HL Deb 18 June 1863 vol 171 cc1030-5
THE DUKE OF RUTLAND

rose to put a Question relative to the proposed purchase of the Exhibition Building. He believed that any attempt to adapt a building erected for a temporary purpose to a purpose totally different from that for which it was originally intended could not but signally fail. With regard to economy, none of their Lordships would deny that the building as it stood was not adapted for the purpose for which it was now required. This must be the case, for it was proposed to spend £264,000 for the mere purpose of altering it so as to make it suitable. It was extremely difficult to arrive at the true value of a building of this kind; the only manner in which it could be approximated was by taking the raw material of the building as it stood. Of this raw material the bricks were the most valuable. In the building as it stood there were 6,000,000 bricks, and putting these at £1 per thousand the whole value of the bricks would be £6,000. The timber and iron would hardly be of equal value, and how the price of the building had been got up to £80,000 he was at a loss to find out. His belief was that it would be dear at £30,000, and even £20,000. He, therefore, hoped that on the ground of economy Her Majesty's Government would not purchase the building. With regard to the architectural taste of the building, public opinion had so entirely condemned it that it was hardly necessary to say a word on that point. Certainly, he had not the slightest faith in its being made ornamental by any powers of stucco. Close by it there certainly was another building, which for enormity of hideousness could not be matched in any part of any country in the world. In all his travels through the manufacturing and agricultural districts he had never seen anything which for ugliness equalled the Kensington Museum. It had been proposed in another place to appoint a permanent official who should have the superintendence of the Government buildings, and the same suggestion had been made by the President of the Royal Academy. He should very much like to see that project carried into execution. In the middle of the Horticultural Gardens there had recently been erected a very handsome statue, by Mr. Durham, to the memory of the late Prince Consort, and immediately above it it was proposed to erect a great national testimonial to his merit as the patron of the arts and sciences of this country. He submitted that it was most desirable, if a large building was to be erected in the neighbourhood for the reception of part of our national collections, that there should be some harmony of style between the two. His wish would be that the whole of that property should be one great testimonial to His Royal Highness. Instead of taking the bare four walls of this building and turning it into a museum, he would suggest that his noble Friend should take the opinion of some eminent architect, or—what would perhaps be still better—submit the design to public competition, in order that a building might be raised which really would be a second memorial worthy of the lamented Prince. The Question he wished to put was, Whether the noble Earl opposite was aware of the nature of the foundations of this building; and whether, in his opinion, it would be necessary, in order to make it a permanent structure, to re-drain the whole of the ground on which it stood?

EARL GRANVILLE

My Lords, it is hardly necessary to follow my noble Friend into all the points into which he has gone. He says truly that after the Vote of the House of Commons the other night the question of the purchase of the land is virtually settled. With regard to the question of economy, I really do think it quite idle for noble Lords, without any professional knowledge, going into these details, about how much a certain quantity of bricks and iron and timber ought to sell for. I believe my noble Friend has ridiculously understated their value in this case. The course the Government ought to take is to get the best professional advice on the subject; but I demur to the calculations of amateurs in this House as to how much what the noble Duke calls "raw materials" are worth. With regard to the question of taste—I have no pretensions to taste, and am sometimes glad that I have not, for those who do pretend to have taste certainly entertain diametrically opposite opinions as to what ought to be. My noble Friend, who couples taste and economy together, says we ought to pull this building down, though one part was universally admitted to be admirably suited for its purpose. Except by some violent critics of a partisan character the picture galleries were allowed to be the best ever constructed—certainly in this country—and I hardly know any gallery so well adapted for displaying a large number of pictures in a good light and at the same time accommodating a large number of people. My noble Friend, when he talks of pulling down this building, clearing the site—a matter of no small expense—and then constructing sixteen acres of a building which shall be in harmony with the monument to the Prince Consort—an entirely different thing, in my opinion—seems to have entirely lost sight of the economy which he coupled with taste. I have not the slightest doubt that the sum required for putting the present building into a state of complete repair, and giving it a pleasing appearance, would be incomparably smaller than that which would be required for pulling it down and building another one in its place. The noble Duke throws great ridicule on the idea of giving the structure an ornamental appearance by means of stucco; but there are some buildings in London which, it appears to me, are not deficient in beauty, and which are faced with stucco. The Travellers' Club is finished in that way, and the building of the Royal Institution has a very ornamental facing of stucco. I should be very glad indeed if we could have all our public buildings faced with stone; but when we come to deal with large spaces, and with buildings of great size, we must be mindful of economy. I do not think it would be right to demand from the House of Commons the large sums which would be required for the erection of those palatial edifices if they were to be all that could be desired both in material and form; and under these circumstances I submit that the view taken by the Government cannot be considered an unreasonable one.

THE EARL OF DERBY

My Lord, I think that we should have the fullest information that can be obtained with reference to this subject. I think the Government should have obtained that information before they put to the House of Commons the question as to the purchase of the buildings and the purchase of the lands. It appears, however, that the Government are not in possession of any estimate of the comparative economy of improving as compared with building. I hope they will obtain information on that point, and that such information will be laid before the House of Commons without prejudice to the merits of the whole question. My noble Friend (Earl Granville), in speaking of the advantages which would arise from adopting the present building, referred to the expense of pulling down. Without going into the merits of the general question, I would ask my noble Friend whether the cost of pulling down would not have to be defrayed by the contractors? Certainly I agree with my noble Friend that it would be difficult to find any picture gallery possessing greater advantages in respect of light and other points than that in the Exhibition Building, apart from the question of site. I wish to make an inquiry of my noble Friend, not as a Member of this House, but as a Commissioner of the Exhibition of 1851. I was summoned to attend a meeting of the Commissioners to sanction an offer of £120,000 for the ground, which, at the lowest estimate, is worth £250,000. My noble Friend is aware that the reason we felt justified in accepting so low an offer was, that the site was to be applied to the purposes for which it was originally intended—to the purposes of science and art. I want to know from my noble Friend why, of the sum of £120,000 so accepted, only £67,000 has been asked of the House of Commons this year, leaving it to the caprice of Parliament to grant or withhold the balance? I am at a loss to account for this, as I had understood that the whole of the purchase money of the land was to be paid down at once.

EARL GRANVILLE

With regard to the first Question of my noble Friend, it is true that the contractors are bound to pull down the building, if it be not purchased by the Government; but there would be the expense of replacing the ground.

THE EARL OF DERBY

I apprehend that the contractors are bound to replace the ground.

EARL GRANVILLE

With regard to his other Question, my noble Friend ought to call a meeting of the Commissioners and put it to them. None of the details were entered into at the meeting to which my noble Friend refers. They were left open. As to the payment of the remainder of the purchase money being subject to the caprice of Parliament, it cannot for a moment be apprehended, that after sanctioning the purchase, the House of Commons would refuse next year to vote the sum necessary for its completion.

LORD REDESDALE

observed that the noble Earl seemed to base his arguments on the value of the building as it stood; but as the contractors were bound to take it down if the Government refused to have anything to do with it, he thought it could be got for the sum named by his noble Friend (the Duke of Rutland) £30,000.

EARL GRANVILLE

I can assure the House that the Government have had the very best professional opinion as to the value of the present building. There would be very great difficulty in coming to an exact estimate of comparative cost, such as that spoken of by my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Derby), because you must decide on the precise character of the structure you would erect instead of the present building, before you could arrive at such an estimate.

THE EARL OF HARDWICKE

said, it was manifest the Government were in favour of keeping the present building. Now, as a general rule, it was a very disadvantageous thing to buy a building erected for temporary purposes to apply to a permanent use. If the Government bought the old building as a building, they would pay much more for it than if they purchased it as old materials; and as the contractors were bound to take it down, there was no reason why the Government should not purchase it as old materials. If they dealt with the contractors on this footing, the Government would have a great advantage, for by disposing of it to them the contractors would not be at the cost of pulling it down and taking it away. He had no intention of saying anything in disparagement of professional men, but he had observed there was a great tendency among them to hang together; and consequently, when the Government took the opinion of the builders, contractors, and architects, they ran a great risk of having a unanimous opinion from those parties that the building was a good one, and suitable to all the purposes to which it was intended to apply it. No doubt the picture gallery was a very good one; but a good picture gallery might be copied in any building they might erect. Having seen something of buildings, and, as a landed proprietor, having built a good deal in small way, his decided opinion was that any one who undertook to patch up an old and temporary building in order to render it handsome and permanent, would have to spend a great deal more money than if he rased it to the ground and erected a new and much superior structure in its stead.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, that the question whether it was expedient to retain the building was, as one of evidence, dependent on the opinion of professional men, and it was futile for persons without professional experience to express an opinion. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Hard-wicke) had laid it down that no building erected for temporary purposes could possibly be of use for permanent purposes. But this depended on the manner in which the building had been constructed. Parts of such a building might indeed be useless, but other parts—such as, in this instance, most of the brickwork—might be turned with advantage to permanent use. As to the value of the materials, although the contractor was bound to remove and sell them, yet much would depend upon the time within which he was bound to do so. If he were obliged to pull down and remove the building suddenly, he might have to dispose of the materials at an immense loss; whereas if the time were ample, he would be able to make much more of them. Now, the terms of the arrangement in this instance were so vague that the contractor would have a long time to dispose of the materials.