Chair. Again, the acoustic properties of that building were not very good, one reason for that being that beneath the House there was a Chamber six feet in depth, and the voices of speakers descended to that cavernous region. By the alterations suggested by Mr. Barry, this cavernous region would be done away with, and the ventilation would be greatly improved. At the present time the air of the House was not so pure as it might; be; but the alterations which Mr. Barry recommended would remedy this. The Report of the Committee went on to show that the present House could be Utilised as a new Lobby for the use of Members only, and outside this Lobby a number of rooms could be provided for the officers of the House. This in itself would be a desirable improvement, because, at the present time, the offices were very much scattered and consequently inconvenient. Again, the proposed alterations would give 12 or 14 more seats for the Press, and would give increased accommodation —which was much required —in the Ladies' Gallery, the ventilation of which would also be improved. The inconvenience caused to hon. Members by the inadequacy of the accommodation would be amply illustrated during the discussion which would take place in the ensuing mouth; and he thought that, instead of the question being relegated to the next Session, it should be at once dealt with. In no proposal which was made to the Committee was it ever suggested that there should be a tribune; but it was always understood that Members should address the House from their places. It was found that a building could be erected with sufficiently good acoustic properties as to enable Members to be heard from their places as easily as now, whilst, giving accommodation to between 500 and 600 Members. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether, in some way or other before the meeting of Parliament next year, some steps could not be taken to do away with the 230 present serious inconvenience to which hon. Members were subject?
§ MR. FREEMAN-MITFORDcalled attention to the scarcity of lockers in the House, and stated that accommodation in this respect was very much needed by hon. Members.
§ MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke), alluding to the lighting of the Library and the Reading Room, expressed the opinion that the electric lighting required shading. Nothing hurt the eyes more than electric lighting which was not properly shaded. In the Library, although the light was very good, and one could see in any part of the room, there was no shading whatever, so that the light was very hurtful to the eyes. He hoped the First Commissioner of Works would order some shading to be put up, and then the light would be exceedingly good. There was another matter which he wished to mention. He could not understand why, after a Division, Members were allowed to go into the outer Lobby, but were then not allowed to go outside. He failed to see why the outer door should not be opened, because after Members had gone through a Division no harm could possibly be done, whilst it would be a great convenience to hon. Members if they were then allowed to go out.
§ MR. WILLIAM SIDEBOTTOM (Derbyshire, High Peak)complained of the insufficiency of the accommodation provided in the Newspaper and Tea Rooms. In either room one could not sit in any place without being in a draught, and the rooms were far too small, one being merely a passage. He suggested that some other room of a more commodious character should be obtained for the convenience of Members who desired to read the newspapers.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the wishes of the hon. Member could easily be met if the First Commissioner of Works would agree to place the newspapers in the present Smoking Room, and give the smokers the Tea Room and the present Newspaper Room. This very proposal was agreed to at one time; but, after it was agreed to, the late Mr. Beresford Hope got up a sort of memorial on the subject, and it was stated that the smoke might penetrate into the House itself if the smokers were allowed to use those rooms. Un- 231 doubtedly the present Smoking Room was a great deal too small; and while there was generally plenty of room in the Reading Room, it very often happened that there was not even standing accommodation in the Smoking Room. When the present room was granted to the smokers it was recognised that it was too small, and it was arranged that they should also have a Committee Room of the House of Lords. He did not know why the latter room had been taken from them, but they had lost it. It was suggested that there was a little room downstairs which they could use. But the poor smokers did not want to be put in cells downstairs like criminals, nor did they want to go on reading newspapers all day; but they wanted to go on smoking, and they ought to have sufficient accommodation for that purpose.
§ MR. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not listen to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Northampton. He confessed himself to be a heretic —that was, he was a non-smoker —and he wanted to read the newspapers. When reading the newspapers they were sometimes interfered with by the talk of hon. Members from Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman would provide them with a Talking Room instead of a Smoking Room it would be better.
§ *MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that one of the best solutions for getting rid of the difficulty of the overcrowding in the House was to increase the attractions of other parts of the House; and if he could increase the attractions of the Smoking Room or of the Reading Room he should be glad to do so. His hon. Friend the Member for Northampton had called attention to the fact that some years ago, when the present Smoking Room was given, another room close by was conceded. He did not know how it was that this room had been taken away; but he would make inquiries, and endeavour to have it restored to hon. Members. As regarded the Reading Room, he could not promise that that should be given up to the smokers. Some years ago a proposition to that effect was made, but so much opposition arose that it was found impossible to carry it out. He did not, therefore, think he could undertake to 232 put his hand to the matter again. With regard to the question of lockers, he could assure the hon. Gentleman opposite that attention would be given to that subject, and also to the question of lights in the Reading Room and Library. With regard to the accommodation generally in the Reading Room, he entirely agreed it was insufficient; but hon. Members would recognise that the accommodation of the House was very limited in all directions. It would be desirable to increase it in many ways, and he had often called attention to the large space under the roof now occupied by private residences. He thought they might look forward to an increase in the accommodation of the House. He hoped the hon. Member for St. Pancras would not expect him to go through the question of the accommodation of the House now, the more especially as the hon. Member for Northampton had threatened to raise the question on the Vote for his (the First Commissioner's) salary. His hon. Friend seemed to think it rested with him whether there should be a Committee or not; but he would point out that any single Member of the House could object to the discussion going on otherwise than before 12 o'clock, and he was sure hon. Members had no intention of allowing him to have that Committee without discussion or objection. The matter, therefore, did not rest wholly with him, but he did not propose to lose sight of the subject. He had already had plans prepared in the Office of Works for increasing the accommodation of the House to some extent, without injuring the large plans of the hon. Member for Northampton, which were the subject of the observations made the previous night. He should, at some future time, submit them to the consideration of the House. He still thought it desirable to wait some little time and see what the result of the next few weeks might be, and they would have an extremely good test of the real wants of the House in the course of the Committee on the Home Rule Bill.
*GENERAL SIR FREDERICK FITZ-WYGRAM (Hants, Fareham)suggested the advisability of the width of the troughs at the back of the Benches being decreased, so that Members would be able to pass along the seats without causing that inconvenience to other Mem- 233 bers which they were obliged to do at present.
§ MR. HERBERT (Croydon)called attention to the light in the Clock Tower. A considerable sum of money had recently been spent on this light, without effecting much improvement. He suggested the employment of an electric light in the nature of a search light throwing up a column in the air which could be seen all over London. Such a light might, at any rate, be tried, as a matter of experiment, for a few weeks; and he ventured to say it would be found much more convenient than the present light, which —-especially in the case of a fog —could not be seen at a greater distance away than about half-a-mile.
§ MR. TOMLINSONremarked that the light from the roof of the House was not constant in quality, and this was a matter which might very well receive consideration.
§ *MR. PERCY ALLSOPP (Taunton)suggested that if the yard outside the Members' Cloak Room were converted into a covered space, it would make an admirable Smoking Room.
MR. MACFARLAXE (Argyll)asked were they to understand that if the hon. Member for Northampton moved for a Committee to consider the question of the accommodation in the House there would be no objection on the part of the Government? He himself was in favour of a moderate enlargement, but he should be sorry to see it enlarged to such an extent that there would be a fixed seat for each Member.
THE MARQUESS OK CARMARTHEN (Lambeth, Brixton)urged the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be possible to open the outer doors of the Lobby before the Division was over, in order that hon. Members who had recorded their votes might at once return to other parts of the House. It would be easy to prevent hon. Members who had not taken part in the Division from entering the Division Lobbies, and if the course he suggested were adopted it would be a great convenience to hon. Members.
§ MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N.E.)asked if it was not possible to make further provision for a Conference Room, as the present room was occupied by the private secretaries of Members? He was not complaining of that at all — 234 he recognised there was a necessity for it —but he thought some arrangement ought to be made so that Members might have some place in which to receive small deputations or in which to hold meetings among themselves.
§ *MR. SHAW-LEFEVREquite agreed that the present Conference Room was not adequate for its purpose. He had been endeavouring to negotiate the transfer to the House of Commons of the three rooms now allotted to the Railway Commissioners. The consent of the House of Lords, to whom the rooms technically belonged, and of the Railway Commissioners would be necessary before the transference could take place. But if these rooms could be obtained, a very tine Conference Room could he provided. They were just opposite the present Conference Room and would be quite as convenient. With regard to the question of the noble Marquess, he would consult the authorities to see if there was any real reason for preventing Members going out of the Lobby. He quite agreed it would be a great convenience if Members could be allowed to leave the House as soon as they had voted, and he would consult the authorities of the House as to what was the real reason for keeping the outer doors shut. He would also communicate with hon. Members on the other questions which had been raised. As to the question of the hon. Member for Argyll, he thought that hon. Member would recollect that he (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) merely stated, in answer to the hon. Member for Northampton as to whether there should be a Committee on he accommodation of the House, that the question did not rest only with him, but with private Members.
*MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)said, that with regard to the detention of hon. Members taking part in Divisions, until a comparatively recent period the Lobby door was not opened until after a Division was completed, and therefore it was a comparatively recent concession that, the Hall immediately convenient to the House had been made available for the accommodation during Divisions. If some facilities could be afforded for hon. Members being relieved from the detention complained of it would be very desirable, though, no doubt, the possibility of a recount being called 235 for had to be borne in mind. As to the question of accommodation in the House, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had given up the non possumus position he had taken up last Session, when the subject was last under discussion, and was now willing to admit that something ought to be done to increase the accommodation in that House and in the various rooms provided for the convenience of hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he intended to be guided in the matter by the experience which he would obtain during the next few weeks whilst the Home Rule Bill was being discussed in Committee. But he was, afraid that when that Committee came to an end the right hon. Gentleman would say that that was the first time within his Parliamentary experience that there had been so large an attendance for so great a time consecutively; that the circumstances were wholly abnormal, and that they were never likely to have again such a continuous and close an attendance of Members. That, he suspected, was what the right hon. Gentleman would tell them after the experience of the next few weeks. He wished to press upon the right hon. Gentleman, both as regarded the accommodation in the House and in the Writing Rooms, Smoking Rooms, and so on, that he must bring his mind to this fact—that the average attendance in the discharge of Parliamentary duties had increased very much during the last quarter of a century, and the present scanty accommodation for hon. Members was wholly inadequate. He could understand the right hon. Gentleman desiring to consult experts as regarded the extent to which the accommodation should be increased, but that they should be content much longer to remain with the miserable accommodation now provided was entirely out of the question. The hon. Member who had raised this question had drawn their attention to the fact that because of the insufficiency of the accommodation a Member was unable efficiently to discharge his Parliamentary duties, and certainly such a condition of things ought not to be allowed to continue. The hon. Member for Northampton had brought forward the claims of the smokers. He (Mr. Lowther), like the hon. Member for 236 South Belfast, was a non-smoker; nevertheless, he thought the claims of smokers, should be clearly and distinctly recognised in the matter of accommodation. The hon. Member had suggested, in the shape of a Bill, means whereby additional accommodation in all its branches, through the withdrawal from their present uses of the whole of the chambers on the other side of the Central Hall, could be provided. He did not, of course, endorse the proposals by which the hon. Member attained the end sought for; but he thought some portion of the accommodation now appropriated, not to the House of Lords as a deliberative Assembly, but to officers of that House, and even to Railway Commissioners—a body which had no claim whatsoever for accommodation in the Palace at Westminster — that these opened out avenues through which additional accommodation could be provided for those who had legitimate claims to that accommodation. Of course, the officers of the House of Commons, who were in constant daily attendance, ought to have provision made within its walls for their personal accommodation; but there were many persons housed within the limits of the Palace at, Westminster who would very much prefer that the public should provide that accommodation in a more suitable locality, and the places now set apart for that purpose could be more judiciously appropriated. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not allow his good resolves in this respect to be set aside, but would carry out reform in this direction. He did not intend now to enter into the question of the enlargement of the present Chamber, upon which he had recently expressed very decided opinions as to its utter inadequacy, but he thought the accommodation of Members in the Writing Room, Smoking Room, and so forth, could not brook much longer delay. He agreed with what had been said as to making further provision for a Conference Room, and urged that something should at once be done in this matter.
§ *MR. SHAW-LEFEVREagreed with the right hon. Gentleman in his observations with regard to the accommodation of the House, and especially as to the direction in which it should be sought. The officers of that House required every 237 accommodation, having regard to the great length of time they were often compelled to be on duty. There were officers of the other House, however— for such, instance, as the Black Rod—whose duties were not very arduous, and in regard to whom it was not necessary to have houses under that building. He believed it was contemplated by the House of Lords making considerable changes in that officer's department, and in that rise it would not be necessary to have so magnificent a house provided for him. Again, the Librarian of the House of Lords was a gentleman who received a salary of £800 a year. That seemed altogether inadequate to enable him to live in the house provided for him in the House of Lords. The gentleman himself did not live in the house provided for him, but he only occupied one room in it, living elsewhere. If that house was thrown into the accommodation of the building generally, it would enable them to make fresh arrangements to increase the accommodation. Without saying anything discourteous to the House of Lords, he thought facilities might be given by that House for increasing the accommodation of the House of Commons, and he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman opposite that his political friends might have much greater influence than he himself could hope to have in that quarter, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to use it in that direction.
§ *SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)said, the answer the right hon. Gentleman had given with regard to the accommodation of the House had not satisfied hon. Members who felt strongly that the accommodation was insufficient. Whilst there were 670 Members, there was only space on the floor of the House for 306, or far less than one-half. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman, who had a seat provided for him on all occasions, to be satisfied with the accommodation afforded; but it was not reasonable that hon. Members who had been returned to the House should, first of all, on occasions have to scramble at the door to get in, and then have regularly to rush to obtain a seat. Hon. Members obtained little sympathy from either Front Bench, be- 238 cause the occupants of the Front Benches were looked after carefully in the arrangements of the House. Ordinary Members found it a great inconvenience to be obliged to sacrifice much time in order to obtain a seat. He knew some hon. Members who came there and sacrificed six or seven hours in order to obtain a seat on the occasion of the Home Rule Debate. He contended that a Member of that House, who was returned to discharge his Parliamentary duties, ought to be able to obtain a seat in it whenever there was important business just as easily as in his own house. He knew of no other Parliament in any country where every Member was not provided with a seat. The Resolution which was passed in 1868, set forth that the accommodation was insufficient; and if it was insufficient in 1868, when the number of Members was smaller than now, it was certainly insufficient in 1893. It was time some better arrangement was made by which more than 306 Members could obtain seats on the floor of the House so as to be able to take part in the proceedings. In order to show the absurdity of the arrangements for the accommodation of hon. Members, Mr. Mitchell Henry, on one occasion, addressed the Speaker from the Gallery, and he was ordered to come down on to the floor of the House. It was absurd there should not be more accommodation, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to deal with the matter with more seriousness than he appeared to have brought to bear upon it.
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSON (Manchester, N. E.)said, he could assure hon. Members that those who sat on the Front Benches were not destitute of human sympathy, and, moreover, he could assure the House that the Front Bench was often a very congested district. They might hereafter decide about enlarging the House, but the question which they had now to deal with was how hon. Gentlemen were to be decently accommodated at the present time. They were likely to have some interesting Sittings shortly when the scenes which had been described with so much pathos might be repeated. Certainly, it was not decent that a gentleman of mature age and serious appearance should be obliged to take part in an unseemly 239 rush in order to secure a place in which he could conveniently hear the Debate, and possibly address the House. It was not even decent that hon. Members should have to come down hours before the House sat in order to take their seats. He would beg leave to suggest that upon days when there was likely to be a crowd hon. Members should come down to the House a little while before Prayers and place cards in a box with their respective names, which should then be drawn out, one by one, and each Member should enter the House and take his seat as soon as his name was drawn. This would, at all events, be more seemly than the present system, and, certainly, something should be done to relieve Members from the necessity of taking part in an unseemly struggle.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 4. £41,200, to complete the sum for Admiralty, Extension of Buildings.
§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTER (Walsall)rose to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he correctly apprehended his observations on the Vote on Account —that the extension of the Admiralty buildings would occupy a period of seven years? He made this inquiry of his right hon. Friend, mainly because a really great Metropolitan improvement— namely, the opening of St. James's Park to Trafalgar Square, would thus be delayed for so long a period, because the Admiralty clerks occupied a house required for the making of the new road, which could not be vacated until the now Admiralty buildings were fit for occupation. Neither could he understand how the expenditure of £180,000 which was estimated for to complete the Admiralty buildings could take so long a time, if £50,000 was to be spent in this year. At the same average of expenditure, the time for the completion of the buildings would be nearer three and a-half than seven years. He hoped his right hon. Friend would do all in his power to hasten the completion of the buildings, and so facilitate a great Metropolitan improvement.
§ MR. FORWOOD (Lancashire, Ormskirk)would like to know whether the sum proposed to be expended on the Admiralty buildings was regulated by the exigencies of the Chancellor of the 240 Exchequer, or by the amount of work that the contractors could undertake in the course of the present year? Already they had this building land acquired some five, six, or seven years, and the public had been charged at the rate of £16,000 a year, which was practically dead money—money absolutely lost so far as it extended to the reasonable and necessary time for completing the building. Of course, he did not say this was in any sense a Party question. He thought in times past too little money had been taken for it, and there could be no greater waste of public money than taking only a small amount for a great building in the course of a year. He thought a sufficient sum ought to be taken for these large buildings, as much as the contractor could possibly spend, and in that way only could they get the buildings finished within a reasonable period. By this delay they were losing not only £16,000 a year on the cost of the land, but they were paying a large sum for the rent of other buildings such as the hon. Member had just alluded to, and which were occupied by clerks of the Admiralty. But the Admiralty, further than that, was placed at great inconvenience and the utmost difficulty in doing its work by reason of the various Departments being scattered over various houses. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman was furnishing the contractor with so large a sum of money in the coming year as he possibly could spend in pushing on these buildings. It would be far better to get one set of buildings completed than to fritter away comparatively small sums on different buildings and spread over a number of years.
§ *MR. SHAW-LEFEVREquite agreed with the remarks of the last speaker as to the delay in the progress of works like this through not voting sufficient money, and he had not fallen into that mistake. On the contrary, he was quite prepared to spend any amount of money within the present year to hasten the completion of the works. But there was something worse than not voting sufficient money to be spent within the year, and that was delaying the work altogether, and not undertaking it; and he thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Forwood) would recollect that it was his own Government which 241 delayed the commencement, of the work on account of unwillingness to insert the necessary item in the Estimates. These works were recommended by the Committee of 1887, and that Committee in its Report stated as a reason for throwing over the wider scheme which had been propounded to the House previously, and recommending that an extension only of the Admiralty buildings should be carried out, that they thought that extension could be completed in two, or at the most three, years. But since 1887 six years had already elapsed. Some delay took place in consequence of the plans not having been completed by the architect. The arrangements between the Admiralty aud the architect were not completed for a year, and a delay of 12 months subsequently occurred in consequence of the Treasury refusing to vote money. Some further delay was caused by difficulty as to the foundations, nearly seven years more would be required for this work, making in all 12 years from 1887 instead of two or, at the most, three. What was the reason for seven more years being required for the completion of the work? The reason was this: The building was being erected in two blocks instead of one. That course was rendered necessary by the fact that some houses occupied by the Admiralty were on the site of one portion of these buildings. It was found that difficulty and expense arose in removing the clerks from that building and finding temporary buildings for them pending the erection of the permanent structure; and, in consequence of that, objection was raised by the Treasury of the Government with which the right hon. Gentleman was connected, and it was determined to erect the buildings in two blocks instead of one. So far as he had been able to ascertain, it would take two years more for the completion of the first block. It would then be necessary to spend some little time in removing the clerks in the Admiralty from the buildings in which they were now placed into that new block, and then some further time in pulling down those buildings. The foundations of the new block would then be commenced, and assuming that the same time would be occupied on them and on the new block of buildings as on the first block, a total length of six or seven 242 years would elapse before the completion of the work, or 12 years from 1887. During the whole of that period they were losing at the rate of £16,000 in the interest of money for the value of the laud; losing the rents of the various houses hired for the accommodation of the clerks of the Admiralty, and also losing the interest on the value of the lease on the other side of Whitehall, which the late Government determined should be ultimately used for the War Office, and which they would not commence until the Admiralty was completed. The value of that site was no less than £400,000, and therefore they were losing the interest of that £400,000, which might be released by devoting it to building purposes—and they were losing the interest on that site for the 12 years from the commencement of this building until they commence the War Office part of it.
§ MR. PLUNKET (Dublin University)said, the right hon. Gentleman had made a rather gloomy forecast as to the time required to complete the Admiralty buildings according to the plans which were being carried out; and he had also criticised severely the action of the late Government in rejecting the plans he himself (Mr. Lefevre) had proposed. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that that rejection was not the action of the late Government, but was a result in pursuance of the finding of a Committee which, by a large majority, rejected his plan and recommended the plan which was being carried out. Therefore, his criticism and condemnation of what was being done must fall upon his own colleagues.
§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he had not made any such remarks as the right lion. Gentleman attributed to him.
§ MR. PLUNKETsaid, he might have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. He would explain that the delay that bad occurred was not due to the refusal of the late Government to provide money, but it was the consequence of unfortunate circumstances which could not be foreseen—such as the difficulty of obtaining foundations, owing to the nature of the subsoil. On his own part, he had nothing to regret, and he did not believe that the completion of the buildings, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee of 1887, would involve the delay which the right hon. Gentleman indicated.
§ *SIR E. J. REED (Cardiff)said, the business of the Admiralty was being conducted under serious disadvantages, and no one would conduct his private business under such conditions as the staff had long been exposed to for lack of accommodation. It was not surprising that the First Commissioner had thought it right to make a full statement on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman opposite threw the blame for delay upon the Committee; but, if the plans of the present First Commissioner had been carried out, they would have had public buildings suitable for the purpose years before they could get them under existing conditions. He thought something ought now to be done to expedite the building operations. The mistake seemed to have been that the present First Commissioner had accepted as final and decisive the situation in which he found himself when he came into Office; but Parliament ought not to be content to wait seven years for the completion of the buildings. That was the adoption in the case of buildings of the policy that once characterised their shipbuilding, when public money was wasted wholesale by locking it up in ships that -were on the stocks for seven or 10 years. The late Mr. W. H. Smith once asked him in the Lobby what he could have done better while he was First Lord of the Admiralty. In reply he asked Mr. Smith, "If you had been a private shipbuilder, and your manager had persuaded you to build ships under the pretext that they were wanted, would you allow them to be years in building, with your capital in them lying idle all the time? "Mr. Smith replied—" I quite admit that the whole system is as bad as it can be, and, if I were First Lord of the Admiralty again, I would be a very different First Lord from what I was." He trusted something would be done to relieve them from a state of things like that with regard to the Admiralty buildings.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT, Derby)said, he thought he ought to say a word upon the subject. If there were any fault in the matter, he was one of those who were guilty in common with Mr. W. H. Smith, to whom his hon. Friend had just paid such high testi- 244 mony. He took an active part in the Committee spoken of, in concert with Mr. Smith. They thought a good deal of public money was about to be wasted upon the designs put forward, and they therefore thought that a Committee ought to be appointed to consider plans that were to cost £700,000. The Committee were unanimous in their opinion that the elevation was unsuitable. There were towers that would have been a terrible eyesore, and the general style of architecture was what he might call a provincial municipal style. They came to the conclusion that a far better style of architecture for the purpose was the style of the existing Admiralty buildings or Marlborough House. A plan in accordance with the views of the Committee was prepared and brought down to the House, and if anything was said about three years it was on the authority of the architect and the surveyor of the Board of Works. No great public buildings were ever built in the time originally estimated, and, as to these buildings themselves, they had a feeling of despair. Every public building seemed to be, if possible, worse than its predecessor, and more inconvenient for the purposes for which it was intended. He really thought that the Foreign Office and the Home Office could not be beaten in the matter of inconvenience; but they were superseded by the Royal Courts of Justice. It was, in his opinion, a pessimist view to take—and which had been enunciated—that these new buildings would not be completed under seven years. He was sorry that the architect and surveyor of the Board of Works were mistaken in thinking that the buildings would be completed in three years. It had taken five years and they were not built yet, but he did not think it would take seven years more. All they could do was to finish the job as soon as they could, and he did not think that there was anyone to blame unless it should be the Committee. The matter was now in a sound position, and he hoped there would be as little delay as possible in carrying out the work.
§ *MR. JACKSON (Leeds, N.)said, he was also a Member of the Committee, and perhaps he ought to take rather more blame than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as at the time he was also Secretary to the Treasury, and therefore 245 more or less responsible if there was any supposition of any delay in providing the necessary money. The Committee were practically unanimous on the plan, but in carrying out the plan there were two or three questions which involved delay. In the first place, it was uncertain what sort of a foundation there was. The bed of an old stream ran through the site, and there was also the belief that there was some shifting of the sand there.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTThe Admiralty itself is built on piles.
§ *MR. JACKSONsaid, that was so; as the right hon. Gentleman said, the Admiralty itself was built on piles. The question came before him at the Treasury, and his experience was that it was a little doubtful whether this site would be a satisfactory one. The question was held over for a long time; and then there was delay in advertising for contractors. They had a strike which lasted for a long time, and that was a most unsatisfactory time to advertise. The delay altogether extended over several months. But once the building was commenced there was no reason for delay. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had stated the amount of money expended on the building operations last year and this year. He thought it stood at about £40,000 last year when he (Mr. Jackson) was in Office; but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could inform them, approximately at all events, the respective amounts, which would give them a fair idea of the progress that was being made, as to his mind it seemed that there bad been no unnecessary delay from the start. The officials of the Admiralty suffered great inconvenience from the fact that they were scattered all over different offices. There could be no doubt about the serious inconvenience; and he was of opinion that until the present buildings were completed, they could make no effective change. If the right hon. Gentleman in giving them the figures he had asked for, told them that he was in a position to make more rapid progress than had been made up to the present, he, for one, would be glad to hear that intelligence. There was really no reason why they should not go forward with more rapidity.
§ *MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he had done nothing to prevent the work being completed in the most rapid manner. He was most anxious to see it completed, although he did not approve of the scheme originally, but had accepted it as he found it, and it was his desire there should be no avoidable delay in carrying it into effect. If there was any blame, it was not unwillingness with regard to money. One year was lost by the late Government——
§ MR. PLUNKETTWhat year was that?
§ *MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he thought it was 1888–9; but it was an undoubted fact that one year was lost by the Treasury declining to vote the money. He did not wish to go into details regarding the past. He could only say that the accepted plans would be carried out as rapidly as possible; but he still held to the opinion that the works could not be completed under six or seven years. Last year £40,000 bad been spent, and this year the amount would be £50,000.
§ *SIR J. GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)said, they should look at the figures in this matter of the Admiralty buildings. The original Estimate was £195,000, now it was calculated to cost £304,500. This was an extraordinary inequality, and they were told that it would take seven years longer, or, in all, 12 years. It was certainly a most startling statement —one of the most startling ever made in the House. Why, the buildings should be completed in not less than two years. A great deal might have been done before the contract was entered into at all. For instance, the foundations should have been prepared. That would have been the right method, and, if that had been done, the rate of progress would have been more satisfactory. But the fact was, the right hon. Gentleman did not like the plan, and he was rather delaying it than assisting it. The late Mr. W. H. Smith was satisfied that, until the foundations were completed, he would not vote any money to go on with the building. That was a very common sense view to take. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would insist on rapid progress being made.
§ MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N.E.)said, that he had been a Member of the Committee, and had taken an active part in the discussions, and the late Secretary to the Treasury was right when he said that the Committee was nearly unanimous. It had not, however, been so nearly unanimous as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated. Some of them were strongly averse to patching up the old Admiralty buildings, and he would remind the Committee that he had pointed out at the time precisely the difficulties that would happen, and the delays that would occur, and that the Estimates that would be put before the House would be inadequate for the purpose. It seemed to him that on these matters the last man whose opinion was taken was the man who had a practical knowledge of the subject. Such a man know too well the danger and difficulty of tampering with an old building. He did not agree with those who suggested that the building, the plans of which were placed before the Committee would have been inadequate, and would not have been a great improvement in the arrangement which was subsequently made. He held then, and he held now, that the building put before the Committee could have been constructed easily, and could have been constructed at less cost than the building they were renovating, and it could have been built not in 12 years, but in four or five. He found in his experience that it was much more easy to construct a new building than to make a now one out of an old one, and it was easier, too, to estimate when it would be completed. They could gauge pretty accurately the time it would take to construct a now building, but they would never tell when an old building that had to be patched up and renovated would be completed. If the plans and estimates put before the Committee had been adopted, they would have had a magnificent pile of buildings worthy of the Admiralty with an entrance in the Park, and by this time, he ventured to say, they would have been near completion, provided the money had been forthcoming. There was no reason why the operations which had been entered upon should not proceed rapidly, if the foundations were good.
§ MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, the Estimate had been increased more than 50 per cent., and he wished to know to what circumstances that was due? It was all very well for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to talk about economy. They were told when the holidays wore commenced that they would cost one sum, and. it was now clear that they were to cost another sum. The money of the country was being frittered away; therefore, it was clear there could be no economising. Was there any reason why the original estimate of £95,000 had been increased to £300,000?
§ SIR M. RIDLEY (Lancashire, N., Blackpool)wished to know why the original plans had been departed from by which a brick building faced with stone —in the style of the old Admiralty Offices —was to be constructed? The new building was of stone with brick in the interstices.
§ *MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he did not think there had been any deviation from the plans placed before the House of Commons in the Library. The Committee of 1887 had selected a somewhat plainer building and one more in accordance with the style of the old Admiralty building, but the building ultimately designed, the plans of which had been on view in the Library, was that which had now been commenced. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Morton) asked why the expenditure had been so much higher than the Estimate. That was due, first, to the fact that the foundations had cost £30,000 or £40,000 more than had been estimatted; secondly, to the cost of building having increased in the interval, thirdly, to the building covering a greater extent of ground than was anticipated, and projecting about 35ft. further into the park; and, fourthly, to the increase in the accommodation it was proposed to provide. It was originally intended that the building should be devoted to the accommodation of clerks only; but the original design in that respect had been departed from, and it was now intended that the principal officers should be removed from the Admiralty to the new block. The provision of accommodation for the superior officials rendered it necessary to have a number of smaller rooms than were required for the clerks, with more expensive fittings. The hon. Member 249 for St. Pancras (Sir Julian Goldsmid) seemed to think that the foundations might be made for the new block, but that was impossible. If it had been possible it would have been done; but it was not possible, because the clerks were located in the block of buildings at present occupying the ground. In the first place, they must complete the new block; they must then remove the dorks; and, finally, they must begin the foundations of the second block. He had gone carefully into the subject, and should be glad to expedite the work; but, so far as he could see, it would not be completed in a less time than he had stated.
§ MR. FORWOODsaid, the second block could be commenced if temporary accommodation were found for the clerks. In this way, instead of having to wait seven years, the work could be done in four or five, and economy would be effected, inasmuch as it would prevent a largo amount of capital lying dormant.
§ *MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, that would have been an extremely good arrangement if carried out originally when the building was commenced. If the building had been erected in one block instead of two, the arrangement would have been beneficial and economical. That, in his opinion, ought to have been done five years ago; but they had been proceeding five years on an opposite plan, and inasmuch as the first block would be completed in 18 months or two years, he did not think it would now be economical to turn the clerks out into temporary quarters.
§ *SIR J. GOLDSMIDasked how many clerks were at present accommodated in the old building?
§ *MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, that about 250 clerks occupied quarters in Spring Gardens. It would be difficult to find adequate accommodation for so many within reach of the Admiralty.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ Resolutions to be reported.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £48,719, 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 1894, for expenditure in respect of miscellaneous legal buildings, namely, County Courts, Metropolitan Police Courts, and Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, there were always a number of foolish electors in the country who estimated the service of their Representatives by the number of Divisions they took part in. If their Members sat through a whole Sitting without taking a Division they considered them deficient in zeal, and for that reason, and to relieve his conscience, he proposed to move an Amendment, and take a vote. He had in several Parliaments moved to reduce this Vote, and he had always been defeated, but probably he might be more successful now. Hon. Gentlemen might be aware that outside the Metropolis the Police Courts were maintained by the localities.
§ MR. A. C. MORTONI rise to Order. I desire to have some information on a subject which stands before the Police Courts.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREI think the hon. Member will be able to ask for the information he seeks later on.
§ MR. A. C. MORTONShall I be able to do so?
THE CHAIRMANIt will be impossible to go back to a previous item. If the Hon. Member desires to move an Amendment to an earlier item it is open for him to do so now.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREThe hon. Member has no Amendment.
§ MR. A. C. MORTONI do not desire to move an Amendment. I simply wish to ask a question.
MR. JAMES LOWTHERIf the hon. Member for Peterborough wishes to raise any question earlier in the Estimate he should do so by moving a reduction before the item for Police Courts is discussed.
THE CHAIRMANAs I have said, if the hon. Member for Peterborough wishes to discuss or move the reduction of any earlier item, he must do so before the item objected to by the hon. Member for Northampton is discussed.
§ MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, that he might have to move an Amendment, but he wished, first, to know whether he was on the right tack? He wanted to know why there was an increase of £7,645 expenditure on County Court buildings over the Vote of last year?
§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, that the Vote was increased by the sum of £9,250 for the erection of new County Courts.
§ MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, it appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman did not know very much about the matter. There was great extravagance in the management of the County Courts. On this item and other small items there was extravagance and loss of money. Whore the Municipal Authorities had the management of these Courts, as they had in the City of London, instead of having a loss, they made a considerable profit every year. He would not prevent the hon. Member for Northampton from going on with his Motion; but unless the Government found out a more economical method of keeping up the Courts, he should move a reduction.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the Police Courts all over the country were maintained by the particular localities, but in London the cost was all thrown on the Imperial Treasury. He had always contended that that was a very great injustice, and the answer he received when raising objection was that London did not control its own police. He was in favour of giving London that control, and he never yet could understand how the fact that London had no such control was an answer to the complaint raised by hon. Members who represented provincial localities that while they paid for their own Police Courts Londoners did not. It was said that a certain amount ought to be paid out of the Imperial Exchequer for the Bow Street Police Court, because in that Court extradition cases were decided. Well, if they were only called on to pay a certain sum for that Court, there would be some reason in it; but, as a matter of fact, they had to pay for Woolwich, Greenwich, Gravesend, and other places, and had to find fuel, light, water, &c. He would move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £6,000.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £42,719, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
§ MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)said, he was always very glad when he could support the hon. Member for Northampton. For the past five or six years he had always supported the hon. Member's 252 contention that London should support its own Police Courts, and could not see on what ground they were included in the general expenditure of the country; and if the hon. Member went to a Division, he would vote with him. The Vote had been reduced from £12,000 to £7,000, chiefly on account of reduction in the building item. Still, it was a substantial grievance, and they should go a step farther and make the whole cost fall on the localities.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTIn a Bill which I brought forward I did take these charges off the Imperial Exchequer and put them upon the Municipal Exchequer of London, and I admit that there is a good deal of anomaly in the way in which these charges are treated in London as compared with other towns. I hope the House will not disallow the Vote this year, as in that case there will be nobody to take charge of the buildings. All I can say is, that I will use all the pressure I can to induce the County Council to undertake the charge of these buildings. Before we take the extreme step of refusing to vote this money, we should make some arrangement with the County Council, or some Body else, to undertake the burden.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that no doubt there was great difficulty in the way of putting pressure on the Government in Committee of Supply; for though they struck out an item in Committee, the Government would put it back on Report. In view of the declaration which had just been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the effect that he would look into the matter, and of the attitude which had been taken up by a London Member, he would not press the matter to a Division.
§ MR. BARTLEYwas not at all satisfied with the hon. Gentleman's concurrence with the Front Bench. They had heard this promise before. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Never.] Yes; and he thought the hon. Member did not display the courage of his convictions which he usually did. He thought they ought to divide on the Amendment. Certainly, for his own part, he should challenge a Division when the Question was put.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
253§ *SIR J. LUBBOCK (London University)wished to say that the question which had just been raised was a large one, and people in London considered that in the allocation of the local grants they had received less than their fair share.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
§ Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.