HC Deb 12 February 1929 vol 225 cc359-78

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. E. C. GRENFELL

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

When I put my name to this Bill, I thought that it was, and I still believe that it is, a simple Bill which would meet with approval. I saw no guile in the Bill. As I understood it, it was simply a Bill for postponing for two years the construction of the bridge. It was only in the last three days that, by receiving several notices from many eminent friends of mine on these benches, from Members on the Labour side and on the Liberal side, I understood the Bill was to be a bone of contention. Further, when the "Times" newspaper in the last two days devoted no less than four columns to the subject, including a leading article, I felt that I had misunderstood the Bill and that perhaps it was not as simple as it seemed. But this is not so. The Bill is simply one asking the House to allow another two years for consideration of this very intricate problem of cross-river traffic. I can assure the House that it was never intended, and it is not intended, that the Bill should mean that the bridge should be built in the next two years or that it should be even commenced in the next two years, because no plans that have been evolved have met with general approval.

I ask the House to consider for a few minutes the history of this Bill. The Bill was passed in 1911. That gave time enough, 10 years, to build two bridges across the Thames. The Bill committed the City to housing the people displaced by those bridges. From that moment misfortune and delay have dogged the steps of this poor little Bill. Two bridges were to be built, one after the other. One bridge was built in due course. A few years after the Bill was passed the War occurred, and nothing was done for four years. That is understandable by everybody. After the War the land which the city had bought, much of it consisting of slum areas, was to be given over to the City to be built upon in order to get rid of these slum dwellings. When the land was purchased in 1915 an arrangement was concluded with the Peabody Trustees, a philanthropic body occupied in housing the poorer classes or the artisan classes. At the same time the Ministry of Munitions took possession of that land and held it for eight years. That was not the fault of the Corporation. During that period the Peabody Trustees, who were going to put up these buildings, found they could not build there—that they could not get the land—and they spent the money elsewhere. Six hon. Members on this side of the House have sent round a circular letter indicating six points on which they say the Corporation has failed in its, duty, and they also refer to these slum areas. The leading Member of these six is the right hon. Baronet the Member for Hammersmith (Sir W. Bull), and I would point out to him that, as the Peabody Trustees were unable to spend that money in remedying this particular slum area, the money intended for that purpose was actually spent in Hammersmith. That, I think, leaves the hon. Member without any right to complain.

I take the six points raised by these six hon. Members, and I would point out that in nearly every case their objections fall to the ground. The first point is that the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's are advised that any bridge construction near the Cathedral would be a danger to its security and its amenities, either by the construction itself or its consequences. We are only dealing to-night with the Bill as it is printed, and on behalf of the Corporation I assure the House that for two years not one building will be put up and no excavation will be made and no vibration can therefore be caused. The Corporation will not do anything in the course of the next two years either to build or to pull down any building. I think that answers the objection of these six gentlemen and of the body controlling St. Paul's, to the effect that the Bill will damage that edifice. If nothing is done, no blame can attach to the Corporation. Point No. 2 is that the Royal Commission on Cross River Traffic has definitely decided against the bridge and point No. 3 is that the Royal Commission recommended in its stead another bridge—Ludgate Bridge. May I say that neither a Ludgate Bridge nor a St. Paul's Bridge will be built in these two years and when my six hon. Friends quote the Royal Commission in the one case, they forget to quote the Traffic Experts Committee who strongly recommended St. Paul's Bridge and did not recommend Ludgate Bridge. I leave the House to distinguish between those eminent bodies. In any case, under this Bill, neither bridge will be built in these two years.

Further, it goes on to say that St. Paul's Bridge will increase the congestion in the traffic centres in the City. I am no judge of that, but the people who are the best judges, the Commissioner of Police in the City area, who has only been there two years and brings a fresh mind to it, and the Commissioner who pro-ceded him, who had been there 20 years, both hold that St. Paul's Bridge, if ever built, would not make for congestion of traffic to any extent such as would be caused by the Ludgate Bridge. They are men of experience, and are at any rate better judges than I am of what congestion would be. The sixth point that they make is that any bridge between Southwark and Blackfriars would, in the opinion of practical navigators and the Royal Commission, add great difficulties to navigation. I would point out that the three main bodies controlling the river, the Port of London Authority, the tug owners and the lightermen, have all agreed not to oppose this Bill, because they have an assurance that the City Corporation will build nothing, will put down no piers, will do nothing for two years until the Bill will of itself expire. I think I have answered all the objections of my six friends on this side. Another objection made to me in writing from the other side was that the Corporation had not rebuilt the slums. The land was taken by the Ministry of Muni- tions in 1915, and it was not restored to the Corporation until 1923 or 1924. How could the Corporation have rebuilt, how could they have knocked down the slum area and rebuilt it when the Ministry of Munitions themselves held the land?

I will now return to the Cathedral question, because that is the picturesque point. When any mention is made of the Church or of its buildings, there is at once a popular clamour against what is supposed to be any danger of any defacement of the building by this House or by anyone in the country. If, as I say, the Corporation is going to do nothing in the way of building, of excavations, or any other such operations, then no damage or vibration can accrue to the Cathedral. Though I am not a member of the Corporation, I resent very much that any apparent criticism should be made on that body as regards that magnificent building, St. Paul's Cathedral. It is grossly unfair to do so. Everybody in this country, and especially in London, loves that building. I believe that the members of the Corporation not only do not fail in their love for that building, but they are as jealous of that building as anyone could possibly be. I resent, on their behalf any such accusations as have been made in the Press and by some of our Members.

The Corporation have deserved well of London for what it has done since 1911. It contracted and agreed to build two bridges. It agreed to abolish certain slum areas, not in the City, not in London, but in Surrey, in Southwark. It did its best to execute that work. It was prevented by unforeseen occurrences, by the War for four years, by the arrangements with the Ministry of Munitions afterwards, and at last by 1924 it was prepared to complete the work. Then the Minister of Transport stepped in with his new Department and appointed a committee for two years to look into this matter. They made a report in 1926 which was in favour of St. Paul's Bridge. No sooner was that done than the Royal Commission was appointed. The Commission unanimously declared against St. Paul's Bridge, and favoured another one. I am not prepared to say which is right or wrong, but I ask that for another two years the Corporation may be given a chance to consult all experts, in this House or outside, all judges of taste, of architecture, and so on, and to come to a conclusion, and I also ask that, after they have been delayed in completing all their operations for about 15 years, they should be given a fair chance of putting through the work they contracted to do. If it is decided at the end of two years that they are not to go on, well and good. They have spent £1,250,000 on these works, and part of that will be definitely lost if St. Paul's Bridge is not executed, and they will be left with half their buildings, which they may be able to sell, but they are prepared to do that. They are also prepared, I believe, under certain conditions to abolish the slums and rebuild them.

I ask whether it is reasonable to adopt the attitude that some of my hon. Friends have adopted. I was speaking to one of our Members yesterday. He was a great friend of mine yesterday, and I hope he will be a great friend to-morrow, but I may say that yesterday I thought him most unreasonable. I promised him that nothing would be done by the Corporation in building this bridge or in endangering St. Paul's. He said: "I want to kill this Bill. I want to kill it now, dead." This murderous attitude on his part is, I maintain, most unfair. This poor child, this little Bill, was stunted when it was four years old by four years of war. It was stifled for about five years by the Ministry of Munitions, which occupied the land, and it has been starved and choked for two years by a committee of experts, a committee on traffic, and a Royal Commission, and now my hon. Friend representing the combined English Universities (Sir M. Conway), representing light and learning, will not listen to any reason when I tell him that nothing will be done for two years. He says: "Kill the babe now; kill it dead." I ask for a two years' reprieve for this child, which should have grown up, but has been stunted since its birth.

Mr. SCURR

I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."

11.0 p.m.

At this hour of the night, I think the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell), who has put forward the case for the City Corporation, has done all that he-could by pleading, if I may say so, like a dove on behalf of this little Bill. I am sorry to have to be somewhat in the position of an executioner, because, although I sympathise with the City Corporation in regard to the earlier days, when this land was in the hands of the Ministry of Munitions, I cannot sympathise with them now, considering the fact that all that land was given up in 1924. It is now 1929, and if it was considered necessary and essential to build this particular bridge on this particular spot, I think it ought to have been proceeded with and well on the way to completion long before now. Merely to come here asking for a period of extension, without any real arguments, except that the Corporation want to consider the question again, is not sufficient. The reason is that there has arisen some opposition from business interests in the City, from artistic interests, and from those who regard the question purely from a traffic point of view. Those of us who know Southwark Bridge, which was built under the terms of the original Bill, know that it is a bridge which leads from nowhere to the same place. In the proposed bridge we shall have the same problem over again, and it will bring into the City traffic with which will be very difficult to deal.

In opposing this bridge, I must not be taken to be under any obligation to make any other suggestions, but the Corporation has put forward four reasons which are absolutely valueless. My great complaint against the City Corporation is not in regard to the work on the bridge not having been put in hand, but it is that they have acquired in Southwark a very large area of land which had been represented many years ago by the medical officer of Southwark as a slum area. If this land had not been in the possession of the City Corporation, the London County Council would have been able to deal with it under their housing scheme, but the City Corporation stood in the way all the time. I appreciate what the hon. Member has said about the Peabody Trustees, but after all, that is a charitable concern whose funds are limited; the City Corporation is not a charitable concern, and their funds are not limited. They have a public duty to the people of London, and an obligation to the Borough of Southwark.

I want to draw the attention of the House particularly to the land which is in the possession of the City Corporation along the line of this proposed improvement. I have no hesitation in saying that this is one of the worst examples of an insanitary area existing in the County of London. It comprises an area of three-quarters of an acre situated in Park Street, Southwark, at the corner of Noah's Ark Alley. When one sees some of the houses there, one would imagine that they were built after the Flood. It extends to the wharves and consists of alleys running in and out of each other. Some of these alleys are only three feet wide, some are 15 feet wide, and there are cases where the water closets of houses are within three feet of the front doors of houses opposite. This condition has been there all these years. We had from the hon. Member the admission that the City Corporation had the land in their possession for some years, and, when I remember that the City Corporation were able to carry out other improvements and their housing scheme in connection with the rebuilding of Spitalfields Market, I can only say that they have been neglectful of their duty in not putting in hand the shun clearance in this area. Particularly for that reason, and also because we have no guarantee that in the next two years this bridge will be put in hand, I beg to move the rejection of the Bill.

Sir MARTIN CONWAY

I beg to second the Amendment.

My excellent friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell) has given a brief history of some of the adventures of this proposal to make St. Paul's bridge. He did not go back far enough. The question has been under discussion now for exactly 75 years. That being the case, surely it is about time it was terminated. It was very rightly said that my wish is to kill the Bill here and now. I mean to kill this proposal for a St. Paul's bridge. No doubt there are other bridges that might be made; but the fact that, we once and for all turn down St. Paul's bridge in no way hampers the Corporation of the City of London from further considering the problem, if they please, for another 75 years. The whole question is part of the traffic problem, which is a very ancient one, but which is developing from year to year. The other day I noticed in Mr. Pepys's Diary that he was trying to come from London to Westminster, and that there was such a block of traffic on the way that he found it easier to go down to the Thames, take a boat, and row up to Westminster Stairs. So the traffic problem is at least 300 years old. When I was a boy living in this part of London, more than 60 years ago, we used to allow one hour to go from Westminster to Shoreditch Station, and most of that time was spent in blocks in the City. Queen Victoria Street was then made, and Temple Bar was removed, and that solved the problem for the moment.

Now the City has got into an equally blocked condition, and it is almost impossible to get through it at any speed. That is in consequence of the east and west traffic. The proposal of the Corporation in connection with the St. Paul's bridge scheme is to pour into that east and west traffic an enormous north and south contribution. That north and south contribution will be, according to the estimates which have been submitted, a very considerable one; otherwise, why make the bridge? The traffic of the bridge will take a leap from Southwark Street and will come down to the level again at the southeast corner of St. Paul's Cathedral. There it will plunge right into the very heart of the east and west traffic which goes from Cannon Street to Ludgate Hill. Of course, the proposal then will be to turn the traffic round—to make a roundabout at St. Paul's Cathedral. Anybody who looks at the map will see how this traffic will impinge on the east and west traffic, and will see that nothing will solve the problem but to twist the traffic round and round St. Paul's Cathedral. Round and round it will go; there will be a vortex in which the cathedral will be an island. Imagine the condition of worship in the cathedral, when round and round and round are going omnibuses and trolleys and cabs and cars—all crashing around it all day long! The place will be a perfect bedlam of noise!

Having escaped finally from that knot of traffic, only a few yards away the north and south traffic will crash into the east and west traffic which comes along New-gate Street and Cheapside. I noticed on a map sent to me by the promoters of the Bill the other day that the name of the spot where these streams of traffic will merge together has the ancient name of the Shambles. I have no doubt it will be a very apt name for that spot if this bridge be built! We are not told whether the purpose of this bridge is to bring traffic into London or through London. If it is to bring traffic into London, it will be pernicious enough; but, if it is to carry traffic through London, then it will be setting at nought the experience which we have had all over the country. We have been spending millions making by-passes to avoid towns and villages, and now it is proposed, in the very heart of London, to pour in an enormous increase of traffic. By the proposals which this Bill involves traffic will be pitched down on the south-east corner of St. Paul's, where it will have to wrestle with the great stream of traffic going west. The whole conditions of St. Paul's Churchyard will be changed, not only by the roundabout arrangement, but by the fact that the buildings at the east end of St. Paul's will be knocked down and others put in their place. You will perhaps have St. Paul's Cathedral at the bottom of a sort of basin. Anyone who has been in New York will remember how Trinity Church, the ancient church of that city, is now in the bottom of a well. The surrounding buildings here will not be so tall; but the same kind of effect will be produced on St. Paul's if you range it about with modern buildings built as high as circumstances permit.

I have in my hand a statement which was sent to me in 1911—I need not read it—in which it is said that certain experts made examinations with regard to the effect of vibrations at present existing. We are not dealing with vibrations as they exist at present, but with what would happen if all this traffic were directed round the Cathedral. You would not merely have vibration from traffic going north and south and east and west, but from traffic criss-crossing, and no man alive can tell what the effect would be. You have not proved that such vibration could do no harm. That is my first point. My second point is that the 'new buildings which would arise on the site would probably have basements or Cellars, and you do not know what the effect would be. The other day the National Provincial Bank found that cavities had arisen in the foundations of their building. The foundations of St. Paul's stand on gravel. Sand and gravel, so long as they are wet, form a very solid foundation, but the danger is that you might, by underground operations in this neighbourhood, drain away the water which makes the foundation secure. Nobody can say that this will not be so, but it is for the promoters to show that it will not happen.

Colonel Sir VANSITTART BOWATER

I think the senior Member for the City of London has put the case very clearly before the House, but there are one or two misapprehensions which I should like to correct. The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) seemed to blame the City Corporation for having done nothing in regard to this bridge since 1924, but that was not their fault. The reason for that was that the Minister of Transport asked the Corporation to postpone the scheme in order that it might be considered by the Advisory Committee in 1924. If the Corporation had then decided to go on with the scheme the bridge would have been built, and it would have been in use to-day. Owing to the War and in deference to the request of the Minister of Transport the scheme was postponed. It was unanimously agreed to in April, 1926, and the Corporation and the Bridge House Estates Committee were ready to go on with the building of the bridge as originally intended. In June, 1926, the Royal Commission again asked the Corporation to postpone the scheme. It will therefore be seen that it was no fault either of the Corporation or of the Bridge House Estates Committee that this scheme was not gone on with.

As regards the slum area in Southwark, there was an arrangement with the Borough of Southwark that in the event of this Bill being carried through the Corporation would do away with the slum area and build workmen's dwellings. If they do not get an extension of time for this Bill by the 1st April then this slum area will not be cleared by the Corporation and the buildings will not be put up. The Corporation have already spent £1,265,000 on property on the Southwark side of the river, and the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir M. Conway) seemed to think that this scheme as regards the bridge is cut and dried, and that the bridge was to be built in the original place it was proposed. It is nothing of the kind. All the Corporation are asking for is an extension of the Bill in order that they may go more fully into the matter. This Measure will have to come before the House again before anything can be done. I expect that every hon. Member has received a statement in support of the Second Reading and I would like to draw attention to the last paragraph but one, which says: The Corporation have no intention of commencing the construction of the St. Paul's Bridge scheme without a further application to Parliament. They are now applying for an extension of time by two years in order to safeguard expenditure amounting to £1,265,000 already incurred, and in order to afford an opportunity for further consideration of the problem in all its bearings. A Bill may then be promoted either for an extension of time sufficiently long for the completion of the St. Paul's Bridge scheme or to authorise a new scheme of which some portion or portions of the authorised works may form part. I think the House can realise that nothing can be done so far as a new bridge is concerned without coming again to this House, and that, in view of the fact that an extension of this scheme for two years will enable us to clear the slum area in Southwark and put up houses there, the House should support the Corporation in their request. It is a very small thing. They give an undertaking that they are not prepared to build a bridge or go in any way until they have come to this House again for permission, and any scheme, any design, any locality in which it was proposed to put the bridge, would have to come before the House for confirmation. In these circumstances, I hope that the House, if not as a whole by a large majority, will support the Corporation and give them this extension of time.

Mr. AMMON

I rise to support the Amendment and to put one or two other points that have not yet been put before the House. I would, however, draw the attention of the House to the fact that the arguments put forward by the hon. Member who has just spoken are mutually destructive. He has already told us that, if we throw out this Bill, the Corporation will not be able to go on with the slum clearance scheme, and in the same breath he has told us that they do not intend to do anything with the bridge for the next two years. As the slum clearance is an integral part of the bridge scheme, it is quite evident that nothing is going to be done with regard to the slums on the Southwark side for at least another two years, so that we shall certainly be in no better position in that respect. The main points are these: In the first place, there is the threat to the fabric of St. Paul's Cathedral, and, if there be an element of doubt—and there is a great element of doubt among experts, engineers and others—surely the benefit should be given to the Cathedral itself. After all, there are certain fabrics, certain asociations, certain buildings in our nation which count for more than pounds, shillings and pence and mere materialism and commercialism, and that great fane is one of them. We have no assurance that the fabric will not be in danger; indeed, the balance of experts is rather on the side that there will be danger to it.

There are several other points which should be considered. Two Royal Commissions—the Fine Arts Commission and the Royal Commission on Cross-River Traffic—have condemned this scheme, and the House ought to bear that fact in mind. Then I would ask anyone to look at the map which has been circulated with the Bill, when they will see that there is no solution whatever of the traffic problem. It will be a very similar bridge to Southwark Bridge. Many of us in London know Southwark Bridge very well, and that, so far as relieving traffic is concerned, it is an absolute failure. There is hardly any traffic across it, and it is pitched out into a narrow part of the City, making confusion and congestion worse confounded. Exactly the same position will be created in regard to this bridge, and it will only intensify the present position. That can be proved by looking at the map and seeing what the position would be.

Another thing about which some of us complain is that there is growling up in the City an idea that the whole of this money of the Bridge House Estates has to be spent in the City of London. A tremendous sum of money has been accumulated, and it has to be spent somehow, and they are prepared to spend it regardless of any utility, or of the trouble and harm that it may cause, without giving any benefit whatever, Many of us who are London Members, and other people in London, contend that that money should be spent for the purpose of London bridges as a whole, and should not be confined only to the City; and some of us are concerned, apart altogether from the arguments against this bridge, that it will have some effect in postponing further the construction of a Charing Cross bridge, which would do considerably more to relieve the traffic whenever it is built. For these reasons, having put the points as briefly as I can, I ask the House to reject the Bill.

Sir ROBERT HORNE

I think attention ought to be directed to the real issue in this case. It is not the merits of this Bill nor the possibility of damage to St. Paul's Cathedral. I imagine if there was any risk affecting the edifice which is dear to the hearts of all English people and people all over the Empire, no one would give a vote which would in any way create a risk. My point of view at the moment is quite different. It is wholly a question of expediency. I do not commend the Bill to the House on the basis that there are no dangers attached to it. All I say is that there is a prima facie case dependent on the fact that in 1911 the Bill was passed and in 1924, which is not very remote, the London Traffic Committee sanctioned the proposal. I do not say any more on the merits than that I concede that there may be a large number of questions to discuss upon either the expediency of bringing traffic by that route or the question of endangering the fabric of the Cathedral, though on that question one of the great engineers who was on the Advisory Committee is also the engineer of the scheme. The only point before us is this. Shall we give the Corporation the opportunity of a further investigation during the next two years, during which they cannot possibly build the bridge, so that if possible we shall not entirely lose the money that has been spent in the initiation of the scheme and in the purchase of property. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend seems to think £1,250,000 is nothing. I, as a Scotsman, am rather disinclined to run the risk of losing any form of expenditure and accordingly I would ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading in the full knowledge that nothing further will be done without the sanction of the House in building the bridge and that the Corporation desires an opportunity for much fuller investigation which I am sure the whole public of London requires.

Sir HERBERT NIELD

The right hon. Gentleman has simply pleaded on a technicality that certain sums of money which have been expended will be lost unless this extension is granted. I cannot see the cogency of that argument. I can only suppose that the Bill is for the building of bridge No. 1 in the Schedule, therefore nothing but that can be effected by the passing of the and yet in the same breath they say they have no idea at all of proceeding with the Bill. But I apprehend that there is somewhere in the background some idea of proceeding with a bridge somewhere in that vicinity. I appear more particularly in respect of an interest which has not yet been mentioned. I mean those who navigate the river—the lightermen and the barge owners.

Sir R. HORNE

They have agreed to it.

Sir H. NIELD

No, at present they have no protection whatever. The traffic in 1911 was very different from what exists to-day. The size of vessels has doubled and the volume of traffic on the river has immensely augmented. Representations have been made to the proper authorities of the enormous food traffic that goes up and down the river. Hon. Members will remember that a few months ago a report was presented by a Departmental Committee of the Ministry of Transport in regard to the bringing of petrol spirit up the river to Purfleet, and the danger was so demonstrated that the authorities were urged not to allow that kind of traffic to come up the river beyond the existing limits. Nevertheless, there is a large amount of the traffic in barrels coming up as far as Hammersmith. Navigation of the river is already sufficiently difficult, and those who are interested in the river traffic have asked me to put their ease before the House. They say that another bridge will be wholly detrimental to their being able to navigate the river properly.

The plan with which we have been furnished beyond the limits of deviation of Abe bridge as proposed in 1911 brings the bridge within 14 yards of the middle of the Old Change. One side of the Old Change is to be demolished. This House would do well to recollect that when Sir Christoper Wren built his Cathedral in the 17th century he found a running stream of sand at the north-east corner which baffled him for a very long time, and although I have no skilled experience, it seems to me that the difficulties which he experienced at that time may be present there in the event of any large excavations being made in that neighbourhood or any additional vibrations being occasioned. At the spot where the monument of the figure of St. Paul stands the difficulty arose, and that is the place, oi4 within a few yards, where this bridge will come.

I have been asked by members of the Chapter of St. Paul's to oppose the Bill. I have also been asked to oppose it by the London Society, which takes a great interest in everything that concerns London. Certain citizens who will be disturbed have, likewise, asked me to oppose the Bill. The light fabric trade will be dismissed from Wood Street and will be compelled to dissociate them-Selves from that part of the City with which they have been associated for generations. Why should we pass this Bill merely upon the plea that it is going to safeguard an expenditure of £1,250,000?

Mr. B. SMITH

The Traffic Committee, after giving very serious consideration to this matter for a long period, came to the conclusion that, subject to Waterloo Bridge carrying the requisite number of lines of traffic, or that Charing Cross Bridge should be proceeded with, they would have been prepared to get rid of the St. Paul's Bridge project. The right hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) is afraid for the navigation of the river. If he knew anything about it he would know that the present buttresses of Waterloo Bridge are a far bigger danger to traffic on the river than any proposed new bridge. We are not now discussing the merits of St. Paul's Bridge. We are discussing now a Bill for the continuance of an Act of Parliament that will lapse on a given date, and the City authorities are asking for an extension of that date for two years in order that further advice may be sought. Having regard to the fact that of two bodies, the London Traffic Advisory Com- mittee are in favour of the Bill, while Lard-Lee's Committee are opposed to the bridge, they desire that further evidence may be taken, not as to whether the bridge should be in this place or in that place, but that they should have the power to consider the matter further, and at the end of two years they should be able to approach this House, when the House will be able to decide whether the bridge Should be proceeded with or not. I should have been glad had the City been able to say first in the interim period they would do what they could to get on with slum clearances in Southwark.

Sir V. BOWATER

They are prepared to do so.

Mr. SMITH

Does the hon. Gentleman tell us that if this Bill is given a Second Reading that the City of London is prepared to proceed with its Southwark housing scheme?

Sir V. BOWATER

I understand that that is perfectly correct.

Mr. SMITH

How anyone can oppose this Bill giving this extension of time with the possibility of more work for our people and the erecton of houses for the people of Southwark I cannot understand?

Sir HENRY JACKSON

There are two points I wish to make. In the first place I would like to give the House the assurance, on behalf of the Corporation of the City of London, that if this Bill is passed to-night, the City will proceed at once with the housing scheme for Southwark. Also, I would like to say that all the watermen on the Thames have withdrawn their opposition to this Bill.

Sir H. NIELD

I have a communication in my pocket, sent me so recently as yesterday, from the master lightermen saying they have done nothing of the sort.

Sir H. JACKSON

I give that assurance from the City Remembrancer and I think my information is a little more recent than that of my right hon. and learned Friend. All the users of the river have withdrawn their opposition because their views have been met. I make those two definite statements on behalf of the City of London. The Traffic Advisory Committee has been referred to. I have been associated with the work of this body in connection with London bridges, and we had no hesitation in assuring the House that St. Paul's Bridge should be proceeded with. It is their definite opinion that St. Paul's Bridge should be proceeded with. They have not deviated for that opinion. Three bridges being together—Charing Cross, Waterloo and St. Paul's, Charing Cross is the ideal solution, but you cannot get that bridge built for another 10 years. You can get St. Paul's Bridge built at once. Therefore we advise the House to pass this Bill.

Mr. GARDNER

I had no intention of taking part in this discussion, but as it has proceeded so long I should like to give my point of view. I should be exceedingly sorry to see anything happen to St. Paul's Cathedral, but if the pulling down of St. Paul's Cathedral would render any public service I would pull it down because it could be rebuilt again. I am convinced, however, that St. Paul's Cathedral will be endangered by this Bill. The main consideration is that the bridge is supposed to be a remedy for the traffic problem. I suggest that it is only going to shift the problem further north and create a new problem in the Goswell Road and Old Street area. I must oppose the Bill. I am more concerned with getting bridges built in other parts of the Thames. When I was in Paris I saw the wonderful system of bridges there, and knowing what great facilities would be afforded to the citizens of London by a proper system of bridges, I am amazed that the City Corporation

should hang up all the money they now hold instead of using it for the citizens of London.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON

I would like to draw attention to the confusion that we are in now. We were told by the senior Member for the City that if this poor little Bill were only passed, not a thing would be built or done, that it was not worth talking about, and that it was a pure matter of formality. We now hear that elaborate clearances are to be made in Southwark, so that the bridge could be proceeded with as soon as the two years are over. The point is that the House is being trifled with, in that it is suggested that this Bill is nothing at all. We are definitely told that this is the proposal which is going forward, and we are either going to approve it to-night or not. If we do not put a stop to it now this same state of uncertainty, which is a terror to the authorities of St. Paul's, will continue. Only this afternoon we had here the Dean of St. Paul's, who said that the anxiety of the Cathedral authorities would be kept in existence for another two years if this Bill was not stopped. The public have contributed £400,000 for keeping up St. Paul's Cathedral, and if this Bill is to be proceeded with and this great traffic route run past the end of it, very serious danger, it is admitted, will be caused to the Cathedral.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 62; Noes, 81.

Division No. 195.] AYES. [11.43 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Sandeman, N. Stewart
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Alexander. E. E. (Leyton) Hume, Sir G. H. Sanderson, Sir Frank
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Ctn'l) Savery, S. S.
Barr, J. Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Shepperson, E. W.
Bethel, A. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Skelton, A. N.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhitht)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Lougher, Lewis Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Brassey, Sir Leonard McLean, Major A. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Briscoe, Richard George Macmillan, Captain H. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Brittain, Sir Harry MacRobert, Alexander M. Tasker, R. Inlgo.
Bromfield, William Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Burman, J. B Margesson, Captain D. Warrender, Sir Victor
Cobb, Sir Cyril Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph Wells, S. R.
Colfox, Major William Phillips Nicholson. O. (Westminster) Windsor, Walter
Fermoy, Lord Penny, Frederick George Womersley, W. J.
Fraser, Captain Ian Perring, Sir William George Wragg, Herbert
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Pilcher, G.
Goff, Sir Park Potts, John S. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hanbury, C. Raine, Sir Walter Mr. E. C. Grenfell and Sir Vansittart Bowater.
Hartinqton, Marquess el Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Hayday, Arthur Remer, J. R.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Gardner, J. P. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Ammon, Charles George Gillett, George M. Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Greene, W. P. Crawford Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Balniel, Lord Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Bellamy, A. Griffith, F. Kingsley Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Bevan, S. J. Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Paling, W.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Harris, Percy A. Richardson, sir P. W. (Sar'y, Ch'ts'y)
Bullock, Captain M. Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Carver, Major W. H. Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Salmon, Major I.
Charleton, H. C. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Clarke, A. B. John, William (Rhondda, West) Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen) Snell, Harry
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Kelly, W. T. Sutton, J. E.
Crawfurd, H. E. Kirkwood, D. Tinker, John Joseph
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Lamb, J. Q. Tomlinson, R. P.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Lawrence, Susan Townend, A. E.
Duckworth John Lawson, John James Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Dunnico, H Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Viant, S. P.
Edge, Sir William Loder, J. de V. Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Edmondson, Major A. J. Longbottom, A. W. Wellock, Wilfred
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Herman Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) Lumley, L. R.
England, Colonel A. Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Mackinder, W. Mr. Scurr and Sir Martin Conway.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Words added.

Second Reading put off for six months.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Nine Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.