§ Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [17th April],"That Mr. Ambrose be one other Member of the Select Committee of London Streets (Strand Improvement) Bill."—(Mr. Baumann.)
§ Question again proposed.
§ Debate resumed.
§ *(3.3.) MR. BAUMANN (Camberwell, Peckham)As this Motion stands in my name I hope the House will permit me to make a few remarks. I consider, whether rightly or wrongly, that this matter is essentially a Metropolitan question, although it is true that the principle of betterment which is involved in the Bill, if adopted in this instance, may be applied in other parts of the country. I therefore thought myself justified in submitting the names of two Metropolitan Members out of the three to be nominated from this side of the House. I submitted my own name, because it is usual for the Member who moves for a Committee to serve on it himself; and I submitted the name of the noble Lord because he represents a large and important Metropolitan constituency, and he informs me that he is prepared to attend the Committee with a perfectly impartial mind. I must say that the suggestion that we should erase the name of the noble Lord for the purpose of substituting that of the hon. Member 1507 for Battersea (Mr. O. V. Morgan) is somewhat cool, seeing that the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), who is already committed to the principle of betterment, has already been nominated, and that it is proposed to nominate also the hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. H. Lawson), who is a member of the London County Council. No doubt the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Ambrose), whose name is now before the House, has expressed an opinion unfavourable to the principle of betterment; but the noble Lord the Member for Brixton is absolutely unpledged in the matter, and has formed no conclusion in regard to it. The hon. Member for North St. Pancras objected the other day to the noble Lord and myself, on account of age and weight; but the fact is, old and heavy men do not abound in the representation of the Metropolis. With the exception of the Members for the City, the Members of the Government, the Member for the University, and the Member for Greenwich, all we London Members were born in 1885. So far as the hon. Member for Battersea is concerned, I do not think that the services of a juster or more impartial man could be obtained; but the result of substituting his name for that of the noble Lord the Member for Brixton would be to secure upon the Committee a majority from the opposite side of the House. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir J. Lubbock) proposes to add the names of Sir H. Selwin-Ibbetson and Sir J. Pease, and I hope that both of those hon. Members are old enough and heavy enough to satisfy the wishes of the hon. Member for North St. Pancras. I certainly shall not question their specific gravity. If the hon. Member persists in his Motion, I shall certainly divide the House against it.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Marquess of Carmarthen be one other Member of the said Committee."—(Mr. Baumann.)
§ *MR. T. H. BOLTON (St. Pancras, N.)I am sorry that the debate should have taken a personal turn. So far as I am concerned, I have never intended to do anything that would give the noble 1508 Marquess the Member for Brixton the slightest annoyance, but if I had wanted a reason for the Amendment I am about to propose, I think the hon. Member opposite has afforded it to me by the amount of personality he has introduced into the discussion. I never said one word in regard either to age or weight.
§ *MR BAUMANNI beg to correct the hon. Member. On the last occasion he deprecated the selection of the noble Lord both on account of his inexperience in this House and his youth.
§ *MR. T. H. BOLTONProbably I did contrast the short experience of the noble Lord with the judgment, Parliamentary position, and experience and authority in this House, of the hon. Member for Battersea, but I am not aware that I referred to their weight or age. I must say that I consider it in the highest degree necessary that we should appoint upon this Committee Members of experience and authority to consider a most important Bill which deals with a large question of taxation, and finance affecting this great city and the other large cities and towns. It is most desirable that we should have men who have not expressed strong opinions one way or the other, and who would carry into the Committee no prejudice against the County Council promoting the Bill, or against the principle of betterment which the Bill embodies. The hon. Gentleman, a short time ago, made an intemperate speech with reference to the County Council, and spoke of teaching the County Council "a lesson."
§ *MR. BAUMANNI never said so.
§ *MR. T. H. BOLTONThe hon. Gentleman has forgotten what he said. When the hon. Gentleman rises to lecture others he should, at all events, remember his own shortcomings. I do not wish to say anything personally of the noble Marquess; but I think that the hon. Member for Battersea would be a better man for the Committee, and I therefore propose the substitution of his name.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERThe Amendment will be taken upon the question whether the noble Marquess shall be a member of the Committee.
§ MR. B. G. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)I am opposed to the principle of betterment in any form, and I am of opinion that the question of the im- 1509 provement of London should be considered from a broader standpoint. The fact is that the London County Council have not the means at present of knowing how they are to raise the funds for carrying out the vast improvements they contemplate, and I trust that the result of the inquiry of the Committee we are about to appoint will be to enable the County Council to see the difficulty of the course they propose to take, and to induce them to substitute for that which is inequitable in their proposal some other system.
§ *MR. T. H. BOLTONI rise to order. The question is not the principle of the Bill, but the nomination of the Committee.
§ MR. R. G. WEBSTERI was only pointing out the difficulty of carrying out this system of taxing London for improvements in the future. I do not deny that the hon. Member for Battersea possesses certain advantages. He has sat in the House continuously since 1885, and he has the advantage in point of age; but the question is one of a broader and more comprehensive character, and I believe that the noble Marquess has had considerable experience in connection with Local Government in various parts of the country, and that he will prove as useful a Member of the Committee as the hon. Member for Battersea. The matter is not one of detail but of principle, and as I think that the Committee will be strengthened by the addition of the noble Marquess, I support his nomination.
§ MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)I support the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras, because I wish to see all Parties properly and fairly represented on this Committee. What we want is that there should be an equal representation, and that we should have a Committee who will show no prejudice in regard to the question of betterment. It is, therefore, that I welcome the proposal to appoint the two hon. Baronets, the Member for Essex (Sir It. Selwin Ibbetson) and the Member for Barnard Castle (Sir J. Pease). Our desire on this side of the House is that the question should go before a 1510 Committee who will frankly and fairly discuss it.
§ MR. ISAACSON (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)This is a matter which seriously affects the East-end of London, and I am sorry to find that my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham has not proposed the nomination of some of the East-end Representatives. The people of the East-end feel greatly the great increase of taxation imposed upon them by the London County Council, and they feel that the time has arrived when hon. Members should interest themselves in getting that taxation reduced. I shall be compelled to object to my noble Friend the Member for Brixton, who does not represent an East-end division, and for the same reason I object to the name of the hon. Member for Battersea.
§ *MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)This is a most important question, and one which vitally affects the interests of the inhabitants of the Metropolis. The Committee is the most important Committee which the House has been called upon to appoint during the present Session. There are 4,000,000 of people in this Metropolis.
§ An hon. MEMBER: More nearly 5,000,000.
§ *MR. CREMERThat only strengthens my argument, and shows the necessity of devoting due time and deliberation to the constitution of the Committee. If the Committee is constituted as proposed by the hon. Member for Peckham, the result will be a foregone conclusion; but although the question may be staved off for a time, it will be absolutely necessary tore-open it hereafter. Another objection to the names submitted is the absence of any Representative from the poor st districts of the Metropolis, and if no Representative of the East End constituencies are to be appointed, I claim for the hon. Member for Battersea that he is a man of much greater experience than the noble Lord the Member for Brixton. He has been longer in the House; is a man of greater business qualifications; a man of impartial judgment, and one than whom no better Representative could be desired. But besides this, the noble Marquess belongs to a section of Society which has an interest in preserving the present state of things. The position which he occupies and the class to which 1511 he belongs, warrant us in concluding that he would go into the inquiry with some degree of prejudice. That remark does not apply to the hon. Member for Batter-sea, who would go into the inquiry with a spirit of complete impartiality, and not likely to be hampered by any consideration for vested interests.
§ *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,) Tower Hamlets, St. George'sThere was one remark made by the hon. Member who has just sat down to which I must draw attention, in order to show its fallacy. He says that the result of the Committee, if constituted as originally proposed, would have been a foregone conclusion. Even as originally proposed, there would have been two hon. Members who have distinctly expressed their opinion in favour of the principle of betterment, besides which the Committee of Selection were charged to place on the Committee four Members who, as far as possible, would be chosen because they were totally unprejudiced with reference to the question laid before them. My noble Friend the Member for Brixton has not said one word antagonistic to the County Council, and he has in no way pledged himself against the proposal made in this Bill. To substitute the hon. Member for Battersea for my noble Friend would entirely destroy the balance of Parties on the Committee, and it has always been understood that the balance of Parties on a Hybrid Committee should follow the balance of Parties in the House, as far as possible.
§ *MR. CREMERWhat I said was that the hon. Members for Peckham and Harrow have certainly expressed themselves against the Bill, and being nominated with the noble Marquess, I think I was justified in saying that the Report would be a foregone conclusion.
§ *MR. RITCHIEThe hon. Gentleman forgot that the Committee is to be reinforced by four Members appointed by the Committee of Selection, which destroys any justification for saying that the Report would be a foregone conclusion.
§ (4.0.) The House divided:—Ayes 164; Noes 94,—(Div. List, No. 64.)
§ Mr. LAWSON and Mr. BAUMANN nominated other Members of the Committee.
1512§ Ordered, That the Select Committee do consist of eleven Members, Seven to be nominated by the House, and Four by the Committee of Selection.
§ Ordered, That Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbet-son and Sir Joseph Pease be added to the Committee.—(Sir John Lubbock.)