HC Deb 18 April 1918 vol 105 cc596-613

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £35,100, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of Houses of Parliament Buildings."—[Note: £19,000 has been voted on account.]

Sir W. ESSEX

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman for some particulars on a matter connected with this building. I have not given him notice, but I think the facts are so simple and so obvious that I have no doubt he will be able to convey to the House, in response to my inquiry, practically all that is necessary in the way of information. I believe some very properly appreciative Members of this House and the other have got together and have raised, or are raising, a fund wherewith to provide a richly-deserved memorial in this palace to perpetuate the memory of those of our membership who have fallen in the War, or may hereafter be called upon to make the great sacrifice in the discharge of their duty. No one, of course, will charge me with any lack of appreciation either of the Committee or of the very proper object of their labour, but I should like to be reassured with regard to the method that is to be adopted, or has been adopted, on this matter. I may remind hon. Members that this House is one of the few survivals of the Victorian era, of the beauty and glory of which we have reason to be proud, and one gets a bit apprehensive lest a most well-meaning Committee may work on the feelings and emotions of my right hon. Friend to the extent of inducing him either to permit an inadequate or inappropriate memorial to be erected, or, whether the memorial be good or bad, to allow it to be erected in a wholly unsuitable position.

5.0 P.M.

With regard to the artistic quality of the memorial which it is proposed to erect I am not saying anything, except that I would like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he, as the custodian of this building, has taken care to safeguard us by being assured that it will be the best and most artistic memorial as far as present day knowledge and artistic sense is concerned, because if the choice has been made merely by nomination I doubt whether that point will be reached. How it should be reached is another matter. It is one of a broader character, and I do not think I should be entitled to give any suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman or the Committee at the moment. Although it is but a small sum it is proposed to expend, on selecting one or two gentlemen and getting them to do the best they can at the moment, working to order under a time limit, I do not think such a plan is always calculated to bring out the best. However that may be, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us if he has taken due and proper steps—if he has taken the advice of the great architectural associations on this matter, and whether the great Barrie window at the foot of the stairs in St. Stephen's Hall, looking down the hall, is the proper place to put the memorial. We may all have our views as to which is the proper place, but I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has taken proper artistic advice and counsel or whether he has left the decision to the foreman of the Office of Works. As far as my own opinion is worth anything, as one of 670 Members, I think the place is unsuitable for the memorial as well as for the splendid window under which it is proposed to put it, and which it will to a certain extent, disfigure, and I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has considered that point carefully, and if he has taken advice upon it? I know that his great abilities are very far-reaching. But no one man is equal to forming a decision of this kind, not even the right hon. Gentleman, great as his powers may be and I hope he will assure me that he has taken trained advice, and that the glories of this building, even in this matter with so noble an object, are not likely to be sacrificed. Some of us might think, for instance, that the Members' Staircase, which is thronged by all of us year in and year out, and is charged with the memories of many of these good souls, would be a good place. Others think that where the public gather would be a suitable place, but both as to the methods by which the artists are to be chosen for this memorial, which will cost the right hon. Gentleman's Department nothing, and will be made as a gift from Members of Parliament, we want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has exercised proper control, has satisfied himself by the best advice that all the proper steps have been painstakingly taken, and that thereafter he will assure himself by all the advice possible that the position is the best that this building can afford, and that no part of it will suffer in detriment by the addition which a proper gratitude seeks to make.

Captain CARR-GOMM

My hon. Friend who has just spoken referred to one aspect of the matter, and I wish to follow him on that subject. He desires 'the First Commissioner of Works to make some declaration with regard to the site of this proposed memorial, and the character of the actual memorial itself. I wish to ask him something not quite of that nature, but about the memorial. I understand that this memorial is to be provided by private subscriptions, and that it is to contain and to be erected in the names of these who have lost their lives in this War, Members of the House of Commons, Members of the House of Lords, officials of both Houses, the sons, and, I think, the grandsons, of the Members of the two Houses. Of course, one would hesitate very much before in any way whatsoever saying anything which could be detrimental to this proposal, or in any way to prevent such a very laudable undertaking, but I wish, as a Member of this House, as one who wishes to have a tribute and a mark of respect and admiration erected in this House—I do not mean in the Chamber itself, but in the precincts of the House of Commons—to our own Members who have left here and lost their lives, to urge the First commissioner of Works to have some special Government memorial provided out of Government funds entirely separate from this large undertaking which these Gentlemen have pub forward. What I feel is that whatever site is chosen there will be, I am sure, such a terribly long list of names, with the relations of Members of both Houses, that the names of the Members of the House of Commons—and, of course, of the officials of the House of Commons, who have, I believe, a very high percentage of losses—will be really swamped in the general list. I have spoken to several Members about this, and they have agreed with me that the House of Commons—and the House of Lords, no doubt, too—should have provided by the Government—it is a very small matter—some simple memorial in the shape of a brass tablet with the names of the Members and their constituencies recorded thereon. I think it is important that they should be put there with the names of their constituencies, so that in the future when the public are going over the House they shall be able to say, "There was my Member; he went out and fought." I feel that this should be put up—I make the suggestion, and do not know whether it will be accepted—in some such place as the Members' Lobby, somewhere on the wall there, a brass memorial tablet. It should be for our Members. I am sure no one would in any way wish to interfere with the proposal of this Committee, but I think the First Commissioner of Works ought to know that there is a feeling that there should be a special memorial for the Members of the House of Commons and the officials, and that any large memorial set up should not prevent us paying our own tribute to our own Members.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS

I was one of the three Members selected by the meeting upstairs to consider this matter. The meeting was held some months ago, and subscriptions were invited in both Houses of Parliament. The subscriptions came in very freely indeed, and we have now, I think, over £2,000. The first object of the Sub-committee was to try to see what place in this building was the most suitable. It was a very difficult question, because we thought it important that the position should be such that strangers coming into this House should be able to see it. If that is a limitation, the places where it could be put are very limited indeed, because the entrance down in the Lobby through the Central Hall, and St. Stephen's Chapel, are not very much frequented. After a good deal of inquiry it was suggested that underneath the big; window in St. Stephen's Hall would be a suitable place, because everybody coming into this House passes that site. The only objection I have heard to that site was this: The large window nearly at the-top of the Hall makes the position underneath the window rather dark, and if a memorial were put there I think there would have to be a contrivance so that the electric light could be put on in order to light up the memorial when that was required. I think that would be necessary in any case. After that had been done the Committee, not binding anyone, asked three gentlemen to furnish designs for a memorial. The three gentlemen dealt with that, and these designs are now in the Tea Room. I do not wish now to say anything about the choice which has been, submitted. No selection has been made; nobody is bound by anything that we have-done at all. These designs are there, and it is perfectly open to a meeting of Members who have contributed to this memorial to turn them down and ask for other designs to be submitted. Of course, the Committee will recognise that my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works is finally responsible to this House to see that the artistic beauties of this building are maintained. The position now is that three other members of the Committee, including my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), have been asked to reconsider the matter both with regard to the selection of a site and also as to what course should be taken regarding the design.

Sir W. ESSEX

Who asked them to reconsider their choice?

Sir S. ROBERTS

Perhaps the hon. Member was not present at the meeting of subscribers summoned about a week ago upstairs. That meeting asked these three gentlemen to take that in hand. That is exactly the position, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir W. Essex) and my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Carr-Gomm) nothing has been done to pledge the subscribers or this House in any way. The matter is entirely open still, and I am sure I can give the assurance that nothing will be done without the full sanction and approval of the subscribers and my right hon. Friend.

Sir GODFREY BARING

I am sure the Committee has listened with great interest to the speech which has just been made by the hon. Gentleman (Sir S. Roberts), and I venture respectfully to urge on the hon. Gentleman and the Sub-committee that before the subscribers to the fund actually settled a site for the memorial they should take the very best professional advice as to where that site should be. It is not merely a question as to where the memorial should be from the point of view of the public or Members of Parliament being able to see it. This is a very beautiful building; we are all very proud of it. It is very important from the artistic point of view that the memorial should be placed on the most artistic site, and, with all respect to the members of the Committee, I venture to say that their opinion on a matter of that kind cannot be so good as the best professional opinion. I therefore trust that they will secure that opinion both as to design and site. I should like to emphasise and endorse the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member for Rotherhithe (Captain Carr-Gomm) as to the desire which I know exists that there should be a separate memorial to our colleagues who have fallen in the War, and that that memorial should be provided out of public funds. The memorial need only be of the simplest character, but I would rather regret, and I think many other hon. Members would, if the memorial was not only to Members of this House who have made the supreme sacrifice, but was also associated with the sons of Members. I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that it was contemplated that the grandsons should be included. We honour all the brave men who have fallen on behalf of their country in this War, but, after all, our colleagues who lost their lives in this War were our friends; we worked with them many of us for many years, and we should like to have in some part of the House of Commons which is peculiarly set aside for Members a memorial which should be as simple as possible to remind us of our friends and colleagues and officials of this House who have fallen in the War on behalf of their country. I do hope the First Commissioner of Works will tell us that that will be considered by the Government, and that quite apart from the more substantial memorial contemplated to Members and their relations who have fallen in the War there will also be a simple memorial provided by Government funds to Members and officials of this House who have lost their lives in the War.

Sir A. MOND

I would like to say a word or two in respect of this question in response to the remarks of my hon. Friend opposite (Sir W. Essex). My own position with regard to the question of this memorial is a very simple one. I am sure that all Members of this House desire that the memorial should be erected, that it should be erected in the best place possible, and by the best artists we can procure. I have, as the hon. Member for Sheffield (Sir S. Roberts) knows, assisted unofficially in helping to get a design from a very eminent artist, and in discussing this question, but I have always made it clear—and this is the reason why I rise to-day—that, of course, as first Commissioner of Works for the time being, I must reserve my judgment on the memorial and on the site till a scheme is definitely adopted. I do not say this in any autocratic spirit, but because I think it is only right that I should do so. I must confess that my experience of artistic matters in my office shows the widest divergence among the so-called professional experts, but I have no doubt that when general agreement has been reached hon. Members and myself will get the best advice possible. I do not quite agree with the hon. Member when he says it is not so much a matter of importance where the memorial is as its artistic effect, and I do not agree with the suggestion to put a big memorial in the middle of the Central Lobby.

Sir G. BARING

I only asked the right hon. Gentleman to take the advice of experts.

Sir A. MOND

Their advice has been sought already, and the Committee and myself will have to decide the point.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

But the right hon. Gentleman will have a veto.

Sir A. MOND

Yes, I have pointed that out already. With regard to the further memorial suggested out of the public funds, I do not quite understand the purport of it. I understand we are to have one memorial, which is to include Members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons and the officers of the House. Is it now suggested that there should be a duplication by a smaller memorial of a very particular character for Members of the House of Commons and their relatives? I think there is less reason to ask the taxpayer to provide such a memorial. I do not think 670 Members of the House should ask for public funds to be used for the erection of a memorial to be placed where the public would never see it.

Mr. HOGGE

The immediate predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman has already put a tablet upstairs to mark the spot where Lord Kitchener addressed Members of this House on the last occasion he was in the House, which is a much more trivial matter than recording the death of hon. Members.

Mr. L. JONES

What we are asking for would practically cost nothing at all. It is merely the inscription of Members of this House and the officials who have lost their lives in the War. It is not a question of a memorial at all, and it does not really come up for discussion at the same time as a memorial. It is for a different purpose, but I think it is essential that it should be paid for by the House of Commons as a whole and not by private subscriptions. There would be no difficulty in getting money for it privately, but I do not think it is asking too much that the Members of this House who have fought on the battlefields of Europe and died there in the discharge of their duty, and who spent so much of their lives here, and then disappeared should have their names preserved in some part of the building where they would be read by future Members of the House and I think that is something which ought to be paid for out of public funds, small as it may be. At any rate, I think the right hon. Gentleman might keep an open mind on this point.

Sir A. MOND

The proposal is a new one, and I have not had any opportunity of considering it. I am quite in sympathy with it, and I am ready to keep an open mind and discuss the subject with hon. Members.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

I should like to ask a question with regard to the proposed memorial for the Houses of Parliament. There are certain features that even with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks are not quite clear. I want to say first of all that we all wish this proposal to be carried out in as worthy a manner as possible. I suppose no subject offers more ground for divergence of view, putting aside theology, than the subject of art, and no memorial has ever been designed or erected without causing a division of opinion, not only amongst the critics, but amongst the public. Even in regard to the proposal that a committee in America has made to present this country with a statue of Lincoln, there are differences of opinion in America as to whether either of the statues proposed are worthy of the man to be commemorated. That controversy has been transferred to this country.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. E-Wason)

I do not think that is in order on this Vote. There is nothing in the Vote for the proposed memorial.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Am I to understand that the discussion which I have been listening to on this memorial is out of order?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Yes; I think it is out of order, although I was allowing the hon. Member some latitude. I do not think, however, that it is relevant to bring in the question of America, and that is the point on which I ruled.

Mr. HOGGE

If you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, will look at the Vote you will find that there is an item providing for unforeseen works amounting to £400, and under that there might be a proportion for this memorial and the work necessary for dealing with this statue. That item may contain money taken for this specific purpose, and I submit that we are entitled to raise the point as to how this money should be spent. I submit that it would be in order to raise the point as to whether this money should be spent for that purpose.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I do not think so.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

I wish to make a few remarks with regard to the administrative action which the right hon. Gentleman may feel called upon to take during the course of the year for which we are now voting this amount. I hope the right hon. Gentleman in this respect will bear in mind that in any proposal that is submitted he is the temporary guardian of the beauty of this building, and, therefore, I hope that he will avoid any mistake by giving the utmost publicity to whatever is proposed. It would be most regrettable if any scheme were adopted practically in secrecy and before anything is done every hon. Member of this House should have the opportunity of knowing what was being proposed, and so should the general public. Before any decision is arrived at the opinions of hon. Members should be ascertained. I trust these remarks are not outside the spirit of your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. We all know the difficulties that have arisen in the past through hasty and ill-considered action.

Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of the administrative acts that were performed by some of his predecessors as illustrating this point. When statues were proposed in the past we at least got the First Commissioner of Works to put a small model of what was proposed in the Tea Room. I remember on the last occasion that a model was placed in the Tea Room, the project did not survive the exhibition of the model. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will follow that example, and place before the House and the public the very fullest information in detail before asking hon. Members to come to any decision, and if he does I am sure he will not regret having done so. I want to ask one or two questions with regard to Westminster Hall, certainly the most splendid physical possession that remains to this nation. There is a considerable sum of money in this Vote for work upon the repairing of the roof in Westminster Hall. When this proposal was first brought before Parliament an account was given not only of the history of the artistic work that composes the roof, and the steps that were to be taken to make the roof safe without interfering with the existing appearance of the roof as seen from the floor of Westminster Hall. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that some apprehension was felt as to how this work would be carried out.

I think I took part in the controversy that was raised on that occasion. As I said then, the condition of Westminster Hall and the best way of protecting it was a matter for the experts, and that it was impossible for any lay opinion to be considered in the matter, and I suggest that we should have the considered opinions of experts on the subject. We are entitled to know whether the First Commissioner has found any unexpected difficulties in carrying out the repairs of the roof, and whether the repairs are being carried out in such a way as not to interfere ultimately with the old appearance of the roof before this work was undertaken. This is the only occasion that we have of drawing attention to this matter and of being satisfied on these points. I know that to raise points like this seems to be dealing with very trivial matters, but it is not so really, because the roof was one of the special glories of these glorious buildings, and will remain, so long as it endures one of our most precious historical monuments. The Committee, therefore, is entitled to be reassured on this matter. We are having a new roof put on Westminster Hall, but it was on the understanding that it would not mean the destruction of the old roof and that the supports of the new roof would not be visible from below, so that when the repairs were complete the roof would look just as it did before the repairs were undertaken. I want to know if it is possible for that arrangement to be carried out or if any unexpected difficulties have arisen. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also tell us what progress has been made with the work, what kind of difficulties have been met with, and how long he contemplates at the present rate that it will take to complete the work. I shall be very grateful of the right hon. Gentleman will give us some information on that point.

There is another matter of considerable importance upon which I want further information. It relates to item (c) dealing with the maintenance of the approaches to this House and of the gardens. I had the privilege a few years ago of taking some part in a very considerable discussion upon the responsibility of the First Commissioner with regard to the open spaces under his control, including the spaces that are mentioned in this Vote. My hon. Friend sitting opposite (Lieutenant-Commander Dudley Ward) will remember the many occasions upon which we had to cross swords on this matter. I will not say "cross swords," because the hon. Gentleman always showed the utmost desire to meet the views of the Committee. I gratefully remember and acknowledge that fact. As a result of the discussion that took place, the First Commissioner of that day, Lord Beauchamp, gave an undertaking on behalf of the Government that no further statue would be placed in any of the public parks or open spaces under his control without the direct assent of Parliament, not an assent given on this Vote, but without Parliament being consulted on any specific proposal. An exception was made at the time with regard to the Calais Group which has been erected in Victoria Gardens, but it was specially mentioned that no further addition would be made to the contents of the parks or open spaces under Parliamentary control without the assent of this House. The right hon. Gentleman has been, and will be again in the future, approached with regard to parts of these very pleasant open spaces being devoted to statues. In fact, I think the Lincoln statue is a case in point. I am not quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman has not under his departmental consideration proposals for the erection of some form of memorial or statue in the open spaces under his control. I want to ask whether the pledge which was given by his predecessor is regarded by him as binding upon himself, and whether he intends to bring any proposal which involves taking any of the public open spaces under his control, either the Royal Parks or these spaces that are referred to in this Vote, without the sanction of the House. This is the only way that we can keep effective Parliamentary control over these most precious open spaces, and I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will renew the assurance so frequently given by his predecessor in this matter. I am quite sure that in deciding to put the responsibility upon this House, instead of upon his own Department, he will have no cause for regret. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see that I am raising these questions for information and because they are points not only for immediate public interest, but also of permanent public importance, affecting not merely the amenities of the city, but also the health of its inhabitants.

Mr. BOOTH

I wish to ask my right hon. Friend a question with reference to the new Tea Room, which, before his time, was set apart and which the Committee refused. Is he satisfied with the present use of those premises? The furniture was of a most extraordinary character. What has become of it? If it is stored, I should think that there would be a very good chance of turning it into money and recouping the taxpayer, at any rate, of some of that extraordinary expenditure. Another question to which I wish to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention refers to the use of the Victoria Tower Gardens. His predecessor sent a notice to Members that they might use the gardens on their way to the House. I have tried once or twice, but the gates seem to be locked. It is a very pretty sight and the view of this building from that side of the river is unique, largely on account of the stateliness of the Victoria Tower. One cannot help regretting that it is not made better use of. If it were open when visitors were being taken through the House and they could get out that way, and so make a tour, it would make good use of it. I am not complaining of the expense. The gardens seem quite neat, and one does not want any ornamentation there. It would not be in keeping. I should be glad, however, if the right hon. Gentleman would say who is in charge of the gates, and how hon. Members can gain access to the gardens?

Mr. WATT

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. White-house) has so thoroughly dealt with the question of the roof of Westminster Hall that I need only refer to one aspect of it, the financial aspect. I drew attention to this matter last year, and it will be my duty to do so so long as the expenditure goes on. The amount to be spent on the roof this year is to be 50 per cent. more than last year. We are to spend £12,000, whereas last year it was £8,000. Last year I asked what the expenditure altogether was to be, and the right hon. Gentleman told me £50,000. I should like to ask whether that statement still holds good, whether £50,000 is still the maximum expenditure on the roof, and whether, when that amount has been spent, we shall have the roof as it is desired, or whether the high prices that now hold for timber and other things have increased the cost of the whole work. I think the Committee will take the view that it was altogether unwise to enter upon the arrangement that was made whereby no contract was fixed for the repairing of the roof, and whereby the builders have there a permanent job going on year after year, spending the money of the nation. I hope that my right hon. Friend will admit that the financial condition of the country nowadays does not permit of such items being carried out by the Government. I suggested last year, and I suggest now that it is time that this expenditure which commenced before the War and which is continuing and becoming greater, should cease, at any rate during the War. None of us in his private capacity would have such a con- tract as this entered upon in times when finances were bright and cheerful, going on now that a serious financial crisis has overtaken us. The right hon. Gentleman's Department still continues to pour out the taxpayers' money in repairing this roof. I know that it is the view of the right hon. Gentleman and others that it is one of the sights of the world, and that it should be preserved, but I take a very strong view that at the present time and in our financial position £12,000 should not be Bunk this year, but that these repairs should be wound up, the place being temporarily repaired, and left in that condition until the finances of the country permit of such expenditure. That policy is being carried out as far as possible, and the only exception seems to be the roof of Westminster Hall.

Sir A. MOND

I think I might conveniently deal first with the question of the roof of Westminster Hall. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has taken a great interest in this matter, and he raises the question whether the repairs ought to be continued or to cease during the War. I can assure him that since I have taken office I have gone most carefully into this question, and I have gone into similar questions where we are dealing with repairs to ancient buildings, with the obvious view of stopping, during the War, any expenditure that can possibly be stopped. I feel as strongly as he does that money should not be spent during a period like this on objects, however worthy, which are not absolutely necessary. But that is not the position in regard to Westminster Hall roof. I have spent several hours on the scaffolding of that roof myself, and if the hon. Member will some day go up, he will realise that it has been purely an accident that the roof has not fallen down long ago, that its condition is extraordinarily unsafe, and that it is most important to get that roof into a condition when you can guarantee its structural safety. The present position is as follows: Four trusses have been completely reinforced and secured. The reinforcement of three other trusses is in hand. Two of the bays between the trusses have been completely reinforced and secured together. The reason why more money is asked this year than last year, and that the work is proceeding, is a very simple one. It is of the utmost importance that the centre three trusses between the two bays should be completed and made secure, so that we can get a solid block in the middle of the building in order that we may know, whatever happens, that the roof will be secure.

You may argue whether or not it is worth while to maintain the greatest architectural feature in Great Britain. I have no doubt that the roof of Westminster Hall is one of the most wonderful architectural features in the world. The method of repairing that has been adopted is of such ingenuity and skill that I feel sure, from what I have seen of what has already been done, when it is finished hon. Members will wonder where the money has gone. My hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt) apparently prefers that the work should be carried out in such a way that the roof would be spoiled, but that we should be able to see where the money has gone. I believe that the work we are doing will achieve the object of allowing us to have the roof in its pristine beauty. That is what we are going to obtain. From the point of view of economy, I believe it would be of advantage to get this work proceeded with even more rapidly than we can do. We have reduced the work to an absolute minimum, and more delay would add to the expense. When my hon. Friend objects to the form of the contract, may I point out that I object as he does, in ordinary business circumstances, to a contract which is not a lump sum contract, but where you are dealing with a building where no one in advance can say in what condition any part of the timber will or what will be required to be done, it is absolutely impossible for any contractor in the world to give you a contract to do the thing on a lump sum. You have to do it on a schedule basis. The House having voted—I am very glad it did so—to have the roof repaired, and also having voted that the scheme which was being carried out should be adopted, it seems a little unreasonable for hon. Members on the Estimates to go on raising a question which has already been settled. I undertake to say, after a careful study of the structure myself, that the work must go on if the work already done is not to be wasted and the roof is not to be allowed to fall down. That being the case, it is no good criticising either the principle or the method adopted. The only thing to do is to carry it out in as reasonable a way as possible in view of the present war conditions. The hon. Member for Mid- Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse) raised a question about statues. He is one of those Gentlemen who dislike statues. He is anxious to have no more of any kind ever erected in London. I do not quite share his view. The question is whether they are good or bad statues.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

It is the Office of Works standard of statue about which I feel some apprehension.

Sir A. MOND

The Office of Works have never been allowed to express much opinion on the statues. All they have had to do has been to find sites for statues which other people have given to them.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

They have not been hard-hearted enough.

Sir A. MOND

It is very difficult to look a gift-horse in the mouth. With statues it is even more difficult. The hon. Member asked for an undertaking far exceeding any undertaking ever given by any First Commissioner of Works. I have here an answer given in reply to a question asked in 1912. The then First Commissioner, through the mouth of a Lord of the Treasury, said: The First Commissioner is quite ready to grant that he will oppose any scheme which is brought before him for the erection of any statue in any Royal park. There is not a word there about any open spaces.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

The right hon. Gentleman will find that that is not the only answer given in this connection. If his hon. Friend and colleague will assist him a little further, he will be able to produce an answer which made reference, not only to the parks, but by implication at least, to the Victoria Tower Gardens, because it referred expressly to the question of the erection of the Calais group.

Sir A. MOND

That is not a limitation of any open space. If the hon. Gentleman invites me to say I will not put any statue in any open space, I am not going to give such an undertaking.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Without the assent of Parliament, I suggest.

Sir A. MOND

I do not see how any First Commissioner is to get the assent of Parliament except by a discussion on the Estimates. I know of no procedure by which I could get the assent of this House except by asking Parliament to take a vote, when Amendments might be moved on the relative merits of the statue.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

It was done in connection with the Grille.

Sir A. MOND

In that case I had to move a Supplementary Estimate. Does the hon. Member suggest that every time there is a question of a statue being erected the Government should put forward a Supplementary Estimate? I should be very glad to get the hon. Member's assent. I think I might carry it as far as that, but I cannot undertake to give any binding pledge of the character he suggests.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

The previous pledge is binding.

Sir A. MOND

It is not binding on me. The answer said that the First Commissioner could not pledge his successor. I have never heard of any Minister who could pledge his successor. The hon. Member also referred to the question of the Memorial. We have already had a long discussion on that subject, and all I would say about it is that I hope the general sense of the House will be obtained, and I should like it to be obtained before I express any opinion on the scheme at all.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman answered my question as to the appearance of the roof of Westminster Hall when the restoration has been carried out. Is he now satisfied, as his predecessor said he hoped would be the case, that the old appearance of the roof will not be interfered with?

Sir A. MOND

Yes, certainly. I said, so far as I could see from the work which has been completed, that the old appearance of the roof would not be interfered with.

Mr. BOOTH

Can the right hon. Gentleman answer my two questions about the abandoned tea-room in Victoria Tower Gardens?

Sir A. MOND

What the hon. Member calls the abandoned tea-room is turned to a very good use in providing additional accommodation for Members. The furniture is being used there and in other places to decided advantage. With regard to the Victoria Tower Gardens, I will have that question inquired into, but I cannot give the hon. Member an answer now.

Question put, and agreed to.