§ LORD CONWAY OF ALLINGTON, who had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government what are the building operations proceeding at Carlton House Terrace, and move for Papers, said: My Lords, I had some hesitation in putting down this Motion because I thought it probable some senior member of the House would take the matter up; but, as the days passed and nothing was done, I took my courage in both hands and put down the Motion. It was just about one hundred years ago that the great architect Nash, who is reckoned to have been one of the four greatest architects this country has produced, laid out the finest piece of town planning that exists in England, and one of the very finest that exists in the world. I mean the planning which installed Carlton 377 House Terrace at one end and Regent's Park at the other, and in between the two a noble street—Waterloo Place, Lower Regent Street, Piccadilly Circus, Regent Street, the Quadrant, Oxford Circus, Langham Place, Portland Place, and so out to Regent's Park. Now, that was a very great piece of town planning. It was clever, i was original. It has never been repeated. It is one of the great treasures of this country.
What is happening to that now? Carlton House Terrace at one end has been described as the finest terrace in Europe, a very beautiful architectural composition. That is the point where the modern threat of change is at the moment moving. We arc told that financial considerations involve the destruction of Carlton House Terrace. These financial considerations are everlastingly being brought forward, first for this and then for that piece of vandalism. Waterloo Bridge is attacked on one side, now Carlton House Terrace is attacked on the other. Park Lane has been half destroyed already, and, one way or another, every part of our City is threatened by one or other of the authorities that administer its government. Who is at the back of these various threats nobody can ever discover. Who was it that seized upon the idea that it would be a fine thing to destroy Waterloo Bridge? Who is it that has seized upon the idea that it would be a fine thing to destroy Carlton House Terrace? Somewhere in some back office, in some Government or municipal department, I picture to myself the existence of a gnawing worm of an individual who labours to level with the ground the great works that our forefathers have left us. It is the old story. One after another of our great monuments is attacked, and it is almost conceivable, I suppose, that some day even these Houses of Parliament might be found to be in the way when financial considerations involve their destruction.
Why, for instance, should they fall upon Carlton House Terrace as a thing to be destroyed? Why do they not attack St. James's Palace? It is riot much more venerable. Part of it is not so old as Carlton House Terrace. People do not generally remember that a great deal of St. James's Palace was burned down and stood as a gaunt ruin for many years. It was rebuilt, and now people think 378 that what they see there is altogether a venerable structure, but a great deal of it is no older than Carlton House Terrace. Why do you not attack St. James's Palace I suppose that will be the next thing. You will have the great processional road along the Mall to Buckingham Palace and in the opposite direction spoilt. Carlton House Terrace looks down upon that processional road and adds dignity to it. We are told it is necessary that it should be destroyed. Why should it be destroyed? There are a variety of cheap reasons given, but I cannot find any of them to be worth really serious consideration.
There is one foundation trouble in the whole of these matters, and that is the hunger on this side of the Thames for sites on which to build important commercial buildings. There is a square mile of unused land just over the other side of the Thames which might be brought into use, and which would satisfy this site hunger for several generations to come. If anybody would drive a great boulevard through from somewhere near Waterloo Station to somewhere near London Bridge, they would find that they would create a thoroughfare which relieved the Strand, which relieved all the pressure on this part of London, and which would offer sites for very fine buildings and which might be made into the noblest part of modern London. Therefore let my friend Sir Reginald Blom-field design South London, and I shall applaud him, but let them leave Carlton House Terrace alone. The immediate problem was raised by the house No. 4 Carlton Gardens. I suppose that house and its fate have been discussed for some time, but what did the public know about it? We knew nothing. The first thing that most people knew was that there was a hole in the ground where No. 4 Carlton Gardens had been. It always happens like that. Government Departments keep their secrets to themselves, take steps which are important and face you with a fait accompli, so that you begin to protest about the destruction of a house six months after it has been levelled to the ground. What is the good of that? We are always being taken in in that way. The same thing happened in the case of Waterloo Bridge.
The houses in Carlton House Terrace and Carlton Gardens are very fine residential houses. Everybody knows that. 379 It has occurred to the Commissioners of Crown Lands that at present, it being difficult to let some of those houses, the only thing to do is to pull them down and build offices instead. Why should these Commissioners of Crown Lands be surprised that they have to suffer from exactly the same difficulties as everybody else suffers from in these hard times? There will be a difficulty, no doubt, in letting some of these houses, but that difficulty is only part of the present misfortunes of which we all have to complain. We do not want to knock down every building that we cannot let at this moment. The time will come, I believe, when prosperity will return, and people will want these houses again. The Commissioners of Crown Lands, when they were approached by a gentleman with proposals to turn No. 4 Carlton Gardens into maisonettes or flats, said that should not be done; they were not allowed to do that. "You are not allowed to make any alterations," they said. The result was nothing was done and down came the house.
Another of the big houses in Carlton House Terrace was turned into the Union Club. Its inside was modified, changes were made, and it makes, I believe, a very good club house indeed. There is no reason why you should not find other uses for some of these houses, possibly for all of them, but I am not so much concerned with the use you make of these houses, I am concerned in preserving the facade towards the Park. That is the thing we prize. In to-day's Times there is a reproduction of a drawing by Sir Reginald Blomfield of part of one half of the proposed substitute for Carlton House Terrace, and underneath it there is a small piece of the existing facade shown, so that you can contrast one with the other. I am not one of the detractors of Sir Reginald Blomfield. He is an architect whose position is assured, everybody knows who he is, and the great work that he has done; but in this particular case I am bound to say it seems to me that the old facade was far more beautiful than his design. His design is very like all the big offices that have risen on the banks of the Thames. In any case the instruction which he received was that he was to preserve the residential character of the old building in this new facade. Well, if he is to 380 preserve the dignified residential character of the building, what will be an industrial or commercial building inside has to look on the outside as though it was a residence. That is not the way to make a beautiful and attractive London.
It is one house that is in question now, hut what is involved in that one house is the whole of Carlton House Terrace. When you have built the projected block of offices fifty feet higher than the existing terrace you have condemned the rest of Carlton House Terrace to destruction. And it is intended. That is why it is clone, in order to get the lever underneath the houses before you prize them up and over they go. We are not informed—we never are informed, as I have already said—of what is going on. As late as November 23 Sir Reginald Blomfield replied to a correspondent that "the time is not ripe for the publication of information in regard to this matter." Well, that is not a month ago. Why should it be in the interest of the public that we should be kept in ignorance of these matters? Of course it is nonsense. The interest of the public is to know. The interest of bureaucracy is to hide, and the longer they can hide a proposed revolutionary change the better chance they have of carrying it through. The residents of these houses were not consulted. They were told that the houses were incapable of being repaired and were no longer suited to modern life. They were told that the only thing to do was to take the houses away and build new ones. They were told that it was impossible to turn the houses to any modern use. Then they found that the houses were being turned into the offices of a commercial company.
Well, my Lords, the purpose of a building ought to be visible outside as well as inside. To transmogrify any of these houses into anything except clubs or residences is no doubt difficult or even impossible. They have to be maintained as they are. They have come down to us through a hundred years. They have formed a feature of one of the finest views in London. They are a background for every great ceremonial that passes along the Mall. They are part of London, and when any visitors from other parts of the world come to London that is one of the views which they carry away with them as one of the characteristic views 381 of London. Down went No. 4: down it went! The house breakers, I suppose, came in and amongst other things found some fine mantel-pieces and fireplaces. They took them out and put them in a stoneyard. Then the authorities of the Victoria and Albert. Museum came along and had to buy a couple of these very fireplaces which the Commissioners of Crown Lands had overthrown. One branch of the Government destroys and another collects and preserves the same thing. It is really a very foolish arrangement.
I have here any quantity of printed statements of great authorities of all kinds in this country. Men of letters, artists, men of business, lawyers, leaders of various professions, heads of great scientific, literary and art societies—they all write in the same way. I might spend the rest of the afternoon and evening if I were to start reading them. Here they are, a hundred of them. They are all unanimous in their condemnation of the action of the Commissioners of Crown Lands in what they have done and what they propose to do. Perhaps I might read just one. It is the opinion of the Society for Protection of Ancient Buildings:
With regard to Carlton House Terrace, the opinion of the Committee of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings is as follows:—This Society holds that Carlton House Terrace is an example of the best architecture of the second quarter of the nineteenth century; that it forms part of a noble example of civic planning, perhaps the very finest example in this under-planned City; for it flanks the grand entrance to Regent Street from the south, it forms an important part of that great scheme'—That is Nash's scheme—
'and, in addition, it fittingly marks the importance of the great approach to the King of England's most important. Palace. For these reasons the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings strongly hopes that these terraces will not be demolished, and it holds that the nation is justified in enduring considerable economic loss as far as these buildings are concerned, if by that potential or real loss these terraced houses can be maintained.'That I cite merely as an example of opinions which I have in dozens here by my side.I do not want to detain your Lordships longer than I can help. There is a great deal more that I could say and would 382 like to say, but time passes. One of the saddest timings about this proposal is that it proves to us that historic and beautiful buildings are no safer in the hands of Government Departments than in those of impecunious private owners. We look to a Government Department to protect us against exactly this kind of thing. But it becomes partner with the enemy instead of assisting the defence. We are told that London cannot stand still, that it must keep pace with modern conditions. Where are we going to draw the line between what is to be kept and what is to be lost? We must keep what is fine and valuable and we may surrender what is worthless. In fact we do neither the one nor the other. We should be told the facts from time to time when it is proposed to do something, and not wait until the mischief is accomplished. The final conclusion of the whole matter is that the whole of London ought to be properly town-planned now before the worst happens. We ought to have really serious consideration of what London may need, what it can dispense with, where the slums may be cleared away and where buildings that are of value can be maintained and preserved even should they happen to stand a little bit in the way. That is the conclusion of the whole matter from my point of view. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDMy Lords, the Royal Fine Art Commission have been concerned to some extent in this matter and I beg leave to make a statement on the subject. Plans of the new building at 4, Carlton Gardens were submitted to the Royal Fine Art Commission on July 27, as a matter of extreme urgency. It was understood that the height was settled, and that rebuilding along the Terrace might shortly occur. The opinion of the Fine Art Commission on the scheme as a whole was not invited. Accordingly the Commission felt impelled to acquiesce, but they submitted an explicit warning about excessive height, both in the interests of general appearance and good zoning. The buildings will be 25 to 30 feet higher than the top of Buckingham Palace, and the drawing in The Times of to-day will show that the roof line as seen from a moderate distance would intersect the figure at the top of the Duke of York's column. However, on September 16 we were informed by the Commissioner of 383 Crown Lands that no rebuilding of the Terrace was in contemplation, and that his hands were entirely free and his mind entirely open. A conference took place on October 28, and the Fine Art Commission stated in a fully considered report, dated November 3, that the projected height was open to serious objection. To this a reply was received on November 9. After a further review of the whole position the Royal Commission, in a second report, dated November 22, repeated and emphasised their previous objections on general and on specific grounds. We have suggested that the project should be examined as a whole in relation to the site available, in order that any new structure which may be necessary should be kept at a moderate height.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY)My Lords, I am sure I shall have your Lordships' agreement when I say that we have listened to a very interesting speech from the noble Lord, Lord Conway. Speaking for myself, and for those I am representing, I am sure we cannot quarrel with the noble Lord for having brought before your Lordships' House this very interesting subject. After all, the beauty of London is the concern of every one of London's citizens and we are all naturally jealous of any undertaking which can in any way mar the beauties of the City or change what already exists for what some of us may not think for the better.
The noble Lord who has initiated a very interesting debate has clothed it in the mild phraseology of a Question to His Majesty's Government as to what are the building operations proceeding at Carlton House Terrace and a Motion for Papers. I am sure the noble Lord will not expect me, much as I may like to do so, to digress from the subject matter of the question. He has mentioned the subject of town planning and he went so far as to adumbrate in a few words what is certainly a very grandiose scheme holding out, I am sure, many attractions. But I think, in the few remarks I shall address to your Lordships, I cannot do better than draw attention to the second paragraph of Sir Reginald Blomfield's letter which appears in The Times to-day and which, in my judgment, defines very 384 concisely and clearly the position in Carlton House Terrace. He says:
Carlton House Terrace was built in 1827-29 from designs by Nash and Pennethorne. Whatever one may think of the facades, the buildings were exactly suited to the social conditions of the time, to the days of great receptions, a lordly aristocracy and obedient servants. The basement is 17ft. 6in. high, floor to floor, the ground floor 19ft. 6in., the first floor 20ft., the second floor 15ft. 6in., and above this there are only the attics in the roof. Buildings of this character are wholly unsuitable under modern conditions, and for structural reasons it was found impossible to convert them.",These last words precisely define the state of things with which we have to deal.I feel that in dealing with a matter of this sort we must be guided by something besides esthetic sense and our reverence for antiquity. Common every-day considerations of utility must. I think it will be agreed, play their part. I claim to be second to none of your Lordships in my love and appreciation of what is beautiful but I do recognise, and I am sure most of your Lordships do also, that in these days of progress, or so-called progress, we must move with the times and be prepared to make sacrifices in the interests of utility. I might say at this juncture that no building operations are proceeding at what is called Carlton House Terrace proper. A new building is in course of erection on the site of No. 4, Carlton Gardens, to which the noble Lord has referred. This house, which adjoined Carlton House Terrace, but did not strictly overlook The Mall and St. James's Park, became vacant on the death of the Earl of Balfour in March, 1930. His trustees made strenuous efforts to dispose of the lease. In those efforts they sought, and were freely given, the assistance of their lessors, the Commissioners of Crown Lands. For some time their efforts met with no success. Then, late in 1930, there appeared to be a prospect of disposing of the lease with a view to the reoccupation of the house as a private residence. The Commissioners of Crown Lands did all in their power to support the trustees in their endeavours to turn this hope into a reality.
The proposed lessee, however, pointed out that the accommodation in the house was completely out-of-date and that a very large outlay would be required to bring it up to modern standards. The 385 Commissioners of Crown Lands, when approached, expressed their preparedness to make a strong recommendation to the Treasury for the grant of a considerably extended term in order to compensate the proposed lessee for the sum which he would have to spend on modernising the house. On this 'Oasis the Crown surveyors were instructed to open negotiations for the grant of the extended lease. In the course of the negotiations, however, it gradually became clear that the highest rent which the proposed lessee was prepared to offer was substantially below the lowest rent which the Commissioners could honestly feel justified in accepting, having regard to their position under the Crown Lands Acts, and the negotiations finally broke down on the question of rent in. July of last year.
Meanwhile the trustees were finding that the payment of the rent and the maintenance of the house, which was of course still empty, were becoming burdens too great for them to bear, and they asked to be allowed to surrender their lease. The Commissioners of Crown Lands, having satisfied themselves after full consideration of all the circumstances that the request was reasonable, sought and obtained the sanction of the Treasury to accept a surrender at January 5, 1932. They, however, advised the trustees to wait before completing the surrender and in the meantime to explore certain other possibilities of selling their lease which were suggested to them. It was intimated to them that an application for the use of the house for practically any purpose within reason would be sympathetically considered. At the end of a month they indicated that nothing had come of their further efforts and that they wished the surrender to be completed. The house then came back to the Crown and its maintenance became a charge on the Land Revenues of the Crown. The result was that the Exchequer, into which the net receipts of the Land Revenues are paid, suffered not only by the loss of the rent for the house but also by the burden of the cost of maintenance.
Towards the end of April last the Commissioners received an application from a well-known commercial firm for the grant of a building lease of the site of No. 4 Carlton Gardens for the erection of headquarter offices for their own occu- 386 pation. The Commissioners felt that they could not but give this application the most serious and full consideration. The house had been empty for more than two years and there seemed to be no prospect of re-letting it as a private residence at anything approaching the rental value of the bare site, although the noble Lord who has raised this Question feels that when times get better we shall find a resumption of desires to return to Carlton House Terrace as a place of residence. That is the noble Lord's opinion, and I know he is aware that there are other opinions on that particular subject.
Furthermore, while this house remained unlet the cost of maintenance, estimated to be £200 per annum, was a charge on the Land Revenues, and, therefore, indirectly on the Exchequer. The Commissioners were of opinion that the fact that the proposed new building was to be used for office purposes was not of itself a sufficient ground for declining the application, and they came to the conclusion, after very thorough consideration of all the relevant circumstances, that they would he failing in their duty if they refused to open negotiations with the applicants. They therefore instructed the Crown surveyors to get into touch with the applicants with a view to arranging terms. From the outset, however, they made the important stipulation that the design of the new building was to be submitted to the Royal Fine Art Commission, and we have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, the view taken by the Royal Fine Art Commission. When, shortly afterwards, the Commissioners learnt that the building lessees had appointed Sir Reginald Blomfield, R.A., himself the senior professional member of the Royal Fine Art Commission, to act for them, they felt satisfied that there was no risk of aesthetic considerations being overlooked or subordinated to commercial convenience.
At the beginning of July the Crown surveyors reported the terms on which they had agreed with the proposed lessees. These provided for a 99 years lease and a ground rent of £1,600 per annum. This rent was £350 more than the rent paid under the former lease, which itself considerably exceeded the highest figure which had been offered in the 1931 negotiations. The Treasury 387 authorised the transaction in mid-July, and at the end of the month the Royal Fine Art Commission approved the design of the proposed new building, but I am informed by the noble Earl who has spoken that, they questioned the matter of the height of the building. This question has already been fully discussed between the Commissioners and Sir Reginald Blomfield, who stated that in his deliberate opinion no reasonable objection could be taken to the height of the building. He added that in forming this opinion he had kept in view the rebuilding, sooner or later, of Carlton House Terrace. Sir Reginald's views are more fully set out in his letter which appears in The Times of to-day. The building agreement was accordingly completed and the work began in September. Special provisions were inserted in the agreement for minimising annoyance or discomfort to the occupants of property in the vicinity during the rebuilding, and the lease will provide that the building shall be used only as offices of the highest class, and that there shall be no external display of commercial advertisement.
In conclusion I should perhaps add a few words about Carlton House Terrace, and here I really have very little to say. Two of the houses in the Terrace overlooking St. James's Park are at present unlet, with resulting loss of substantial revenue, and it is probable that other houses will fall into the Commissioners' hands before very long. The Commissioners therefore cannot ignore the possibility that sooner or later, and perhaps sooner rather than later, the Terrace Houses will have to be rebuilt. At present, however, no decision of any kind has been come to, and I can only assure your Lordships that when the time comes those with whom the responsibility will rest will he fully alive to the exceptional importance of the site.
The noble Lord who sits behind me has said a few words in praise of Nash, and I hope he will not think that I presume to question the authority of his artistic judgment, but I would venture to remind him that it is possible to hold an opposite view of Nash and Nash's achievements, and yet find oneself in very good company. May I quote for his information, and that of your Lordships, a short passage from an article on Nash which I 388 have found in the Dictionary of National Biography? It is this:
Few architects have been given such opportunities of distinction as Nash, but it cannot be said that he proved himself quite worthy of them. Never original in his ideas, Nash seemed devoid of any sense of grandeur or freedom in his style. Not one of the buildings designed by him qualified him to rank as a great architect; and when an effect of solidity and massive repose is produced, it is marred by his persistent use of stucco. This gave rise to the well known epigram""
- 'Augustus at Rome was for building renowned,
- For of marble he left what brick he had found:
- But is not our Nash, too, a very great master?
- He finds us all brick and he leaves us all plaster.'"
VISCOUNT ESHERBefore this debate closes, may we ask the noble Marquess who is responsible for these operations? Have the Office of Works, who have real experts, been consulted?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYThe Crown Lands are under the Minister of Agriculture, though I am not quite sure it is right to say they are under the Ministry of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture is the individual who deals with these matters at the present moment and, as the noble Viscount is aware, that is a question which is really being discussed on all sides. As I am only representing the Minister of Agriculture at this time, I should not. be entitled to embark upon that subject.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I think perhaps the closing words of my noble friend gave but little cold comfort to your Lordships. He said that the Minister of Agriculture answered for these things, but that the Ministry of Agriculture was -not responsible. What we want to know is who is responsible? We seem to be presented with a case in which public money is spent and public property is administered without any Minister of the Crown being responsible to Parliament for it. That appears to us to be very unsatisfactory. We want to know on matters of this kind, which are of the greatest interest to the people of London and really to the people of the whole Empire, as being one of the central sights of London, what Department of the Government is responsible for the action which has been taken. My noble friend, of course, is well aware that 389 the feeling which has been excited by this proposed—I must not even call it proposed—this charge which has actually been carried out, is very acute, and all he has to tell us is that it is a matter under discussion and which Minister is to he responsible.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYMy noble friend will forgive me, but that is not what I was proposing to say. What I wished to say was that the Minister of Agriculture is responsible for Crowd Lands, and therefore answers all questions on those matters. The Crown Lands, as my noble friend is well aware, comprise a vast amount of property in London. The Minister of Agriculture is responsible for those Crown Lands, but I think probably the noble Marquess holds the same view as I do, that it would he better if they came under the Office of Works. At present the First Commissioner is not responsible.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI am well aware that the First Commissioner is not responsible, but my noble friend says that the Minister of Agriculture is responsible. Was the Minister of Agriculture consulted? Was this matter ever before the Minister of Agriculture? That is what we really wish to know. What appears to be the case to us who are outside is that, these things are decided by persons who are altogether irresponsible from a Parliamentary point of view, and that appears to me to be a state of things which does require the consideration of Parliament and of the Government. If that is really to be the case, it seems as if Parliament was not in control of public money and public property.
I do not want to go into the personal details of these matters, although indirectly I have been myself concerned. But when my noble friend, of course speaking, not from his own authority at all, as we all know, but simply from the information supplied to him, spoke of the peculiar difficulties in which the Commissioners of Crown Lands have been placed by the situation, he was not instructed to tell your Lordships that the trustees had to pay £500 to the Commissioners for the surrender of the lease. It is no part of my business as a member of your Lordships' House to intrude my private affairs or the private affairs with which I am acquainted on your Lordships' notice, but it does seem an incom- 390 plete statement which my noble friend made of the financial difficulties in which the Commissioners were placed if he was not instructed also to inform your Lordships that, in return for being allowed to surrender the lease, the trustees had to pay £500. That, however, is only an incidental.
I do think that, in view of the public feeling which is excited, we ought to have had some assurance from the Government that sonic action would be taken, if possible, to arrest the procedure in Carlton Gardens until it became quite clear what the real opinion of Parliament was on the matter. When I speak of Parliament I mean, of course, both Houses of Parliament. Here is a matter of great public interest, a matter upon which it is quite clear that, though the great artistic body represented by my noble friend Lord Crawford were consulted, their advice has not been followed. In a case of that kind the matter ought to be arrested and stopped until the mind of Parliament can be ascertained. What I hoped my noble friend would have said just now was that, having regard to the public feeling, nothing more would be done about this until it had been carefully considered by His Majesty's Government and Parliament had been consulted. Of course, to say it has been consulted by His Majesty's Government -when certain irresponsible Commissioners have instructed the Ministry of Agriculture what to say, and no Minister has been consulted, is really a travesty of what we mean by responsibility. What we want to know is what the Government think, and not what a permanent official has decided. Until that assurance can be given to us I urn quite sure my noble friend will find that neither of the two Houses of Parliament will be satisfied.
§ LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDEMy Lords, I should just like to emphasise the point which the noble Marquess has made, because I think it is really a very important point. Judging by the speech of the noble Marquess who replied for the Government, to which I listened very carefully, a very large project is really in prospect—the rebuilding of a great part of the centre of London. I really think that before that is embarked upon we ought to know with whom exactly responsibility rests, to whom questions should be addressed, and whether the 391 Government are quite satisfied that public opinion has been properly consulted. The noble Marquess said that he thought it was rather an anomalous position. He went so far as to say that he thought the Office of Works would be a better authority to be responsible in a case of this sort than the Commissioner of Crown Lands. And I noticed that he did not reply to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury's question as to whether the Minister of Agriculture had ever been consulted. There seems to be some doubt as to whether he was consulted until the last moment, when people saw that a good deal of fuss was going to be made.
Quite apart from the merits, architectural, residential, commercial, which are involved in the rebuilding of Carlton House Terrace, I feel that we have got here a large bit of Government property, and Parliament should be consulted as to what its future is to be, just in the same way as Parliament was consulted recently with regard to the erection of new Government offices in Whitehall. That was very fully discussed by committees, and everybody knew where they were because it was the Office of Works who were responsible. In this case the thing has been sprung upon us, and at the end of the debate I am really not quite sure where we are with regard to the future.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYMy Lords, I can only speak by leave of the House, and I hope your Lordships will grant me that leave. The noble Marquess asked a specific question as to whether the Minister had ever been consulted. I can enlighten him on that point, and I am very glad to do so. The late Minister of Agriculture was responsible, and he gave his consent.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDI should like to know when and to what this consent was given—whether to the scheme as we see it to-day in The Times or to a single house?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYI do not know whether the noble Earl is aware that the Crown Lands are not the Government's property, they are Crown property, and there is a distinction. The Member of Parliament in another place who answers for these matters and who is responsible has given his sanction. Our attention is directed to No. 4, Carlton Gardens, and I understand that the late 392 Minister of Agriculture gave his consent to the whole scheme in connection with No. 4, Carlton Gardens. In connection with the other matter about which the noble Lord opposite has asked me—namely, as to the whole project of Carlton House Terrace—I may say that at the present time there is no project in being. The fact that Carlton House Terrace may be altered in the future is a matter which is in the minds of a great many people, but, as I understand now, and as I am authorised to say in this House, there is no project at this time in connection with the rebuilding of Carlton House Terrace.
§ LORD CONWAY OF ALLINGTONMy Lords, I think this debate has thrown some light upon the questions raised, though not a very bright flood of light. Anyhow, I must thank the noble Marquess for what he has said, and with your Lordships' permission I will withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.