Lords Sitting of 16 July 1901

The Lord Chesham took the Oath.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  WATFORD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]

    WELLS CORPORATION WATER BILL.
    LONDON, TILBURY, AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY BILL.
    Reported with Amendments.

TORRINGTON AND OKEHAMPTON RAILWAY BILL.
  NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Standing Order No. 93, considered (according to Order), and dispensed with, with respect to a petition of the Surbiton Urban District Council; leave given to present the said petition.
  HANDSWORTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
BEXLEY TRAMWAYS BILL.
  CLEVELAND AND DURHAM COUNTY ELECTRIC POWER BILL.

    DUBLIN CORPORATION (MARKETS, ETC.) BILL.
    GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL.
    LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

    NAVAL WORKS (PROVISIONAL ORDER) BILL.
    House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
    Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
    Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SEWAGE DISPOSAL—ROYAL COMMISSION.
  Interim Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire and report what methods of treating and disposing of sewage may properly be adopted; with minutes of evidence, index, and appendices.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (EVICTION NOTICES).
  Return of the number of eviction notices filed during the quarter ended 30th June, 1901.
  IMPERIAL INSTITUTE—INDIAN SECTION.
  Annual Report for the year 1900–1901. Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  BETTING.
  The evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered, except to members of the Committee, until further order.
  Ordered that all Select Committees do adjourn over Thursday and Friday next.
  TRAWLERS' CERTIFICATES SUSPENSION BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee with a further Amendment; the Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House and by the Standing Committee to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 164.)
  DAY INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

NEW PUBLIC BUILDINGS IN WHITEHALL AND PARLIAMENT STREET—PROPOSED MODELS.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I do not know when it was that Mr. Chamberlain in one of his speeches said that Home Rule was "as dead as Julius Cæsar." I was certainly under the impression that all questions as regards models of the proposed public buildings at Whitehall and Parliament Street were as dead as the great emperor and conqueror to whom Mr. Chamberlain referred. I will give your Lordships the reason, first, why I thought that there was no hope. If I take your Lordships back about two years, when this matter was before the House, your Lordships will see the steps that were then taken. The first thing was that a memorial was drawn up praying for models to be made and publicly exhibited. The memorialists said—
"In respectfully making this request we are only asking in the public interest, and for the sake of those who come after us, that all possible care and precautions should be taken to ensure the erection of a War Office building in all ways worthy of the site, and that by the public exhibition of models, as proposed, successful precedents established in the case of designs for public buildings by H.M. Office of Works should now be followed."
That memorial which was presented two years ago was signed by 140 peers. Among the signatories were the Marquess of Lorne (then a Member of Parliament), one archbishop, five bishops, six dukes, and two field-marshals; so that your Lordships will see that it is difficult to conceive of a memorial that would carry more weight. This memorial was sent to my noble friend at the head of the Government. We got a very curt reply, in which my noble friend said that the Government had fully considered the subject, and that he was not prepared to take any action in the matter, and that contracts had already been taken. Now, whoever gave my noble friend information with regard to contracts was not quite accurate in this. Contracts may at that time have been taken so far as regarded the making of
552
the ground ready and fit for the building; but at that time, as I shall show presently, no contract had been taken for the actual building itself. That was two years ago, and so far there was nothing as regards, the question of contracts or building which might have interfered in any way with what is now asked, the presentation of models.
Upon this reply I ventured to put down a resolution, which I do not need to trouble your Lordships with, which was very much the same as the resolution I am now about to submit to the House. On the 4th August, 1899,* I brought this subject before your Lordships in, as I hope, a very sensible and temperate speech, and it was met by the Government, I might almost say, with contumely—that is to say, they snubbed us. My noble friend the Secretary for War was put up to reply, and he "sniped" us all round at that time. Not only that, but with exceptional facetiousness he told us that if we got the model and placed it on a table we should only see the buildings as we might see them from the top of the Duke of York's Column.
My Lords, I will say no more upon that point, and I need not say more to prove the opposition of His Majesty's Government to this procedure which was then asked for. But, my Lords, I think you will see that at that time there was very little hope of anything more being done, and nothing occurred for two years to make me think there was any chance of bringing Julius Cæsar to life again. But to my surprise a short time ago I read a letter in The Times from the professor of architecture, Mr. Aitchison. His letter to The Times was followed up by action on the part of the Royal Institute of British Architects. In consequence of what they have said, which I shall presently read to your Lordships, I thought I was justified in again bringing this matter forward, not on the strength of anything I may think or say, but backed by such authorities as that, and I unhesitatingly, as a matter of common sense, would put the professor of architecture and the present president of the Institute of British Architects against any advice that the Government may get from the casual holder of the office of Commissioner of His Majesty's Works.
* See Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxv., page 1430.

553
So much for that. What did the professor of architecture say in this letter, and what have the Royal Institute of British Architects said in support of his views? The letter begins by saying what I am sure all your Lordships will cordially sympathise in (I do myself with regard to one of the distinguished architects)—
"It is most unfortunate that the two distinguished architects who were to build the new Government offices are both dead when the foundations alone have been completed."
I have got to show that the foundations are not begun—
"and I dare say that no model of either of these great public monuments exist. I believe that all the principal buildings of the world, at least since Justinian's time, were built from models, and by the precaution taken by the Pope to have a model made we have now Michael Angelo's Dome at St. Peter's."
So much for the late president. Now what has been the action of the present president, Mr. Emerson, and the Council. Here is a letter from the secretary, Mr. Locke, he says—
"The Council have directed me to write to the Office of Works and say that, having had a suggestion from you, and having seen Professor Aitchison's letter in The Times, they would like to draw the attention of H.M.'s Government to the desirability of having models made of the new Government buildings."
And they go on to say how desirable it is that someone other than the head of the Office of Works, some architect, should be appointed to look after the work in the room of those two architects who are unfortunately dead.
That is the position in which this stands, and I can hardly think that on a question of this kind, which interests not only those who may live to see these buildings finished, but which must affect posterity—because these buildings will occupy one of the most perfect sites in the most beautiful part of London—I can hardly fancy that the Government will be inclined to resist such opinions as those that I have quoted on the part of competent authorities, and I hope and trust that they will be inclined to yield at this time and that they will by so doing simply follow those successful precedents in the past.
Now, my Lords, I have nothing more to say in favour of my proposal, but I will pass to the replies that will probably be given on behalf of His Majesty's Government. I hope that my noble
554
friend since he has been in the Foreign Office has become more reasonable on this point than he was when he was Secretary for War, and that he will now be inclined to grant what I venture to ask on behalf of the Royal Institute of British Architects. But I will assume, for the sake of argument, that he will oppose my motion; what will his grounds of opposition be? As far as I can make out, it is only on two grounds that opposition can be based. The first is the one referred to by my noble friend the Prime Minister—that the contracts have been taken; and the other is that the War Office needs require that this matter should not be delayed, but should be dealt with at once. I propose, with your Lordships' permission, to deal shortly with those two arguments.
I may mention here that I did not divide on the resolution I brought forward in August, 1899, for the simple reason that I mistook what my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk said. He was one of the six Dukes who signed the memorial, and I understood him to say that his belief was that the Government would after all give way, but it turned out that what he said applied not to the case in point, but as a general principle for the future.
Now, with regard to the first argument, which, I suppose, will be urged against my motion, I do not believe that there is any difficulty whatever as regards this question of the contract having been taken. The contractors are Messrs. Foster and Dicksee. On my requesting to see them, Mr. Dicksee very kindly came up from Rugby, and I saw him this morning. Of course he could give no other answer than that it is quite possible that the contract which has been taken for one building could be taken for another at the scheduled prices. If the contractor in consequence of the delay lost anything—if wages and prices of material went up, for instance—that would have to be made good to him; but matters of that kind, which must be trivial in proportion to the total cost of the buildings, ought not to weigh very much with a great Government that is spending on the war at the rate of £200,000 a day. I know my noble friend said that the model which was made by Sir Henry Layard for this purpose several years ago was rotten and gone to pieces; but if another model is made it must be very rotten wood that

555
the Office of Works have to deal with if it will not provide a good and lasting model. However, that is incidental. The fact remains that, if His Majesty's Government choose, this contract could—at a small cost, I admit—be held up until these models had been seen and public opinion expressed either in favour of or against the buildings as they are proposed to be erected.
So much for the question of contract. There remains the other argument, which I think it is probable my noble friend may use, as to the needs of the War Office. Well, we know that the War Office is not complete in itself, that a number of different buildings have to be used for War Office purposes; but there cannot be any such immediate pressure when you remember what the War Office have been able to do in the last two years. We constantly hear of their having sent 250,000 men, with endless horses and stores, 6,000 miles across the sea, for the war in South Africa. We know that they have spent 150 millions, and are spending now at the rate of £200,000 a day on the war—a most necessary and just war. I am not for a moment opposing the war; I believe it has been the saving of the Empire, but my point is that they have managed to carry on almost the biggest war this country has ever been engaged in, with their present buildings. Therefore the argument that their present needs demand the instant execution of these works does not, as I submit, hold water. In fact, they themselves evidently do not consider their needs to be so very urgent, for they bought a building for War Office purposes in Pall Mall, close to the War Office, and they have since parted with it. But there is this further consideration. What is the great feature in the plan of the Government for the reorganisation of the Army? It is decentralisation. If the principle of your administration is to be decentralisation, I think the argument of the needs of the War Office falls to the ground.
My Lords, I have endeavoured to show why two years ago this matter was in the opinion of 140 peers worthy of being brought before your Lordships' House, why the motion on that occasion fell through, and why it is now revived. I can only hope that after my explanation His Majesty's Government will give due weight, not to anything I may have said,
556
but to the authorities I have quoted—Professor Aitchison and the Royal Institute of British Architects—and that they will accede to this motion. I would ask your Lordships on a matter of this kind to exercise your own calm and independent judgment, and to think that in the vote you give you may possibly prevent the erection of a second Admiralty—for the Admiralty was also erected without models. I shall certainly divide, even if I divide alone, so strongly do I feel upon this subject; but I hope to find considerable support for what is nothing but a common-sense proposal.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that models of the proposed public buildings at Whitehall and Parliament Street should be made and publicly exhibited as recommended by Professor Aitchison, late President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, and by the present President and Council of the said Institute.—(The Lord Wemyss) (E. Wemyss.)
THE EARL OF PEMBROKE: My Lords, I think perhaps the noble Lord will realise that, if two years ago His Majesty's Government felt it out of their power to accede to the motion which he then made, their difficulties have rather been added to than diminished by the fact of those two years having elapsed, because during the course of those two years an enormous amount of work has been conducted on the preparations for these buildings, and it is much more difficult now to make any alteration in the buildings to be erected than it was two years ago.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: May I explain? With reference to these contracts, all that has been done is this: the ground was uneven, there were old foundations, and so on, and all those have been taken out, and a bed of concrete has been spread over the whole. Nothing but that has been done. I asked the contractor to-day if a single brick of the new foundations had been made, and he said no. Therefore, it is perfectly competent on that new flooring of concrete to put any foundations or buildings whatever.
THE EARL OF PEMBROKE: I quite understand the point the noble Lord made. I listened very carefully to his

557
speech, and in that speech I never found any preference given or any suggestion made that the buildings which are proposed by the Government should be dropped and something else should be substituted; and I must confess that it was with considerable surprise I heard this, for we know that my noble friend has a baby of his own, which I expected to see him produce from under his coat at any moment. We know he has a rival scheme, which he has pressed on the Government on more than one occasion, and I gathered with a feeling of thankfulness that the noble Earl had realised at last that the Government had felt that the question of these buildings had been decided, and that he had given up as a hopeless task the possibility of erecting those magnificent buildings which he contemplated, and which he showed us two years ago and last year. The noble Earl has assumed all sorts of replies which His Majesty's Government might make in answer to his motion. He denies—what I think I should have put forward—that the foundations in the case of the War Office building have been laid down.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: They have not been laid down.
THE EARL OF PEMBROKE: The noble Earl draws this distinction, that the actual foundations have not been laid, but that the ground has all been concreted, and his idea is that it has been so well done that it is ready to receive any buildings, either the noble Lord's or any other, that it may be desired to erect there. I may assume I think now that we have no other proposal before us except that of the Government, and considering that these public buildings take naturally a very long period in completion, considering that this question has been for very nearly three years before both Houses of Parliament, considering that the money has been provided for the erection of these buildings, considering that the plans and the elevations have been laid before your Lordships and before the other House of Parliament, and, I think I may say, have been generally approved, I do not see why at the present time, at this late hour in the day, all these plans should be suddenly upset, and His Majesty's Government asked to change their minds and re-think over the question.
558
There were one or two points which the noble Earl brought forward, and quite rightly brought forward. One was the letter from Mr. Atchison, the late President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, but I would point out to the noble Earl that Mr. Aitchison's letter, so far as I remember, hardly referred at all to the question of models.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I beg my noble friend's pardon. I read what he did say.
THE EARL OF PEMBROKE: He may have incidentally mentioned the model.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: The letter begins by mentioning the model.
THE EARL OF PEMBROKE: Incidentally, in the first sentence, the letter mentions the model, but the main point of Mr. Aitchison's letter was that in the old days—and I presume that it would apply in the future—two architects should always be appointed in the case of public buildings, in case of the decease of one of them, and he gives many instances in which this was done. So that, with the exception of the opening sentence, in which he says he would like to see a model, very little reference is made in Mr. Aitchison's letter to the subject of models. But I would also draw attention to the point which the noble Earl made, and the warning which he gave us, that perhaps unless we took great care we might have, as the result of these negotiations and this work, a repetition of the Admiralty buildings. But why does the noble Earl think that? He has seen the plans and the elevations; he has as good a knowledge of all these matters of architecture as any member of this House. I gladly concede that to the noble Earl. Did he find anything, or could he find anything, in the plans and elevations as produced and published which will resemble the new Admiralty buildings in the least? I confess I share with the noble Earl a dislike for the exterior facade of the Admiralty; but I would point out that the Government, in considering this question of the new buildings for the War Office and other offices, were particularly careful to avoid the system of the Admiralty building. Those Admiralty buildings were the result, and the painful result, of reference to a Select

559
Committee of the House of Commons, and I think that has proved conclusively to anyone who may have to do with buildings of this kind in the future, that a Select Committee of the House of Commons is probably one of the worst judges in matters of this sort. Now, I do not suppose that there is any subject in which there is more room for difference of opinion than architecture—possibly with the exception of ladies' dress. There are a great many who consider themselves authorities on architecture, and very likely they are right: everyone has his own idea of what is a fine building and what is not; but let me take the instance of the noble Earl, who is, I admit, a great authority—
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I do not profess to be an authority. I spoke in the name of the Royal Institute of British Architects.
THE EARL OF PEMBROKE: Quite so, but I am afraid I cannot dissociate the noble Earl from his own talents, especially when he speaks upon such a subject as this. He has gone in for architectural work himself, but I do not suppose that even he would say that the work which he has approved, and which is satisfactory to many, is not open to criticism. And it always will be the same in architecture. You will never get anybody to agree upon a subject of this sort. It recalls to me an incident which occurred to myself on the subject of architecture a great many years ago when I was a very young man. I was speaking to an architect—a very eminent architect, although I did not know it at the time—and in discussing this very question of public buildings I very rashly said, "Why do not you architects take some building which everybody acknowledges to be perfect and copy that, and there could no possible criticism at all." Whereupon he turned round to me, and said, "If we were to do that there would be no Victorian period of architecture." I was young, and perhaps a little hasty, and my answer was, very shortly, "But do you think seriously that posterity would suffer from that?" I am afraid it rather annoyed him, because the conversation did not last very much longer. But I quite admit that in making such a sweeping assertion or hint as I did I was wrong, because I have since learned to value a very large amount of
560
excellent and good work, apart from facades, which the Victorian Era architecture has brought to us.
I know that my noble friend is an admirer (and I admire him for it) of Inigo Jones. If we were going to have any argument on the subject probably my argument would be the same as his—we should be on the same side; but we must remember that in almost all the cases of the works of even Inigo Jones the modern architect has had to be brought in in order to meet the necessary internal requirements which more modern civilisation demands. There is hardly an old house in this country which has not been obliged to bring in the modern architect in order to make internal alterations.
Now I am not going to discuss the proposals of my noble friend, because, as I have already said, I am grateful to him for not having brought out his baby again; but I will say this, that those eminent architects who unfortunately have been taken away from us who drew up these plans, and whose names will always be associated with these public buildings when they are finished, took the wise maxim of building their house from the inside. They set out to give all the requirements of a public office, and after that (and I venture to say with considerable success) they produced a façade which will be worthy of the situation upon which it is put.
To sum up, His Majesty's Government cannot think that it is desirable to accede to the motion of my noble friend. The plans and elevations which were drawn up and made by Messrs. Young and Brydon, whom we are so sorry to have lost, are all excellent, and I can assure the House that those plans which they left behind them will be faithfully copied, and that everything which your Lordships' House and the other House of Parliament have practically agreed to will be carried out, as shown on the plans of those two eminent architects. Those who are responsible for the completion of this building do not ask for models. Nobody asks for models except my noble friend and the Royal Institute of British Architects, who gave us the names of those eminent architects, and who are therefore more or less responsible for having laid their names before the Committee which decided on the expediency of accepting these plans. They may wish to see them—I will not say from vulgar

561
curiosity, because the term may seem offensive, but from interest and curiosity; but, even if they did see them, nothing that could be now done would alter the erection of these buildings. The foundations, as my noble friend says, are still open, but His Majesty's Government, having received, as it were, the general approval of the plans which were laid before them two years ago, do not see any reason why they should go to an expense of something like £600 for a plan of the new War Office, which nobody who is responsible for the erection of this building asks for. Would it not be better that you should see the buildings themselves, and then you will be able to judge.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: That will be too late.
THE EARL OF PEMBROKE: If this had been brought forward two years ago, before these contracts had been arranged for and accepted, it would be a different question, but to go to an expense of something like £600 in making these models at the present time I do not think could be justified. My noble friend has referred to a memorial which he sent round, and which he asked a great many noble Lords to sign. My noble friend—whom I always looked upon as my godfather in the House of Commons—has had a great deal of experience of memorials both in the House of Commons and in your Lordships' House. I should have thought that he knew or realised, I will not say what little value attaches to memorials drawn up in that sort of way, but how very dangerous it is for anybody to sign anything in the form of a memorial or round-robin in either House of Parliament. I lay that down as a principle—I have always carried it out myself. But if it is dangerous in ordinary cases, how much more dangerous is it in the case of the noble Lord, whose extraordinary persuasive powers would enable him to induce any number of noble Lords to put their names to a memorial simply out of respect and affection for himself.
My Lords, I will not say any more except to express my regret that the views His Majesty's Government, from the points of common sense and expediency, are not in harmony with those of the noble Lord, because personally I
562
should be glad to accede to anything which he brings before your Lordships' House.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My noble friend has made a most excellent and extremely amusing speech, but at the same time I think he has hardly tackled the subject that has been raised by the noble Lord who put this motion on the Paper. My noble friend has thrown doubts on the value of memorials; he has denounced Committees of the House of Commons; he has thrown doubts indeed on architectural authority. Therefore, I imagine that he claims a sort of infallibility for the office that has had charge of this building, and that is responsible for the plan which is about to be worked upon. It seems to me that he himself in his speech shows very little confidence by the conclusion that he has arrived at in the department for which he is answering.
THE EARL OF PEMBROKE: I said nothing I hope that would lead the noble Lord to that conclusion.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: It seems to me that if we are justified in placing such complete confidence in the plans which have been produced by the Office of Works, and which are now about to be brought to execution, there could be no possible objection whatever to producing the model suggested, because supposing the façade of this building is to be so magnificent and beautiful and satisfactory, nothing could be so convincing, both to my noble friend and to the public in general, as to see a model of this magnificent building. I am sure nothing would convince the public of the qualities of the buildings so completely as to see them in the form of a model, and, my Lords, I would even go a step further. Men who have undertaken the erection of a great building for public purposes have not merely put up a model, but have endeavoured to reproduce the façade by means of a canvas screen put up with laths at the back of it. I think that, when the country is to be put to the enormous expense which is going to be involved by this building, it would only be a matter of precaution to ensure that the appearance that will be gained, and the effect on the particular site, should be judged by some such arrangement as this.

563
The noble Lord says that the cost of the model would be £600. £600 is a mere drop in the ocean to the cost of the building. And I think that by producing something of the sort we should be able to arrive at a much more satisfactory conclusion with regard to the probable appearance of the building, and its effect on the general architecture of the magnificent site on which it is about to be placed. For my part I must say that I am inclined to support my noble friend in his demand for a model to be produced.
LORD STANMORE: I wish to say a very few words in support of the motion of my noble friend, and I do so because I think that a brief example of the manner in which a model will show people exactly what is and what is not intended to be done, and on the other hand how utterly misleading mere plans may be in the absence of a model, will probably tell more and say more on my noble friend's side than a long argument would do.
When a year or two ago this subject was previously debated, your Lordships will remember, I daresay, that the noble Lord who was at that time at the head of the War Office spoke strongly against those who wished to see, not exactly Inigo Jones's design, or my noble friend's design, but some modification of Inigo Jones's design, something that would be in keeping with the Banqueting House, which was to be joined to it. My noble friend admitted that the building was very beautiful, and that Inigo Jones was a very good builder of palaces, but he said "we want public offices"—forgetting at the time that Whitehall was intended to be a public office as well as a palace—and he went on to say that, beautiful as it was as a palace, it was not fit for public offices. He said—
"There are huge windows running through two floors, and to make that fit for an office you will have to put in a floor halfway up the window; you will spoil your window and you will spoil your roof."
Very good; but if the noble Lord had seen a model of that building, and not merely a drawing of the facade, he would have formed a different conclusion. He looked at the drawing of the elevation, and he came to the conclusion that, because there were big windows in front of the house, there must be big windows in the sides of the house, and big
564
windows at the back of the house; but if he had seen a model he would have seen, or might have seen, that in the middle of that building, in the front face of it, there was a noble hall which ran up through two storeys, and which was lighted by those great windows, and that at the height of the second floor of that hall was a gallery going round it out of which the different offices opened. His only idea of a public office seemed to be that it must necessarily consist of rooms opening out of that rabbit-warren of passages, small tunnels, gas-lit and dirty which too often one sees in public offices. He never thought of the possibility of doing away with many of those passages, and having a great amount of light and space, and a noble room besides, in the front of the building. That is a common way of building in Italian palaces, and it would perfectly have suited the building in question. I shall be told, "Oh, but you would have lost a great deal of space in that way." You would have lost some space, but if you come to work it out in figures you will be exceedingly surprised to find how much you would have saved in the absence of lobbies and passages which were otherwise necessary. There would have been, I quite admit, a loss of space, but a loss of space altogether inconsiderable when you have as your object the building of a great public edifice, which is to be a monument of the taste and the art of the age, and to endure for generations to come.
That, I say, is an instance of how you may be deceived by a drawing where you would not be deceived by a model, and I think it is a strong point in favour of models. It was to say that that I rose but there is another point which, being on my legs, I should like to dwell upon also, and that is this, that though my noble friend's motion is limited—and I regret that it is so limited—to this particular building, he has told you that what he desires to emphasise, and what he wishes to urge, is the establishment of the principle that, when we are erecting great public buildings, models should previously be prepared of them. That is the principle for which I support his motion, and for which I shall cordially go with him. I am comparatively indifferent—not indifferent, because I think it is a lamentable pity that the opportunity should have been thrown

565
away of placing a magnificent building on this site instead of this inoffensive, common-place, respectable affair. It is much more important that the general principle should be laid down, that when public buildings are being erected by the State a model of them should be previously prepared, that it may be seen from every side and every quarter what they look like.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, the discussion that has taken place has, I think, raised two perfectly distinct questions, one of which was pointed to very clearly by the remarks of the noble Lord who has just sat down. We have to consider whether, as a general rule, it is desirable that we should resort to procedure by model, as advised by the noble Earl on the cross benches, and in the second place we have to consider whether that procedure is appropriate in the case of the new public buildings now under construction opposite the Horse Guards.
With regard to the first of these two propositions, I am very far from desiring to dogmatise. My impression is that, when I spoke on behalf of the Office of Works on this matter two years ago, I was informed that the Chief Commissioner desired to keep a perfectly open mind as to the adoption of procedure by model in the case of any other large public buildings which might hereafter have to be erected on important sites. I have some doubts myself whether a model does always give you a perfectly clear impression of the effect which the building, when erected, will produce. Unless it is a model of colossal size I think it would probably fail to do so. There is another thing which is to be borne in mind—that, unless your model includes the whole neighbourhood, it will give you a very inaccurate appreciation of the appearance of the building when completed. I remember citing in regard to these particular buildings those colossal edifices known, I believe, as Whitehall Court, which are immediately to the rear of the site of the new War Offices—buildings for the construction of which His Majesty's Government is not responsible—which would certainly have the effect of dwarfing any of the smaller buildings placed in their proximity. But as I said before, I do not desire to dogma-
566
tise on that point, and I see no reason why models should not be exhibited whenever new buildings are to be erected for the public service.
With regard, however, to resorting to procedure by model in the case of these buildings which are now in process of erection, I do venture to hope that your Lordships' House will not think fit to support the noble Earl on the cross benches. I say that because I think nothing would be more unfortunate than that the long delay which has already taken place should be still further added to by reopening once more the whole question of the design of these buildings. The design of the new buildings was adopted upon the recommendations of the Royal Institute of British Architects, after three very leading members of the profession had been called upon to advise His Majesty's Government. Their plans were examined with great care, they were published in the leading professional newspapers, and I believe that they met with very general approval. We have now made a beginning with their construction. I do not know whether it is true that the foundations have been completed; as we all know, the underground work in cases of this kind occupies a very considerable portion of the time. If the matter is to be reopened we have no security that these buildings will be completed at all in the near future; and being able to speak with some knowledge of the immense inconveniences to which the War Office is being put by having to transact its business in no less than eleven buildings scattered over different parts of London, I for one earnestly trust that further delay will not be involved by the adoption of the noble Earl's proposals. In the case of the model to which the noble Earl has referred, he took me severely to task because we could not produce Sir Henry Layard's old model of the official buildings in the neighbourhood of Westminster. That model had been made originally of perishable materials—whether of cardboard or wood I am not able to say, but we were certainly unable to find that anything beyond a few pieces of it still survived. It was therefore impossible to produce it. But, whether that model be forthcoming or not, I earnestly hope that we shall adhere to the designs which after a great deal of consideration have been adopted

567
for these particular buildings, designs which are thoroughly creditable to the architects, and which will form a very great addition to the architectural beauty of this part of London.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I should like to say a word in reply. My noble friend Lord Pembroke said that in the letter to which I referred from Professor Aitchison, he had only "incidentally" referred to this question of models. Now as a rule, I think when one is writing a despatch he does not put what he considers to be incidental in the first and the main paragraph of his letter. Apparently one of the main objects of which Professor Aitchison wrote was this question of models. As a matter of fact, the foundations have not been completed—not a stone or brick of the foundations has been laid—nothing but that the old ground has been prepared. I know that for a fact, because I had it from the contractor this morning. I said to him, "Cannot you put any building on that foundation?" and he said, "Yes, you can." But to return to the point that the noble Marquess made. This is the "incidental" mention of models by Professor Aitchison. He says:—
"I dare say that no model of either of these great public monuments exists. I believe that all the principal buildings of the world, at least since Justinian's time, were built from models, and by the precaution taken by the Pope to have a model made we have now Michael Angelo's dome at St. Peter's."
The Office of Works—who I suppose prompt my noble friend the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and also my noble friend who replied to me to-night—at one time took a very different view of the question of models. There was once a Member of Parliament who held the office of First Commissioner of Works, whose opinion upon these matters anybody who knows anything about architecture and art would be inclined to take. I mean Sir Henry Layard. I had a communication with Sir Henry Layard upon this very question of models. I said—"What a very good thing it would be if you had a great model made of all that part of London which you are likely to operate upon for building public offices, then when you had a model made of a public building it could be made to scale with this great model, and by placing the one on the other you would be able to judge of the exact effect." It appears from Mr.
568
Aitchison's letter, that from the time of Justinian downwards, everybody who has had to do with the building of great edifices has adopted the procedure by model. Let me refer for a moment to the case of the Admiralty buildings. We wanted years ago to stop what was then proposed for the Admiralty buildings. The original design was to have a tower between 300 and 400 feet high next to the Horse Guards. A model was made, and we tried to get that model produced. It turned out that Mr. Ayrton had sent it to the East End or somewhere, but it was got back, and the model of this building was put up on it. Well, that stopped the tower—it looked so absurd. And now some years afterwards we ask for this model, and what do we hear? We are told it is broken up. Why? Because my noble friend Lord Lansdowne said it was made of perishable material, and it had already had the life of an ironclad. But Nelson's "Victory" is still alive, and that was made of wood. Take the case of old houses. I know not as to Bowood, but in such as Haddon, Hardwicke, Hatfield, we know there is in all a great deal of panelling; there is a great deal of panelling round this House; does my noble friend think that it is perishable material and falling off the walls? Then take Gibbon's carving, that was mostly made of wood, and is still fresh and sound. My noble friend, I have no doubt, has been to Switzerland; there he has seen numbers of purely wooden houses, exposed to all the inclemencies of the Swiss climate, with dates of 1600 or 1700 on them; so that to talk of wood as being a perishable material is all nonsense.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I simply stated the fact that the model had ceased to exist.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Then it comes to this that the wood used by the Office of Works is so poor and rotten that it will not last the life of an ironclad, whatever that may be.
Now, what I want to say is this. My noble friend says that this building has been approved by public opinion. I maintain that until the public can see it in model the public are unable to express an opinion. Whether it will be possible to form a judgment when the model is made I do not know, but I maintain that

569
no man who has any common sense in private life ever builds without a model of almost everything. In France, where they make fewer mistakes than we do, they adopted this principle, and I would remind the noble Lords that they do not have Admiralties erected there. I refer to the Admiralty because that is one of the most deplorable buildings ever seen in this country, and you have thrown away one of the best sites. You had, opposite, the Treasury building, that beautiful pedimented building; all you had to do was to put up a similar building on the other side. Instead of that you put this God-forsaken, nondescript thing, which is a disgrace to London. As my noble friend speaks for the Office of Works I want to ask about the Admiralty. What is this hoarding that is put in front of it? Is the whole of that garden to be built in? Nobody knows; nobody has

CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Cross, V.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Grafton, D.

Mostyn, L.

Aldenham, L.

Poltimore, L.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Annaly, L.

Reay, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Ribblesdale, L.

Camperdown, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Sherborne, L.

Carrington, E.

Burghclere, L.

Southampton, L.

Feversham, E.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Mansfield, E.

Castletown, L.

Templemore, L.

Mayo, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.)

Morley, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Rosse, E.

De Saumarez, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Spencer, E.

de Vesci, L. (V. de Vesci.)

Wandsworth, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Greville, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.) [Teller.]

Ludlow, L.

Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

Windsor, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Denbigh, E.

Churchill, L. [Teller.]

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Hardwicke, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Lathom, E.

Clinton, L.

Marlborough, D.

Selborne, E.

Harlech, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Kenyon, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Langford, L.

Robertson, L.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

Ashbourne, L.

Belper, L.

BROAD SANCTUARY, WESTMINSTER— OPENING OF ENCLOSURE TO THE PUBLIC.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings would open to the public, and furnish with seats under or around the trees therein, a portion of the enclosure in Broad Sanctuary which lies to the south of
seen the plans. I do not know whether the House of Commons Committee have seen them, but I do not see why the Lords should not put an oar in as well as the Commons. At any rate, I cite the case of the Admiralty buildings—at which my noble friend turns up the whites of his eyes and holds up his hands with horror—I cite it in proof of the result of not doing what you are asked in common sense to do now, and what, according to Professor Aitchison, has been done in the case of all the best buildings since the time of Justinian. The Government are apparently so confident of their own views of architecture that they will hear of none of these things, and will not give the nation a chance of knowing what they will have to pay for.
On Question, their Lordships divided. Contents, 41: Non-Contents, 20.
Canning's statue. This enclosure is one which is well known to your Lordships, for you can never come to this House without passing by it. It is a small enclosure in which is situated the statue of the famous statesman Canning. The desire of myself and those who feel with me is, not that the whole of this enclosure should be thrown open to the public, but only a very small portion of it, namely, that portion of the enclosure

571
which faces the Abbey. In this enclosure there are very fine large trees and some grass which need not be in the least injured by the public if they are admitted to this small portion to which I have alluded. I think there are some houses which have rights over a certain portion of this enclosure, and I believe that His Majesty's Government are bound in some way or other not to interfere with the privacy and the amenities of the tenants of those houses, but the throwing open of the portion to which I refer will not in the least interfere with those rights.
My Lords, this may appear a very small matter, and so it is to a certain extent; but, on the other hand, this little place is in the very centre of one of the most interesting and historic positions in the kingdom. It is the Mecca, we may say, of all the educated subjects of His Majesty from all parts of the world. They all flock to see that venerable and ancient abbey with its historic associations, and that even more ancient church of St. Margaret's, with which Parliament is so closely connected, and to get the best view obtainable of the Houses of Parliament and the river in the distance. There is a large traffic passing to and fro past the Houses of Parliament, past the site upon which we have lately been voting, and it is not possible at present for visitors to quietly enjoy the architectural beauties and interesting associations around them. There are a few seats in the centre of a very stiff garden which is to be found just opposite this site, but upon a hot day, such as we are having now, there is absolutely no shade. My hope and desire is that His Majesty's Government will allow a few seats to be placed under the shady trees which are to be found in this enclosure. Some years ago I drew the attention of the Government to this very spot, but in a most extraordinary way they seem to have entirely misunderstood the whole purport of my question and the desire of those who feel with me. Because Canning's statue was mentioned, it seemed to be the idea of Government that the wish of those who spoke through me was that Canning's statue should be taken out of the garden and thrown into the roadway. They threw back the railing by placing it some four feet at the back of the statue, with the natural result, as anybody would have perceived, that it became a public nuisance because there was a certain
572
small space open to the public and hidden from the public view. My hope to-day is that a common-sense view will be taken of this matter by the Government. My noble friend, who has just carried the House by a very large majority in favour of a similar question, has said something which I am not going to repeat, not very complimentary to the common sense of some portions of the Government; but I do say this, that to throw Canning's statue into the street is a most extraordinary act, and one that no one with common sense could have been guilty of. It is perfectly clear, I hope, that I do not wish that done. What I am suggesting is not that the statue should be interfered with in the smallest degree, but there is absolutely no reason, so far as I can see, why seats should not be placed in a portion of that enclosure, and those who visit these famous spots should be able to sit there in peace and comfort and quiet, and enjoy the beauties, and think over the historic associations connected with all that is around them. I trust that His Majesty's Government will consent to something of this sort.
Before I sit down I should like to express the hope that His Majesty's. Government will not leave it to private individuals always to suggest these improvements. We pay officials and we place in authority persons in whom we believe. It is their duty to think over how to improve the metropolis, and to do what they can to help the comfort and facilitate the amenities of His Majesty's subjects, and that it should be left to individuals, as it always is, to suggest these improvements, is not, I think, complimentary to those who are placed in authority over us.
THE EARL OF PEMBROKE: In reply to the noble Lord, I am glad to be able to say that the First Commissioner of Works is disposed to view this suggestion favourably, and will endeavour to give effect to it, but he desires to reserve to himself some liberty as to the details of the arrangement which the noble Lord has, I think, incidentally referred to. There are some difficulties with respect to the rights of the owners of houses, and also as to the time when the change can be introduced, as some expenditure will be necessary, for which provision will have to be made. That is the answer of the First Commissioner of Works, and I

573
know from my own personal observation that if the First Commissioner of Works can see his way to carry out this suggestion he will be very glad to do so.
EARL SPENCER: There is another matter that I should just like to refer to. I do not know whether the noble Earl has noticed lately when he has been passing this place that the great trees in this enclosure have grown to such an extent that the statue of Canning is almost disappearing from view. People sometimes are very much afraid of cutting down trees, but I am not at all sure that cutting down one or two trees there would not improve the trees which remain and also bring forward again the statue, which now is rapidly becoming invisible.
THE EARL OF PEMBROKE: This question arose last session, I think, and I immediately communicated with my right hon. friend, and the trees were trimmed at once. I think it is a question that should not be decided hastily as to whether the practice of trimming the trees should be continued or whether the trees should be cut down. You can cut down a tree easily but you cannot put it back again. I think the noble Lord who introduced this question just now would be very sorry to see any of these trees taken away altogether; the very thing the public want most is a little shade here. However, I will communicate with my right hon. friend, and have the trees trimmed at once.
THE EARL OF MEATH: I thank His Majesty's Government for their favourable answer, and I quite feel with the noble Lord who has just sat down that it would be a pity to cut the trees down. I should also express the hope that great care will be taken if any are lopped. Lopping is absolutely necessary in some cases, but I am sorry to say that a great many of the authorities in this metropolis—I do not allude to the Government—lop in the most unscientific manner, with the result that the trees are spoilt permanently. I thank the Government for their favourable reply.
House adjourned at a quarter before Six of the clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten of the clock.