Admiralty House "To Let.”

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XXX, Issue XI, 14 March 1903, Page 758

Admiralty House "To Let.”

DISCUSSION BY THE HARBOUR BOARD. At the Harbour Board meeting on March 13th the secretary reported the receipt of a letter from Mr W. B. A. Morrison, stating that he had a client desirous of occupying Admiralty House, and wishing to know what terms of lease could be arranged. Mr Philson moved that the letter be received, as the Board had no intention of leasing the House at present. The Chairman (Mr Julian) said that when the Vice-Admiral was interviewed by the mambers of the Board recently various matters were mentioned, including the subject of Admiralty House. He informed the Admiral that the Board had built the place for the Admiral, and asked if he would kindly oblige by saying if he would be able to occupy it or not. He replied that he had anticipated that this question might be asked him, and he had written out his reply on the subject. This reply, as already published in the newspapers, was to the effect that he would not be able to occupy the house, but he could not say what future Admirals might do. It seemed, therefore, that the Board had Admiralty House “to let,” and he moved that the question be referred to the Works and Tariff Committee.

Mr Walker suggested that the Board’s solicitor should be asked whether they had legal power to let or lease the place under the Act of Parliament.

Mr Napier seconded the chairman's motion, but said he believed the Admiral was under a misapprehension as to what was expected of him. He evidently believed that he would be expected to occupy it as an official residence and maintain an expensive staff. This was not the case. All that was required was that the Admiral should occupy it as his private residence whenever he happened to be at Auckland, in the same way as was done in Hobart. When the previous Admirals were asked to occupy the old Admiralty House the objection was'raised that it was too dilapidated. Then the two Auckland daily papers took the matter np and almost goaded the Board into erecting the new house. The two newspapers strenuously urged the matter forward, brow-beating the Board into erecting the new Admiraltv House. Then the house was built in obedience to the voice of the people, and practically by a unanimous vote of the Board on the main question; and it was a good business investment, as the Board would get more than half—probaldv one-third • —of the cost paid by the Government, besides getting the old house and site. The question now seemed to be whether the Board should at once proceed to complete the compact made with the Government or lease the house until some future time. Tn reply to Mr Walker’s question he could say that the Board was fully empowered to let or lease the house so long as no consideration was received from the Government. When the new naval agreement came into operation under which New Zealand was to contribute £40.000 toward the Navy, the status of the Port of Auckland would be greatly altered, and New Zealand would have ‘ a commodore to itself, whose ships would be stationed here, -and whose office >and quarters would be ashore. Tn such a case there was no doubt that the commodore would occupy Admiralty House, as the Admiral at Sydney did. The only question appeared to he what should be done with the house in the meantime. Ho would strongly advise the Board not to let the house for a long period in view of the prospect of an early alteration of the circumstances of the port. Mr. Witheford did not intend to blame the newspapers. The board was distinctly assured before the house was built that the Admiral approved of the site and the plans, and desired the house, and it was in consequence of that wrong impression that ho supported the proposals. The proposals were finally carried in a precipitate manner, because it -was said the bouse must be ready for the Admiral when the fleet arrived, and he had supported the proposals in good faith, believing it to lie the wish of the Admiral.

Mr. Philson did not think Mr. Witheford could got out of the position quite so easily as that. It was just as easy for

Mr. Witheford as for anyone else to find out the true position of affairs. He was surprised at the ungenerous way iu which the newspapers had turned round upon the board and said, “We told you so; you have added another white elephant.” One was supposed to gather public opinion from the newspapers, but the newspapers took an entirely different attitude now from what they took up a year ago. Mr. Napier was incorrect in saying the erection of Admiralty House was approved of almost unanimously by the board. That ho;ise would never have been built but for the vote of one man- The board had now reached a point at which they should recognise that they had made a mistake. They should say to the Government, “You are wanting a large building for public purposes; take this over and give us our money.” It would then be worth while to erect a house of about eight rooms on the Devonport side, close to the dock, and lay out the grounds attractively, and the Admiral would then probably have no objection to occupying it. This would not cost more than £2OOO, and it could be kept occupied all the year round.

Mr. Julian applauded Mr. Fhilson’s suggestion to offer Admiralty House to the Government. Mr. Seddon had said he would like to live among us three or four months in the year, and the house might be made into a residence for the Ministers, including Sir Joseph Ward. Mr. Napier: There is an application from General Babington. Mr. Basley said he held strong views on the question, and considered that the whole board should form a committee to discuss it. Mr. Baume said public opinion was never strongly in favour of the house, and any support afforded was due to the impression that the Admiral either officially or unofficially had expressed a desire for it. He was astonished to hear Mr. Napier’s views of the purpose for which Admiralty House was built. If it was not to be the official residence of the Admiral, then he would do away with it at once, for under any other conditions we did not want it here. It was not the duty of the Harbour Board to build a private house and provide for the private entertainment of the officers who came here. This duty belonged more to a different, section of the community, who might bo only too pleased to extend the hospitality. The board had no right to build a mansion for the convenience of one officer and his wife and family. Mr. Napier: It would pay us fifty fold. Air Baume: If there is no other reason for the fleet coming here than the mere satisfaction of getting a mansion, then the navy consists of men of whom we have no reason to be proud. Mr Baume asserted that the Harbour Board had no right to indulge in business investments and proceeded to criticise the alleged value of the old Admiralty House, whieh under the agreement would come into the hands of the Board. Mr Napier: It is the land that is of value more than the house. We have an offer of £3OOO for it.

Air Baume: No doubt Air Napier will make the offer good. Air Baume said that it had been implied that if Wellington had a fine harbour and a big Admiralty House the fleet would go there; that there was a sort of competition between the different ports as to which should offer the Admiral the finest house.

Mr Napier: It is now a matter of competition. Air Baume: If it is to be a matter of competition, the treatment of the naval officers, then I hope Auckland will stand out of it, because if the naval officers are so false as to be led away from their duty by considerations of that kind they are not fit to be in command of the fleet. He was convinced that the erection of Admiralty House was one of the biggest public mistakes

ever made. Air Walker said the sooner the Board rectified their obvious mistake the bet-

ter. They should do what a private individual would do if he were in their position and get rid of it. It had been apparent from the commencement that the Admiral Would not occupy the house, and Admiral Beaumont declined to lay the foundation stone because it had not received the sanction of the Lords of the

Admiralty. Me criticised Air Napier’s “extraordinary pertinacity,” and also blamed the newspapers. In Hobart, where the Admiral lived for six weeks in the year, his cost to the Government

—not to Hobart city—was only £ 173 per annuum. Auckland, on the other hand, had spent a sum of £ 8530 in providing Admiralty House, apart from the cost of furnishing and maintenance, and now it was evident that it would be impossible for an Admiral to maintain such an expensive place. He would be in favour of leasing the place for ten years.

Air Napier: Within three years I think you will find the Admiral will occupy it. Air Julian said Mr Napier had always led the Board to believe that he had it from the Admiral that he would come here and occupy the house. He was very glad that he stuck out against the furnishing and thus prevented a worse mess.

Air Napier remarked that Admiral Pearson, in the presence of a committee of the Board, approved of the site.

Mr Philson moved that the question be discussed by a committee of the whole Board. This was seconded and carried.

The matter was again considered by the Board on Friday, but it was found impossible to arrive at any definite conclusion. It was eventually decided to instruct the chairman to obtain legal advice on the Board’s position, and the question will again be discussed next Monday.

The “Auckland Star” remarks: — “It was only to be expected that members of the Harbour Board, having been at last brought face to face with the colossal blunder they have perpetrated, should desire to shift the responsibility to other shoulders. Mr Napier is the one man who, more than anybody else, is to blame for the reckless expenditure in whieh the Board, following his lead, have involved themselves for this object, and he now has the assurance to say that the Board was driven to build Admiralty House by the newspapers. As far as we are concerned, we take leave to state that Air Napier’s remarks are an outrageous misrepresentation of any-

thing we have ever published on the subject. When the project was originally set on foot, the idea was to provide temporary residence for the senior naval officer commanding on the New Zealand station, which would be available for the Admiral on his occasional visits; and this might have been done in a quiet and inexpensive way without any risk to the finances of the Board. Believing that such a scheme was in accordance with the wishes of the naval authorities, it had our cordial support. But this was far too modest for Mr Napier’s tastes. In spite of constant protests from members of the Board, and from the public press, Mr. Ns pier obstinately persisted in carrying out the huge wooden structure which has involved the Board in such a shameful waste of the public funds, though he should have known—as everybody else knew —that the Admiral in command had expressed his determination not to use the house when it was built. Some such scheme as Mr Phlson now proposes: a small house in a suitable situation, was not open to serious objection, unless and until it had been made clear that *■!:, naval authorities did not approve < r :’:c project. It might fairly be assumed that the Board would, in any case, have consulted the naval authorities before erecting a house of any kind. When it became definitely known that Admiral Beaumont disapproved of the entire project, the whole aspect of the case was altered, and the Board should have revised their decision. The building at that time had not been commenced. As matters stand the Board have been convicted on two serious indictments. Members have allowed themselves to be dragged blindfold into an unnecessary and extravagant undertaking without troubling to see the end of it; and they have either omitted to discover whether anyone would ever wae the house after it was built, or they have concealed their knowledge of the fact that the Admiral in command had distinctly refused to live in it. Mr Napier may take his choice of these alternatives.