ADMIRALTY HOUSE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12210, 4 March 1903, Page 6

ADMIRALTY HOUSE.

A WHITE ELEPHANT THAT COST £8500. HARBOUR BOARD MEMBERS APPORTION THE BLAME. i At yesterday's meeting of the Harbour Board the Chairman (Mr. J. T. Julian) reported that, in co top any with Mr. Brigham (tho secretary), he had waited upon Admiral Fanshawe, and brought under his notice the question of tho occupation of Admiralty House. He asked the Admiral if he would be able to occupy it or not, and received a written reply. . Mr. Julian then read the statement made by the Admiral, which appeared in the Herald on Monday. In it the Admiral, speaking for himself, regrets his inability to make use of the house, and expresses a doubt whether, " under present circumstances, the Admiralty would recognise the house as an official residence," either for himself or for the senior naval officer of the New Zealaad division. ; ; ■.-> - ■ , , The Chairman thought the matter was of such importance that, rather than refer it to the Finance and Legal Committee, or to the Works and Tariff Committee, ,it would be better to refer it to a committee of tho whole Board.

Mr. Walker said'the first thing to do was to find out the legal position of the Board. He doubted whether they had power to let or to lease the house.

Mr. Napier, who dealt with the question at some length,, alluded, in the course of his remarks, to the arrangements , made for the housing of the Admiral at Hobart from time to time. A furnished residence was provided by the authorities during such time as the Admiral's fleet was in. the harbour. This had been the custom since Admiral Tryon's time. • He mentioned, for the information of new members, that this matter had been before them since the time of Admiral Tryon. They were then endeavouring to get the Admiral to come ashore and live in tho old Admiralty House, and the objection raised was that the house was in a dilapidated condition. The New Zealand Herald and its evening contemporary almost goaded the Board into the erection of a new house. These papers most strenuously and vehemently, by growling and cajoling alternately, induced the Board to erect . a new house. He had in his possession articles stating how necessary it was that the Board should not, disgrace itself by asking the Admiral to occupy an old, dilapidated structure. The matter was then proceeded with, and the building put up. Some difference arose in respect to the plans, but otherwise the Board was unanimous. He believed the building was a good business investment; a very large proportion of the cost would bo borne by the Government. With regard to the point raised by Mr. Walker, there could be no doubt about the right of the Board at the present moment to lease the house if they felt so disposed. _The case would be altered if they accepted the money mentioned by the Government, together with the old property. They would then have to obtain the Government's consent. As things were now they were free to do as they pleased. . People conversant with these matters were aware that it was stated in a Parliamentary blue book that, as the result of the Imperial Conference, a new agreement was to be made between the Australasian colonies and tho Admiralty. There was practical unanimity in the .Zealand Parliament respecting the agreement, under which the colony would pay a sum of £40,000 a year. There was a good deal of criticism in Australia in regard to the proposed payment of £200,000 by that colony. When the agreement was signed the whole system would be practically recast, and New Zealand would have a commodore. There would be a separate command, and 'the headquarters of such an officer would be as at the time of the visit of the Condor. In such an event there was no doubt the Commodore would live in the house if ii were placed at his disposal, just as' the Admiral lived at Sydney. It was for the Board to consider whether, pending the signing of this agreement, and the advent of new ships, they ought to let or lease the house. He strongly advised the Board not to let the house for a long period, in view of the altered conditions that would be brought about. They never intended that the' house should be an .official residence. When Mr. Brigham and himself saw Admiral Pearson—the last Admiral up to the time of Admiral Beaumont, whom they saw in reference to the furnishingthat gentleman said lie did not want the house as an official residence, where he .would bo expected to live in state, but he thought it would be very nice if tho house furnished, placed at his disposal for his comfort in a private capacity, as was done in Hobart. Mr. Witheford said he, did not blame the newspapers in any way. Members were reluctantly induced to vote for the erection cf the new Admiralty House by misleading and incorrect representations. They were told that the Admiral approved of the site and design of the proposed building, and that he wanted the house erected before the arrival of the fleet in the autumn.. For his own part he had no _ wish to shirk his share of blame for any mistake made by the Board. Mr. Phflson shared Mr. Napier's regret at the attituclo taken up by the papers. If he had been in Mr. Napier's position, and had been applauded for his action at the time, lie might have considered himself justified for advocating. the building of an Admiralty House. Nothing had pained hm more than to see tho newspapers turn round with tho cry that the Board had added another white elephant to their list, and blame them for it. To say the least, it was most _ ungenerous. Mr. Napier was wrong in stating that the Board were unanimously in favour of the erection of Admiralty House. The house would never have been built but for one vote. It was better for them to acknowledge risrht away that they had made a mistake. , The Government wanted buildings for public purposes, and they could very weir offer them the Admiralty House. With part of the money they could erect a much smaller building in the neighbourhood of Devonport. The Chairman said the idea of bringing the house under the notice of the Government in the way suggested, was not a bad one. Mr. Seddon had expressed a wish to live in Auckland for three or four months a year. Why should they not, bearing this in mind, make the house a residence for the Ministers?, ' :' . v ' :. Mr. Napier: There is an application from General Babington. , . The Chairman, continuing, remarked that the ' house. would make an excellent official residence for the Ministers." With Mr. Seddon and Sir J. Ward among them for long periods they might get many things done that were wanted in this part of the colony. Mr. Basley thought the matter was one for consideration by tho whole Board in committee. ■ ' ' ' . . Mr. Baume said public opinion was never really in favour of , the erection of the Admiral's House. If; 'as Mr. Napier now said, it was never intended that , the house should bo the official residence of the Admiral, what was the use of. it at all? It was not the duty of the Harbour Board (who were elected to look after harbour matters) to provide for the private comfort of naval officers. They wore told, too, that the house was a good business investment, but the,point had not been proved. , He thought it a bad investment.

Mr. Walker remarked that if a private individual make a mistake he took the nearest way out of it. • ; Why should not the Board act in a. similar manner? They knew from the beginning that the' Admiral did not want the house. Admiral Beaumont told them lie could not lay the foundation-stone of the building because it had. not received the sanction of the Lords' of the Admiralty. In a letter he (Mr.' Walker) addressed to the Herald at the time he remarked that for the same reason the Admiral would not take up his residence in the house. . The whole thing was due to the astonishing pertinacity of Mr. : Napier. The course followed in Hobart, where a six weeks' residence by the Admiral cost the Tasmanian ; Government £173 17s 2d only, was a sensible one. Here it was differed". They had been put to an expenditure, inclusive of the cost of the land, of £8530. It was foolish to suppose that any Admiral would bear the cost of residence in such a house. It was costing the Board something like £4-75 a year to keep the house going. If there were any chance of officers of the fleet , wanting to use the-house in future they 1 might; in leasing the house, fix the term at, . say, seven or 10 years. ..; . Mr. Napier: I should suggest three years. . The Chairman pointed out that the Board had always been led to believe that as soon as the work was finished the Admiralty would agree to, make, use of the house as an Admiral's residence.. Mr. Napier had certainly given them to understand ; that such was the case. :i As business men,' with such' a building on their hands, naturally, wanted to make the best use of it? It was no good having a', white , elephant about. • - .The ; further; consideration . of - the. question was referred to a committee composed iof the entire? Board, to.) meet on Friday, at ' halfpast three in the .afternoon..' : • >i; The i Chairman afterwards : mentioned that he ;had? spoken to the •'Admiral in; reference to the shifting of the - men-of-war grounds higher up the harbour. ' The ' Admiral had promised* to do what he could in the matter.