§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
§ LORD SUDELEY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to enable land and houses to be purchased for the erection 430 of a new War Office and Admiralty. It was proposed to purchase five houses fronting Charing Cross, the whole of New Street, Spring Garden Terrace, aad one side of Spring Gardens. By pulling down the existing Admiralty, sufficient space would be obtained for a large quadrangle between the Horse Guards and Spring Gardens, by which both the War Office and Admiralty could be accommodated. The area would be about four acres, and would have a frontage from the Horse Guards to Messrs. Cock's and Biddulph's Bank in Charing Cross. There would be a facade of about 440 feet in length along the street, and a space of about 420 feet between the street and the Park. It would give 59,200 square feet for the War Office and52,800 square feet for the Admiralty, which would amply suffice for their requirements. The great advantage of the scheme was that it would bring the War Office and the Admiralty under the same roof, which had been so many times recommended by Committees that had sat on this subject. It would also place the War Office next to the Horse Guards, and leave the Admiralty on its old historic site. Both offices would also be on the most convenient site for the public that it was possible to place them. There would be three handsome facades, one looking into Parliament Street, another into the Horse Guards, and a third up the Mall, which would afford full scope for a handsome architectural structure. For a number of years the question of a site for these new offices had been under consideration by different Governments. But from a variety of causes, and more especially the difficulty from a financial point of view, the settlement of the question had been delayed, and it had been reserved for the present First Commissioner to propose a solution of the difficulty, which it was hoped, while fully affording all the accommodation required, would enable this great improvement to be carried out at a very moderate outlay. In 1877 a Committee of the other House went very fully into this question, and had three distinct proposals before thorn. One was the site known as the Great George Street site, under which it would have been necessary to purchase all the houses bounded by Great George Street, Parliament Street, and St. James's Park. That scheme was estimated to cost £1,300,000. 431 The second, proposed by Mr. Mitford, was estimated at £2,000,000; he advocated placing the Public Offices along the whole length of the west side of Charing Cross and Parliament Street, with the Horse Guards in the centre. The third proposal, made by Mr. Cates, was to locate the Public Offices on the Fife House site, the other side of Parliament Street. That Committee, after careful consideration, found themselves unable, owing to the great difficulties connected with it, to make any definite proposition, but wound up their Report by stating that—
They could not too strongly urge upon the Government the expediency of losing no time in proposing some plan by which the evils complained of might be remedied.The late Government had found themselves unable to take any steps in the matter, and five years had now elapsed since that Report was made. After giving most careful consideration to the question, the Government had now come to the conclusion that, as the Courts of Justice and other buildings were near completion, the time had arrived when steps should be taken for the erection of these Public Offices. In addition to the advantages which he had already mentioned, the cost of the site contemplated under this Bill would be in every respect considerably less than that of those hitherto proposed; and owing to a large portion of the land and of the houses belonging to the Crown, it would, to a considerable extent, represent a book transaction between the Government and the Crown. The total cost of the site was estimated by Sir Henry Hunt at about £460,000, and of that only about £165,000 would have to be paid to private persons—the remainder being Crown property. A very large amount of property would also be freed by this arrangement, the War Office in Pall Mall and Winchester and Adair Houses. Sir Henry Hunt, in his evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Commons, had stated that, when the proposed buildings were completed, the total sum which could be realized by the Crown, or by the Consolidated Fund, through the sale of property now in use, would amount to £522,680. When this question was raised in the early part of the Session in this House, some noble Lords expressed their regret at the Great George Street site not being 432 adopted; but when the enormous difference of the cost was taken into consideration there could be little doubt as to the desirability—in point of finance, at any rate—of carrying out the present plan. Shortly stated, the money actually out of pocket to the Government would in the one case amount in sums paid to private individuals to £165,000, and in the other to something over £1,000,000. There would also have to be deducted from the cost of this plan the value of the houses which had been purchased on the Great George Street site. One objection which had been raised was that by giving up the Great George Street site all chance of widening Parliament Street must be for ever abandoned. That view was by no means taken by the Government. Sir Henry Hunt had given evidence to the effect that there could be no doubt that such a widening would be a great Metropolitan improvement, and that the cost of the property to be acquired would be recouped by the vacant land which would be set free after the street was widened and the improved frontages obtained. The cost of the proposed buildings, it was estimated, would be about £670,000, to be spread over about 10 years. It would be unnecessary to move the Admiralty until new quarters were ready. The commencement would be made by erecting new buildings in place of the Paymaster's Office and the house of the First Lord of the Admiralty; and the staff would be transferred while another wing of buildings was being erected. An objection had been raised that the Horse Guards would be spoilt. The Horse Guards Parade would remain intact, and if the proposed plan were carried out, there would be full opportunity in future years to erect further buildings on the site of the present official residence of the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, which would balance the new quadrangle on the opposite side of the Parade, and which could accommodate the Board of Trade and some other Departments. Dover House site could then be adopted for an official residence. Care would also be taken that the buildings immediately adjoining the Horse Guards should not be two high, so as to dwarf the Horse Guards. Another objection raised to this plan by the Institute of Architects was that no provision was made for opening 433 a broad avenue from the Mall into Charing Cross. It was not proposed under the Bill to adopt this suggestion, as it would involve an additional outlay of about £150,000, without, apparently, any great corresponding advantages. There was, however, nothing to prevent such a road being made during the 10 years before the completion of the offices, if at any time it should be thought desirable. Under the proposed plan the entrance to Charing Cross by Messrs. Drummond's Bank would be widened to 60 feet, so that there would be ample means of access to the Admiralty in Spring Gardens. A very small portion of the Park, amounting to one-tenth of an acre, would be taken; but a considerably greater extent, nearly half-an-acre, would be added to the Park. This Bill did not pledge the House to any definite plan, or to any special architecture, but merely to the purchase of the required land. The First Commissioner of Works had paid great attention to this matter, and the Government believed that the selection of this site would be of far greater advantage and convenience to the Public Service than would be obtained by any of the other suggested sites, while at the same time the scheme could be carried out at a reasonable and moderate cost. He might say that a block plan of the proposed buildings had been placed on the Library Table for the convenience of the House. His Lordship concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
§ Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a,"—(The Lord Sudeley.)
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLsaid, that circumstances had long given him a personal acquaintance with the locality in question. He could not think that the noble Lord had advanced any argument in favour of this project. There were two main objections to it. The first was, there were no plans to enable the House to forecast clearly the nature of the proposed construction. The noble Lord did allude to some plan, but it was not contended that any plan existed from which their Lordships could arrive at a clear view of the proposed construction. To preserve anything like uniformity they would he obliged to build the new houses at least as high as Drummond's Bank; and another objection was that this construc- 434 tion was to be built on a space so limited that elevation had to be resorted to. The opinion of The Builder was that it would be impossible to produce anything like an architectural effect in the building to be erected in Spring Gardens. There was, moreover, no authority in favour of this scheme. It did not represent the prudence of any architect, it was not the result of any body of men, while the Council of Architects protested against it. It would annihilate Spring Gardens, which had been inhabited by several distinguished men—the late Lord Dudley, Secretary of State, Sir Astley Cooper, the distinguished surgeon, Sir John Lefevre, and others. It was an accepted principle that we should preserve as far as possible domiciles with which the names of distinguished men were associated. A sufficiently conclusive argument against this scheme lay in the fact that it would not only annihilate domiciles with which certain recollections were connected, but it would take away a place of worship—namely, St. Mathew's Chapel, which, many years back, was well known. It appeared to him that the scheme was adopted mainly because it was economic. He thought, however, that the question of expense ought not to stand in the way of having good Public Offices, and he might instance the example of the French Government, which had, immediately after the destruction of the public buildings by the Communists, rebuilt the Public Offices at a cost of £5,000,000. He was led to hope that many noble Lords had come to the House for the purpose of strongly opposing this Bill, and he would conclude by moving that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
§ Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
§ LORD LAMINGTONsaid, he understood that the principal advantage of this scheme was that it was economical. He regretted that the authorities had neglected to follow the recommendation of the Committee of 1877, and to take advantage, in accordance with that recommendation, of the ground in the neighbourhood of George Street. He was of opinion that it would have been well if the plan submitted by Mr. Mit- 435 ford had been adopted. The Admiralty would then have been close to the Colonial and Foreign Offices. There would, in fact, have been a concentration of Public Offices in proximity to the Houses of Parliament. The scheme would have made no extraordinary demand on the public purse. The whole of it might have been completed for £1,000,000 or £1,500,000. The plan at present proposed would deface the Public Parks, and leave Parliament Street in its present unsightly condition. He would appeal to the Government and ask them whether it was wise to do something which could not be undone, and which would be a standing disgrace to the Metropolis.
§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSETasked whether all the passages through which the people could at present enter the Park were to be closed? Ho would suggest that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, if there was any chance of its coming back again in sufficient time for legislation. In his opinion, that might be done in three or four days. Meanwhile, consideration should be given to the means of enabling the people to enter the Park.
§ VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, that, although the plan might be open to some objections, ho did not think that the House of Lords would stand in the way of something being done which would give them a new and convenient War Office. The proper place for the War Office was near the Horse Guards. The accommodation in the present War Office was quite inadequate. If any of their Lordships would examine that part of the Office which was set apart for the Commander-in-Chief, they would see at once how unsuited the building was to the purposes of a Public Office. At present engineers were in one place, clerks in another, and on many occasions when it was desirable that high officials should communicate with the Secretary of State he hesitated to send for them, because they wore so far from his Office. He was, therefore, delighted to hear that a scheme was to be carried out which would bring all the officials of the War Department into one building. He feared that if the plan suggested by the Government were not accepted they might fail to get anything at all. He could not understand why buildings worthy of the nation should not be 436 erected on that part of the Park which was to be devoted to this purpose. For his own part, he should be very glad to see buildings designed simply, if they contained proper offices, than fine architectural buildings with no accommodation for the proper transaction of business. He trusted, also, that a system of drainage would be adopted which would not kill the inmates.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he thought that the public were very much interested in having good and noble Government Offices, and did not think they would grudge the scheme. He should like to know what difficulty stood in the way of opening a road from Hyde Park Corner to the corner of Sutherland House, and of opening a road from there to Charing Cross? Such a line of communication would, in his opinion, be of great accommodation to the public.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he thought that their Lordships should have been supplied with a fuller plan than that which he had seen. The plan afforded very little information as to the objects proposed. He admitted that in the choice of a site the responsibility must rest upon the Government; but ho doubted very much whether there was sufficient space to have all the Offices, both of the War Department and the Admiralty, concentrated on the spot selected. So far as the quadrangles were concerned, they would be very much smaller than those of the Offices lately erected, and these were smaller than they should be.
§ THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he entirely agreed with what had fallen from the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbrook) that nothing could be so bad as the present accommodation of the War Office. Though he had been often in it, he never could find his way to the office of the Commander-in-Chief without a messenger to guide him. The Admiralty Offices were very much better than those of the War Department, still he was bound to say that there were the same grounds for having the different offices under the same roof. No one would doubt that it would be greatly for the advantage of both Departments that they should have their offices in juxtaposition. The noble Lord had said that the Admiralty was in constant communication with the Colonial and 437 Foreign Offices; but it was still more important that it should be in communication with the War Department. It was admitted that the proposed plan was economical, and the objections were—first, that the space might be insufficient. With regard to the Admiralty, he had satisfied himself that there was ample space for the offices, and he was informed that the same conclusion had been come to with respect to the War Office. As to the objection that the Admiralty would be put to inconvenience by being twice shifted, he was told by the First Commissioner of Works that a plan would be arranged by which that inconvenience would be avoided. He could not find in the Report of the Committee of 1877 any recommendation of the Great George Street site. What he did find was something entirely in favour of the present Bill. Having mentioned three or four sites, the Committee said they thought that the Government should recommend "some site" to the consideration of Parliament. He understood from his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works that both the architectural design and the precise disposition of the ground were to be left for future consideration. All that their Lordships would do by passing this Bill would be to approve of the site upon which the buildings would be placed. Having on different occasions considered several sites, he believed the proposed site was the best for the purpose. He hoped their Lordships would pass the Bill, which had been referred to a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and passed without objection from a single Member of that House.
§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he had taken great interest in this subject, and it was with great regret that he saw the site of Parliament Street and Great George Street given up. It was obvious that there was no more difficulty in building on one site than on the other; but if they took the Parliament Street site they would avoid disturbing the Admiralty until such time as the new offices were ready. The object ought to be to improve the town at the same time that they provided better accommodation for the Public Offices, and he believed there could be no greater improvement to the town than by taking Parliament Street for the site of these buildings.
§ LORD SUDELEYstated that the First Commissioner said that if this plan was adopted the Admiralty would not be removed until the new offices were built.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLsaid, he believed it would be in accordance with the feeling of the House if he were to ask their Lordships to pronounce upon the subject.
§ On question, that ("now") stand part of the Motion, resolved in the affirmative.
§ Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed for Monday next.