Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-7qhmt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T04:35:21.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

NATION AND EMPIRE IN THE GOVERNMENT ARCHITECTURE OF MID-VICTORIAN LONDON: THE FOREIGN AND INDIA OFFICE RECONSIDERED

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2005

G. ALEX BREMNER
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh

Abstract

In 1856 the British government held an international competition for the design of public offices to be located near Whitehall and the houses of parliament. Comprising a Foreign Office 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.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

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.