LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is intended in the present year to proceed to operations under the Public Offices Site Act, said: My Lords, it is not in Order to accelerate the operations of the Government under the Public Offices Site Act that I have put this Notice on the Paper. My aim is wholly different. Let me remind your Lordships how the question stands at present. According to the declaration of the Government last Session, until plans have been delivered to the Houses, no new building will commence. No such plans are yet before us. But the Act empowers the Government to destroy Spring Gardens and the Admiralty. At the same time, they are not bound to take any course under the Ac; and until the Treasury permit they are not qualified to do so. My Lords, there are many reasons why the Treasury should be slow to grant the latitude in question. The arguments against the Bill were wholly unreplied to. It was opposed to the utmost by the Institute of Architects. It is not by trampling on architectural opinion that any capital has ever been embellished. Although upon the face of it adopted, the Bill has never had the virtual sanction of the House, as no Division was resorted to—erroneously perhaps—and it is far from certain that a Division would have led to the Bill being carried. Its only pretext was economy, which cannot shelter it, however, as there is not the slightest definition of the outlay it may possibly accumulate. But there is one circumstance which last Session quite escaped the House, and I reproached myself for not having adverted to it. It is the mode in which the Bill would operate if carried out on the quarter made up of Carlton Gardens and Carlton House Terrace. As I am not one of its inhabitants, or likely to become so, I refer to this part of the case with greater freedom 1318 and with more impartiality. During a long course of years their view of St. James's Park—the particular advantage they have bought and paid for dearly—will be—if the Bill goes on—a view of dust, of dirt, of beams, of ladders, of demolition and confusion. When the result is gained, a new, a vast, and possibly a hideous edifice will stand on what is now an area of verdure and tranquillity. There can be no doubt whatever that the value of these houses will be considerably lowered. No family of ordinary prudence would think of choosing that locality while such a course of building was going on, and such an end might be anticipated. The unfortunate proprietors will not be able to escape without heavy loss, and not be able to hold on with any decency or comfort. But there is something else to be remembered. As far as I am able to inform myself, these houses are held under leases from the Crown. It naturally is so, as they are well known to have been placed, some 50 years ago, on the site of a Royal Palace. The holders are entitled to look to the Crown for protection from disturbance, so far, at least, as the Crown is qualified to give it, having purchased from the Crown with a security that no disturbance would arise. The Crown, however, could do nothing to protect them by itself, unless in the form of legislative veto on the Bill, which does not fall within the practice of our age, however just it would have been upon its merits. But what the Crown cannot do by itself the Treasury, which represents the Crown in some of its financial attributes, which has gradually become the first Department of the State and central force of the Executive, may take upon itself with perfect regularity and perfect order to accomplish. The extraordinary outlay which the country has incurred in Egypt, and which could not be foreseen when the Bill was carried, would fully justify prohibitory conduct upon their part. It could not be resented even by the supporters of the Bill, and it would deserve the gratitude of all who value beauty in the capital. The Treasury would merely imitate a function of the Supreme Court in the United States—that of arresting Bills by which a fundamental principle is violated. My Lords, I put the Question which stands in my name on the Paper.
LORD THURLOWIn reply to the Question of the noble Lord, I beg to say that the Chief Commissioner of Works proposes very shortly to invite the competition of architects for the new buildings for the War Office and Admiralty to be erected on the Spring Gardens site; but I am to add that no building will be erected or commenced until the next financial year, when a Vote for the purpose will be presented to Parliament, and opportunities will be given for a full discussion of the merits of the scheme. In regard to the Parliament Street site, I may also add that it is determined by the Office of Works to widen Parliament Street in the manner that has been proposed; and the site, when it is clear—and it will probably be some time before that happens—will be exclusively devoted to the erection of such buildings as banks and clubs and insurance companies' offices, and other noble buildings of that kind, with fitting architectural elevations, which will have to be approved by the Office of Works as suitable to the surroundings of the neighbourhood. Before that is done, ample warning would be given for a further discussion of the subject. That is all the information I am at present able to give. I may take this opportunity of stating, in reference to a Question asked the other night by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss), that there could not be found in the Office of Works any trace of the model of the buildings proposed to be erected in Parliament Street when Mr. Layard was First Commissioner, and there is no knowledge at the Office as to what has become of it.
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that the model cost £500, and was worth £1,500. He would suggest that a further search should be made for it.
§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, that in a short time proposals from architects would be received for the erection of a new War Office and Admiralty on the site already sanctioned, and money would be required for that purpose next Session. Before, however, money was asked, he hoped Parliament would have full opportunity of passing an opinion on the selected architect's designs. He confessed he was sorry to hear the conclusion at which the Government had arrived with regard to the widening of 1320 Parliament Street. He did not want clubs, banks, and hotels there. Such plans would be extremely injurious in a variety of ways. Now that Public Offices were in immediate contiguity to Parliament Street, he had hoped that other Public Offices would be erected, so as to be in the immediate neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament. The proposal of the Government was an extremely injurious and unfortunate one.