HL Deb 18 July 1882 vol 272 cc836-43

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee."—(The Lord Sudeley.)

LOUD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL

, in moving that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, said, it would be unwise to hurry the Bill through without due consideration. He was by no means ready to concede that the proposed scheme would be the most economical one; and he thought its promoters, at all events, ought not to shrink from establishing its merits in that and other respects. There was no doubt that the existing War Office involved the greatest inconvenience; but it was by no means certain that by carrying this Bill without subjecting it to examination by a Select Committee the authorities and officials of the War Office would be released a day sooner from the hardships they now endured. Some other plan to be adopted in another Session might provide for the construction of a new War Office sooner and better than this measure would do. The noble Lord concluded by moving that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

Amendment moved, to leave out from ("That") to the end of the Motion, for the purpose of inserting ("the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.")—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)

LORD WAVENEY

said, he considered this Bill was one of the most paradoxical ever presented to Parliament. The Bill was to enable the Government to purchase land for public buildings; but they had no plan of the buildings before them, and they ought to know something of what was intended to be done. It was a subject which should be considered by a Select Committee of that House and a Joint Committee of both Houses. It might be said that, this being in the nature of a measure to impose taxation and incur expenditure, their Lordships were precluded from dealing with it. He was aware, therefore, that there might be technical difficulties in the way of referring it to a Select Committee of that House; but the question had other im- portant aspects besides its pecuniary one, which their Lordships were well entitled to take into consideration and give a judgment upon. They had at that end of Westminster a mass of the finest public buildings in Europe, which had arisen with the free consent and by the liberality of the British people. Those buildings were such as would bear comparison with the public buildings of any city in the world. They required no dictatorship in regard to the architectural adornment of that city; but what they did require and what they were entitled to before they expended the money levied from the taxpayers was that there should be scientific knowledge, accurately and well applied for the purposes to which that money was to be devoted; and he saw no proof of any such care and attention having been given in this case. He was prepared, at the risk of some possible informality, to go to a division on that question if the Motion were pressed.

LORD LAMINGTON

said, he fully agreed that this was a subject which should be considered by a Select Committee, for a more unsatisfactory plan for public buildings had never been presented to Parliament. The proposed erections would block up the path, and prevent the carrying out of improvements. But after all the observations made upon the Bill, and bad as the scheme was, he was not prepared to send the Bill to a Select Committee, as they might have no new War Office at all, and one was urgently required. He, therefore, could not vote for the Amendment.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

said, the scheme did require further examination. It had long been contemplated to open an exit from the Mall to Charing Cross, and if this were considered too costly at the present moment, it might be done in better times. But on the proposed plan, a block of buildings, described as official residences, was to be placed on the line of the avenue, so as to make this improvement impossible hereafter. As these residences could be otherwise provided for, he trusted that this part of the plan was not positively decided upon.

VISCOUNT HARDINGE

said, he thought it rather late in the Session to remove the Bill to a Select Committee. The object of the noble Lord who wished to send the Bill to a Select Committee seemed to be to get rid of it altogether. He confessed, however, that he was not strongly in favour of the Bill. He thought considerations of economy should not be so strongly paramount as they were in the present scheme, and he did not think that they ought to ignore architectural considerations. At the same time, he feared that if they now sent the Bill to a Select Committee, with a view of considering the plan of the noble Earl (the Earl of Redesdale) for the adoption of the George Street site, it would only lead to the indefinite delay of the construction of new Offices, which were so urgently required. As to the architectural question, he thought there would be great difficulty in fitting in the War Office with the Admiralty. At all events, if the Bill passed, he hoped their Lordships would have some time given them for discussing the plans. He thought it impossible to have a frontage possessing good architectural symmetry. However, knowing, as he did, the state of the War Office, he would not take upon himself the responsibility of voting for an Amendment which had for its object the upsetting of the whole scheme.

THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)

said, that everyone seemed to be in favour of his plan; but he might remind their Lordships that if they passed this Bill it was completely gone. For his own part, he believed that the site at Spring Gardens would be by no means an effective one, being deprived of all frontage to Charing Cross, and certainly it would not be nearly so convenient as that at Great George Street, which was the proper place in which to erect the new public buildings, while the present Admiralty, with some alterations, might be devoted to some of the minor offices; and although he did not consider the present Admiralty was now of great beauty as an architectural elevation, there was nothing discreditable in it. The screen in front, which was originally very beautiful, was now almost entirely destroyed. Formerly there was only one entrance in it; but William IV., when Duke of Clarence, went to reside there, and, to increase the carriage accommodation, had two entrances cut in the screen, and also some of the pillars removed from the front. If they adopted the Parliament Street site they need remove no public buildings, and as both the War Office and the Admiralty could go on together, they would be both connected with each other, which would be a great public convenience. As it was, they would have to pull down the Ship Tavern and the buildings right up to Drummond's Bank. The plan proposed was a miserable one in every way, and as public opinion was being so strongly pronounced against it he hoped it would not be proceeded with.

VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT

said, he should support the Bill as it stood.

LORD TRURO

said, he considered that the question had been virtually settled by the second reading of the measure, and contended that, looking at the absolute necessity there was for the immediate construction of a new War Office, it would be highly inexpedient to send the Bill to a Select Committee, and thus cause indefinite delay for the purpose of considering another scheme. Those who were connected with the War Office and the Admiralty had expressed their opinion in the most emphatic manner that, for doing away with the inconveniences they now suffered from, no better site could be chosen than that which the Government proposed to purchase. As he understood, no definite conclusion had been arrived at, either to what he might call the character of the building or the architecture. It had been the habit of late years for architects and builders to resort to a stone which they thought was more economical, but which was by no means so well suited to the atmosphere of this country as the old Portland stone, of which all our fine buildings were constructed.

VISCOUNT CRANBROOK

said, that this question had been discussed over and over again, without any agreement being come to. If the matter was once more referred to a Select Committee, there would simply be a repetition of the old confusion. He did not altogether approve of the Spring Garden site; but he reminded their Lordships that it was far better to adopt some site on which the Government could agree at once rather than waste further time. It was of great importance, in the opinion of military men, that the War Office should be in immediate conjunction with the Horse Guards, as it was now proposed to accomplish. He regretted that for the purpose of the Admiralty and the War Office the Government had not proposed to purchase the whole block of buildings from the Admiralty Office to Charing Cross. As to the houses between Great George Street and Charles Street, he thought they ought to have been pulled down years ago. That site could be appropriated to minor offices. The public would not endure that in Parliament Street there should be the deformity occasioned by the present houses between Charles Street and Great George Street. Necessarily, the adoption of the George Street site would lead to the preparation and adoption of plans that would cost an enormous sum of money, and then the Treasury would be sure to interfere. The difficulty which he found when in Office, and when proposing to obtain this site, was with the Treasury, which naturally objected to pay, not hundreds of thousands, but millions—£2,000,000 for the site. As to the question of architecture, he thought it would not be impossible to find an architect who, as in the ease of the barracks at Hyde Park, would combine public utility with a graceful exterior.

LORD SUDELEY

My Lords, I hope you will not assent to the proposal of the noble Lord to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. The noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbrook), who has just spoken, has advanced such strong reasons why this should not be so, that I can have very little to add to his statement. No doubt, under ordinary circumstances, and earlier in the Session, it would have been a proposal to which little objection could have been taken. But the circumstances under which the Bill comes before the House are exceptional. We are now towards the end of July, and it is clear, from the discussion which has just taken place, that if it were to go before a Select Committee, the whole question of sites would be re-opened, and there would be little chance of getting the Bill through this Session—especially if it were sent back altered to the other House. Let us glance for a moment at the history of this matter. I find it stated before a Committee, as far back as the year 1854, that the building of a new War Office was of "paramount importance. The noble Earl the Chairman of Committees (the Earl of Redesdale) has stated to-night that the decision which this Bill carries with it is a hasty one. Surely, my Lords, if the question has been under consideration for nearly 30 years, this step cannot be looked upon as an ill-considered or hasty one. During that time we have had Select Committee after Select Committee, plan upon plan, suggestion after suggestion, and nearly every First Commissioner of Works has had his own particular view of the question. Yet, still, we have the enormous inconvenience, which has been so often alluded to, of the War Office and the Admiralty being scattered over a number of different houses—a state of things which the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbrook), in his evidence, rightly described as "a scandal to the country." In order to point out how difficult it is for a Select Committee to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion amidst various conflicting interests and opinions, it is only necessary to refer again to the last Committee which sat on this subject in 1877, and which, after carefully deliberating for more than two months, and having several plans before them, could only arrive at the obvious conclusion that the Government should lose no time in bringing forward "some plan." My Lords, I think no stronger argument is needed against the proposal for a Select Committee. But it must be remembered also that this Bill is not one which pledges the House to any definite plan, elevation, or architectural design. It is merely one to enable certain lands and houses to be purchased. Before anything can be done towards erecting the building, the whole matter must again come before Parliament. I will now deal briefly with the points raised by the noble Lord (Lord Stratheden and Campbell). First of all, he objects to what he considers the very improper proceeding of not allowing this Bill to go before a Select Committee in this House, as it has already done in the other House, for the protection of individual rights. It is quite clear from this that the noble Lord is not aware that this is a Hybrid Bill, and has, in accordance with the Standing Orders of this House, been open to be petitioned against up till last Friday by any persons who might consider that by it their rights would be infringed—in which case the Bill must have gone to a Select Committee. But what has happened? Not a single person has presented a Petition, and the Bill, in the natural order of things, has gone before the Committee presided over by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, and passed through that ordeal without objection. I hope your Lordships will agree that this completely answers the objection as to individual rights. The noble Lord objects again to-night, as he did on the second reading, to the pulling down of many of the houses in Spring Gardens of old historic association. Doubtless, it is a matter of considerable regret to us all; but it is quite clear that when any great improvements of this sort are carried out, they must interfere with the existence of such buildings, and I fear it will be the same in the present case. My Lords, in connection with this it is a curious thing that the principal opposition advanced in the other House to the Bill was not that these houses were to come down, but that a number of others—Drummond'sBank, the Sun Fire Office, the Union Bank, and other private offices—were not included in the proposed purchase. I think we may safely leave these two sets of opponents to meet each other's objections. The third objection is that the Council of Architects disapprove of the Bill, because they say it will prevent a broad avenue ever being made to open up Charing Cross to the Mall. It is perfectly true, as the noble Earl (the Earl of Longford) opposite said, there is on the plan a block of buildings, intended as the residence of the First Lord of the Admiralty, which would apparently prevent such an avenue being made; but, as I have pointed out, it is not proposed to commence these buildings for some time; and, therefore, if considered desirable, it would be quite possible to make an avenue at any time during the next 10 years, before the completion of these offices. As it would now involve an outlay of £150,000, it is not thought advisable to take up the question. The road by Drummond's Bank will be widened by 60 feet, so as to allow of proper access to the new Admiralty; and the small road by the Metropolitan Board of Works will also be widened to 40 feet, so that there may be ample convenience for ordinary traffic. Thus the objections of the noble Lord can in every way be thoroughly disposed of. The idea of having this office in Spring Gardens is not a new one. Mr. Ayrton reminds me that when First Commissioner in 1872, he proposed a scheme for erecting a new War Office and Admiralty; and, though I am informed it differed in many important respects from that now before Parliament, it was certainly on the Spring Gardens site. As regards the erection, in the first instance, of the Admiralty, I wish to correct an error I fell into the other night as to what is proposed on this subject. I find the First Commissioner has, in a measure, reconsidered the matter, and proposes to first erect the block nearly facing the Park——one-half for the Admiralty, and one-half for the War Office—so that the Admiralty need not be disturbed till half their buildings are erected, and, in that way, no inconvenience will arise. The question has been thoroughly inquired into. We are approaching the end of the Session, and, as I have already said, it is of the greatest possible importance that this Bill should not be delayed. Cases have constantly occurred during the last 30 years in which, owing to the delay in purchasing sites, the value has very considerably increased, which of itself must be considered of grave moment; and I trust that in the public interest your Lordships will allow the Bill to be considered in a Committee of the Whole House.

THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)

said, that, by the adoption of the scheme, the Admiralty would have to be erected first, so that the War Office—the condition of which had been so much deplored—would have to wait for a considerable time for any increased accommodation.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

suggested that—inasmuch as it had been admitted that if it had been earlier in the Session it might have been a proper course to have sent the Bill to a Committee—when the question came before their Lordships next Session in a different shape, the Government ought to consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to examine all the inconveniences that had been represented to their Lordships.

On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion?

Resolved in the affirmative.

House in Committee accordingly.

Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Friday next.