CLASS VII. (Hansard, 9 April 1930)

§ Mr. MANDER
I desire to raise briefly, one or two points in connection with the sum required for ancient monuments. If I may respectfully say so, the right hon. Gentleman is himself one of the most distinguished of the ancient monuments on the Treasury Bench and I trust he will long be spared to ornament either that bench or the one opposite. Some time ago he undertook to spend a good deal of money with a view to giving employment by restoring various historic buildings throughout the country. I should like to ask whether that is included in this Vote. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to be content merely with doing routine work of that kind, however important, but to be bolder and to use imagination and undertake much more important excavation work. Would he not consider, from the point of view of giving employment and national advertising, the purchase of one of the ancient Roman sites in different parts of the country and excavating it and keeping it in a permanent condition so that the people of this and other countries may be attracted to see it? I suggest he should give particular attention to the case of 2317 Uriconium, which has been buried beneath the soil for 2,000 years. There are many acres of agricultural land which might be purchased and excavated—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I do not see any reference to Uriconium in the Vote.

§ Mr. MANDER
I was suggesting that, instead of spending the money in this Vote on the particular purposes the right hon. Gentleman has named, he should divert some of it and use it in the way that I have proposed.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
Those are matters which cannot be raised on the Report stage of this Vote.
Question put, and agreed to.
Fourth Resolution read a Second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

§ Captain BOURNE
This Vote was reached very late last night and I had not an opportunity of putting a question which I propose to ask now. It is in relation to the old mission building in Moscow. It will be within the recollection of the First Commissioner of Works that before diplomatic relations with Russia were broken off, in 1927 or 1928, there was a mission house in Moscow in occupation of the British Government. I am not clear as to whether that building was surrendered or not, when diplomatic relations were broken off. I know the building personally, and it would seem to be a suitable building for our Embassy, and I merely ask whether that building is now available, or whether it has been surrendered to the Russian Government, rendering it necessary now to negotiate for new building. I also submit that if it is necessary to negotiate for the acquisition of a new building, we ought to try to find one somewhere in the same quarter as that building, because that is the quarter where most of the foreign missions in Moscow are established, and it is a very great convenience to our staff there, who have not very much chance of recreation, to be within reach of the other diplomatic staffs in that city.

§ The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury)
I am very glad to answer the hon. and gallant Member's questions. The house to which he refers 2318 has been in our possession all through the recent period, and is still in use, but the unanimous report of the officials sent out from my Department and of the Ambassador on the spot is that it is not large enough or convenient enough. The house for which we are negotiating is immediately opposite the Kremlin and is one of the best houses in Moscow. It is the house which the Ambassador himself considers suitable. We think that, at the beginning, that house will not be able to accommodate the whole of the staff, because there are additions—commercial people and others—and we may have to use both houses for a time, but ultimately it is hoped we will be able to bring the whole staff together.
Question put, and agreed to.