Lords Sitting of 11 March 1889

HOUSE OF LORDS (DISCONTINUANCE OF WRITS) BILL.
A Bill to authorise the cancellation, discontinuance, and re-issue in particular cases of writs of summons to the House of Lords—Was presented by the Earl of Carnarvon; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday, 19th March. (No. 18.)

PUBLIC BUILDINGS IN THE METROPOLIS.—QUESTION.
LORD LAMINGTON, in rising to call the attention of the House to the state of the public buildings in the Metropolis, said: My object in bringing forward the question of public buildings so early in the Session is to anticipate the Estimates in the House of Commons; because, as a general rule, whenever there is any proposal made in this House with reference to improvements in public buildings, the answer is that the money is already appropriated. I am not going to complain of what the Government has done during the Recess in the matter of public buildings; I cannot make that complaint, because they have done nothing at all. With respect to the public offices, and especially the Admiralty and the War Office, this discussion has been going on for 25 years. Committee after Committee have sat, plan after plan has been proposed, there has been the battle of sites and the battle of designs, and yet nothing has been done at all. It is a most extravagant policy, because the country is paying for the hire of public offices an amount of
1350
rent which, if capitalized, would have erected the most beautiful and perfect buildings possible. I hope Her Majesty's Government will be able to explain why the plan proposed in 1886 has not been carried into effect. My great object in bringing forward this question is to show the indifference, not only of this Government, but of every other Government, to this important subject. Take, for instance, the question of the housing of the National Portrait Gallery, a collection thoroughly worthy of the country, which was removed to the Bethnal Green Museum some three years ago, at the instance of Mr. Gladstone, who was one of the trustees. I was a trustee, and I ventured to differ with Mr. Gladstone, but the collection was removed. Mr. Gladstone was then in office, and he assured Parliament that suitable provision would be made and an adequate gallery provided; but nothing has been done. There the pictures remain in Bethnal Green, and the more recent acquisitions are hid away in any cellars that are available in the National Gallery. After all, the exhibition of the pictures at Bethnal Green has not added one visitor to the ordinary number of those who attend the Museum there; the pictures are treated with absolute indifference. I submit, my Lords, that it is intolerable that this magnificent collection—especially that unique collection of portraits of the illustrious men of our country which could not be replaced if destroyed by fife or otherwise—should be deposited in a quarter of the town where they are practically lost. The trustees of the National Gallery have presented a memorial, "urging upon the Government the desirability of providing a suitable place for the pictures now

1351
located in Bethnal Green Museum," but no notice has been taken of the memorial. As to the question of site, there are two sites already available, either one of which could be secured at a comparatively small expense. I may mention especially the site of Lord Carrington's former house in Whitehall. As an instance of the unsatisfactory policy pursued with regard to public buildings generally, I may refer to the Parliament Street Improvement, for which a sum of £17,000 was voted. Instead of a good plan being decided upon and carried out, and all the buildings on what is called the George Street site being pulled down, and a handsome block of public offices, close to the Houses of Parliament, and in every way convenient, being erected, the work of demolition and reconstruction was entrusted to a company, and after the lapse of two years nothing has been done. My Lords, this is really the only country in the world where no interest whatever is taken, either by the rulers or the people, in the beauty of its Metropolis. In Rome, Paris, Berlin, and Vienna the public buildings are worthy of great capitals, and even in our Colonies the people take great pride in their public buildings; but here nobody seems to care. With regard to the new buildings on the west side of Westminster Hall, I admit that outside the work is well done; but inside it has been discovered that there is no space, according to the plans, to make a necessary corridor, so that the rooms actually run into one another, and are of on use at all. It is the same with the Royal Courts of Justice. There is not half the accommodation required. There are corridors which lead nowhere and windows which let in no light. I think that the Government should either explain the causes of this unsatisfactory condition of things, or else contend boldly that they have no responsibility in the matter. I beg to ask the Question of which I have given notice.
LORD HENNIKER: I have no doubt your Lordships will appreciate as I do the intention of my noble Friend in bringing this question before your Lordships' House. I have no doubt that he wishes to see improvements carried on in the Metropolis, and he would also like to see those valuable collections of pictures and portraits which belong to the country pro-
1352
perly housed. I will not follow my noble Friend through all his observations, because I have answered some of those questions during the last two or three years, over and over again. With regard to the Admiralty and War Office buildings, the National Portrait Gallery, and the Parliament Street improvements, to which my noble Friend has referred, the House is aware that a great many plans have been placed before Parliament and the public for a long time past, and the plan known as that of Leeming and Leeming had not only been adopted, but the work had been commenced. Parliament interfered and took the question up, and a Committee was appointed in 1885, and re-appointed in 1887, to take the whole thing in hand; and, because they had done nothing immediately, it was hardly right to blame the Office of Works for the delay. The plan to be adopted for the Admiralty would be the basis upon which the War Office plans would be considered, because the one greatly depends upon the other. I have never given any pledge as to what would be done; I have only tried to tell exactly what was being done. The carrying out of plans by the Office of Works depends entirely on the Parliamentary grants; and this year, owing to the special demands on the Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with the Navy, it is more than ever improbable that money will be forthcoming for public works. With regard to the Admiralty, a small sum has been put into the Estimates for the purpose of allowing the work to be begun. A proper home for the pictures in the National Portrait Gallery will be built as soon as the money is granted. There will be no difficulty in the matter of plans or sites, so soon as the necessary funds are available. My noble Friend said just now that he thought the pictures would never come back from Bethnal Green; but I must remind him that they were sent distinctly on loan, and they will be brought back as soon as there is a proper lodging for them. With respect to improvements in Parliament Street, a private company two years ago obtained an Act of Parliament for the erection of certain buildings, on the condition that £500,000 was raised before the works were begun. This condition has delayed the carrying out of the

1353
scheme, but I am informed privately that there is no doubt that the requisite money will be subscribed before very long. The Office of Works have made proposals to the promoters of the company for the sale of certain land in Parliament Street in which the Government had an interest; and though no official reply has yet been received, the First Commissioner of Works has reason to believe that the proposals made as to price and so on will be acceptable to the promoters.
At a subsequent period:—
LORD SANDHURST: I understood from the statement of the noble Lord (Lord Henniker) that there were about 140,000 visitors to the National Portrait Gallery before the removal of the collection to Bethnal Green. I should like to know if he could tell us in round figures what the number of visitors has been since the removal?
LORD HENNIKER: I have not the figures with me, but I believe that last year and the year before last there were three or four times as many visitors to the Portrait Gallery at the Bethnal Green Museum as compared with the number who visited the National Portrait Gallery in the year immediately preceding the removal of the collection.

DOCK ACCOMMODATION AT BOMBAY.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government whether any definite arrangement has been made for providing the requisite dock accommodation for the ships of Her Majesty's Navy at Bombay, said: My Lords, a Question upon this subject was, as far back as December last, put by me to Her Majesty's Government, and I was on that occasion answered by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India, who said that the negotiations between the India Office and the Admiralty, which naturally must precede any definite adoption of plans, were almost completed, and that he hoped that very shortly the works would be commenced. My noble Friend—and indeed everyone who has had to do with the Admiralty—have repeatedly expressed their opinion—an opinion in which I am quite sure every noble Lord who has considered this subject will concur—that docks at Bom-1354
  bay, capable of accommodating the largest vessels, are absolutely necessary; and the question I wish to ask is, whether there is any hitch in the progress of the matter; and, if so, whether that hitch will be very shortly removed, so that the works may go forward? I think I need not take up your Lordships' time by pointing out the extreme necessity which exists for this work. In the event of war, we should have a great deal of work for our Navy in these seas, and quite probably in the immediate vicinity of Bombay. Without wishing to re-open the interesting discussion we had the other day upon the question of dock accommodation at Gibraltar, I may just point out that the views which my noble Friend (Lord Carnarvon) expressed on that occasion certainly do not hold good in this instance, for the distance from the Indian Seas to the nearest available dock is very much greater than the distance which my noble Friend quoted as being sufficient for Gibraltar—namely, three days' sail from Plymouth. Some years ago an accident occurred in the Indian Ocean to a ship much smaller than the vessels which we should be employing in the event of actual hostilities, and she had to be towed all the way through the Red Sea to Suez, simply because in our greatest Colony, in which centres an enormous proportion of our commerce, where it is quite certain our Possessions would be the object of the strongest attack by any enemy, there was no accommodation for the repairs that were necessary. The nearest dock is at Mauritius, which is not a Government dock, and it is some 3,000 miles away. The next nearest dock is at Hong Kong. So that, in the event of accident to any vessel on the Indian Station, she would, have to be taken off the station, which would thereby be, to the extent of that vessel's capabilities, unprotected. Her Majesty's Government have stated on two previous occasions that they were bound to see the construction of a naval dock at Bombay carried forward at once, and I should like them to explain why the work has been entirely suspended, and nothing whatever done for the last 12 months.
  LORD ELPHINSTONE: I Can assure your Lordships that the Government are fully sensible of the desirability, and

  1355
  even of the absolute necessity, of having a dock at Bombay. I admit at once the force of the arguments that have been put forward by my noble Friend; but, owing to more pressing demands of an important character, it has not been found advisable to commence the work of construction this year. There is a scheme which has, practically, the approval of the Admiralty, for the construction of a first-class dock at Bombay; but, pending the distribution of the expense between the Imperial and the Indian Governments, the matter is still under the consideration of both Governments. My noble Friend may permit me to remind him that there is already at Bombay a dock belonging to the Port Trust, which will be available for small vessels, and they are now constructing a graving dock inside.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): I should like to add that, with regard to the action that is being taken by the Port Trust at Bombay, I have had private intimation that a larger dock might be constructed if certain money were handed over by the Government to assist in the cost of construction. Seeing the great delay that has taken place on the part of the Imperial Government, I am now in communication with the Government of India to see whether we cannot come to some arrangement with the Bombay Port Trust, in order to make the graving dock of theirs of sufficient size to take the largest vessels. I am quite aware that that would involve the enlarging of the wet dock, through which all the ships would have to pass in order to get to the graving dock; but I am informed privately that there would be practically no difficulties in the way except that of money, and I hope that some arrangement may be come to between the Imperial and the Indian Governments, whereby something, at all events, may be done in the way of assisting the Bombay Port Trust to so enlarge their docks that they may be utilized in case of need by Her Majesty's Navy.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: As my noble Friend (Viscount Sidmouth) has referred to what I said the other day, I rise just to make two observations. So far from objecting to the
  1356
  construction of a dock at Bombay, I am very glad to bear out what has been said by my noble Friend as to the urgent necessity of carrying out that work. As a matter of fact, Bombay is so situated that there is no convenient dock within a large distance which would be available in such an emergency as that contemplated by the noble Lord. But I must protest against the argument of my noble Friend, when he asked what would be the consequences of a breakdown near Gibraltar. If there was any logical conclusion to be drawn from the argument, it was that we should have a large dock constructed there at enormous expense, which would, after all, not be in a tenable and defensible position. I confess that I object to the construction of a dock at Gibraltar, and I do so on the broad ground that it is not possible, as I understand, in the present condition of modern gunnery, to make it defensible against an enemy who held the Spanish heights. If, in the chances and exigencies of war, Spain were to be our opponent, the dock at Gibraltar would be wholly indefensible. The case of Bombay, however, as my noble Friend knows, and as must be appreciated by anyone with naval experience, is entirely different. A dock there is, as far as I understand, desirable; and I shall be glad to see it constructed as rapidly as possible.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Having brought the question of dock accommodation at Bombay before your Lordships last Session, I wish to point out that the answer then given was that there was no ironclad on the Indian Station, and that our fleet in Indian waters was, notwithstanding, superior in force to that of any other Naval Power there. Since then, in consequence of what has occurred at Zanzibar, it has been found necessary to send an ironclad to that station; and, in view of the increased Naval Forces of other Powers, it may be necessary to send more. In that case, there is no adequate dock accommodation for them between Malta and the Cape of Good Hope. I would venture to point out that this fact shows the importance of making some provision for our vessels at some point nearer to Zanzibar than is at present available.

THE METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS—PRESERVATION OF FRONTAGES IN THE METROPOLIS.

  QUESTION.
  EARL FORTESCUE, in rising to ask the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works whether it is the fact that, in spite of the unanimous opposition of the Vestry of St. Marylebone, the Metropolitan Board of Works has granted permission to the Samaritan Free Hospital to advance their frontage 12 feet on the Marylebone Road; and whether, if this is so, in view of the importance of preserving all open spaces in the Metropolis, and of the danger of one encroachment forming a precedent for others, the Board will not postpone action in the matter until it can be dealt with by the London County Council, said: My Lords, the Metropolitan. Board, in a recent case gave two reasons for sanctioning a very similar encroachment, first, that there had been previous encroachments extending to the very next house, secondly, that the Vestry of St. Pancras was in favour of the encroachment. In this case the action pf the Metropolitan Board, as set out in the Question which I have put on the Paper, is one that has throughout met with opposition from the Vestry of St. Marylebone and the ratepayers of the district. In a communication made to the Board by the Vestry so far back as the 4th October last, the Board was informed that the Vestry opposed the application by the Hospital for an advance of frontage, which was then to be 30, not 12 feet; yet on the 15th November, there having been in the meantime no further communications, the Board announced that they had consented to that advance. The opposition on the part of the Vestry was renewed. On January 31 the Metropolitan Board informed the Vestry that as the Hospital Authorities now asked for only an advance of 12 feet, they would take no further action in the matter. Upon that public meetings were held, at which resolutions condemnatory of the proposal were passed, and the Members for the borough were asked to bring in a Bill to prohibit the projection beyond the line of frontage. But on the 7th of March the Metropolitan Board finally confirmed its approval, though the London County Council had pre-
  1358
  viously requested that Board to postpone granting permission to the Hospital for an advance of frontage. The land which the Board has thus given away is of considerable value, and therefore the action of the Board amounted, in effect, to making a donation from the public funds to this Hospital. Besides this, there is the consideration that the space reserved is infringed upon, and the contiguous property deprived of light and air. I beg to ask the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works whether it is yet too late to reconsider the matter; and whether the Board, which will in a very short time be superseded by the London County Council, will not leave the determination of such a matter as this to their successors?
  LORD MAGHERAMORNE: In answer to the Question of the noble Earl, the Metropolitan Board of Works have given their consent to the Samaritan Free Hospital bringing forward their frontage 12 ft. Perhaps your Lordships would like to know very shortly the facts of the case. In October last application was made to the Metropolitan Board of Works by the Committee of the Samaritan Free Hospital to advance their frontage about 30 ft. The matter was thoroughly gone into, and in consideration of what that Hospital had done, and what it was likely to do when the facilities for its good work was extended, the Board gave their consent to an advance of the frontage, not by 12 ft., but by 30 ft. There were many representations made, and the Committee of the Hospital came again into communication with the Metropolitan Board, when they showed their appreciation of the opinion and the wishes of the public; and after a long conference with the Metropolitan Board, instead of trying to go against public opinion, they said they would be very glad to bring in an amended plan. They did so, and asked only for 12 ft. advance, and that was an advance which only affected the gardens, which practically belonged to themselves. There was no infringement at all on the road, which is 50 ft. wide. I confess I was never more astonished in my life than when I heard all this tumult, and also the Question of the noble Earl. I think that the Metropolitan Board of Works have done their duty in giving their consent to that advance. I may

  1359
  say, further, that the Metropolitan Board have the greatest possible respect for those who are coming after them; but if the noble Earl thinks that I am or that my colleagues are going to abrogate the position we hold, and to be afraid to carry out our duties as long as the Metropolitan Board exists, I must tell Mm that he is very much mistaken. We intend, as long as we have a duty to perform, to carry it out in the most thorough and efficient manner. We have done everything in our power in no way to infringe on the duties of the new County Council; and as I see my successor (Lord Rosebery) sitting opposite to me, I think that noble Earl will endorse the statement that we have shown every desire to avoid infringing in any shape or form on the functions of the County Council. But at the same time the Metropolitan Board intend to discharge the duties imposed on them, and I am not afraid, here or anywhere else, to defend my colleagues in what they have done or are doing. The noble Earl (Earl Fortescue) asks whether I and my colleagues will not postpone action in this matter? I and my colleagues have tried to act within the law. We took legal opinion, and we cannot make or recommend those to whom we have given permission to give it up. It was signed and passed by the Board, and whatever the County Council like to do they can do. I believe that they have sent a letter—I do not know what the letter is, or what was the answer to it—but the Committee of the Samaritan Free Hospital are acting on their rights if they come forward 12 ft. The Metropolitan Board cannot act against the legal advice that has been given them; and, as we shall die very soon, the County Council may take what steps they please in the matter.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I must confess that I know very little about the particular matter referred to in the Question of the noble Lord, but I must say that I have been very much struck by the doctrine enunciated by the noble Lord the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, which I must say does not accord with my view of what is the duty of a public body in the position now occupied by that Board. In my opinion, whenever a public body is so near
  1360
  extinction, it is bound, on a due consideration of the public interests, not to do any act that is not urgent, or that could, without public disadvantage be postponed. For instance, I may say that the magistrates of my own county, acting on that principle, have postponed a variety of things entirely within their jurisdiction until the County Council could deal with them, on the ground that, as a moribund body, it was not right for them to take too rigid a view of their duty, and do things of which their successors would not approve. If the matter was one which it was necessary should be decided without delay, and the public interests would suffer by its postponement, the Metropolitan Board of Works would be justified in their action; but I hope that they are not going, in these matters, to stand on their strict legal rights, and to think it a patriotic duty to exercise them fully to the very last day of their existence.
  LORD MAGHERAMORNE: Perhaps I may say, in reply, that this matter came forward first of all last September, so that it must not be accounted one of the things done by the Board on the very eve of its dissolution. The noble Earl who last spoke commenced with the observation that he did not know anything about this matter, and I must say that the observations that he has made show that he has not studied it in such a way that his comments upon it are of any advantage to your Lordships.
  EARL FORTESCUE: As I put this Question to the noble Lord, perhaps I may be permitted to say that, as the building operations of the Samaritan Hospital cannot commence till the spring, and the London County Council take over their jurisdiction on the 1st April, the notion that this is a pressing matter is really the most extraordinary view that even the Metropolitan Board has ever taken.
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.