CLAUSE 1.—(Vesting of Chapel in the Commissioners of Works.) (Hansard, 28 June 1910)

§ Lord BALCARRES
I hope the First Commissioner of Works will take this opportunity of making a fuller statement as to the destination of the site of the Duke of York's School and as to the financial position arising from the policy which has been informally announced. In view of the decision of the Government to hand over this site for the use of the Territorial Force, why is it necessary to proceed with Clause 1 in its present form? That Clause was necessary when it was the intention of the Government to sell the ground on which the chapel now stands, but I cannot understand why the land, which in future is to belong for military purposes to the London Territorial Force, should be held in trust by the Commissioners of Works, who have nothing to do with the matter, and should continue subject to trusts similar to those upon which the buildings now existing have been held. I should have thought that all that became superfluous now that the buildings, or a part of them, are to be pulled down and the ground handed over to the Territorial Force. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also explain how the financial adjustments will be made. The object of the Bill as introduced was to enable the Government to sell the whole site and to-destroy the existing chapel in order to pay for the new Duke of York's School at Dover. If this ground is to be handed over 901 to the London Territorial Force, clearly the money to pay for the buildings at Dover, which up to now has come out of the loans, will have to be found elsewhere. I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will explain whether a Supplementary Estimate will be necessary or how the general financial situation is to be adjusted.

Mr. HARCOURT
The actual method of the adjustment of the financial proceedings will be between the War Office and the Treasury and does not concern my Department. The money has already been advanced for the whole of the new buildings on the site near Dover.

§ Mr. GIBSON BOWLES
By whom?

Mr. HARCOURT
By the War Office.

§ Lord BALCARRES
But it has not been finally paid.

Mr. HARCOURT
My contractor has been paid. The object of this Bill was to enable the Government, not to sell the whole site, but to sell or dispose of this small part of the site and to destroy or deconsecrate the chapel. The reason why it is vested in the Commissioners of Works is that the whole site is still vested in them, and this chapel site, which will then be vested in the Commissioners free from any ecclesiastical user, will be transferred to the War Office in the usual way with the rest of the site.

§ Mr. GIBSON BOWLES
I think this point requires more elucidation. The matter is of some financial importance. Are we to understand that the War Office has lent the money for the new schools? If so, under what conditions and under what authority, Parliamentary or otherwise? There seems to have been grave irregularities, some of them of a dangerous character. The War Office is a Department for war purposes; it is not a money-lending Department. Do I understand that the War Office is advancing the extra expenses which are being incurred with regard to this school?

Mr. HARCOURT
The advance was made out of War Office loans, under the authority of Parliament, for the purpose of building the school at Dover. This Bill, however, is not concerned with any financial arrangements. All my Department had to do was to erect the new school.

§ Mr. ASHLEY
Where did the money come from to pay your workmen?

Mr. HARCOURT
It was advanced to me by the War Office. I only wanted money to pay my contractor.

§ Lord BALCARRES
The right hon. Gentleman has left the matter at the point at which my inquiry began. The school at Dover has been built by the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and the War Office and the right hon. Gentleman between them have paid £130,000, or whatever the amount is, to the contractor. But the authority of the War Office was only to advance the money. We still owe the money. At present it is only in the Loan Bill. That money has got to be paid off. The object of introducing this Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman says, was solely to remove the technical disqualification for the usage of this site, and to free a valuable bit of land upon which this chapel stands. Having freed the chapel from ecclesiastical user, the value of the site has been greatly increased. The right hon. Gentleman having removed the school was, I think, quite right to pull down the chapel so as to increase the value of the land. Having destroyed the chapel, the land was to be sold. That was announced by the right hon. Gentleman three months ago. The object of that sale was to recoup the Government for the outlay upon the school at Guston. What I want to know is: Where is the money that is to come from this sacrifice? How is a Supplementary Estimate going to be presented to recoup the Government for the money already spent at Dover, which they have expected to be recouped by the sale of the land at Chelsea, which for very good reasons is going to be handed over to another public Department?

§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Mallet)
As I understand it, the arrangement is this: The school at Guston was built by a loan under the Military Works Loan Act, which supplied £205,000, I think it was. The War Office thought that when the site at Chelsea was taken over they would be able to realise money for it to repay that. Under the arrangement which has been come to between the Office of Works, the Treasury, and the War Office, the site at Chelsea was not sold. It was valued. I understand the valuation will represent the value of £205,000 or more. Thus the repayment will re in the form 903 of the school at Dover, which will stand I to the credit of the War Office, and there may be some additional surplus of a few thousand pounds.

§ Lord BALCARRES
That is not paying back.

§ Mr. GIBSON BOWLES
It is surely rather important that an answer should be given when we ask where the money is to come from to pay this £205,000. We are told that the new school will be credited with it. That is not payment. The question still remains: you were going to get £205,000 for this land. You are not now going to get. it, because it is going to be used for the Territorial Forces. Whence does the sum arise that you expected to get, and are not going to get? It is no answer to say that the sum is going to be made an entry in the books of the new school. Where are you going to get the money from, and are you going to introduce an Army Supplementary Estimate or not?

§ Mr. CARLILE
Is it not a fact that the whole of the money advanced for the building of the school was advanced by the War Office out of the money provided for the building of barracks which were not built and that the money was diverted to this place?

Mr. HARCOURT
I have really made no inquiries. It is not my business to know exactly where the money came from so long as it was provided for my purpose. It is possible that the particular operation described by the hon. Gentleman was one that took place. But any diversion which has taken place was authorised by the terms of the Act set up for the original loan.

§ Captain JESSEL
I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to put right certain misconceptions that have arisen when he said, "the whole of the eleven acres, more or less." He was, I suppose, referring to the site. We understood, those of us who joined with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea, that negotiations had taken place between the right hon. Gentleman and the War Office, and that the whole of the site was to be given over to the London Territorials. Is it a fact that the site is more than eleven acres? [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] After the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for War, we are still in some doubt. I am sure I do not wish 904 in the least to be hostile to the Bill, because the right hon. Gentleman and the War Office have met even Chelsea and London, as a whole, in a most generous manner. In fact, the Territorials are deeply indebted for the arrangement made by the Government, and it is only for the purpose of asking this information and of allaying some misapprehension that has arisen in this Debate that I rise. I do hope sincerely that this arrangement may be allowed to go through, because it is one which is very beneficial both to the Territorial Forces, and there is a reserved open space for London.

Mr. HARCOURT
When I said "eleven acres more or less" I was not binding myself to the actual measurement of the site. What I intended to convey was the fact that the whole site of the Duke of York's School was handed over to the War Office for Territorial purposes. No part is reserved for any sale or for use.

§ Earl WINTERTON
May I inquire whether this loan is a permanent loan or not on the security of the land, or is it merely a working arrangement?

§ Mr. MALLET
At present that is the situation. I cannot, I am afraid, give the House the arrangement, but we propose to pay off the loan by agreement—that is the loan secured on the value of the land at Guston. I have no reason to think that the money was diverted from any other purpose.