HL Deb 23 July 1903 vol 126 cc42-9
THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE

My Lords, I beg to ask the Chief Commissioner of His Majesty's Office of Works at what date previous to 1902 any examination of the drainage system, the sanitary condition, and the water supply of the Palace of Holyrood House was made, and to move for copies of any report or correspondence relating to that examination; to ask whether, in future, if the Consulting Sanitary Adviser of the Office reports that any building must not he occupied until its sanitary arrangements have been reorganised, His Majesty's Office of Works will at once communicate that opinion to those who occupy, or are about to occupy, the said building; whether he is well assured that the sum voted for Holyrood Palace will be sufficient to make the whole drainage and water supply system thoroughly effective and good, and also to put the Palace generally into a fit condition for the residence of the Sovereign or his Representative; and to move for a Return of the Repairs and Improvements in Holyrood Palace and its grounds since 1893, with their cost each year.

On a recent occasion, at the request of my noble friend the Chief Commissioner of Works, I accepted his explanation and assurance and withdrew my Motion for Papers relating to the Palace of Holyrood. I thought that the matter would then have been allowed to drop But since then my noble friend has thought it right to place upon the Table the Reports and correspondence with reference to this subject, and this action it appears to me, has changed the matter from one of a purely personal character to one of much wider and more general interest. I alluded in my previous speech to the Memorandum by Professor Corfield, the Consulting Sanitary Adviser to His Majesty's Office of Works, and I will now read the Memorandum in full. It is as follows— I have read the report referred to in the foregoing Memorandum, and am of opinion that the condition of things described in that report is such Holyrood Palace ought not to be occupied by His Majesty even for the shortest period until the sanitary arrangements have been thoroughly reorganised. This will take a considerable time, and, in view of the fact that, as I am informed, the High Commissioner must occupy the Palace in April and May next, could not well be commenced until the month of June, and would certainly not be finished before the end of the year, if even then. This Memorandum, which is dated November 12, 1902, had been in the hands of His Majesty's Office of Works since that time, and I wish to ask my noble friend the Chief Commissioner whether, when the Office of Works receives from its Consulting Sanitary Adviser a report saying that one of the palaces of which they have charge cannot be inhabited, even for the shortest possible period, they are not bound to convey that opinion to those who inhabit or are about to inhabit the palace. I applied at the Office of Works for information as to the drains and was promised that I should see the report, but the report was not forthcoming. It was delayed, under circumstances of extreme inconvenience to myself, as the noble Lord and his office know quite well, for thirteen days, and not for one or two days, as was stated by the noble Lord on the former occasion when I brought this matter before the House. Yet all that time the Office of Works had in their hands this Memorandum from their consulting sanitary adviser to say that the palace was not habitable.

My noble friend says I am to blame, because I was told in the month of October that the drains were not in good order, and had made no inquiry. I had no right to make any inquiry. My appointment as Lord High Commissioner is an annual appointment, and it is one of a personal character as representing His Majesty, and the King, I believe, takes a personal interest in the appointment. For me to have assumed, although it has always been the custom, that I should have been appointed again for the coming year, would have been presumptuous on my part; and, even if I was justified in assuming that, in all probability I should be appointed, it did not follow that I should be the High Commissioner, because that appointment goes with the Government. It would have been presumptuous on my part if, before I was appointed, I had made any inquiry. After I was appointed, and on the first day that I could get to London, I went to the Office of Works, on the matter, and at that time they had in their hands this Memorandum which would not have been taken more than a few minutes to have copied. I was promised the report on the next day. I did not receive it, and I wrote on several occasions and telegraphed, and the only reply I got was a letter from the Secretary of the Office of Works, from which I quoted a short paragraph on the last occasion, and which I will now read in full. Sir Schomberg McDonnell wrote— My dear LEVEN, Windsor tells me that you are anxious to know the precise position as regards the sanitary works at Holyrood before you be abroad to-morrow. Let me say at once that you need not be in any way concerned. The new works will not be begun until after the King has paid his visit to Edinburgh, and at present we do not propose to touch them until the third week in next August or thereabouts. As regards the present condition of the drains, I think that though they are far from being perfect or up to date, there is no danger to be apprehended to yourself or your house hold. It would, however, be a very different matter to have the King and Queen staying there with a huge Court. Under such conditions the existing system of drainage would be quite inadequate. I hope this will set your mind at rest; in any case, we should do noting whatever which would inconvenience you as High Commissioner.

Yours very truly,

SCHOMBERG K. MCDONNELL.

18th March, 1903.

It seems to me that the Secretary of the Office of Works took upon himself a grave responsibility when he asked me to go to Holyrood while he held in his hand the report of Professor Corfield showing that it was not habitable even for the shortest possible period. I inhabit the same rooms as I have every reason to believe His Majesty would occupy. They are on the first floor of the south wing of the Palace. There are three or four rooms on the east wing, on the second floor, which have never been opened, I believe, since her late Majesty and Prince Consort were there. They are reached by an exceedingly steep staircase, and it is in the highest degree improbable that His Majesty would ever think of living there. But whether His Majesty would live there or not, it does not alter the question as to the sanitary condition of the south wing in which the Lord High Commissioner must always reside; and out of the large quantity of condemned closets to which I referred, there are no less than eleven in that wing. There is no large bedroom which has not one in the wall between it and the dressing-room, and there is one in the sitting-room. I think the remark that the Palace was not safe for His Majesty but was perfectly safe for me was unjustifiable. The report was not sent to me till March 27 of this year, after my Purse-bearer had been to the Office of Works to press for it. He was not at first shown this Memorandum by Professor Corfield, or the report, but was asked to obtain on my behalf a wholly independent report. What possible use could an independent report be? The Office of Works had this detailed report and the Memorandum from the consulting sanitary adviser, and what advantage could there be in having another report? The only possible use of such a report would have been to remove responsibility, if any evil effects had resulted from my going to the Palace, from the Office of Works to the unfortunate man who might have made that hurried report. My noble friend said that the report might have reached me one or two days sooner. I would point out that it only consists of 1,875 words, which a child could have written within an hour.

I understand that the Secretary of the Office of Works feels aggrieved because, in the first place, I read an extract from his letter. He says that it was semi-private. It was the only answer I got to my application to know the condition of the Palace, and it was written on official notepaper and not marked private. I regret very much if I was not justified in alluding to it, but I do not see what else I could have done. I understand that he also felt aggrieved because I only quoted a part of his letter. Well, I have quoted the whole of it now; and I think the House will see that it my previous quotation I gave the pith of the communication. That letter invited me to place my body in jeopardy while it strove to set my mind at rest. A great deal has been made of the point that in October Sir Schomberg McDonnell told me that the drains were bad, and he considers that that was ail official intimation. The way in which I got that information was a perfectly chance one. I had the honour of dining with the Lord Mayor, and, after being received, I happened to stand next to Sir Schomberg McDonnell. I asked him if he had been to Holyrood, and he said he had. The drains, he added, were in had repair, and he was going to have them seen to. I said I hoped the work would not be carried out in the winter, for obvious reasons. On the last occasion that I called attention to this matter my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland said that if I had given judicious notice to the newspapers of my intention not to occupy Holyrood Palace, no dissatisfaction would have arisen. But I would point out that it was quite impossible for such notice to, be given, because the contracts on which the arrangements depended were not complete. I beg to ask the Questions and to move the Motion standing in my name.

Moved, "That there be laid before the House report or correspondence relating to any examination that may have been made previous to 1902 of the drainage system, the sanitary condition, and the water-supply of the Palace of Holyrood House; and also a return of the repairs and improvements in Holyrood Palace and its grounds since 1893, with their cost each year." (The Earl of Leven and Melville.)

* THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Lord WINDSOR)

My Lords, I, in common with other noble Lords who heard the speech of the noble Earl the other day upon this question, listened to it with interest and amusement. But I did hope that the assurance that I was able to give him then of the intentions of His Majesty's Government with regard to the drainage of Holyrood Palace, and my expression of regret that there had been any misunderstanding between himself and the Office of Works with regard to letting him know the exact condition of the drainage would have been satisfactory. I do not think he will expect me to repeat what I said then, but I would add this that when Sir Schoenberg McDonnell told my noble friend that the system of drainage at Holyrood Palace had been condemned, the noble Earl left him under the very strong impression, rightly or wrongly, that what the noble Earl was chiefly anxious about was that the drains should not be touched before he had been there himself the next time. Sir Schomberg may have been wrong, but it was under that very strong impression that these letters were written, and I think the letter which my noble friend has quoted in full to-day bears this out, because Sir Schomberg wrote— The new works will not be begun until after the King has paid his visit to Edinburgh. And he added at the end— In any case we shall do nothing whatever which would inconvenience you as High Commissioner. I regret very much if there was any misunderstanding on this point, and I beg to assure my noble friend again that there was no intention whatever of concealing from him any reports as to the condition of the drains. The noble Earl asks me whether in future, if the Consulting Sanitary Adviser of the Office of Works reports that any building must not be occupied until its sanitary arrangements have been reconstructed, the Office of Works will at once communicate that opinion to those who occupy or are about to occupy the said buildings. To that I most certainly give an affirmative reply. It is the intention of the Office of Works to communicate to those who are concerned matters of this kind, and I can promise that that will be done in the future. With regard to the noble Earl's question as to what date previous to 1902 any examination of the drainage system, the sanitary condition, and the water-supply of the Palace was made, I can tell him that there was an examination of and a report concerning the water-supply as long ago as 1863, very shortly after the old water-supply had been discontinued, and a supply taken from the City of Edinburgh. In 1872 there was a report about the condition of the drains at that time, and they were tested and found perfectly satisfactory. They were thoroughly flushed in accordance with the usual practice. That is the system which goes on; they can be thoroughly flushed from the City fire mains at this moment. Since 1872 there has been no special report, but I am informed that the first step which the present surveyor took was to have a complete plan of the drainage prepared, and in the years 1893, 1894, 1895, and 1899 renewals and re-arrangements of portions of the drains were carried out, the two latter being of considerable importance. One of the main difficulties had been that the fall was not sufficient, but it was impossible to remedy that until the new City sewer was put in, and when that had been done the fall of the old sewer from Holyrood Palace was altered. That, no doubt, would have been done in any case as soon as it was practicable.

I assure the noble Earl that the surveyor has repeatedly and with regularity inspected all the sanitary works in Holyrood Palace itself. As the Report of Sir Henry Littlejohn shows, they are in excellent order, and have been well kept up. My noble friend moves for copies of these reports. Of course, if he insists upon them they can be laid on the Table; but I venture to suggest that these old reports of the years 1863 and 1872 are merely ancient history, and would be of no importance at this moment. The noble Earl asks me whether I am well assured that the sum voted for Holyrood Palace will be sufficient to make the whole drainage and water supply system thoroughly effective and good. I repeat the assurance I gave on the last occasion, that I am advised that it will be quite sufficient. With regard to the Motion for a Return of the repairs and improvements in Holy-rood Palace and its I am unable to give him separately a Return of the repairs and improvements apart from the maintenance of the Palace. I should be able to give him the amount for maintenance asked for and obtained in each year since 1803, but that will, of course, include, as I say, minor repairs, and so forth. Finally, I wish again to assure my noble friend that there was a misunderstanding in this ease, and that there was no intention whatever to keep from him reports of the actual condition of the drainage in Holyrood Palace. Every care will be taken to put the drainage in thorough order, and he will have access to any documents he may wish to see in the Office of Works with regard to it.

THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE

I freely accept my noble friend's assurance. With regard to the old reports, I agree with him that no advantage would be obtained by their publication. I may say that I was never given the slightest idea by Sir Schomberg McDonnell that the drains were really in a dangerous condition. All he told me was that they were in a bad condition. I was afterwards advised that the peril was one of the most imminent kind. That the Office of Works should have done nothing to stop my going there, but, on the contrary, should have encouraged it, seems to me to require some explanation. With regard to the report by Sir Henry Littlejohn, which declares everything to be satisfactory, I would point out that when he made his inspection the Palace had not been inhabited for eleven months, and, therefore, the drains were, of course, sweet at that time.

Motion, by leave of the House, with drawn.