PRIVATE BUSINESS.

HC Deb 01 June 1932 vol 266 cc1232-93

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL

[MONEY] BILL (By Order).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON

I beg to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they leave out the provision of money for the demolition of Waterloo Bridge and the erection of a new bridge contained in Part I, Item 6 (a), of the First Schedule to the Bill. If hon. Members will turn to the Schedule, they will find that a sum of £54,000 is required during the year ending 31st March, 1933, and the sum of £41,000 for the half-year ending 31st September of the same year, for the demolition of Waterloo Bridge and the erection of a new bridge in its place. I feel that a great weight of responsibility rests upon myself and my friends who are supporting this Instruction lest, by reason of our failure adequately to present our case, London should be deprived irreparably of one of its most beautiful possessions and one of its most illustrious memorials. I would ask the House to remember that anything affecting Waterloo Bridge is a matter of special concern to this House. Waterloo Bridge received its title by an. Act of this House passed in the year 1816, which laid down that the new bridge, which was then nearing completion, was to be called "The Waterloo Bridge," and was to be a national memorial of the Battle of Waterloo for all time.

It is a curious thing that a bridge which was commenced by a number of private individuals under a private Act of Parliament should have been selected as a war memorial, but both country and Parliament, as the bridge neared completion, were struck by its extraordinary beauty and magnificence; and if hon. Members will refer to the history books of the day, they will find that it was the unanimous desire both of the nation and of Parliament that the bridge should be accepted by Parliament and the nation as the national memorial of the Battle of Waterloo. [Interruption.] I do not think this is any laughing matter or a cause for laughter from the Labour Benches. It was a matter of great solemnity at the time, quite as solemn as the Cenotaph is to us, and it is not a laughing matter at all.

I think the House should be seized of the history of the bridge when considering the removal of this great national monument. The bridge was formally opened on the 18th June, 1817, by the Prince Regent, accompanied by all the Royal Dukes, while the Duke of Wellington came over specially from France, where the British Army still was, with the whole of his staff, in order to attend the opening of the bridge. May I quote to the House from the Preamble of the Act passed by this House in 1816— 56 Geo. III (1816), Cap. 63—just one sentence which will show that it is a bridge of special concern to this House and to the people of this country? The Preamble reads: Whereas the said Bridge when completed will be a Work of great Stability and Magnificence, and such Works are adapted to transmit to Posterity the Remembrance of great and glorious Achievements: And whereas it is desired that a Designation shall be given to the said Bridge which shall be a lasting Record of the brilliant and decisive Victory achieved by His Majesty's Forces, in conjunction with those of his Allies, on the 18th day of June, 1815: Be it therefore enacted, That from and after the passing of this Act the said Bridge shall be called and denominated the Waterloo Bridge. It is therefore indisputable that Waterloo Bridge is a great national monument and was regarded at the time with much the same feelings as we regard the Cenotaph to-day. Notwithstanding this, it is sometimes suggested that the fate of Waterloo Bridge is a matter which is no concern of Parliament, and that it is a matter only for the local authority, in this case the London County Council, which is the bridges authority for London. I have been told that the dignity of the London County Council would be offended were Parliament again to intervene on behalf of Waterloo Bridge. May I say at the outset that I yield to no one in my admiration for the great work which has been done and is to-day being done for London by the London County Council. The London County Council is, I think, the greatest, the most enlightened, and the most progressive municipality in the world. I also sympathise with their very natural irritation at the unavoidable delays which have occurred in this matter. But, admitting all that, I respectfully submit to the House that this is not a case where Parliament can divest itself of responsibility.

In the first place, the taxpayers of the country as a whole have to bear more than half the cost of the proposed demolition and the erection of a new bridge. In the second place, Parliament, apart from its statutory connection with, and its historical responsibility for Waterloo Bridge, which I have already indicated, is essentially the guardian and protector of all our national memorials. Suppose, for example, it was suggested by the City of London that in order to relieve the ever-increasing congestion of Cheap-side, it was necessary to run a by-pass road into Ludgate Hill by pulling down the north transept of St. Paul's Cathedral. Is it conceivable that such a course of action would be permitted by Parliament? Yet I submit that Waterloo Bridge is certainly a comparable national monument to St. Paul's Cathedral. Its unsurpassed beauty as a bridge, the symmetry of its proportions, and the wonderful skill of its adaptation to its environment, bound up as it is with Somerset House and St. Paul's Cathedral, are matters of world-wide recognition. Canova described Waterloo Bridge as the noblest building in the world, and he added in his description of it that to see Waterloo Bridge alone was worth coming all the way from Rome to London. As we look at this Bill to-night, the House might well exclaim with Wordsworth: Is there no nook of English ground secure from rash assault? It was said to me in this House a few days ago, "Why did no one realise or speak of the wonderful beauty of Waterloo Bridge until its centre arch began to sink?" [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] An hon. Member says "Hear, hear!" but that is not true. Many people, especially foreigners coming to this country, spoke of the beauty of Waterloo Bridge again and again, but even had it been true, even had no one spoken of the beauty of Waterloo Bridge, are there not thousands of beautiful and wonderful things of which we are not vocally appreciative until suddenly we find that there is a danger of their loss or destruction? What more wonderful thing is there than the power of lifting the human arm, and yet are any of us conscious of the wonder of the mechanism by which we do that until we meet with some injury or disablement?

But certainly, speaking for myself, I would not to-night be submitting this Motion, in these days of financial difficulty, with cuts in salaries, with grinding war taxation, and with urgent need for further reductions in expenditure, if I thought that this great national memorial could only be retained at heavy cost to the State and to the municipality. Fortunately, however, in this case economy, aesthetics, and national pride go hand in hand. The bridge can be underpinned and restored, and made the strongest bridge in London, as recommended by the Royal Commission, at just half the cost that would be incurred were it to be pulled down and a new bridge erected in its place. In December, 1925, may I recall to the House, when the London County Council Bridges Committee first had the question of Waterloo Bridge before them, it was not then considered possible to underpin and repair the existing bridge, and I would ask the attention of the House to a paragraph in the report of the London County Council Bridges Committee of the 10th December, 1925, as follows: If it had been possible to maintain by any means the existing structure, we think the council might well have been willing to sacrifice a valuable traffic improvement to the preservation of so beautiful and famous a bridge. I am sure that none of those supporting the Instruction to-night could put the case more feelingly or better than that paragraph from the Bridges Committee Report. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume), whom I am glad to see opposite, when supporting a similar proposal in this House on the 18th May, 1926, quoting from a speech of the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), who had said that there was certainly a fifty-fifty opinion that the bridge could be reconstructed, made this remark: Could a responsible body like the London County Council, playing with the ratepayers' money, take a fifty-fifty chance. Later on, in the next sentence almost, he said: I have heard no suggestion here that if this is to be a national monument, if this House will control things, there is any money coming from the nation to rebuild the bridge. The money has to come out of the pockets of the London ratepayers."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1926; col. 245, Vol. 196.] Fortunately since then it has been definitely and unquestionably ascertained on irrefutable authority that the bridge can be underpinned and the deformed arches reconditioned if it is so desired. Further, it is understood that the Ministry of Transport are prepared to make more than a fifty-fifty contribution towards the cost of rebuilding and reconditioning the bridge if that is decided on. The Royal Commission, having made the fullest inquiries, definitely recommended that the existing bridge should not be demolished. They considered that the footways on either side should be corbelled out so as to provide four lines of traffic in place of the existing three lines. May I read from Clause 90 of their report? We are satisfied that it would be practicable to make the necessary modification of the upper course of Rennie's design without impairing the general effect and beauty of the bridge, as seen with its neighbours, or its harmonious relation to Somerset House and St. Paul's Cathedral. This is also the opinion of the London Society and all the other great national bodies which have protested against the destruction of Waterloo Bridge. May I quote, with regard to the strength of the bridge, a paragraph of a letter which I received yesterday from Mr. Dalrymple-Hay? He is probably the greatest sub-aqueous engineer in the world. For 30 years he has been consulting engineer to the London Underground, and he built the tube on either side of the Charing Cross Railway Bridge. He is an unquestionable authority. He wrote to me under date 30th May: Dear Sir William Davison, I would like to assure you that after my over thirty years' experience in carrying out a number of sub-aqueous works in different parts of the country, I am of opinion that the bridge can be underpinned and restored with perfect safety and in such a manner that it will be stronger than ever before, and the work could be done at moderate cost. I hope that that is sufficient to meet the suggestion that has been made that the bridge cannot be restored: indeed, the Royal Commission, from their own independent inquiry, came to a like conclusion. The suggestion that if we corbelled out the bridge to four lines of traffic it would be no longer Rennie's bridge is disposed of by the photographs which were circulated to Members this morning by the London Society. On the one side you have the bridge as it appeared before the arches sank, and on the other side, exactly drawn to scale, is the corbelled out bridge, that is to say, the balustrade is pushed further from the centre of the road 3 feet 6 inches on each side exactly as London Bridge was treated some years ago. No one would know that any alteration had occurred. Plans and models of the bridge with this widening effected have been prepared. Large numbers of people have seen them and have come to the conclusion that no material alteration is made in the lines of Rennie's bridge. I submit that I have proved my contention that the existing bridge can be repaired and reconditioned to take four lines of traffic, thereby practically doubling its present capacity of three lines of traffic which is very little better than two lines.

We now come to what, in my opinion, is the vital matter on which the House has to make up its mind. That is the question of cost. Day after day the Government are taxed from all quarters of the House as to how they are going to cut down expenditure, and the House and the country have insisted upon the Government actually breaking contracts in order to reduce expenditure which the country cannot bear. In circumstances like these, is it conceivable, when we can repair by underpinning and making strong a great national monument of this kind that we should incur an expenditure of anything between two and three times the cost of that work? With regard to the cost of underpinning the bridge, some of the figures in the London County Council memorandum are rather misleading. For instance, they give the figure of £988,000 as the cost of the necessary work of restoring the bridge to a sound condition without providing for any widening. I was unable to understand how that figure was arrived at because it is different from the figure which I will give to the House. I was told a few minutes ago that this figure was arrived at by a proposal some years ago to take down Waterloo Bridge stone by stone, store it somewhere, bring it back, and re-erect it. That is the way, I am informed, in which the figure of £988,000 was arrived at.

I will give some actual figures, which are what the House wants. The House wants facts, and I will give them. The whole of Waterloo Bridge can be underpinned as it is at present and made perfectly safe without any of the deformed arches being dealt with. It is not necessary for the stability of the structure to rebuild the arches at all. It can be underpinned. [Interruption.] I am not an engineer, but I have sifted the brains of engineers, and I have made up my mind as to the rights and wrongs of the case. Waterloo Bridge can be underpinned as it is at present as a perfectly sound structure so that traffic can go backwards and forwards as before. As a matter of fact, if the balustrade at the top were made level, you would not notice very much the sinking of the two central arches. One of the great bridges of Paris was thus treated 60 or 70 years ago. They did not push it up, but altered the balustrade on the top, and not one person in a hundred will notice that a subsidence has occurred. The proposal which I am suggesting, however, is to rebuild the two deformed arches so that they shall be as they were originally.

The cost of underpinning the bridge and making it secure and one of the strongest bridges in London is £356,400. That is not a mere guess. It is a figure for which Messrs. Mowlem and Co., perhaps the greatest bridge contractors in the world, are prepared to undertake the work. The second item is the cost of rebuilding the two deformed arches, and Messrs. Mowlem are prepared to undertake that for £150,000. The other item is a sum, which we consider an outside figure, of £150,000 for widening and corbelling out for the fourth line of traffic. These three items come to £656,400, and for that sum we can have an underpinned and reconditioned bridge which will provide four lines of traffic for all reasonable time. With regard to the only item for which we have not a definite estimate, namely, the £150,000 for corbelling out, I can only say that London Bridge for a similar operation cost £90,000. Professor Unwin, in his letter to the "Times" of 22nd February this year, estimated it at £100,000. We have therefore £50,000 with which to play in doing that work.

Compared with this total, we have the estimate of the London County Council of £1,300,000. They put down £1,295,000, but the Minister of Transport, in reply to a question of mine, said that we might take it as £1,300,000. That is for pulling down the bridge and building a new one. Therefore, by reconditioning the present bridge the ratepayers and taxpayers would be saved, even on the estimate submitted by the London County Council, no less than £643,600. I ask hon. Members: Are they going to throw away £643,600 when they can get a bridge, as shown by the London Society, of the same beauty as the present bridge, which will take double the present capacity of that bridge? I have secured the opinion of great experts like Mr. Dalrymple-Hay and Mr. William Muir-head, who was in charge of the Vauxhall Bridge demolition and rebuilding, and has a thorough knowledge of all the difficulties that are occasioned by work of this character. The cost of the new bridge as given by the County Council's Improvements Committee is £1,020,000. The cost of pulling down and removing the existing bridge is therefore the difference between this figure and £1,300,000, that is to say, only £280,000. I am advised that this is an inadequate figure, and that the cost of taking down and removing the existing bridge would certainly not be less than £500,000 and would take at least 4½ years to do.

8.0 p.m.

I ask hon. Members to realise this. Waterloo Bridge is considered to be the strongest bridge in the world. It contains 100,000 tons of granite and other material. Every one of the great piers upon which it rests bears no less than 10,000 tons of granite. Each of these great teeth would have to be extracted from the maw of Father Thames. All this granite would have to be removed. Surely hon. Members must see the magnitude of a work of this kind and that Mr. Dalrymple-Hay and Mr. William Muirhead are not outside their book when they say that it is impossible to do it at the sum mentioned by the committee of the County Council. As I said, time is an urgent consideration. Once they have got this bridge away we shall be left with a' temporary bridge, and a further 4½ years will be required to build the new Waterloo Bridge, nine years in all. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am advised it will take nine years. [Interruption.] I will accept seven years, if you like. All that time we shall be dependent on the temporary bridge, with two lines of traffic, one going south and the other north. I do not think the House would care to accept that possibility. With regard to the temporary bridge, let me quote two sentences from a letter I received from Mr. William Muirhead, who acted for the contractors for Vauxhall Bridge. It is dated 29th April, 1932, and is as follows: Dear Sir William Davison, I think there is one point which should be emphasised which hitherto has been lost sight of or not observed, namely, that the present temporary bridge alongside the old bridge at Waterloo was put up in its present design and position for the purpose of reconditioning the old bridge, and not in contemplation of the bridge being taken down and a new one being built in its place with different lengths of spans. The supports of the temporary bridge are in the same stream line as the piers of the existing bridge, and if the existing bridge were entirely cleared away and the temporary bridge left it is doubtful if the temporary bridge would be stable by itself without considerable reconstruction, but in any case the piers on which it stands would obstruct the navigation in a serious manner if any attempt were made to erect a five span bridge as proposed by the London County Council. That is expert evidence which deserves to be seriously considered. In the circumstances I have indicated, it would seem to be absolutely necessary for a second temporary bridge to be built, and this would cost a further £300,000 to £400,000. There are several other items which would be needed with which I will not detain the House now, but they can take it from me that other items would be required. The best engineering opinion of the day is definite on the point that the estimate of the London County Council would be substantially exceeded, and that the cost would be some £2,000,000 instead of £1,300,000.

The London County Council have asked Sir Giles Gilbert Scott, that most distinguished architect, to prepare plans for a new bridge. I am quite certain that he can build a splendid bridge for £2,000,000, but that bridge will not be Waterloo Bridge, it will not be the bridge which Parliament named "The Waterloo Bridge," the cenotaph of 1815; nor, however skilful the architect, or however great, can any new bridge so well harmonise with its surroundings as does Rennie's masterpiece. In- stead, therefore, of retaining the existing bridge, underpinned and reconditioned, for £656,400, the country and the municipality will undoubtedly have to find a sum of no less than £2,000,000, and probably more, an excess expenditure of £1,343,000. In these days of financial difficulty can we afford this extra cost? I submit that we cannot justify that expenditure in these times.

Personally, I should like to leave my case there. If I were submitting it de novo I should leave it there, because I submit with all humility that I have proved my case that in times of financial difficulty the House has no right to spend £2,000,000 when it can get all that is needed, and on definite estimates, for a little over £600,000; but I feel compelled to deal with the argument submitted by the London County Council. As I understand it the argument is as follows: Admitted that Waterloo Bridge can be repaired and reconditioned for four lines of traffic, yet, looking to the future, that will be inadequate. A few nights ago this was said to me by the very distinguished leader of the London County Council, who is now the hon. Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray): "We should have been content to repair Waterloo Bridge if we could have relied on a road bridge being built at Charing Cross in the near future, but it is impossible to contemplate that for years to come, owing to the vast expenditure necessary, and we must have a new bridge to take six lines of traffic in place of Waterloo Bridge. The extra cost is therefore worth while."

I think that is a fair, short statement of the case of the London County Council. In reply, we submit that six lines of traffic are not required for Waterloo Bridge. Firstly, it would make the already great congestion in the Strand unendurable. Secondly, I submit that it is possible at no distant date to have a road bridge at Charing Cross for an expenditure of only a few thousand pounds more than would be needed to pull down Waterloo Bridge and build a new one in its place. I say that a Waterloo Bridge with six lines of traffic is not required, and will not be required for many years to come, and even if it were agreed that further traffic facilities must be provided at that point the reconditioned bridge will furnish them. There will be four lines of traffic in the place of three—which, as I said, are equivalent really to only two—and so the present capacity of the bridge will be practically doubled.

Further, I urge the consideration that was put forward so eloquently by Lord Crawford in another place when he pointed out that we must differentiate between bridge traffic and ordinary street traffic—that four lines of bridge traffic are certainly equivalent to eight or may be 10 lines of street traffic, because in the case of a bridge there are no shops and no warehouses, no drains to pick up and repair and no cross-roads bring intersecting traffic, but there is a continuous flow this way and that, which is only interrupted by the exit and the inflow at each end. If we were to have six lines of traffic poured into the Strand at that point, surely there would be confusion worse confounded, no matter what roundabouts would be provided. The original proposal of the London County Council for six lines of traffic was put forward because they intended that two lines of traffic were to be reserved for trams; they have now abandoned the idea of trams across the bridge, but they still retain what, without offence, I would call the obsession, what I would also say is an unreasonable obsession, about six lines of traffic. Let me quote what the Royal Commission say with regard to the traffic in the Strand. In Paragraph 83 of their Report they say: As stated above the latest decision of the London County Council in June, 1926, was that the bridge should be rebuilt with sufficient width to take six lines of traffic. We do not think that it is cither necessary or desirable that a bridge of such dimensions should be erected at this spot. It could not be fully utilised unless the streets on both sides, and particularly on the northern side, were greatly altered. Otherwise, the bringing of more traffic over the bridge would only intensify the congestion at the Strand. A very large expenditure of money on street improvements would be required in order to make such a bridge meet the demand of through-London traffic, and this demand could be far better satisfied by a new bridge at Charing Cross. I trust the House will agree with the opinion of the Royal Commission; other traffic experts are of the same opinion. The place where we really want traffic facilities is Charing Cross. As to that, I must also read Clauses 121 and 122 from the report of the Royal Commission: So long ago as 1854 the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Metropolitan Bridges was impressed with the necessity of providing a road bridge in the immediate neighbourhood of Charing Cross. It regarded the evidence in favour of this project as conclusive …. Since then over 70 years have elapsed but nothing has been done….. The evidence which has been submitted to us from numerous and influential sources in favour of a new roadway crossing the river at this point is of the strongest character. It has been urged upon us that Charing Cross is where relief is most wanted—that 'everything turns and hinges upon Charing Cross'—that it is of the first importance among new bridges, and that viewing the bridge problem as a whole it would probably be the most economical project to adopt. In the last paragraph they say: Apart from the weighty evidence which we have received in favour of a bridge at Charing Cross we are ourselves convinced that in the interests of traffic a new road bridge at this point is essential.

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas)

And the House of Commons threw it out.

Sir W. DAVISON

I understand it was thrown out on grounds of economy and town planning, but whatever the grounds are do not let us stand on a punctilio. This is a new House of Commons. For goodness' sake do not let it be said that some Parliament in the past did this or that. Surely to goodness this House of Commons can make up its own mind on this matter. I have great respect for the Secretary of State for the Dominions, but his interruption on this occasion was not as happy as it has sometimes been. I can see that the House is getting restive at the very mention of a bridge at Charing Cross, because hon. Members have got it into their minds that it would mean an expenditure of £14,000,000, £15,000,000 or £16,000,000.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne)

I think the hon. Member is entitled to refer to the possibilities of an alternative bridge at Charing Cross as a reason for moving his Instruction, but I do not think he is entitled to go into details.

Sir W. DAVISON

Very well, Mr. Deputy-Speaker; I have only this to say about it. My point is that the County Council are not willing to proceed with the repair of Waterloo Bridge because there is now no hope of a bridge at Charing Cross, and it is suggested that there is no hope because it would cost £15,000,000. I was going to prove to the House that a bridge can be built there for a little over £2,000,000, and I should have thought that point was material to the endeavour we are making to save Waterloo Bridge; but I will cut the details down as much as possible. If the House will refer to the Parliamentary Estimate of expenditure deposited by the London County Council in Parliament in the Session 1929-30 they will find it amounts altogether to £14,660,000, but of that sum no less than £11,126,000 was for pulling down Charing Cross Station, pulling down Charing Cross Bridge, pulling down Coutts' Bank and doing a thousand and one other things and £20,000 was for tramways, and that the actual cost of the bridge itself was only £1,141,000. I suggest to the House that a new bridge could be put up immediately on the down stream side of the railway bridge, on the site of the Northern Hampstead Tube, which would be transferred further east, and the tube itself would be used for bringing the materials for the erection of this bridge by the mining-compressed-air method. Detailed estimates have been prepared by Mr. Dalrymple-Hay, and the total cost is £2,080,000. The sum of £180,000 is provided for diverting the tube railway, £450,000 for dealing with approaches from the Strand, and £250,000 for approaches on the south side of the river. If further traffic facilities are required for the future surely it is better to spend £2,080,000 on a road bridge at Charing Cross as the Royal Commission recommended rather than £1,300,000, or, more probably, £2,000,000 upon a new Waterloo Bridge. I therefore submit, that on traffic and financial grounds alone the House should pass this Instruction. If afterwards it is found that we have more money to spend it will be better to spend that money on a bridge at Charing Cross where it is agreed by all parties that a bridge is urgently needed.

I hope the House will forgive me for trespassing so long on its time and patience. There is just one other thing I would like to say in conclusion. The House of Commons has been des- cribed as the best stage for the statement of a case that exists anywhere in the world, but to-night I wish that stage could be the screen of a cinema so that I might bring before hon. Members Waterloo Bridge itself to plead in person at the Bar of the House against the sentence of death that has been pronounced upon it by this Bill. If hon. Members could look on that screen they would see a noble picture. In the foreground they would see Waterloo Bridge designed by Rennie; in the middle distance they would see Somerset House, and in the background looming up against the sky they would see the mighty dome of St. Paul's, surely the noblest group in historic stone possessed by any capital in the world. Were that possible I feel sure that the decision of the House to-night would not be in doubt. I want hon. Members to forget my feeble pleading. I beg them to think of the picture on the screen. I beg them to think of Waterloo Bridge as one of our great national possessions which are fast disappearing and cannot be replaced. Think of Waterloo Bridge as a war memorial comparable to the Cenotaph, named by Parliament, opened by the Head of the State, a memorial to a bygone generation of Britons who in their day saved the world and this country from a tyranny, and if any still hesitate as to their verdict, I ask them to remember the urgency of our financial needs and the heavy cost in money and in sentiment which the destruction of this great national monument will involve.

Marquess of HARTINGTON

I beg to second the Motion.

My hon. Friend has covered the ground so fully and completely that, in the absence of any ammunition from the other side, it is extremely hard to say anything further. I can give hon. Members no better advice than that of going down the embankment of the river as far as Waterloo Bridge in order that they may see this historic monument. I am sure if they would do so many hon. Members would think twice before deciding to condemn what is admitted to be on all hands one of the most beautiful bridges in the whole world. I want to emphasise the point that there is good evidence for believing that the existing bridge can be made good for all time at a cost of £656,000. I need not go over the figures again, but I know that the bridge could be made safe for a much smaller sum than that.

It can be made strong, and lasting with accommodation for four lines of traffic at a cost of £656,000, and for that statement we have a firm estimate, made by a firm enjoying as high a reputation as any firm in the whole world. That firm states definitely that Waterloo Bridge can be preserved for all time and made capable of dealing with existing traffic needs at the cost of £656,000, and that is a saving of £600,000 as compared with the cost of a new bridge. There are good grounds for believing that the estimate for the building of the new bridge is an under-estimate, and that a larger sum would be required. In the estimate for the new bridge no account has been taken of the cost of strengthening the temporary bridge which would be necessary while the new bridge was being built. There are very good grounds for believing that the cost of demolishing the old bridge has been greatly under-estimated, and no allowance has been made for the removal of the coffer dams. Just as when you are pruning a tree you cannot sit on the outside of the branches and cut away from the inside so you cannot use the structure of the bridge for removing the piers. The cost of removing the piers would be very great. The temporary bridge would not be available for the extremely difficult work of removing the piers from the river. There are therefore very good grounds for believing that the estimate of £1,300,000 for removing the bridge is an under-estimate.

Members of the House will all, unfortunately, be aware of cases in which estimates have been very substantially exceeded. The Tower Bridge cost £80,000 more than the estimate; Westminster Bridge cost £160,000 more than the estimate; the Oswald Street Bridge, in Glasgow, cost £100,000 more than the estimate; while in the recent case of the Mersey Tunnel it is estimated—and it is only an estimate—that before the work is completed it will probably have cost £2,000,000 more than the original estimate. We are safe in saying that the saving to be effected by repairing the existing Waterloo Bridge will be at least £600,000, and that in all probability the saving will be very much greater.

It is that question of economy which primarily interests me. I should not be ashamed, given the present condition of affairs, to stand here and defend the retention or the creation of an uglier bridge if thereby a saving of £600,000 could be effected; but we have at stake, not only the saving of this very substantial sum of money, but the retention of a priceless national monument which we can never replace, and which is, in the strictest sense of the word, a national possession under the charge of this House.

Since the last election we have all been talking a great deal about economy, and here at last is a real chance of doing something. I think there is creeping over the business and commercial community a feeling of something approaching despair. At a moment of great elation the National Government was returned, but now we have the spectacle of a Government commanding an unprecedented majority in this House, and yet apparently unable to control or cut down expenditure, and, as I have said, there is a feeling of something approaching despair. I believe that we should do a good deal to hearten up the taxpaying public if we showed them that we are not prepared to spend a single farthing of their money unnecessarily.

We have now a chance to make an economy. Economy usually means something very unpleasant indeed, and the economies which we must carry out if we are to keep out of Carey Street for another year will all, or nearly all, be extremely unpleasant; they will involve real sacrifices. Here we have an almost unique chance of saving—[An HON. MEMBER: "Vicariously!"] The hon. Member says, "Vicariously," but I am speaking for myself, and the sacrifices which I contemplate will, as far as I am concerned, certainly not be vicarious, and I am not a Labour leader. As I have said, severe sacrifices will undoubtedly be entailed by the economies which are necessary to keep this country financially sound. Here is a real chance of effecting a substantial economy, and of doing at the same time something which I believe every one of us desires to do.

My hon. Friend remarked that he would like to hear some further information from those who are supporting the scheme to destroy the bridge. I think we may be fairly certain that among the arguments advanced will be the argument that, in the long run, to expend this sum-of £1,300,000 for a new bridge will prove to be an economy. In answer to that argument I would ask hon. Members to cast their minds back for a little while, and think whether, in the whole course of their Parliamentary career, they have ever heard of a proposal entailing expenditure which has not been recommended as true economy in the long run. Every single one of the items which go to make the colossal burden that we have to carry to-day has been recommended in its time as true economy in the long run. It has been said of them all that, though they would cost a certain amount of money, they would, in the long run, save the rates and so on. It has always been urged that expenditure is true economy because it will save money in the long run, and it is as a result of that attitude of mind that we are to-day very near to Carey Street. I feel that true economy in this case, as in others, is to keep your money in your pocket while you can. If we refrain, as we can, from spending an unnecessary sum of £600,000, we shall have saved that amount and shall not have to spend it in the future.

8.30 p.m.

I want also to emphasise the point that it has not been fully realised that the superstructure of the bridge itself has not failed. As a piece of engineering work to-day it is perfectly sound, and is capable of carrying 30 times the weight that it is ever likely to be called upon to carry. All that has happened has been that, owing to alterations in the bed of the river through the carrying out of works a little higher up, the scour has now altered, and one of the piles has sunk, causing distortion of the arches. The bridge is a sound structure, and the proposal to underpin and strengthen it is perfectly feasible.

I want also to emphasise the point, which has already been made, that six lines of traffic are really unnecessary. The causes of delays in street traffic, with the exception of very occasional cases of mechanical breakdown, consist practically entirely in the fact that there are shops or buildings of one kind or another alongside the traffic. The chief cause of traffic delay is the constant holding up of vehicles for pedestrians to cross and for traffic from side streets to come in. None of these factors operates on a bridge, and it is, therefore, a fact that a bridge carrying four lines of traffic can serve sweets carrying nominally a very much larger amount.

It is said that we must avoid bottlenecks. I advised hon. Members just now to go and look at Waterloo Bridge, and, if any of them do so, they may possibly, on coming back, need to engage in the interesting exercise to which my hon. Friend referred, of lifting their arm, and they will find that, if the capacity of their receptacle is limited, a bottle-neck is by no means an evil, but is in fact almost essential. What governs the capacity of these bridges is not the capacity of the bridge itself, but the capacity of the receptacle into which it debouches. Hon. Members would find it extremely hard to help themselves with economy and efficiency from a bottle which had no neck, so long as the capacity of their receptacle was limited, and, in the same manner, to provide a bridge with an unnecessarily wide carrying capacity is merely to add to the congestion of the surrounding streets.

I believe that we have made out a sound case. It has been shown that the bridge can be repaired for a sum of £656,000. It has been shown that there are good grounds for believing that the construction of a new bridge would cost at least £600,000 more than that, and the probability is that the saving would be much greater. I think it has been shown that there is. no real necessity for making a larger bridge than one carrying four streams of traffic. I think it is also the fact that the long delay which the construction of a new bridge would entail— much longer than the underpinning process of repairing the existing bridge— would produce serious consequences, since prolonged traffic stoppages would be entailed by making the traffic at Waterloo Bridge dependent on the existing structure, which will only carry two lines of traffic at a speed of five miles an hour. For all these reasons, I commend this Instruction to the House. I believe that, by passing it, we should strike a real blow for economy, should encourage the sorely-pressed taxpayers and ratepayers, and should do what the vast majority of informed opinion in this country desires, namely, save a priceless national memorial.

Sir GEORGE HUME

I should like at once to say, in taking this matter up on behalf of the London County Council, that we have shared with the other side the sentiment which has been expressed of, shall I say, grief at this monument of the past having to be dealt with. But, after listening to the speeches that have been delivered, I think I shall not be wasting my time if I ask the House to come down for a few minutes to hard facts. Memory is short, and it might be as well to run through the stages through which the London County Council has had to travel since this problem first burst upon us in December, 1923, when the first report was given that a couple of the piers were giving way. Early in 1924 it was necessary to shore up two of these piers to prevent collapse of the bridge, and it was closed to vehicular traffic from May, 1924, until July of the same year. In April, 1924, the Improvements Committee of the London County Council reported that they had been advised that, in view of the type of construction of the foundations of the bridge, the settlement that was taking place could only be interpreted as a warning that the effective life of the foundations was coming to an end.

In 1923 and 1924 the London County Council were advised by Sir George Humphreys, who was then their Chief Engineer—and they called in at the same time Sir Basil Mott and Sir Maurice Fitzmaurice, who for many years had been their Chief Engineer, and was well acquainted with the bridges and their special dangers— that the most practicable and satisfactory way of dealing with the subject would be to rebuild it on new foundations. The practicability of preserving the existing bridge by a process of underpinning was fully considered. They were unanimously opposed to such a course. Of course, they did not tell us it could not be done. No engineer will say that to any proposition. They said it would involve an immense cost. In April, 1924, the county council decided to reconstruct and widen while preserving the character and identity of the existing structure. Those very anxieties which have been expressed here to-day operated on the other side of the river as well.

The council hesitated very greatly even in the face of such reports as they had. A special committee was appointed in July, 1924, to inquire into the whole question of the adequacy, etc., of existing bridges and the necessity for any additional means of transit across the Thames and to formulate a general policy on the subject. At the same time I remember that we approached the City in the hope that the City would co-operate with us so that not only might we deal with the bridges controlled by the council but that the City bridges might be taken into consideration at the same time. The Resolution of 8th April was rescinded in July, 1924, and the whole matter was referred to a special committee. In December, 1924, the county council—this shows the anxiety that they had—though they had three distinguished engineers advising them, asked the council of the Institute of Civil Engineers whether, having regard to the then condition of the bridge, at would be practicable and reasonable to underpin all or some of the piers so as to render the structure permanently safe and to enable it to be restored to its original form. In January, 1925, a letter was received from the Institute of Civil Engineers stating that they were of opinion that the county council had followed the best possible course in consulting two engineers of acknowledged eminence in this branch of engineering, that it was observed that these engineers had reported unfavourably as to underpinning, and that in their view the council would be well advised to act on the considered individual opinion of these consultants.

I think at that time the council had taken every precaution in the matter that they possibly could. To-day we are told that a lot of other eminent engineers are giving all sorts of contrary opinions and are actually giving estimates of the cost of carrying out this work and contractors are informing the world at large that they will come in, and carry out the work for so much. It is a very different thing, when you have your responsible engineers who are consulted and who have every opportunity of seeing the drawings and who have been spending years on this work, to have figures like that thrown across the Floor of the House without any power to cross-examine those who produce them. In June, 1925, there was a report urging the preservation of Waterloo Bridge. The whole matter was reviewed by the council and the alternative courses open to them were carefully examined, and in December the Improvements Committee was instructed to take steps forthwith for the reconstruction of not more than five arches over the river of a width sufficient to take six lines of vehicular traffic. We have come now to the scheme before the House.

In May, 1926, we had the Second Reading of the London County Council (Money) Bill, on which the whole matter was discussed. At that time the opposition took a somewhat different line. In spite of what I said just now, it was suggested that the county council had not considered the matter sufficiently and were hurrying too much, it being forgotten that the matter had been in hand for two years, but the House allowed the Money Bill to go through without Amendment. Shortly afterwards, in view of the natural anxiety of those who love beautiful things—I do not complain of it—the Government were induced to set up a Royal Commission, and the council resolved, naturally, to defer action for rebuilding the bridge on two understandings: (a) that the proposed Royal Commission would issue its report within a reasonable period, and (b) that the council retained full liberty in the event of an emergency to deal with the bridge as they thought fit. In November, 1926, the Royal Commission reported, and the county council decided to give effect to its recommendations on the basis of a contribution by the Government of 75 per cent. of the actual ascertained expenditure thereon from time to time, provided that the necessary steps were taken to construct a bridge and approaches at Charing Cross in accordance with a scheme to be approved by the Government. It was a long time after that before the scheme was actually agreed to. In 1929–30 the council promoted the London County Council (Charing Cross Bridge) Bill in co-operation with the Government, but it was rejected by a Select Committee.

In June, 1930, instead of the County Council sulking or having its dignity hurt as has been suggested here, they said, "We have had all this criticism from all sorts of learned bodies. Let us get them round a table so that we can consult together and see if unitedly we cannot get some scheme." We had representatives on that body from the Royal Academy, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Institution of Civil Engineers and other representative bodies, and the chairman of it was a respected and competent Member of this House, Sir Leslie Scott. This special committee was asked to submit to the Council an agreed scheme for a road bridge and approaches to Charing Cross. Waterloo Bridge was to be repaired as best it could if we could not get another bridge at Charing Cross. Having considered the reports of that committee, the Council decided again to promote legislation on lines generally similar to those put forward under the 1930 Bill and on the same conditions.

In October, 1931, we were informed that it was not possible then to renew the offer of a 75 per cent. grant from the Road Fund towards the cost of a new bridge at Charing Cross. We do not complain. Expenditure of that kind today possibly is not justified. But there it is. We proceeded immediately to consult with the Ministry of Transport and, by a letter dated 20th January, 1932, the Ministry intimated that, if the County Council decided that the only satisfactory course was to build a bridge for six lines of traffic, the Government would not feel justified in intervening and any grant from the Road Fund for such a scheme would have to be limited to 60 per cent., the normal rate of grant for the reconstruction of a Class I bridge, and would be subject to an assurance that the Council would appoint in connection with the scheme an architect of high standing and repute. We have carried out that undertaking, because I do not think that we could have a better architect than Sir Giles Gilbert Scott. In the face of all that, of the past history, and of present conditions, what more could a responsible body do than that which the London County Council have done?

We have had all sorts of objections raised. There was the question that we are mistaken as regards our view of the traffic problem in London. It is not our view. We are not a traffic authority. The Ministry of Transport, I happen to know, have been closely advised by the Advisory Committee which is at its disposal and which is considering especially problems of traffic. I think the Advisory Committee was satisfied that it was necessary or desirable to have six lines of traffic at that point. A great deal was said about the bridges. I am going to leave it to somebody else to speak of the traffic problem, but I would point out that there is considerable difficulty in approaching the bridge. The Noble Marquess the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) rather fancies bottle-necks, apparently, but I do not know that traffic generally does. As a matter of fact, we are advised that there would be no difficulty whatever in carrying over the traffic, and, if necessary, the roadway can be carried through into the Strand. [An HON. MEMBER: "At what cost?"] At no very great cost. That is what we are advised.

I would say a word or two about economy. I cannot understand how it can be suggested that it is more economical to spend £750,000 to repair a bridge, if we get a life of something like 20 years, as compared with spending one and a third millions in putting up a completely new bridge to meet what we think will be the needs of London well within the next 20 years, and to put it up to stand for 100 years. An expenditure of that kind would be far more economical. If you look at the secondary effects, the congestion of the streets of London and the consequent loss incurred, and if you have to consider that in 20 years' time you will have to stop traffic, it would be better not to take two bites of the cherry, but to go straight forward now and face the difficulty which we have to meet.

An hon. and gallant Friend has produced certain photographs. Can you tell anything from a photograph as regards effect? Is not the whole effect one of atmosphere and surroundings? When such a distinguished architect as Sir Edwin Lutyens, in a report which he has given, states that an alteration of that kind will distinctly spoil the effect of Waterloo Bridge, it should give us cause to reflect. Anyone who has visited Venice will agree that it was one of the most melancholy things to see that city, with such a glorious past and so full of history and splendid monuments, stagnating as it did some years ago. I believe that it is waking up again to-day. Art is a great thing, but our forefathers never hesitated—take Oxford and Cambridge—to pull down old buildings if they found that it was necessary for the needs of the collegiate life, and they put up in their places monuments of which we are proud to-day.

We have been reminded that Waterloo Bridge is a national monument. It was not started as a national monument, it was adopted. Waterloo was an immense event, but we have travelled far beyond it. We are not living in a city which is stagnating, but in a big city, which is a county, throbbing with life, and expanding. We believe that it has a great future before it. We believe that we can also build monuments, and that we have greater monuments even than that of Waterloo. I would not think of lessening the greatness of Waterloo. We had Ypres, and we might put up another bridge and call it the Ypres Bridge to commemorate the time when the whole soul of the British nation was seen at its best on the strongholds and mud heaps of Flanders. I hope that the Motion will not be passed.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus)

I was very much relieved when the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) referred to the necessity in questions of this sort for a few hard facts. We really need to face this problem with facts and not with vague figures as to the amount for which a contractor will do an un-named work. I understand from a letter to-day that an offer of £700,000 was quoted. That has gone down £50,000 during the afternoon, but it was £700,000 this morning, and it was to be all that was necessary. I do not think that anybody here who has ever had to do with placing contracts would do 60 simply on the basis that they should include all that is necessary without saying anything about the nature of the work to be carried out. A feeling has been imported into this discussion, which, I am sure, the House would not wish to have as the basis of a settlement of this great question. I notice in a letter in the "Times" this morning, signed by Sir Reginald Blomfield, that the object of this Debate to-night is to rescue the London County Council, itself from an act of desperate and unpardonable vandalism. I suggest that this matter requires calm consideration and a few really accurate and solid facts. Personally, I think the division of this House and the public outside into two classes, one of which is determined at all costs to destroy the Bill, and the other of which is determined at all costs to save it, irrespective of any other considerations, is unfair and does not properly represent the division of opinion in this House or outside. There is no such division of opinion. I have never met among supporters of the London County Council and their proposals anyone who wished to destroy this very fine historic monument. Quite the contrary. The whole history of this question in the London County Council in the last few years has been one of a desperate effort to save the historic bridge. Those who like myself feel it incumbent upon themselves to support the proposal of the London County Council are entitled to resent this method of approach to such an important matter. Personally, I have looked upon Waterloo Bridge from my windows for nearly 20 years, and, if it has to be removed, I shall regret it very much indeed. I have never shared the view of my neighbour, Mr. George Bernard Shaw, that it is merely eight or nine canal bridges set end to end. The fact remains that for nine years a dispute has gone on between two parties, one the London County Council, expressly charged by Parliament with the responsibility for the bridges of London and the other a fluctuating and ever changing body of artists, architects, engineers and contractors who, however great their eminence and sincere their views, are largely self-appointed. For nine years the arguments regarding Waterloo Bridge have continued and during all that time the fine old structure, its centre arches shored up and blocked with rough timber supports, has stood there a public eyesore, eloquent in its decrepitude as to what happens to an unfortunate patient when the doctors disagree. If I might be allowed to carry the simile a little further, I would say that only one set of doctors were officially called in by those who were the legal guardians of the patient, but the others felt that they were absolutely necessary and forced their way in.

It would be helpful if we put behind us the quarrels of the past and deal with the position as it is to-day, following the recent decision of the London County Council. What is the real issue? Shortly it is this. The House is being asked to decide whether Parliament, having expressly charged the London County Council with the responsibility for the bridges of London, is prepared to take away from the London County Council the necessary authority to enable them to discharge that duty. That is the issue. That is the plain fact. I should like to explain the position of the Government in the matter. In the early part of this year the chairman of the Improvements Committee of the London County Council informed me that his committee, after a further and complete review of the position of Waterloo Bridge, were proposing to advise the London County Council to remove the existing structure and to replace it with a new bridge designed to accommodate six lines of traffic.

9.0 p.m.

He further stated that he would be glad to know what, in that event, would be the attitude which the Government would feel inclined to take up. Bearing in mind the close and cordial co-operation which has always existed between the Government and that great authority across the river, I felt that the question was not unreasonable. I transmitted the query to my colleagues in the Government and as the result I referred back to the London County Council certain questions which had arisen from our discussions and which might affect the fate of the bridge. After receiving the replies of the county council on this point the Government took a decision and authorised me to convey that decision to the London County Council. It was to the effect that if the county council itself decided that there was no alternative, in view of all the circumstances of the case, but that the old bridge should be demolished and a new one erected in its place, the Government would not intervene or obstruct such proposal. I will read the actual terms of the letter. It is addressed to Sir Percy Simmons, Chairman of the Improvement Committee of the London County Council: In view of the terms of the report with which you furnished me on Monday last, stating the reasons why the London County Council do not regard the scheme known as the Temple Bridge as a feasible one, I confirm the intimation which I gave you on Thursday, the 14th inst. as to the Government's attitude in the matter of Waterloo Bridge. This, you will remember, was to the effect that if, in the exercise of their discretion as the responsible highway and improvement authority, the London County Council decide that the only satisfactory course is to build a new bridge to take six lines of traffic, the Government will not feel justified in intervening. Any grant from the Road Fund to such a scheme would have to be limited to 60 per cent., the normal rate of grant to reconstruction of a Class I bridge, and would be subject to the assurance that the council would appoint in connection with the scheme an architect of high standing and repute.

Lord BALNIEL

Is there any limit in that letter to the amount of money which this House may be called upon to find?

Mr. PYBUS

I shall deal with the financial situation later, but I would say that it is always understood that a grant given out of the Road Fund is a percentage of the approved cost, the approved cost being known before the work starts.

Mr. BRACKEN

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but this is a very important financial point, and he touched upon it himself. Does he approve the estimate for £1,300,000 as the total cost of rebuilding Waterloo Bridge and pulling down the present structure? Has he any figures to support the London County Council figures on that point?

Mr. PYBUS

The final and official estimate for this six line bridge has been recently examined and has been submitted by the county council. That estimate we shall investigate and when the moment comes to give our decision as to whether or not we consider it reasonable, we shall say so, but it must be clearly understood that in the case of a great body like the London County Council, with experts of their own and experts specially briefed for this purpose, we should naturally rely on them that the estimate given was fair and could be achieved. I have finished reading the letter which I was authorised to send to the London County Council, but I should like to refer to the paragraph in that letter which concerns the grant of 60 per cent. Hon. Members will remember that the words were: Any grant from the Road Fund, etc. It is only fair to the House to state quite definitely the nature of the Government's commitment. This commitment is limited in so far as there can be no question of implementing the financial guarantee to a scheme to which the House has declared itself opposed. That, of course, would be quite impossible. If therefore the Instruction were carried no commitment already made would arise, and in such a situation the Government would have to reconsider their decision.

Now I come to the proposals which are before us. Let us assume that there are two—one the proposal set out by the London County Council and which has been clearly described in notes and diagrams. This scheme is obviously, the result of very careful preparation by a great local authority. The other proposal is that the existing bridge should be reconstructed and widened to take four lines of traffic. One trouble in assessing the alternative proposal for the reconstruction of the existing bridge with four lines of traffic is that the House is not in possession of any well-ordered and set out statement as to its actual cost. It is very difficult to assess properly the value of a proposal, which I am anxious to treat with the respect it deserves, unless it is accompanied by a certain amount of detailed estimating and proper drawings and designs.

In considering these two proposals, let us first look at the proposal for the reconstruction of the existing bridge, corbelling out its surface so as to make it suitable for four lines of traffic, which I understand is the scheme supported by Sir Reginald Blomfield. Hearing that there was a drawing depicting this corbelling out of 3 feet 9 inches on either side in the Royal Academy, I took an opportunity of going and looking at it—it was also reproduced in the "Times" newspaper— and I was extremely gratified to notice what a small effect, apparently, looking at the picture, a corbelling out of 3 feet 9 inches made in the appearance of the bridge. It was quite pleasant. Then I inquired whether there was in existence a large scale model of the bridge as widened and as corbelled out, and I found that the London County Council had one and that it was possible to inspect it. When I inspected the actual model, which showed the effect of the corbelling out, I am bound to say that it was by no means so pleasing to my untutored eyes as the drawing published in the Press. Bnt we might, I think, take another opinion about this corbelling out of the old bridge and see what Sir Edwin Lutyens said in a report on this very subject. He was asked to give his opinion as to the effect from an artistic point of view of corbelling out the bridge, and this is what he said: I have been unable to arrive at any satisfactory design whereby the bridge can be widened out by corbelling out the parapets or any similar method of addition. And he went on to say: To overhang footways would altogether destroy the architectural character of Rennie's bridge. It would completely mutilate the character of the original design, and would create in fact not only a new bridge but an ugly one. These divergent views from the aesthetic point of view might easily go on for ever. I can see no end to them, and if agreement is so difficult to get on the artistic side is it possible on the more mundane and financial side to get some agreement between the advisors of those who are opposing the London County Council? I will take only four of these unofficial advisors who have stepped forward to help those who are opposing the London County Council with their advice and assistance. I have always heard that those who are advising the opposers of the London County Council are not only architects but engineers, contractors and artists; so that their advice is of a very comprehensive nature. Let me take four of them and see what advice they offer as to the line we should take in regard to the real problem of the work which is proposed in the widening of the bridge and its reconstruction. First let me take the case of a distinguished engineer, or architect, or both, Sir Owen Williams. He has made public a definite statement that under his scheme the old bridge could be removed and a new one designed for six lines of traffic and erected for a total cost of £690,000.

Next I come to the opinion of Mr. Muirhead, to whom the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) has referred as a respectable contractor. Mr. Muirhead is, as he said, an important contractor. He declares that the cost of removing the old bridge alone would be no loss than £550,000, so that if you take the advice of Sir Owen Williams and compare it with the advice of Mr. Muirhead, and assume for a few moments that both are right, the conclusion to which you are driven is that by the time you have removed the old bridge only £140,000 will be left to build the new bridge, that is if both these gentlemen are correct. Now I come to two conspicuous leaders in this opposition to the London County Council—Sir Reginald Blomfield and Mr. D. S. MacColl, and as their opinions as expressed in the Press seem to vary from day to day may I, to use a topical expression, "take the latest news from the course," and quote from two letters which appear from these gentlemen in this morning's "Times"? Mr. MacColl boldly declares that the bridge could be underpinned at a cost no greater than that of pulling it down.

The most careful estimate drawn up by the London County Council, based on a scheme which has been tried out and as to the method by which the bridge will be demolished, shows that the cost of demolishing the existing bridge will be £275,000. If the cost according to Mr. MacColl of underpinning the new bridge is that of pulling down the old bridge, that is, £275,000, it sizes up very badly with the figure quoted by the hon. Member for South Kensington of £550,000. But if we turn to the estimate given this morning in the "Times" by Sir Reginald Blomfield we find that he says "it is possible to do all that is wanted"—at this moment I am not aware whether that means the scheme of underpinning or reconstructing or widening or corbelling out or what—at a cost of £700,000.

I have taken four of the advisers on whom those who are opposing the County Council's scheme have obviously relied. You can pick where you like, but as a business man I am driven to say that personally I cannot make anything of this irreconcilable jumble of figures. If one of them is right then the others are wildly wrong. It is, perhaps, a little fortunate that they may never be called upon to turn their estimates into actual work and to be held responsible for the real cost when the work is over. Let me give the House some figures which have been given to me as regards the cost of these various works which we have had before us. The official cost of demolishing the old bridge and replacing it by a new one for six lines of traffic is stated at £1,295,000. This figure, given by the London County Council and its advisers, contains, I understand, 10 per cent. for contingencies. The estimate bears every evidence of being carefully thought out and accurately made. But the nearest estimate which we can get under the sort of terms and specifications which the London County Council would require, is that the cost of reconditioning and widening the existing bridge to take four lines of traffic would be no less than £1,081,000. That is the figure given by the London County Council. It is widely different from the figure given from the benches behind me.

Sir W. DAVISON

On what is that figure based? The contractor's estimate contains full particulars and specification. My figure is more likely to be the accurate one.

Mr. PYBUS

The hon. Gentleman asked me on what this estimate is based. The estimate is the estimate of the London County Council, who are yearly and daily and hourly in touch with the bridge and all its conditions, and I frankly feel that we are entitled to accept the estimate.

Sir W. DAVISON rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) has already addressed the House at great. length and he should not constantly interrupt.

Mr. PYBUS

I would like to say a few words about the dangerous condition of the bridge. No one who has inspected it, as I have done, and as the engineers are continually doing, would endeavour to belittle the danger of a collapse of the bridge. I understand that for seven or eight years a staff has been engaged night and day watching the state of the bridge. The London County Council alone has expended £7,000 per annum on that account. The bridge is definitely in a very bad state indeed. As most hon. Members will know, the bridge is hollow, with an internal structure of brick. As one creeps along between these brick walls it is quite easy to push a steel feeler straight through the masonry where cracks coincide, as they do in many places. The carriage-way is supported by brick material, which was all that was available in Rennie's time. It means that there is a very heavy weight to be carried on the piers and arches.

There can be no question whatever that the bridge needs immediate tackling; no amount of argument can postpone the fact that the bridge will have to be repaired or replaced, and at once. It is imperative that something be done. I hope that, whatever happens as a result of to-night's Debate, we shall at any rate see to it that work on this bridge, or work on its demolition, is not delayed any further. It is a very important matter that there should be over the Thames at this point a bridge capable of dealing with the traffic properly and efficiently. It is important that the bridge which is to be built to-day should be built not only for to-day but for the generations which are to come. It is absurd to forget that, whilst it is always possible to increase the width of the approaches to the bridge, yet increasing the width of a bridge itself is a terribly costly and difficult proceeding, as we see from the example of the present Waterloo Bridge. The recommendation of the Royal Commission that "Waterloo Bridge should be a four-line bridge, was always a corollary to the proposal for the construction of a new six-line bridge at Charing Cross without unnecessary delay. Personally I deplore the rejection of the Charing Cross Bridge by committee of this House, for statistics show that the volume of traffic in central London is ever increasing. I understand that the hon. Member for South Kensington also now thinks that it was a great mistake to reject the proposals for the Charing Cross Bridge, but I notice that in the Division on the Charing Cross Bridge Bill, when the Second Reading was taken on 19th February, 1930, the name of Sir William Davison appears amongst those who supported the rejection of the Bill.

I would like now to get quickly to the question of economy, which is of crucial importance in these days. No one wishes to evade it. The policy of the National Government with regard to every possible economy has been firmly applied to roads and bridges. In co-operation with local authorities the Ministry of Transport, since the National Government took office, have reduced the commitments on road and bridge works by suspending schemes to the extent of £40,000,000, and the amount available for urgent and important works under the Road Fund is very small indeed. But it may be in the minds of those who are considering the point of economy that if the new Waterloo Bridge was not proceeded with, the result would be an economy of 60 per, cent. of its cost, or £780,000, and that this saving would pass into the Exchequer. That is not the case. The list of really urgent work which must be proceeded with at the earliest possible moment is very large. What would be the result of refusing to allow the six-line bridge scheme to proceed? The London County Council estimates show that the difference between reconstructing the existing bridge, £1,081,000, and the cost of the new bridge, £1,295,000, is £214,000, so that the net effect of proceeding with the work of reconstruction of the bridge for four lines of traffic would be to release for use on other schemes not £780,000, but 60 per cent. of £214,000, which is £128,400.

In our opinion, there is no work so critically urgent and upon which it is so absolutely necessary to proceed with at once as Waterloo Bridge. I hope now that the House will understand that the net effect of adopting the plan of widening Waterloo Bridge, from the financial point of view, would be to render available for the next most urgent schemes on our priority list the sum of £128,400. I hope that, as a result of the case which has been put by those who represent the London County Council, the House will agree that the council, with their close and intimate daily knowledge of this bridge and of its problems, charged by Parliament with the responsibility for its maintenance, is a great and responsible body conscientiously endeavouring to discharge a great duty. It is surely not possible for Parliament, having charged the London County Council with that responsibility, to withhold from them by intervention the necessary authority to carry it out. Therefore, I cannot believe that this proposal of the London County Council will be defeated at the instance of a body of opinion which, however eminent, is unofficial in character, and, obviously, gravely divergent in its views.

Lord BALNIEL

I have very much sympathy with the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) when he tells us that in this matter the London County Council have had a very difficult time. It may be true that in the past this House has not helped the county council. I believe that the county council are doing all they can to come to a proper solution of this problem, but I cannot help feeling that what they have proposed will only intensify the difficulties, will cost much more money and will make the traffic problem incomparably worse than it is to-day. The hon. Member gave us a history of all the negotiations, and I cannot help fearing that there is an attitude that, as we have been harried for years with this problem of the London County Council's bridges, we should finish with it. If this House were to decide this matter in such an atmosphere of defeatism and boredom because no one has any more interest in it, then the House will be failing in its great responsibility. The Minister of Transport seemed not to be answering any of the points made in the Debate, but to be criticising a series of letters which appeared to-day in the "Times." They were letters from people who may be expert in these matters, but for whom we hold no responsibility, and who are at liberty, as far as we are concerned, to cancel out in the "Times" their respective views. The two hon. Members have asked us to get down to hard facts, but neither of them did so. Neither of them answered the points raised in the Debate, and neither of them told us what advantage we were going to get for this expenditure which we are asked to make.

9.30 p.m.

Surely, when everyone has admitted that we have in the combination of Waterloo Bridge, Somerset House and St. Paul's Cathedral a group of river architecture incomparably superior to any similar group in any capital in the world, we are at least entitled to say that we must have overwhelming reasons given to us before we submit to that group being destroyed. What overwhelming reasons have been produced in the speeches to which we have listened? No reasons have been produced and, until they are produced, I feel very reluctant to support the county council and the Government in the action which they propose to take. I said "the Government" perhaps unintentionally, because I have rarely heard so lukewarm a letter of acceptance as that read out by the hon. Member. I think the phrase was that "he would not obstruct the proposal of the London County Council." In no sense is this in any way a Government Measure.

What are we to gain, and what bribe is being held out to us, in order that we should contemplate making this change in the amenities of our town? The bribe of convenience and the bribe that the traffic problem will be solved if we do this. There was no mention made of any insufficiency or difficulties with regard to traffic until the bridge was in danger. Be that as it may, we are told that this will help the traffic problem, but will it do so? Will it help us in the immediate future? Will it give us permanent help? This bridge is going to take five, six, seven or eight years, possibly more, to build. Taking the lowest figure of five years, which is possibly half the correct time, what is going to happen in those five years? We have been told that at that point London needs a six-line crossing over the river, though, in point of fact, the Royal Commission on Cross River Traffic specifically recommended that it was neither necessary nor desirable that a bridge of such dimensions should be erected at this spot. In spite of that, we are told that a six-line crossing in this part of London is necessary. What are you going to do in the next five years? If six lines are necessary, how are you going to put them on the two lines of the temporary bridge?

What will be the position below, on the water? I am no expert in this matter, and no one in this House has a right to speak as an expert, but rather as a man who can assess the rival merits of different experts and, with his experience of the world, give his opinion on their rival ideas. I am told that the destruction of the bridge is in itself a work of which the danger is not fully realised even by many engineers. I am told that it will be absolutely necessary to block up with wooden piling not only the arch which is being pulled down, but the arches on either side. Moreover, when the new bridge is being built, the piers of the existing temporary bridge will, obviously, not be in the same position as the piers of the future bridge, because one bridge has five arches and the other has a different number. What, then, of navigation? What is going to happen while this is taking place in the next five years? It is obvious that, from the point of view of navigation, the river is going to be blocked.

That is the temporary position—two lines of traffic where it is said that six are necessary. If six are necessary, what is going to happen to the lines of traffic which cannot get across the two lines of the temporary bridge? Obviously, as was said in answer to a question in another place by the representative of the Government, it will be necessary to put this traffic round by Westminster and Blackfriars Bridges, and if we look again at the report of Lord Lee's Commission, which is the main authority on this matter, we find that they say upon this point: Any increase would add to the already severe congestion at Northern approaches at Blackfriars and Ludgate Circus, on the one hand. On the other question of Westminster: We consider that the bridge ought not to be called upon to take a larger load than at present. That is the dilemma which the county council have to face. What are they going to do? That is merely the temporary dilemma. That is the difficulty in which we are going to be placed for the next five, or seven, or eight years. But what of the future? What of the permanent position? What of the position when our bridge has been destroyed, when hundreds of thousands of pounds have been unnecessarily sunk in the river, when several years have been wasted and confusion of traffic has resulted? What is to be our permanent reward? I ask hon. Gentlemen to consider what is the position in the Strand to-day? We know from daily experience that there is scarcely a worse block in the whole of the West End. I think that in the City there are worse, but on this side of the City I know of no worse block than the permanent block at the Strand. That stagnation is created, not by swiftly flowing channels of traffic, but by the few vehicles which cross Waterloo Bridge to-day at a nominal rate of three miles an hour. Of course they go faster, but that is the rate at which they are supposed to go when crossing the bridge.

Are you going to stop the congestion in the Strand, and help to deal with the traffic problem, by substituting for those three crawling lines of traffic, six lines of traffic moving at high speed across a great modern bridge? What an extraordinary and farcical proposition. Yet that is what we are being asked to do this evening. To increase the traffic across the bridge from three lines to six lines would inevitably mean chaos. Hon. Gentlemen who advocate this proposal seem to forget the essential fact that a bridge is only a link in a long chain of communication and unless the chain is-complete that link however good and strong in itself is quite useless. There is no object in getting traffic on to a bridge if you cannot get it off the bridge. A very interesting remark was made quite incidentally by the hon. Member for Greenwich when he mentioned the possibility of a subway. I daresay that if this proposal is carried out it will be necessary—in fact I know it will be necessary —to increase the means of access. Today, we know the outlet from Waterloo Bridge is hopeless. There is no direct outlet beyond Wellington Street. There is a small street going up by the Lyceum Theatre and Inveresk House and there is the outlet of Aldwych but the turning at the Strand cannot be improved. The outlet north can only be improved at great expense and I believe that this scheme makes a future expenditure inevitable.

If it does not increase the number of vehicles, the bridge is useless; if it does increase the number of vehicles then the result will be chaos. It is always a good thing in these cases to consider one's own experience and I happen to go over Vauxhall Bridge very frequently. The position there is exactly the same—a splendid, wide, modern bridge but no outlet. The result is that there is invariably a block on the bridge because while you can get on to the bridge you cannot get off it. I do not believe that anyone is held up on the bridge because of the bridge itself but only because the outlet is bad. My hon. Friend has pointed out in a very interesting way that a bridge is entirely different from a street and that three lines of bridge traffic are equivalent to six lines of street traffic. The reasons he gave were that there was no taking up or setting down at shops; that there was no picking up of passengers by omnibuses; that no houses were being built on either side; that there were no turnings to right or left, and that there were no interminable burrowings in the ground in search of faulty gas or electricity mains such as we suffer from in our streets. The result is that the amount of traffic which you can put by a three line bridge into the Strand is equivalent to six lines of traffic in the street.

Unless hon. Gentlemen realise that the approaches to this bridge will have to be reconstructed at immense cost, a fact of which no mention has yet been made, they will fail to understand what we are now being asked to do will mean in the long run. It is of course the question of expense which causes one the gravest dismay. It is this question of expenditure which forms our fundamental objection to the proposal. Is there any reason to suppose that the estimate is correct? My Noble Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) mentioned the cases of a number of bridges, including Westminster Bridge and the Tower Bridge, in which estimates have been greatly exceeded. He also pointed to the notorious case which is today crippling the finances of Liverpool— the notorious case of the Mersey Tunnel, in which an under-estimate was made because the engineer forgot that ventilation was necessary. It may have been my stupidity, but when I interrupted my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, I could not make out what his reply meant. I asked him whether there was any definite monetary limitation to the amount that we are being asked this evening to spend, and I was not clear as to whether the answer was "Yes" or "No."

Mr. PYBUS

I can make that point clear. The grant is always made available to an approved estimate. If that estimate is exceeded, there is no liability to pay a grant on such excess expenditure.

Lord BALNIEL

Then do I understand that the estimate of £1,300,000 is approved? Is that so? The hon. Gentle- man is Minister of Transport, and we are the House of Commons, and we are being asked to spend money and we want to know how much.

Mr. PYBUS

We have found no reason at all so far to doubt or mistrust the estimate given by the London County Council, and without giving a definite decision at this moment, I have no doubt that we shall probably accept the estimate and base our grant upon it.

Lord BALNIEL

The position is, I understand, that while the Minister has great confidence in the estimate of the London County Council, he is not prepared yet to say if that exact estimate of £1,300,000 is the estimate on which we shall give our grant?

Mr. PYBUS

The figure on which a grant will be given is the figure that represents the approved estimate, and I have just stated that, so far as I can see, we shall accept the estimate of the London County Council of £1,300,000.

Lord BALNIEL

I very much hope that we can all share the optimism of my hon. Friend that £1,300,000 will be the correct figure but I do not know. We have very great responsibilities. We have grave responsibilities to the taxpayer. We, on this side of the House, were elected to prevent unnecessary expenditure of public money. Many of us have felt that we have not had the opportunities which we would like to have had to put into concrete form what we believe to be our duties and responsibilities. Many of us, further, think that grants to local authorities, however important those authorities may be—I am not saying anything against the importance of the London County Council—are among the things which must be very carefully and most rigidly scrutinised, particularly in a case like this, where we have quite definitely not been given the reasons why we are being asked to spend this money.

I do not wish to go into all the figures that my hon. Friend has given. I do not wish to repeat the alternative proposals which we desire to put before the House. Broadly speaking, however, they are that the bridge should be reconditioned and, if necessary—and I accept that it may be necessary—widened to four lines of traffic. Evidence came before the Lee Commission that the under- pinning—and therefore making perfectly stable for as long as these things can be made stable, for the life of any bridge— was a perfectly simple engineering proposition. The widening solution was again one which was recommended by Lord Lee. I was amused by the Minister of Transport telling us that the corbel-ling-out would injure the beauty of the bridge. It seemed strange from one who a moment before was willing to destroy a masterpiece to show so great a solicitude as to whether any details of its architectural perfection should be impaired or not. I would further point out to my hon. Friend that while he quotes Sir Edwin Lutyens as saying that the beauty of the bridge would be impaired if the corbelling-out took place, yet Sir Edwin Lutyens was one of the keenest opponents of my hon. Friend's proposal to pull down the bridge. These are things which it would be well for us to remember.

We should, of course, regret corbelling-out. The bridge would no doubt not be quite so majestic as it was before. I admit that, but we have not very far to go in order to see the result of the corbelling-out of a bridge. London Bridge was built by the son of Rennie. It is not so majestic a bridge as Rennie's bridge; none the less, it is the second best bridge in London, and if you wish to see what corbelling-out can do for a bridge and how little it may affect its beauty, you have no farther to go to see it than to London Bridge. At any rate, that is the concession—the widening of the bridge—which I, for one, would be prepared to make to the supposed needs of the traffic.

I do not wish either to go into the question of the estimates. They have been mocked at and laughed at, but the fact remains that from the London County Council we have had an estimate which may or may not be correct, and that we have had an estimate prepared by Mr. Dalrymple Hay, who knows more of the under-water conditions of London than any other man in the world. He is the chief consulting engineer of the Underground Railways, and has himself been engaged in tunnelling the Thames and in keeping watch on that part of London for the benefit of his clients, the Underground Railways. Not only has that estimate been made, which would reduce the cost enormously, by 50 per cent. at least, but that estimate has been backed by two of the biggest firms of contractors in London. My hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is not doing himself justice when he suggests that the estimates of Messrs. Mowlem & Co. are not perfectly genuine estimates, and that a great firm of British engineers like that, when it says that it will do a work of that nature at that price, does not at any rate intend to do it.

In conclusion, let me say that additional advantages of our scheme are that it can be carried out far more briefly than the other, that it will cost half the price of the county council's scheme, and that it can be done without holding up the traffic on the bridge for a single day and without impeding by a single inch the navigable part of the river. That is the alternative that is offered. It is not indeed incumbent upon us to offer alternatives, and any alternatives that a layman might offer would probably come in for much criticism and much serious change. None the less, we are laymen, and we have to decide between the advice of many expert engineers; we have to decide in our own minds the obvious question, which any one of us can decide as well as the Minister of Transport, about traffic; and we have to decide for what the National Government was elected. Was it or was it not to see that every item of public expenditure was scrutinised to the last possible farthing?

Mr. THOMAS

Whatever views there may be on the merits of this Bill, there will be general agreement in congratulating the Noble Lord the Member for Lonsdale (Lord Balniel) on a magnificent speech. When we remember the work of his father in this connection, we heartily congratulate him on the way in which he has reflected his views. My only justification for intervention is that in the late Government I was responsible for bringing the parties together to consider the Charing Cross Bridge scheme. My object then was to find employment. This was a scheme on which there were many differences of opinion, and I brought the parties together in an effort to get agreement. The Mover of this Motion to-night based his case on Charing Cross as being the means of dealing with the traffic problem, but the rejection of the Charing Cross scheme made it inevitable that the London County Council should bring for- ward this Bill. [Interruption.] The House must judge, and we must face the facts of the situation. No one will deny that with the rejection of the Charing Cross proposal the Waterloo Bridge proposal became inevitable as a problem that must be faced. There can be no difference of opinion on that. If that be the fact, I want to put to the House that we do not gain much by bandying about the names of certain engineers or architects. Would any Member of the House, if he were faced with this problem as a business proposition, accept the bald general statement about estimates which has been given to-night? If my Noble Friend is justified in criticising the estimates of the London County Council on the ground that past experience proves that they are always exceeded, what guarantee is there that his estimate will not be exceeded?

Marquess of HARTINGTON

These are detailed and specific estimates for carrying out certain work on the existing structure. The House has never seen any plans or any estimates with regard to the London County Council scheme.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. THOMAS

I ask the House to observe that justification. The justification is that the London County Council is so incompetent, so blind to their responsibilities, that they themselves have no knowledge whatever of the cost of their scheme. Let me ask the Noble Lord this question. Is it fair in a Debate of this kind to broadcast to the world that we are careless? Do not forget that I am approaching this question on the ground of economy and saving. However serious may be our position, we do not gain anything by broadcasting that fact on an issue of this kind. No one knows better than the Noble Lord that if we were faced with an expenditure, not of £1,300,000 but £4,000,000, in the county we both represent, and he knew that it would save the disaster that has just taken place in Derby, we would not view it from the standpoint of the question of hundreds of thousands of pounds, but we would say that it would be good economy to save the disaster. In coming to their conclusion to-night, hon. Members must remember, if they are not Members for London, how very unfairly they are treating London in dealing with this question at all. How many new Members of this House realise that when they vote they are voting on a question on which, if the expenditure were £1,500,000 or £3,000,000 and it concerned a bridge for Manchester, or Liverpool, or Newcastle, or any other town, not one of them would have a right to vote? [Interruption.] I say that if we were dealing with Hull, Manchester, Glasgow or Liverpool and the issue was the reconstruction of a bridge that the local authority had decided was essential, this House would have no voice.

Lord BALNIEL

What about the Mersey Tunnel?

Mr. THOMAS

The Noble Lord, magnificently as, I admit, he got up his case, evidently does not understand the difference. The reason that the House has an opportunity to debate and to vote on this Motion is that the London County Council by Statute is compelled every year to come to this House. That is the difference, and I would ask the House to keep that fact clearly in mind. I have listened with interest to a solution of the traffic problem from the Noble Lord, and with the greatest respect I say to him that a number of people have been engaged on it for 40 years, and anyone who sees the London traffic problem to-day views with apprehension what will be the position in four or five years time. Therefore, if you reject this proposal, having rejected the Charing Cross proposal, you must inevitably take the responsibility of saying that you will aggravate the traffic problem and not ease it. I would ask the House to consider one other aspect of the problem. Suppose the Motion be carried. Suppose the London County Council, without complaining or squirming at the action of the House, says, "We accept the verdict. What is our next course?" They then call all the parties together and say, "Let us go into this question without prejudice, without bias, and with a single-minded desire to find some other solution." That solution, unanimously agreed to, is the one presented to the House to-night, and if we rule it out are we, the House of Commons, to take over the responsibility of the London County Council in regard to this matter? [Interruption.] It is no use hon. Members saying "No." It may be they do not want to accept that responsibility, it may be they would run away from it, but the fact remains that that would be the inevitable result of carrying this Instruction and the House ought to hesitate before accepting such a responsibility.

Let us frankly face the facts. Here is a duly elected body, chosen by the people, responsible not only for the bridges but for the traffic problem of London, presented with a report which says that this bridge is dangerous, a report signed by the most distinguished engineers in the country. What other course was open to them than to take advice on how to meet the situation? They took such advice, and that advice is embodied in this proposal, and I repeat that unless the House is prepared to take over from the London County Council a responsibility which is theirs now it must hesitate before rejecting this Measure. In addition to that I ask hon. Members from outside London, Members from Liverpool and from Doncaster, who in the last few weeks have been urging upon the Government to deal with certain phases of the internal problems of those places which the local authorities could not themselves cope with, what would be their responsibility in going into the Lobby and taking away from the elected representatives of London the power to govern their own affairs?

Sir HENRY JACKSON

Six years ago, when practically the same Motion was before the House, it was my privilege to speak as a Member of the London Traffic Advisory Committee and to express their views on that proposal from the point of view of traffic, and I propose to do the same to-night, great as is the temptation to deal with the other phases of this great problem. The value of a bridge depends primarily upon its ability to carry traffic, and, if it is across a river, not to be an impediment to the river itself. We have definitely come to the conclusion that from the point of view of the river problem alone this bridge is not only a menace but that any attempt to widen it with the existing arches would make navigation infinitely more difficult. May I address myself purely to the question of the cross-river traffic? For the last seven years I have been a member of the London Traffic Advisory Committee. We have tried to deal with the problem of London traffic, and nothing plays a greater part in that problem than the bridges across the Thames. We have surveyed all those bridges from the Tower to Windsor. We have from time to time advised the local authorities under whose control they are, and I would like to read a few sentences from our advice regarding Waterloo Bridge: Waterloo Bridge has failed by reason of its age and traffic stresses. It is clear that a road bridge at this point cannot be dispensed with, and also that the present temporary structure cannot be regarded as anything more than a makeshift. The bridge may be reconstructed to its present dimensions, or a new bridge providing for additional lines of traffic must be built. Having regard to the estimates of the cost and of the small additional expenditure required to provide for additional width we are driven to the conclusion, purely on traffic grounds, that a new bridge to accommodate not less than four lines of traffic should be proceeded with as soon as possible. That is our very definite decision. Let me give a few figures to show the traffic across Waterloo Bridge and its neighbours to-day. In July of last year a census was taken of the traffic over a period of 12 hours, from 8 to 8, and the figures were: Blackfriars, 17,000 motors and horse vehicles; Waterloo, 11,000; London, 18,000; Westminster, 27,000 The fact of the matter is that Waterloo to-day is not only not taking its share of the traffic of that part of London, but, what is much more important, is adding in an increasing way to the burdens of Westminster and Blackfriars. We are very definitely of opinion that the time has come when, in this part of central London, we must increase the number of lines of traffic. The Royal Commission rightly and properly said that we need 10 lines of traffic at that point. We need a new Charing Cross Bridge with six lines, and certainly a new Waterloo with at least four. We have at the present moment Waterloo Bridge, which for all practical purposes has only two lines of traffic, and so the urgency of a new bridge with six lines of traffic is becoming more and more vital, if the building of Charing Cross is indefinitely postponed.

I will deal with one more point. What is to happen to the congestion in the Strand if by any chance we should increase the lines of traffic from, shall I say, the present two to six? One of the advantages of having had six years respite between the last Debate and this has been that the Advisory Committee have been able to try many experiments. Some have been more or less successful and some have not been successful at all, but at least two have been outstanding successes—the introduction of one-way traffic, with its corollary of the roundabout method, and, secondly, and much more recently, the introduction of light-control signals. Fortunately we have had experience now for 18 months of a roundabout at the junction of Wellington Street and the Strand, and it provides the real answer to my Noble Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Lord Balniel). That roundabout has not only completely demonstrated its success, but demonstrated, what is much more important, that it is possible by means of a roundabout to deal not only with the existing traffic but with a much larger amount of traffic. We are convinced that, if there were a bridge with six lines of traffic there, the present fluidity of traffic is such that not only would congestion not happen but that the traffic would be admirably dealt with. The police report on congestion in the neighbourhood of the Strand since this experiment was tried is that it has resulted in a steady improvement in the flow of traffic, and a report from an engineer of the Ministry says: The actual time which is now taken by an omnibus from Charing Cross Station to Waterloo Bridge, was observed to be four and a-half minutes of which two and a-quarter are taken in getting from Wellington Street on to the bridge, and the result has been that the long lines we used to have stretching from the Tivoli Cinema to the bridge itself have entirely disappeared. We now have a steady flow along the Strand of something like 20,000 vehicles a day, plus 10,000 that come to and from the bridge, all moving harmoniously. It is true that we ask motorists, and the drivers of horse vehicles, to spend two-and-a-half minutes more in doing the longer tour, but there is now only one hold-up in the traffic between Wellington Street and the Strand, and we are confident that by that method we have the answer to our friends who ask how we can deal with the six lines of traffic over Waterloo Bridge. The result is that we have found a new method of dealing with this congestion, and we believe that this new instrument is really effective in dealing with all bridge heads. Wherever you establish a roundabout, whether at Westminster or in Ludgate Circus or elsewhere, you have the means of dealing with the increasing amount of traffic which flows over the bridges and relieving the congestion that formerly occurred.

Finally, I think it will be admitted by all that our lighting signal experiments have been a great success, and we have been advised on all hands that we have increased the flow of traffic in Oxford Street in a remarkable manner. The metropolitan boroughs and the Ministry of Transport have recently come to an agreement by means of which the traffic light signals will be extended throughout London, and I know of no part where they would be more satisfactory than at the junction of the Strand and Wellington Street. We believe that in the combination of roundabouts and light signals we have an arrangement which will go far to solve the problem of congestion. The members of the London Traffic Advisory Committee feel, as they did six years ago, that a new bridge at Waterloo is an urgent necessity in that part of London.

Sir WILLIAM RAY

Perhaps the House will bear for a short time with another member of the London County Council. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) is the only Member who, so far, has spoken from the London County Council point of view, and perhaps it might be useful if I added a few words in support of the case which he has made out. I suppose it is very difficult for any Members of this House who read certain newspapers and attend certain learned societies to think that any member of the London County Council can really have a deep love for London. I can assure hon. Members that we do take as deep a pride in London and in London development and London beauty as any of those critics who have used harsh terms about the members of the London County Council. The only difference is that we show our love for London by service, and not by writing to the daily Press and instructing other people how they shall carry out the administration of London. I ask the House to believe that I never in my life gave two votes with greater regret than my two votes for the destruction of Waterloo Bridge. By training, by instinct, by everything that animates one, I have a veneration for what is old and what I think is beautiful, and I never gave two votes with greater regret than the votes that I gave on those two separate occasions in 1926 and a few months ago. But those of us who are engaged in the day-by-day donkey work of the administration of the greatest city in the world have had the position forced upon us, and I want to put that point of view to the House this evening.

It was in 1925 that our first proposal came for putting up a new bridge for six lines of traffic. The present Lord President of the Council, very properly realising the difficulties of the situation, set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the cross-river traffic and the bridges of London, and we postponed all operations until that Commission had reported. The Commission reported. It is true that they recommended a four-line bridge at Waterloo, but that was conditional on a six-line bridge at Charing Cross, and, incidentally, I should like to remind the Noble Lord the Member for Lonsdale (Lord Balniel) that the Royal Commission, in their report, after their examination of Mr. Dalrymple-Hay in the witness-box, blew sky-high the whole of the methods which he put before this House to-night with regard to under-pinning. Instead of the destruction of two piers and arches of the bridge, five arches of the bridge had to be demolished for the purpose of carrying out the work. After referring the whole matter to one of the most distinguished engineers of the day, the Royal Commission, who were not entirely favourable to the London County Council's proposals, completely demolished the case for the under-pinning of Waterloo Bridge.

We went forward; we produced our Charing Cross Bridge scheme; it was defeated by a Committee of this House. We were asked to ask leave of the House to recommit the Bill, but we had too much respect for the High Court of Parliament to think that it would be right for a local authority to come to the House and ask it to override the decision of a Select Committee appointed to deal with a Bill. We did not come to the House with that request, but we set up a Committee composed—and I hope that hon. Members will recognise the importance of this—of the critics of the London County Council. The Royal Institute of British Architects, the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Fine Arts Commission, and all the other bodies which have spent their time in criticising our proposals, were invited to form a Committee, on which only two members of the London County Council sat. The result of their proposals was embodied in the last Bill which we submitted to this House, and which was turned down for reasons of economy. What happened? Just as in the case of our first Bill, the hounds were in full cry as soon as it was presented, and the very position in which we are to-day is due solely to the people whose only interest has been in maintaining Waterloo Bridge as it now stands. It is an unfortunate situation.

There was nothing else for us to do but to resort to our original proposal, and we put it before the House on this occasion. The London County Council which passed this resolution a few months ago included 72 members who were not members of the London County Council which passed the resolution in 1925. We are fairly responsible people. The majority—in February Last, 90 odd to 23—in that body, is composed of professional men, doctors, barristers, solicitors, engineers, even architects. All types of mind are represented. It is only after the fullest consideration that a body of that type presents things of this kind to this House. We have had two elections since 1925. Not one of our critics has ever offered himself to the electors to help us with our work. Not one of them has done a stroke in the administrative government of London. They can sit in armchairs and write and criticise. Their advice, their knowledge, their technical experience would be invaluable to us in dealing with this matter, and their value would be twice as great if they were sitting on the London County Council instead of sitting at a meeting, say, of the London Society.

We have a right to expect that those who tear the work of great administrative bodies to pieces might sometimes come and take a little share in it. We have some sort of grievance which can only be expressed by a member of the London County Council who is rather tired after spending nearly eight years on this problem, and I think right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench know full well that the whole of that eight years has been spent in trying to meet the wishes of those who have been our opponents. We have been face to face with a difficult position. I am not going to argue traffic. The hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) has done that. We are satisfied that the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, the Ministry of Transport, and witnesses such as Sir Henry Maybury are worth all the amateur writers who express themselves from day to day. We are prepared to take the estimate of the distinguished engineers who are engaged by us for that specific work. I am as much entitled to take their estimates as our friends are to take the estimates of people who have not been asked to examine closely the work they have to undertake. There has in reality been no case made out against our proposal tonight except the aesthetic case, to which I am willing to pay some tribute, but I should despair of the artistic future of England if we felt in the 20th century that there was no one capable of erecting a beautiful bridge. You have no faith in your generation. That is one of the things that we should consider to-night.

10.30 p.m.

One other point. If I am entitled to express resentment, I resent being called an extravagant administrator. Hon. Members opposite and their colleages have called me far different things from that in regard to the administration of London. We pride ourselves on being economists—not lip service economists, but actual economists. If hon. Members would close their cars for a few minutes —I do not wish to lose their support— I would draw attention to the fact that this House has just cut down our grants in one year by £1,900,000, and we have saved that sum in administration. In addition to saving that, we have saved the ratepayers £250,000 by reducing the rates by a further penny. We have put away £550,000 for any contingencies which may happen because of duties imposed upon us by this House. I submit that, having done those things, no Member in this House has a right to call us an extravagant body. The Government have passed on to us the duty of administering transitional benefit. We shall save them within the first 12 months £1,000,000 upon that service alone. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] I asked hon. Members opposite to close their ears. This is my reply to hon. Gentlemen who say that the London County Council has deliberately come forward with an extravagant and extraordinary scheme. I ask hon. Members to believe that a body which has an economical administrative record like ours is not one which is going to waste either the ratepayers' or the taxpayers' money in order to gratify their desires. We have applied the best of our ability to this problem. We have been balked repeatedly by those who are the friends of the maintenance of the old structure, and we are driven back to the original solution, which is the economical solution, because we will settle the problem of cross-river traffic for our generation.

I have not the time, and it would not be fair to whoever is going to reply, to develop any argument as to the south side of the river, so I will close on one note only. This House has devolved upon the local authorities serious and important duties. This House is bound to trust those authorities to do their work in the best possible way. It is bound in the days to come to devolve other important duties upon local authorities. Do not frighten off men and women who will be good public servants by reversing important decisions to which they may come. The House has a serious responsebility in this matter. It has given us within the last two years extraordinary duties in regard to public assistance and public health. It has given us extraordinary duties in regard to housing, and so on. I ask the House, Have we failed you in any respect? Have the great municipalities of this country forfeited the confidence which the House has placed in them? We give our lives to the service of a great body like that, and we give our time, day by day, week in and week out, probably to some of the most important work which is performed in this country. I ask hon. Members to believe that a body like ours does not approach this problem from any whim or from any preconceived notion, or from vandalism and all the rest of the epithets which have been hurled about, but, within our lights, we endeavour to do our duty by the people who elect us. We endeavour to do our duty by the Parliament which imposes duties upon us. I believe that it will be a fearful blow to the administration of local government in this country if to-night a matter like this is defeated by a vote.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper)

We have just listened to a very urgent and eloquent appeal which, coming from the hon Member who made it, must carry great weight with this House. I am well aware of the value of the work which he has performed on the London County Council, and I am sure that we are also well aware of the important work the council performs, and of the great attention we must give to any recommendation which they may put before us. I feel certain also that while there is no Member of this House who would underrate the importance of the county council, or would willingly take any step or make any protest that would interfere with their well-developed and carefully thought out plans, or would hurt the feelings of that great body, I am equally sure that there is no member of the London County Council who would for one moment deny that this House possesses the right, and, indeed, is under the duty, of very carefully investigating any Bill brought before it, and not allowing it to be passed until the House was satisfied. This is the Imperial Parliament. Much as we value the importance of local government, much as in the future we may have to extend, as the hon. Member has suggested, the powers of local government, we must always bear the ultimate and the final responsibility, and I would suggest that in this particular matter of local government London stands in a different position from any other locality in the country. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) seemed to be appealing to electors of other constituencies not to take any part in the Division, or not to vote against the will of the people of London. He mentioned Doncaster and Liverpool and asked why should they interfere with London. While he was speaking I was beginning to wonder why the right hon. Member for Derby had intervened in the Debate.

Mr. THOMAS

It is only fair to say that I did not make that statement. I asked hon. Members representing other constituencies when they voted to keep in mind the fact that they were voting on an issue on which if it affected their constituencies they would not have an opportunity of voting.

Mr. COOPER

The interpretation that I put upon the words of the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct. Liverpool and Doncaster are in a different position from London in regard to this matter. Great and important as the City of Liverpool is, it is not, like London, the centre and heart of the country and the Empire. There are hundreds of thousands of British subjects all over the world to whom, when they think of England, the word "England" brings up in their mind a vision of the House of Commons Clock Tower, of the dome of St. Paul's Cathedral and of the bridges that lie between, and we have a responsibility towards those people in deciding matters as regards London slightly different from the way in which we would decide matters in regard to smaller localities. We all have a right and a duty to vote on this matter and we should look upon it as a national question. The local authority have decided it according to local conditions and local considerations. We should look upon it as a national matter.

What is the most urgent duty of the National Government of the present time? From all quarters of the House and from all political parties we are urged to observe economy. I am sure that every hon. Member who will be supporting the Bill to-night, and who will vote against the Instruction, would enthusiastically applaud any general Motion in favour of drastic economy. It is always the same story in regard to economy. Make a general proposition in favour of it and you will get enthusiastic support, but bring forward one single practical proposal and you are met with insuperable difficulties. The amount of money involved in this particular matter is not enormous. I am not going to give the House any further statistics, because we have had a great many and they have been extremely conflicting. The Minister of Transport did not score a very telling point when he quoted from letters to the "Times" written by different men quite independently and from a different point of view, and then subtracted their figures and reduced the result to absurdity.

Nor do I think he was quite fair in sneering at the figures which have been produced by responsible contractors. They are figures which are worthy of consideration. He told us that the cost of underpinning the bridge and restoring it to a state in which it would be able to carry four lines of traffic would be £300,000 less than the destruction of the bridge and the building of a new one. That was the Minister of Transport's own figure. We doubt it profoundly. We think that the figure is much too low, that the difference is much greater and the saving far more, but even the saving of that small amount is surely worth while. Then is it not worth while for the Government to give some indication to local authorities of their desire for economy. The hon. Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray) told us very eloquently of the economies which the London County Council have been able to effect. We were all delighted to hear it, but that is no argument why they should now spend more money than they need to spend. Whenever we ask for economy on the part of Government Departments we are always told of the reductions in expenditure that have been made. There is not a Government Department which has not been cut to the bone, yet we anticipate asking them to make further cuts in the future. Surely our position will be strengthened rather than weakened if we insist on this one practical measure of saving to-night. We have had again the old excuse that this is a saving in the long run. Have not we all made that excuse in our own daily lives whenever we have been hesitating between buying an expensive and a cheaper car. Has it not always been pointed out that the expensive car saves money in the long run.

Mr. McGOVERN

Take an omnibus.

Mr. COOPER

I saw an advertisement the other day, "Taxis work out cheaper in the long run." Is it not the case that every tradesmen endeavours to persuade the customer to buy the more expensive article under the impression that it Is cheaper. That argument will always be put forward to defeat any practical proposal for saving money. With regard to the traffic problem, I have not been convinced that this proposal will really assist it in any way. Those who are supporting the Bill are in favour of the alternative proposal of a new bridge at Charing Cross and reconstructing Waterloo Bridge to carry four lines of traffic. That is admittedly the ideal solution. The times have changed, and we do not know whether they are going to improve or get worse, but in any case surely we should wait and then if times improve and the country gets richer in a few years we can proceed with the ideal solution of a new bridge at Charing Cross thus really solving the traffic problem.

Sir W. RAY

Can the hon. Member assure us that such a proposal will be accepted?

Mr. COOPER

That would be the ideal solution, and meanwhile we can take a step towards the improvement of this bridge. That was partly a recommendation of the Royal Commission. Let us remember that it is also important to have economy in Royal Commissions. Governments are sometimes criticised for setting up too many. It certainly is no economy to set up a Royal Commission and take no notice of its recommendations. If we are better off in a few years time we can proceed with the ideal solution, and we shall meanwhile have taken a step in the right direction now. On the other hand, if the prophecies of gloom and disaster prove to be true, we need not worry so much about the traffic problem in London; if we are to get poorer and poorer and commerce and trade are to decay, the traffic will not increase. The traffic problem among others will then solve itself, and the present Waterloo Bridge will carry all the traffic. In these matters of deciding between two courses I am always in favour of the rather drastic course of economy or else the whole programme of expenditure. It is much better to do a thing properly and spend money or else save all the money you can and not take the middle course. I am sure that if the people of this country understood this problem they would agree with that procedure. It is signifi- cant that the second class on the railways has practically disappeared. The explanation probably is that the Englishman either wants to spend money and have a good time or else to save as much as he can and ride rough. I strongly advise the method of rigid economy which we are proposing in the Instruction which has been moved.

With regard to the aesthetic consideration, we perhaps are not an ideal body to decide; we do not pretend to be an assembly of arbiters of elegance. But at the same time, while we are not peculiarly fitted to take a view with regard to this matter, it is our duty to take aesthetic consideraions into our minds; it is our duty to preserve the beauties of England just as much as it is to protect her liberties and maintain her laws. On this matter there are no two opinions. A great deal has been said about the different views and the different proposals of one set of people and another, but there is no one who has criticised or questioned the aesthetic beauty of the present Waterloo Bridge. I am not sure that I agreed with the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) when he was deploring the stagnation of Venice. I am not sure that I do not prefer the stagnation of Venice to the pulsating life of some great modern city like Chicago. I think the hon. Member was rather unfortunate in selecting Venice, because the one thing I do remember, the one blot that very nearly marred Venice, to my mind, was the perfectly hideous iron bridge put up by the municipality for utilitarian purposes.

As to the beauty of Waterloo Bridge there are no two opinions. I do not for one moment accept the view of the hon. Member for Richmond that we do not believe there is a single architect in England capable of building a beautiful new bridge. We do not take that view in the least, and there is no reason why we should take it. The fact remains that for the last thousand years no English architect has built one like it. Those who are supporting the Bill have secured the services of a very great artist, but I am quite sure that, artist and architect as he is, he will be the last person in the world to say he is able to build as beautiful a bridge as that which stands to-day. Perhaps he could build as good a bridge, but it would not be Waterloo Bridge as it is to-day, for that would be gone for ever. This is not a matter like a question of money, where you can undertake to repay and make good. Not even the greatest artist who has ever lived could undertake to replace Waterloo Bridge. Once it is destroyed, it is gone for ever; it can never be replaced. I was surprsied to hear the hon. Member for Richmond say that the Royal Commission had blown sky-high the proposition of underpinning the bridge. If one looks at the actual words used by the Royal Commission, one finds they say that they were impressed by the fact that in the evidence which came before them no engineering expert went so far as to assert that it was impossible to secure the stability of the bridge by underpinning, and that, whether one regarded such a solution as desirable or not, it must be regarded as a practicable engineering problem. How can anyone say after that that this proposal has been blown sky high?

The case is simply this: It has been proved that the bridge can be underpinned, and in a way to enable it to carry four lines of traffic. It has been proved that that would cost a substantially smaller sum of money than the proposal to destroy the bridge and set up a new one. It has been proved that the bridge is one of great architectural beauty and an historic monument. For all these reasons, I should have thought the House would have come to only one decision in the matter. This is not a party question, and nobody should go away with the impression that it is a question upon which the Government have taken any definite line. The Minister of Transport read a letter in which he showed how far the Government were committed. That letter informed the London County Council that if, as a result of their deliberations, they brought forward a proposal of this kind, the Government would do nothing to obstruct it. The Government have done nothing to obstruct it, and they have amply fulfilled that undertaking.

This is not a party question, but perhaps I may be forgiven if I make an appeal to-night to Members of my own party, the Conservative party. Here we have a memorial set up 100 years ago to one of the greatest battles ever fought. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] It was solemnly dedicated to the memory of that battle, though it was not set up as a particular memorial, because our ancestors, more economical than we are, instead of spending money on war memorials, chose something which was being set up, anyhow, and dedicated it as a war memorial—a most sensible plan. It was dedicated to the memory of that battle, one of the most momentous battles in which British forces have ever engaged, and the greatest battle ever won by a British field marshal. He himself was present at the dedication of this memorial. It is acknowledged to be a work of great architectural beauty, and the last time this matter was discussed in this House we had somebody better qualified to advise us on architectural questions—the late Member for the Combined English Universities, Sir Martin Conway, who said it was held to be the finest achievement in architecture of the 19th century, not only in this country, but in any country in the world. I should have thought that when you have a great historic monument which, by extraordinarily good fortune—for we are not too rich in works of architecture—is also an architectural treasure, Members of the Conservative party would have thought that here at least was something worth conserving.

Even if great financial sacrifice were involved, I for one, would be prepared to recommend that it was worth spending money to preserve the bridge. My Noble Friend the Member for Western Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) took the opposite line and said that he would actually be prepared to recommend an ugly structure if it were cheaper. I do not share that view. I would, even in these hard times, advocate the spending of money to save this unique masterpiece, this interesting historical memorial. But the extraordinary thing in this case is that those who ask the House to save this bridge ask the House at the same time to save money. It is nearly always the other way round. One nearly always has to choose between beauty and economy, In this instance the road to beauty and the road to economy converge. Not once or twice in our rough island-story, Has the road to economy, been the road to architectural glory. After the long hours which we have spent in this House going through the Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading stages of Bills, we often go away wondering whether we have achieved such important and beneficial work as we are assured we have. Same of us may wish to see material proof of the results of our labours. If this Instruction is carried those who vote for it will at least have that privilege in the future. When they are suffering from that feeling or mood of pessimism, that dejection into which some people occasionally fall, they will be able to walk out on to the Embankment and look at the bridge which will be, in part, the work of their hands, and every one of them will be like a miniature Horatius able to congratulate himself upon How well he saved the bridge In the brave days of old.

Mr. LANSBURY

I would not intervene were it not that I desire to say that we who sit here have made up our minds for once to support the Conservative London County Council. [An HON. MEMBER: "That has done it!"] Whether that has done it or not, we are here, anyhow, to vote on this subject as we have a right to do. As one of the oldest London residents in this House I would like to say that I think all the talk about the beauty of Waterloo Bridge in its present position next door to the ugly monstrosity of the Charing Cross Bridge is real nonsense. I wish also to say that those who are concerned about London are rather tired of the battledore and shuttlecock which has gone on in connection with this question. We have a respect for experts and artists, but we object to the convenience of Londoners being held up as it has been held up during the last two or three years. Further, we believe that if any alteration is to be made that alteration ought to be on the lines of getting rid of the railway bridge as well as giving us a real thoroughfare from north to south. We believe that for once the experts are wrong.

Sir W. DAVISON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put", but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. LANSBURY

The late Mr. Harry Gosling proved in this House that it would be impossible to rehabilitate that bridge, and for those reasons and others we propose to-night to vote in favour of the London County Council.

Question put, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they leave out the provision of money for the demolition of Waterloo Bridge and the erection of a new bridge contained in Part I, Item 6 (a), of the First Schedule to the Bill.

The House divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 154.

Division No. 206.]	AYES.	[11.0 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Emrys-Evans, P. V.	Milne, Charles
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Entwistle, Cyril Fullard	Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)	Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.	Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)	Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)	Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)	Morrison, William Shepherd
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)	Everard, W. Lindsay	Muirhead, Major A. J.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Fielden, Edward Brockiehurst	Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Foot, Dingle (Dundee)	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kant, Dover)	Ford, Sir Patrick J.	Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Atkinson, Cyril	Ganzonl, Sir John	North, Captain Edward T.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Goff, Sir Park	O'Connor, Terence James
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)	Goldie, Noel B.	Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Balniel, Lord	Gower, Sir Robert	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Pearson, William G.
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)	Greene, William P. C.	Peat, Charles U.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Penny, Sir George
Beit, Sir Alfred L.	Grimston, R. V.	Perkins, Walter R. D.
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)	Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Pickering, Ernest H.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Hales, Harold K.	Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)	Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)	Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Boulton, W. W.	Hanley, Dennis A.	Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Harris, Sir Percy	Ramsbotham, Herwald
Boyce, H. Leslie	Hartland, George A.	Ramsden, E.
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald	Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.	Rankin, Robert
Bracken, Brendan	Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)	Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham.
Briant, Frank	Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)	Reid, David D. (County Down)
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George	Hornby, Frank	Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Brockiebank, C. E. R.	Horobin, Ian M.	Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)	Horsbrugh, Florence	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)	Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.	Robinson, John Roland
Browne, Captain A. C.	Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)	Ropner, Colonel L.
Buchan, John	Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)	Ross, Ronald D.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Jennings, Roland	Ross, Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Burnett, John George	Jesson, Major Thomas E.	Rothschild, James A. de
Cadogan, Hon. Edward	Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Runge, Norah Cecil
Carver, Major William H.	Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)	Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)	Ker, J. Campbell	Salt, Edward W.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)	Kerr, Hamilton W.	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh	Kimball, Lawrence	Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)	Knebworth, Viscount	Scone, Lord
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)	Law, Sir Alfred	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Clayton, Dr. George C.	Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)	Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Colfox, Major William Philip	Leech, Dr. J. W.	Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Conant, R. J. E.	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Cook, Thomas A.	Lennox-Boyd, A. T.	Skelton, Archibald Noel
Cooper, A. Duff	Levy, Thomas	Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Klnc'dine, C.)
Copeland, Ida	Liddall, Walter S.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Cranborne, Viscount	Lindsay, Noel Ker	Smithers, Waldron
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)	Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest	Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick	Soper, Richard
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Loder, Captain J. de Vere	Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.	Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander	Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.	Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.	MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)	Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Dickie, John P.	MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert	McEwen, Captain J. H. F.	Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Donner, P. W.	McKeag, William	Stones, James
Dower, Captain A. V. G.	McKie, John Hamilton	Storey, Samuel
Drewe, Cedric	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)	Stourton, Hon. John J.
Duckworth, George A. V.	Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest	Strauss, Edward A.
Duggan, Hubert John	Martin, Thomas B.	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Dunglass, Lord	Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)	Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Millar, Sir James Duncan	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Ellis, Robert Geoffrey	Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)	Sutcliffe, Harold
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Tate, Mavis Constance
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)	Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Thorp, Linton Theodore	Waterhouse, Captain Charles	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)	Wells, Sydney Richard	Withers, Sir John James
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)	Weymouth, Viscount	Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo	White, Henry Graham
Turton, Robert Hugh	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)	Sir William Davison and Marquess of Hartington.
NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Graves, Marjorie	Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Albery, Irving James	Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter	Moreing, Adrian C.
Aske, Sir Robert William	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur	Munro, Patrick
Atholl, Duchess of	Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)	O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)	Palmer, Francis Noel
Bateman, A. L.	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Parkinson, John Allen
Batey, Joseph	Groves, Thomas E.	Peake, Captain Osbert
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Grundy, Thomas W.	Petherick, M
Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)	Guy, J. C. Morrison	Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Borodale, Viscount	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Bossom, A. C.	Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Pybus, Percy John
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart	Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Rawson, Sir Cooper
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Ray, Sir William
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)	Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)	Rea, Walter Russell
Buchanan, George	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie	Hicks, Ernest George	Remer, John R.
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)	Hirst, George Henry	Rosbotham, S. T.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm	Howard, Tom Forrest	Salmon, Major Isidore
Cape, Thomas	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Caporn, Arthur Cecil	James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.	Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Cassels, James Dale	Janner, Barnett	Savery, Samuel Servington
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Jenkins, Sir William	Selley, Harry R.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	John, William	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Slater, John
Chalmers, John Rutherford	Kirkpatrick, William M.	Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Kirkwood, David	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Clarke, Frank	Knox, Sir Alfred	Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Latham, Sir Herbert Paul	Thompson, Luke
Colman, N. C. D.	Leonard, William	Thorne, William James
Colville, John	Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe.	Tinker, John Joseph
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Lloyd, Geoffrey	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)	Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Curry, A. C.	Logan, David Gilbert	Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Daggar, George	Lunn, William	Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)	McCorquodale, M. S.	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Denman, Hon. R. D.	McEntee, Valentine L.	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Doran, Edward	McGovern, John	Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)	Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Eastwood, John Francis	Magnay, Thomas	Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)
Edwards, Charles	Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Eillston, Captain George Sampson	Mander, Geoffrey le M.	Wills, Wilfrid D.
Elmley, Viscount	Manningham-Butler, Lt.-Col. Sir M.	Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare	Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.	Womersley, Walter James
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)	Marsden, Commander Arthur	Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis G.	Maxton, James	Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)	Merriman, Sir F. Boyd	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Milner, Major James	Sir Henry Jackson and Sir George Hume.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Mitcheson, G. G.

Question put, and agreed to.