ADMIRALTY HOUSE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11605, 20 March 1901, Page 5

ADMIRALTY HOUSE.

DISCUSSION AT THE HARBOTJP BOARD.

The question of calling, for. tenders for the erection of Admiralty House on. the site below old St. Paul's was again before the Auckland Harbour Board yesterday,.when a report came up from, the- Works and Tariff Committee, recommending that the Board call for fresh designs, ; the successful applicant to receive £50 bonus and be employed to ■ carry out the work at 5 per cent.- commission. * Mr. W. J. Napier moved that the report be adopted. ; He said the position of the matter was that the Board would get from the Government under the Admiralty House Act £1000 in cash and the old property of Admiralty House, estimated to' be worth £2500. At present the ; Board was losing the rent of the 'old property, about; £350, because the Government refused to give the rent until the Board proceeded with the erection of the house. . He suggested that the matter be proceeded with at once, so that when the Duke and Duchess of York came to Auckland they might invite : the Duke of York to lay the foundation-stone of Admiralty House. * The Australian people were getting His Royal Highness to lay foundation-stones of public buildings, and this would bo an Imperial matter. A suggestion was made some time ago that the present Admiralty House Act be repealed, and that Admiralty House be built in Wellington, but he felt certain the public spirit of the Auckland Harbour Board would not allow anything 'of the kind. Admiralty House was the real complement of the works proceeding on the other side of the harbour. Mr. Cozens seconded, but said the Board should first secure the freehold of the whole of the site. At present a portion of the site was on leasehold.

Mr. Philson held that the whole question of" the desirability of the Board establishing an Admiralty House should be reconsidered. The Board was asked to undertake a large expenditure for the erection of an Admiralty House, which would only be occupied for two or three weeks every year. No admiral had yet stated that he would stay in Auckland, and one admiral had stated that he might spend three weeks of the year in the city. If the Board decided to build a house, they should build it in such a way that when it was not occupied by the Admiral the Board could place it at the disposal of any (distinguished stranger. He thought the cost was too great, seeing that the house would only be occupied for three weeks every year. The Board could get suitable accommodation for the Admiral in a hotel at far less • cost. . Mr. Napier said the Admiral had distinctly stated that when he was not using the house the senior naval officer on the station would have the right to occupy it. Mr. Goldie expressed the opinion that the cost was a great deal too much, seeing the Admiral would only be in Auckland for three weeks every year. Moreover, he did not think the site suitable.

Mr. Niccol said ho preferred that notice should be given of this motion for the sake of the new members of the Board. He should be ■ very sorry to see the Board go back on the scheme. He was convinced that the Board was in honour bound to the Admiralty to build the house, and he did not think a better site could bo secured.

Mr. Withefoid supported Mr. Niccol's remarks. Although the visits of admirals to Auckland were at present few and far between and of short duration, it did not follow that would be the case in the future. New Zealand was the only independent colony in the Pacific, and the determination of the English Admiralty to strengthen the colonial navy meant that there would? bo more ships and more frequent visits of the Admiral to the Auckland station. There was not the slightest doubt that ultimately Now Zealand would form the base of an entirely separate naval division, with subsidies direct from the. English Admiralty, distinct altogether from the Australian subsidies. The better reception they gave to the Admiral the more frequent would be his visits.. Recently Ministers of the Crown had been cordially received in Auckland, and they had come again and again, and the Board would find that if they gave the Admiral _ first-class comfort and accommodation his visits would be more frequent. He would be very sorry to see the motion for the trection of Admiralty House defeated. .■'.;- Mr. A. H. Nathan moved, " That the consideration of tho matter be deferred till next meeting.'' Mr. Harris (■eeonded. Mr. Napier agreed with Mr. Witheford that New Zealand would becomo a naval station, officially regarded as such, with Auckland as its headquarters, and he pointed out that efforts had been made to get the headquarters removed to Wellington. The Admiral had distinctly stated that when he was not in the house the senior naval officer on the station would have the right to occupy it. That meant that the senior naval officer would bring his family to Auckland. Hobart had rented a. furnished house at £300 a year, and the whole annual cost would bo between £400 and £500. The Hobart City Council thought it paid them to expend that sum of money to induce the officer commanding to visit Hobart. i

Consideration of the matter was then, in accordance with Mr. Nathan's motion, deferred till next meeting.