§ Mr. KINGI want to call attention to a very important event that has happened in connection with the site at Delhi, the new Capital of India, where in a few months or years the new Imperial city will be rising. We were surprised to see in our newspapers yesterday morning the information that the Government of India have decided to entrust the preparations of the designs for the Government House and another important building at Delhi to Mr. Edwin Lutyens and Mr. Herbert Baker. We were also told that these two gentlemen would assist in the selection of designs for further public buildings, and were to act generally as the principal architectural advisers for the new Capital. I was surprised at the information, for this reason; that for a few weeks past I have had weekly questions to the India Office upon this subject. Upon the Adjournment on 20th December I raised the whole matter and was lulled to rest by the hon. Gentleman who temporarily presides with great ability and with really a surprising amount of knowledge under the circumstances at the India Office. He informed I me with regard to the appointment of I architects for Delhi that:—
The ground plan of the new city has not yet been settled. "We have not yet received the final report of the Committee that had to settle the ground plan. The 1659 Committee will probably report in March, and no doubt the report will be published very shortly. Until that report hag been published, and until the ground plan has been settled, I am afraid it is a little premature to consider this question of architects and architecture."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December, 1912, col. 1954, Vol. XLV.]We are still more than a month from March and we have no idea yet of any scheme by the Town Planning Committee being presented and published. Six weeks before that was possible, the architects are already appointed, and apparently plans have been prepared on which the whole system of the new Delhi has been settled. On behalf of the House I protest against this selection because it seems to me there are several pledges that have been broken. First of all there is the pledge that the Report of the Town Planning Committee should be published and should be open to public criticism and that there would be opportunity for artistic suggestion. Secondly we were told again and again that there would be some sort of competition in connection with the appointment of the architects. That was said on the very first day that there was an announcement of the new city of Delhi, and it was repeated on the 20th of last month by the hon. Gentleman who represents the India Office. I admit there were certain difficulties in the appointments of architects by open public competition, but the hon. Gentleman used these words:—I can assure hon. Members who are anxious to see the principle of public competition adopted in connection with Delhi, that the Secretary of State, in so far as he possibly can, intends to adopt it and to bring it in.We have three architects already appointed, but not a hint of competition, and apparently these three architects are to appoint any others that may be necessary. I think therefore the House needs some explanation upon this point. There is another point. I received an assurance that Mr. Begg, who is well known as consulting architect to the Government of India, should be consulted on this matter. He is a very well known man and I hold in my hand a report he published containing a large number of illustrations of public works all over India, carried out under his supervision. It is a very remarkable volume. I do not believe Mr. Begg could possibly have been consulted, since the promise was given to him only three weeks ago. The third point is that we were told the question of the style of buildings should be settled after the Report of the Town Planning Committee had been laid before the House. So far as I 1660 can make out the plans of the Government have already been drawn. They have been drawn in anticipation of the appointment of certain architects, and Mr. Lutyens and Mr. Baker by rushing into print have already committed themselves to the style that should be adopted. I greatly regret that. Those two gentlemen are of course very able men and distinguished architects and have done very fine work. Especially I desire to say that about Mr. Baker whose work in South Africa in the way of public buildings is very remarkable. And, by the way, as this whole story sounds so very suspicious may I at once say that Mr. Baker, the architect, is no relation whatever of the hon. Member of the same name who is about to reply.
§ Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
§ Mr. KINGI shall endeavour to bring my remarks to a very speedy close because I think I have already made an indictment sufficient for the hon. Gentleman to answer. I wish to say a word or two on behalf of public competition. I urge most strongly that competition should, if possible be introduced, because that is the one means by which you can avoid influence and jobbery. Competition in connection with our great public buildings has produced remarkable results. Competition was responsible for the noble building in which we are now assembled, and it has produced the Liverpool Cathedral and the plan for the London County Council offices which in a few years time will beautify London and especially this part of it. I appeal to the hon. Member to give us a promise that if possible there will be some form of competition in connection with the new Delhi. I will put four questions to the hon. Member. In the first place why this peculiar haste? On the 20th of December we were told "wait until March; nothing can be done before then." Before January is out architects are appointed. Secondly, will the Report of the Town Planning Committee be published? The object of this Report was in order that the public might have something to go upon before the plans were decided upon. Is it the intention now that the Report will be published shortly? Thirdly, is competition entirely given up or can it still be brought in? Fourthly, will public opinion, artistic criticism, and 1661 Parliamentary discussion count for anything at all or will this great Imperial scheme which is being watched by all of us at home with such intense interest as a matter of supreme importance to the future well-being of our Indian Empire be carried out in a straightforward manner and will some notice be taken of popular opinion and artistic criticism?
§ Captain MURRAYI do not entirely agree with the views of the hon. Member in relation to competition. It is not necessarily the case that by competition the best men axe always obtained. I am prepared to leave it to the Government of^ India to obtain the best man where they can, and not to tie them down to any particular form of architecture, Renaissance or otherwise, as suggested by the hon. Member.
§ Captain MURRAYI know the hon. Member did not suggest it this evening, but I think he suggested it in a speech a few weeks ago. There is one other subject upon which I should like to say a few words, and it is in regard to the Council Chamber which it is proposed to erect for the Imperial Legislative Council. On the Motion for the Adjournment for the Summer Recess I drew attention to this matter and urged the Secretary of State, when considering the plans submitted to him, to introduce a separate Council Chamber for the Imperial Legislative Council, detached from the Viceroy's quarters. The Under-Secretary of State for India, who is not at present in the country, in replying to the remarks which I then made used these words:—
Roughly speaking, the design of the central building in the city of Delhi is that there should be a separate Durbar Hall, on one side of which will be the official residence of the Viceroy, and on the other side, in the other wing, there shall be a hall for the meetings of the Council.He added:—I submit to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the arrangements we are making are quite sufficient for the needs of the moment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 7th August, 1912, col. 3313, Vol. XLI.]Although he is doing what may be sufficient for the needs of the moment, he may find at some future date, which I do not myself think will be very far distant, that the Imperial Legislative Council may, and possibly will, require larger quarters and that this one wing of the Viceroy's quarters will be left empty and no one will know what to do with it. That is a practical consideration which I would urge upon the hon. Gentleman who now 1662 represents the India Office. No sufficient reasons have to my mind been put forward why the imperial Legislative Council should not be provided with separate quarters. It was proposed to erect a separate Council Chamber in Simla and no objection was taken at the time by the Government of India, so at least I am informed, to the plans put forward. If this was the case in Simla, I do ask the hon. Gentleman whether there is any reason why a separate Council Chamber should not be provided in Delhi? I hope that the Secretary of State has not yet closed his mind to the suggestion which I made a few months ago and which I repeat to-night.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY Of the WAR OFFICE (Mr. H. Baker)The hon. Member who spoke first suggested at the outset he was intending to bring a very severe indictment against me, and I confess as he unfolded his speech it seemed to be such. I have very great respect for my hon. Friend and I should be very sorry if such an indictment were true, but I think I shall be able to show in the short time I have at my disposal that he has to some extent misstated the true situation and that the indictment in its main features totally fails. His main complaint was that the announcement made of the policy of the India Office in this respect did not correspond with certain answers I had given to questions and with certain statements I had made in debate in this House; also I think he said that there had been peculiar haste in the appointment of the architects to deal with the architecture of Delhi. The promise—so far as it was a promise—I do not think it even went to that extent—was at the most an indication of what the intentions were of the Secretary of State at the time I gave it. Since then certain events have happened which made it necessary to take a much earlier decision than we anticipated would be necessary. I may tell the hon. Member that early in January the Secretary of State received a telegram from the Viceroy in which he suggested that Mr. Lutyens and Mr. Baker— I am glad the hon. Member in passing called attention to the fact that I have not the good fortune to be able to claim relationship with that gentleman—should be appointed. The receipt of that telegram was of much importance, because the Viceroy's judgment in this question is entitled to and must carry very great weight indeed with the Home Government.
1663 But a much more important reason was that Mr. Baker having been suggested it was necessary for the Secretary of State to get in touch with him so that the arrangements might be made. It so happened that at that time Mr. Baker was in Rome, and he was under an engagement to return to South Africa in a short time to carry out certain works which he was executing there for the Government. It was necessary, if the Viceroy's plans were to be carried out that Mr. Baker should be intercepted and that the Government of South Africa should be persuaded to give him leave to proceed to India at this the only opportunity without any delay. There were special reasons which were in the mind of the Secretary of State for acting without hesitation or delay on this point. My hon. Friend may suggest that the choice of Mr. Lutyens and Mr. Baker by the Viceroy was open to criticism. As far as Mr. Lutyens is concerned, I believe there was no explicit criticism, but there was an undercurrent which seemed to suggest that in the opinion of the hon. Member it would have been better if someone else had been chosen. As regards Mr. Lutyens, the very first suggestion that he should be actually appointed was contained in the telegram from the Viceroy which I have quoted. As regards Mr. Baker, the hon. Member himself freely admitted that his experience in South Africa was on the whole an admirable training for the work in India, and constituted a strong credential for his appointment. But I do suggest that in a matter like this we must consider the opinions of the Viceroy as of the very highest importance. The Viceroy from the very beginning has taken a very great interest in the new capital. It must largely be left to his judgment who shall be employed, and what shall be the style of architecture. As soon as possible after that accident, which all of us deplore, the Viceroy turned his attention to this matter again and sent another telegram, which called for immediate decision. I should like to remind the hon. Member that in a speech which the Viceroy made on the 25th March last he expressed himself very strongly in favour of the Indian style of architecture, which I believe commends itself to the hon. Member. As to the second point raised by my hon. Friend I have to say that the scope of the appointment which has been given to Mr. Lutyens and Mr. Baker is strictly limited. They have been asked 1664 simply and solely to act as architects for Government House and one other important building. My hon. Friend suggested that Mr. Lutyens had already prepared the plans and shown them in public. I do not believe that that is the case.
§ Mr. BAKERIf plans have been drawn, and I do not believe they are plans in the architectural sense, I can certainly say they are not final, and that they will be open to the criticism, which I am quite sure will be sympathetic criticism, of Mr. Baker, and that between them these plans will assume a shape acceptable to the great majority of good judges. With regard to competition, as I say, the scope of their appointment is strictly limited. They will be the architects of these two buildings, and will be generally prepared to advise on the rest of the buildings for the new city. But with regard to all other buildings except these specific two which have been mentioned, it is the present intention of the Secretary of State, so far as possible, to allow competition to come in. In the discussion we had upon this matter on the Adjournment not long ago my hon. Friend will remember that the difficulties of competition were expressed not only by me but also by an hon. Friend of ours who is at this moment absent in India, and who is a practical architect. There are very great and obvious difficulties in the way of having open competition, but I can assure my hon. Friend that so far as it is at the time found to be possible, competition will be allowed for all the rest of the buildings, and they are very numerous and varied in character, which will be required to be erected in the City of Delhi.
I turn to the question put to me by my hon. Friend (Captain Murray). I have little or nothing to tell him for his satisfaction. I am informed there is nothing to be added to the replies given to him on this subject earlier. Although these two buildings, which he said should be separate, are to be brought under one roof, they will in every other respect be absolutely separate. As I think the Under-Secretary said when he was dealing with this matter, they will be as completely separate as your house, Mr. Speaker, is separate from this Chamber. Though it is thought that the bringing them under the same roof, though separate in arrangement, is a measure appropriate to the present time, 1665 there is nothing whatever to prevent, with the vast area we have in the new City of Delhi, when the time comes and circumstances have changed, the erection of separate buildings.
I think I have dealt with all the questions put to me by my hon. Friend (Mr. King). He complained that there was peculiar haste. I have explained the two special circumstances which caused that haste, which were altogether unexpected and unforeseen at the time I made my reply to him. He asked whether the Report will be published. I cannot give him an explicit statement upon that point. I think that in all probability it will be, but it is necessary, before the Secretary of State gives a positive answer, that the Report should be received. That Report has not yet been received.
The hon. Gentleman asked that competition should be admitted. I assure him that there are practical difficulties which alone stand in the way of competition, but for 1666 the erection of buildings for the rest of the city there will be competition so far as is possible. Lastly, he asked whether opportunities would be given for public criticism and Parliamentary discussion. It is not for me to say what opportunities should or should not be allowed for Parliamentary discussion. We have had friendly interchanges on this matter by discussions at Question Time and on the Adjournment, and I think the hon. Member has done a great deal to draw attention to the present state of affairs. I assure him that any considerations which ha may offer will certainly be brought before the Secretary of State and I am sure will receive all the attention they deserve.
§ It being half an hour after the conclusion of Government business Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put.
§ Adjourned at Twelve o'clock.