§ Order read for resuming Adjourned De-bate on Amendment proposed [28th April] on Consideration of Resolution, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of contributions made by the Commissioners of Works in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to enable the London County 217 Council to acquire certain lands and execute certain improvements in the city of Westminster, and for other purposes in connection therewith."
§ Which Amendment was, at the end, to add the words "but such sum shall not exceed the sum of thirty-eight thousand pounds."—[Sir Frederick Banbury.]
§ Question again proposed, "That those words be there added." Debate resumed.
§ Mr. BOOTHI regret to some extent that this has been moved because I should have preferred to have limited it to a still smaller sum. This is a case of a great and wealthy district like London sponging on the poorer parts of the country. Why cannot the West End of London pay for its own improvements? Why need it go to the taxpayers of the country for help? I always did oppose this ridiculous attitude of the powers-that-be in London. They cut in my opinion a very sorry figure. They are far more backward than any town in the North of England or Scotland in these matters—probably because local government was not given to the metropolis till so late. There is not the same spirit in London as exists in other parts of the country. What would hon. Members think if Manchester, or Liverpool, or even Pontefract came here and asked Parliament to tax the whole country in order to straighten out a corner in one of their main thoroughfares? It is all very well to say that this is of national importance, but who in the provinces cares whether you have a square end or a round end to some building in Trafalgar Square. Surely the fact that London occupies the position she does makes her better able to pay for these things. I protest once more against people in the poorer parts of the North, who are already heavily burdened being compelled to pay however small a sum for the glorification of a corner of Trafalgar Square. I am ashamed that the Government should have brought in such a Bill.
§ Mr. HOGGEI hope that this House will agree to limit this money very severely. We from Scotland object very strenuously to our money being used for the purpose of glorifying London, especially when the Government is reluctant to grant Scotland any money at all for public purposes. What is this money for? I understand it is to effect an improvement at the end of the Mall. I want to know exactly what difference it is going to make to the architectural 218 beauty of that particular corner. Before we agree to the spending of this money I should like some plans put up in the Tea Room, in order that we can appreciate the exact æsthetic effect the scheme will have upon the Square. We have to bear in mind that there is a statue of Nelson in the middle of the Square, and that the Square is flanked by national buildings, all of which have a certain relation to the building now erected at the end of the Mall.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean)The only question now before the House is the amount of money to be spent on the improvement. I must ask the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the amount to be spent.
§ Mr. HOGGEIt is much too much. Why do we require this money at all? We ought to have details in front of us as to the amount that is required. There is a perfectly indefinite Clause in the Bill as it stands. I understand the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has attempted to restrict the sum to £38,000. We ought to have an elaborate statement—
§ Mr. HAROLD SMITHScotch cheeseparing!
§ Mr. HOGGEScotch cheeseparing, as the hon. Member suggests, may be a very desirable thing. It is something when you are criticising the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attempts at cheeseparing. We ought to have an elaborate statement from the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East (Mr. Wedgwood Benn) to show why he requires more than £38,000. It was only intimated this afternoon that this Bill would be taken to-day—we ought to have had Monday and Tuesday of this week devoted to another purpose—therefore we have been unable to put down Amendments to the Bill. The only way in which we can delay the consideration of the Bill is to discuss the question of money. I am convinced that the sum is £20,000 too much.
§ Mr. HAROLD SMITHWhy?
§ Mr. HOGGEBecause I do not see the value there now. I do not see why other parts of the country which are getting no benefit at all out of this particular improvement, should contribute. It is improving London at the expense of other parts of the United Kingdom. I should like to hear from the hon. Member 219 (Mr. Harold Smith) his reasons for supporting this extraordinary expenditure of money. I have heard him complain of the low wages paid, for instance, to bakers. How can he, as a representative of a working class community and a large industrial community, support this extraordinary expenditure of public money in a city, out of which he makes his bread and butter. The Westminster area is one of the lowest rated areas in the whole of London. Why should other parts of the country be mulcted in a large fine of this kind in order to give to the lowest rated part of London this sum of money? I shall oppose this very vehemently.
§ Mr. HAROLD SMITHI desire to answer the appeal which has been made and to correct the hon. Member in one statement that he made when he charged me with having earned my bread and butter in the constituency which I represent. I owe much to that constituency but that much I do not owe. I accept in all humility the challenge which the hon. Member has thrown out. Whether one represents a Lancashire borough or an important Scotch constituency, I ask the hon. Member to bear in mind that London is the very centre of the greatest Empire that the world has ever known.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe only question before the House is whether £38,000 shall be inserted.
§ Mr. HAROLD SMITHI think the hon. Member has made out no case whatever, and his speech shows, whether he speaks for Liberal or Scottish Members or only for himself, that he shows great lack of pride in the City, and I hope the House will vote the money.
§ Mr. HODGE rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put," but Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI have often observed that when important questions of the expenditure of public money are under discussion Labour Members are anxious to catch their trains. But we on these benches who are not affected by these considerations are anxious that due regard should be had to economy and to the careful expenditure of national money, desire to support the hon. Baronet in his efforts to limit this expenditure. The hon. Member opposite has completely 220 exonerated himself for the charge which he fancied my hon. Friend levelled at him of making his bread and butter out of Warrington. As the hon. and learned Gentleman is not concerned as to the expenditure of his Constituents—[HON. MEMBERS: "He never said it."] Yes, he is not concerned that his Constituents' money should be spent on the adornment of London when Warrington is left unadorned. It seems to me that he is absolutely betraying the interests of his Constituents. I have only seen Warrington from the train. [An HON. MEMBER: "There is a lunatic asylum."] I did not know from the train that there was a lunatic asylum there.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member is trifling with the House.
§ 12.0 M.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIf I am subjected to irrelevant interruptions I think I can hardly be blamed. I wish to deal with a serious aspect of this question. The principle which has been put in reference to other cases of the expenditure of public money has in those cases received my support and as the hon. Baronet has once more come forward with an Amendment of limitation on a Committee Resolution, I have pleasure in again supporting him. I am, of course, opposed in general to the expenditure of national money on the adornment of London, but I cannot enter into the general question. Had the hon. Baronet moved an Amendment still further limiting the sum which should be paid I should be glad to support him. Even on the basis of the slight limitation which he now proposes, I think it is the duty of all economists who wish to prevent money coming from the National Exchequer being used for purely local purposes to support that limitation. We believe that this is none other than a local purpose, and that it is one connected with the richest part of the metropolis. After all, we might have had some sympathy with the proposal of the Government if it had been a matter connected with St. George's-in-the-East, but it refers to the City of Westminster. I think those who represent the poorer areas throughout the United Kingdom should take this opportunity of limiting the amount to be taken out of the Imperial Exchequer in aid of such a rich locality.
§ Mr. WATTI should not have risen to take part in the debate had it not been for the attempt on the part of an hon. Member on the Labour Benches to closure 221 this discussion. Ho is a gentleman of Scottish extraction, who represents an English constituency, and who has adopted an English accent.
§ Mr. HAROLD SMITHOn a point of order. May I ask if the hon. Member is really in order?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member should address himself to the question before the House.
§ Mr. WATTThe subject before the House is the limitation of the sum to be spent on the Mall improvement. The hon. Member with the English accent on the Labour Benches objects to any limitation being put on the sum which is to be expended in this extravagant way. We who represent Scottish constituencies think that a limitation ought to be made, and in that view we have the support of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) the Member for the City of London. We cannot see why our constituencies should be asked to give money for the improvement of the wealthy city of Westminster. If a sum of money is to be taken from our Constituencies to improve this city that sum of money should be limited. The hon. and learned Member for Warrington spoke of his Constituents being quite willing to give something towards this improvement of the city, and he desired that the sum taken from them towards this improvement should not be limited. We all agree that Warrington is an authority on improvements. I am told by hon. Members that it is the dirtiest city in Europe.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment before the House.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTMy reason for supporting the proposal—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]—to place a limit on the amount of money that is to be granted for the purpose of this proposed improvement of the Mall is that it is a proposal for the purely aesthetic decoration of this city and—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTI do not propose to discuss the merits of the œsthetic improvements. If you would allow me to finish you would agree that the remark which I was about to make was in order. The improvement for which it is proposed to grant public money is a 222 proposal for the adornment of one of the wealthiest districts of the metropolis, and a district which has few slums compared with other districts—[HON. MEMBERS: "Warrington"]—compared with Warrington, and certainly with the city which I represent; and it is proposed for the purely aesthetic adornment of this district that all those other districts throughout the country in which there are many slums should be taxed.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI presume that the hon. and learned Member has come to the end of his sentence. It is not relevant to the Amendment before the House.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTThe point I wished to put was whether it was desirable to limit the amount of money taken from these poor districts, and if it is in order that is the point which I wish to develop.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe sole question before the House is the insertion of some limiting words in the general words of the Resolution.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTI desire to argue that it is desirable to place limiting words, and the argument which I wish to use is whether we should limit the amount of money which can be taken from these poor districts.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERWe cannot say where the money comes from. If it comes from the general Treasury it is a grant of public money, and the hon. Member is now talking about the amount contributed by poor and rich districts, which is not in order in this discussion.
§ Mr. WATTIs it in order for an hon. Member to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton to shut up?
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTThe point—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]—which I wish to put is that if money is taken for this purpose for Imperial—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member is not unnecessarily detaining the House, and he certainly should be allowed to finish his sentences,
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTYou are right, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in thinking that I do not desire to detain the House. My argument is that public money is drawn from the Imperial Treasury for the purpose of this improvement. It is drawn not from the district which is benefited 223 but from the country as a whole, including many poor districts which do not benefit in any respect from this improvement.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI have already indicated to the hon. Member that he is out of order in making those general observations.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTThe question is whether we should place a limit upon the amount of money which can be drawn from the Imperial Treasury for this improvement. If that be done, it will correspondingly increase the amount which
§ will have to be drawn from the rates of Westminster, and I believe that this improvement ought to be financed out of the local rates.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThat is the general question again.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe hon. Member is wrong. If a limit is placed on the amount in the Resolution, that is all the Government need to keep them to their word.
§ Question put, "That those words be there added."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 30; Noes, 129.
223| Division No. 189.] | AYES. | [12.12 a.m. |
| Barnston, Harry | Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Bigland, Alfred | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Kills, John Waller | Stanley, Han. G. F. (Preston) |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hogge, James Myles | Starkey, John Ralph |
| Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Horner, Andrew Long | Stewart, Gershom |
| Dawes, James Arthur | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. | Watson, Hon. W. |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A. | Watt, Henry Anderson |
| Elverston, Sir Harold | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading) |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Pringle, William M. R. | |
| Gilmour, Captain John | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir |
| Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Sanders, Robert Arthur | F. Banbury and Mr. Wheler. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Hackett, John | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Pratt, J. W. |
| Ainsworth John Stirling | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Armitage, Robert | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Primrose, Hon. Neil James |
| Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) | Hayden, John Patrick | Radford, George Heynes |
| Bird, Alfred | Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Black, Arthur W. | Higham, John Sharp | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Boland, John Plus | Hodge, John | Reddy, Michael |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Illingworth, Percy H. | Redmond, Wiliam Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Roberts, Charles (Lincoln) |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Robinson, Sidney |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Joyce, Michael | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Kelly, Edward | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Kilbride, Denis | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Clough, William | King, Joseph | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Sheehy, David |
| Crooks, William | Levy, Sir Maurice | Shewell, Arthur James |
| Crumley, Patrick | Lundon, Thomas | Shortt, Edward |
| Cullinan, John | Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe) |
| Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | McNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Sutton, John E. |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol. S.) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Delany, William | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) |
| Devlin, Joseph | Meagher, Michael | Thorne, G. R. (Walverhampton) |
| Doris, William | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Duffy, William J. | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Molloy, Michael | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Falconer, James | Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Murphy, Martin J. | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.) |
| Fitzgibbon, John | Nolan, Joseph | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Wilson, W. T. (Weshoughton) |
| Gladstone, W. G. C. | O'Doherty, Philip | Wing, Thomas Edward |
| Glanville, Harold James | O'Dowd, John | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Greig, Colonel J. W. | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Yeo, Alfred William |
| Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Parker, James (Halifax) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Gulland, John William | Parry, Thomas H. | Wm. Jones and Mr. Webb. |
Main Question put, and agreed to.
-
c225
- MALL APPROACH IMPROVEMENT (RECOMMITTED) BILL. 164 words