Nation and Empire in the Government Architecture of Mid-Victorian London: the Foreign and India Office Reconsidered Author(S): G
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Nation and Empire in the Government Architecture of Mid-Victorian London: The Foreign and India Office Reconsidered Author(s): G. Alex Bremner Source: The Historical Journal, Vol. 48, No. 3 (Sep., 2005), pp. 703-742 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4091720 Accessed: 17-08-2016 02:21 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4091720?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Historical Journal This content downloaded from 128.59.222.107 on Wed, 17 Aug 2016 02:21:22 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms The Historical Journal, 48, 3 (2005), PP- 703-742 ? 2005 Cambridge University Press doi:Io.IoI7/SooI8246Xo5004632 Printed in the United Kingdom NATION AND EMPIRE IN THE GOVERNMENT ARCHITECTURE OF MID-VICTORIAN LONDON: THE FOREIGN AND INDIA OFFICE RECONSIDERED* G. ALEX BREMNER University of Edinburgh A BSTRAC T. In 1856 the British government held an international competition for the design ofpublic offices to be located near J/hitehall and the houses ofparliament. Comprising a Foreign Offce and War Office, the project was radically altered in 1858 when the War Office component was abandoned and replaced with a new India Office. The controversy that surrounded this competition and its aftermath has attracted the attention of scholars for decades, not least for its importance to the history of Victorian architecture. The current study seeks a wider interpretation of this project by examining the way it became a conflict over ideas concerning British identity and nationhood. It is argued that, at a time when Britain had reached the relative height of its international power, these buildings were seen as a means of not only improving London's urban environment but also celebrating its unrivalled political and economic status. The India Office, often neglected by historians, was significant in this regard, symbolizing the reach and authority of the British empire. Here the Foreign and India Office are reconsidered for what they reveal about British national/imperial self-perception and its representation in architecture during the mid- Victorian period. I think I may safely enough venture to predict that so important a competition will now occasion no small amount of talking, and, quite as likely as not, of writing also. Building News, 1857 Department of Architecture, School of Arts, Culture and Environment, The University of Edinburgh, 20 Chambers Street, Edinburgh, EHi IJZ. * An earlier version of this article received the Hawksmoor Medal from the Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain (2002). I would like to thank Andrew Saint, Peter Mandler, Michael H. Port, Kate Crowe, and the anonymous referees for their assistance, comments, and criticisms. I am also indebted to the Gates Cambridge Trust; Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge; and the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art for supporting the research, writing, and revision of the text. Figure 4 has been reproduced by kind permission of the National Archives, London, and Figure 6 by the India Office Archives, British Library, London. 703 This content downloaded from 128.59.222.107 on Wed, 17 Aug 2016 02:21:22 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 704 G. ALEX BREMNER With Britain's rise to global pre-eminence following the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (1792-1815) came significant changes in its civil and bureaucratic administration. By the middle of the nineteenth century a new mentality prevailed. Acute population growth, increased industrial development, the overcrowding of cities, martial incompetence, and an expanding territorial empire all led to the realization that the hitherto ad hoc, even ancient procedures regarding civil, military, and colonial organization in Britain required urgent reform.1 The increased demand on space to facilitate these reforms and their attendant bureaucracies was also fraught with difficulty. In turn came new, if debatable, attitudes toward metropolitan improvement - i.e., the cleansing and aggrandizement of the city through the building of sewers, the widening of roads, and the erection of grand and dignified public edifices. The buildings used to house the departments of foreign and colonial affairs (a collection of eight terraced houses on Downing Street) are a case in point. By the I850s these buildings had not only become wholly inadequate for these rap- idly expanding areas of government but were also in a ruinous state of repair.2 When the decision was finally taken in 1856 to abandon them in favour of a modern, purpose-built facility, the question of how this new building would (or should) embellish the metropolis became a leading consideration. It was acknowledged that such a building would have to be distinguished and imposing, asserting Britain's geo-political power in visual and spatial terms. For this reason, the project - which became known as the new Foreign Office - was seen by many as an unparalleled opportunity to improve the public image of the city.3 If London was indeed the capital of a worldwide commercial and territorial empire during this period, then how, if at all, such a high-profile public project reflected this condition is an important question. It has often been suggested by historians of British architecture that the new government offices complex in Whitehall was expressive of Britain's unrivalled political power during the nine- teenth century. However, little scholarship exists that has cared to elaborate this assumption. Where it does, the analysis is either too heavily based on official sources or falls short in examining the wider issues that influenced contemporary estimations of the project.4 To date no study has adequately considered the full range of debate that involved these buildings, nor the themes concerning national 1 Britain's population doubled between 18oo and 1850, as did the percentage of its population living in towns and cities with over Ioo,ooo people. See R. Woods, The population history ofBritain in the nineteenth century (Cambridge, 1995), p. Io; F. M. L. Thompson, 'Town and city', in F. M. L. Thompson, ed., The Cambridge social history of Britain, I: Regions and communities (Cambridge, 1990), p. 8. 2 Parlianzenta, papers (I839), XIII, pp. 233ff; Builder, 26July 1856, p. 414. 3 For instance, the Building Necws noted that the project was one of the most important architectural works ever undertaken in England. See Building ew,s (BN), 15 May 1857, p. 476. 4 E. K. Morris, 'Symbols of empire: architectural style and the government offices competition', Journal of Architectural Education, 32 (1978), pp. 8-13; M. H. Port, Imperial London: civil government building in London, 1851-1915 (New Haven and London, 1995). See also N. R. Bingham, 'Victorian and Edwardian Whitehall: architecture and planning, 1869- 1918' (Ph.D. thesis, Bedford College, London, 1985), ch. I, passim. This content downloaded from 128.59.222.107 on Wed, 17 Aug 2016 02:21:22 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms THE FOREIGN AND INDIA OFFICE RECONSIDERED 705 identity that were instrumental in shaping them as works of art in the public imagination. Moreover, the comparative neglect of the India Office as a signifi- cant, if belated, component of the project is indicative of the way the history of these buildings (including the Home Office and Colonial Office) has been all but reduced to that of the 'Foreign Office'. In orthodox terms, the history of the Foreign Office has been characterized as a dispute between 'Goths' and 'Classicists' - known as the 'battle of the styles' -and the now celebrated encounter between the then prime minister, Lord Palmerston (1784-1866), and the building's principal architect, George Gilbert Scott (1811-78). More specifically, this debate has been framed as an impasse between an older generation of classically indoctrinated intransigents, with steadfast ideas on the nature and purpose of public buildings, and a younger, more idealistic generation of rising professionals who sought to reconstitute the expressive vocabulary of British secular and religious architecture.5 Although these views have helped to make sense of a particularly vexed and complex situ- ation, they have tended to narrow our view, forcing us to focus on the roles played by the various individuals involved and to regard the entire project as typifying a stage in the stylistic evolution of Victorian architecture. This tendency has restricted and therefore marginalized wider influences and implications that were often central to the conception of such projects, including the expression of national prestige. Extraneous influences such as the articulation of national identity are certainly observable in buildings, monuments, and urban planning schemes of the late Victorian and Edwardian periods. Monuments such as the Imperial Institute (1887-93) and the Victoria Memorial (1901-12) epitomized a worldview that was shaped by nationalist and imperial concerns.6 However, there exists a long- standing assumption that this link or association between architecture and empire is not really apparent until the last twenty-five years of the nineteenth century - the period now referred to as the 'age of empire'. It seems that this assumption is derived from the broader historical conclusion that the mid- nineteenth century was a period of 'anti-imperialism'.7 In comparison to the 5 The historiography of this interpretation may be traced back to well-known accounts such as Charles Eastlake's A history of the gothic revival (1872).