HC Deb 24 July 1933 vol 280 cc2309-59

7.30 p.m.


I beg to move, in page 17, line 24, at the end, to insert the words: Provided always that a new public thoroughfare comparable to the existing Ade1phi Terrace shall be erected on the south from of the proposed new building connecting with Adam Street and Robert Street with a view over the gardens and river as at present. Whatever is the eventual fate of this Bill, it is clear that, if the House should see fit on Third Reading to pass it, it would be, I was going to say greatly improved, but at any rate what we think would be the lamentable loss that would be caused by the passage of the Bill would be very much mitigated, if the public had kept for them in the future the path that they have been so accustomed to take round the Ade1phi, where they can get the view of the river which so many generations have enjoyed from the street that runs in front of Ade1phi Terrace. As to the value of the Bill, I can only give to the House, as my justification for moving this Amendment, the opinion that I have obtained from two architects whom, I think, everyone, whether in this House or outside, will agree in regarding as two of the greatest architects of our day, Since the Bill was taken in the House last time, I have written a letter. quite neutral in its import, to Sir Edwin Lutyens on the one hand, and to Sir Herbert Baker on the other, asking them if they would give me, quite impartially, their opinions on the Bill, and on certain points connected with' it, such as this. I wrote: If you could give me your frank and unbiased opinion, it would help me to make up my mind about the line that I should take, and it you would let me make your opinion known, it would, I believe, help other Members of Parliament as well. I think the House would like to hear the opinion of these two architects in regard to this question of the view from Adelphi Terrace. Sir Herbert Baker writes as follows: I think all architects and lovers of beauty and of historical London will agree that the Adelphi buildings are a unique gem of the classical grace in architecture of the brothers Adam. They would be considered a priceless possession by any city in the world. If they are destroyed, we should have to go to Edinburgh for any grouped example of their work, and separate houses by them in London will no doubt in time disappear, as they are even now doing. I will not go into other parts of his letter, which are not immediately germane to this Amendment, but he goes on to deal with the point of the Amendment, and says about it: If a new building is allowed, there should be insistence upon an outer terrace road which would maintain the only existing high view over the river for the enjoyment of the public. I will now, with the permission of the House, give the opinion of Sir Edwin Lutyens, and again I would emphasise the fact that the letter which I wrote to these gentlemen was not a letter leading them to give me a certain reply. I think that anyone who read it would agree—I will not trouble the House with it—that it was as unbiased as any letter asking for a frank opinion could be. The answer of Sir Edwin Lutyens was as follows: Viewed as a part of the range of buildings on the Thames Embankment, Adelphi Terrace, with its grove of trees, is a very pleasant relief from the Savoy Hotel and the Shell-Mex building. I do not mind the trees partly obscuring the Terrace; it gives a sense of something withdrawn and secluded, as contrasted with other obstrusive buildings. I have no doubt the trees could be trimmed, and possibly in course of time even replaced, so as to preserve this quality and yet allow of a freer view over the river from the Terrace in summer time when the leaves are out. As regards the intrinsic worth of the Terrace, it would, in the form in which it was left by the brothers Adam, be a monument of very great artistic value, which would also be of first-rate importance as probably the best example of any remaining in England of that period and style of architecture. I would ask the House to reflect on the opinions of probably the two leading architects of our time in England. There are thousands of people, including myself and many other Members of the House, who have gone down Robert Street and taken a view over the Terrace which cannot be got from any other point that is free to the public. People may say that the buildings on the South side of the Thames at the present moment are ugly, and so they are, some of them; but does anyone who regards them as ugly think that they cannot be removed or improved as time goes on? That objection, therefore, cannot be urged as a final objection in the way of this Amendment. I ask most sincerely, even at this late hour, that this right of the public shall be maintained. In a Whip which was issued on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, I was struck by this sentence: In our judgment the passing of the Bill as now amended is the only method of securing Parliamentary control of the amenities of the area. What a way it will be of securing Parliamentary control of the amenities of the area if the wonderful view which Parliament has possessed for generations, and still hopes to possess, is destroyed. Without the proviso of this Amendment, they will only be able to go up a blind alley on the one side or on the other—the sort of thing which in the old days we were told the police and other authorities peculiarly disliked. The free walk right round, which generations have enjoyed, will, but for this Amendment, be taken away under the Bill. We have not too many beautiful spots in London. There are beauty spots, and there are beautiful views. This is one which is unique of its kind, and we cannot afford to have more destroyed than we can help. I hope that in this respect at any rate the promoters, even if they get the Third Reading of the Bill, may be ready to meet our views, and to save, not only the Parliamentary control, but the public possession, of these amenities in this area.

7.41 p.m.


As one who had the honour of being a member of the committee which inquired very carefully into the whole of this question, I should like to take this opportunity of referring to some of the matters which were brought before us. During that inquiry, we took a large amount of evidence, from a good many points of view, on both artistic and practical questions, and among other points that came under our consideration was the very question which is the subject of this Amendment. I think we shall have to accept it as a fact that the days of Adelphi Terrace, as we know it at present, are numbered. Whether this Bill be passed or not, the existing buildings are likely to disappear within a very short time. [HON. MEMBERS "Why?"] That is a fact.

Coming more directly to the Amendment, and dealing with it as a practical question, I see only two ways in which the proposal contained in it could be carried out. One would be by placing a second roadway above the lower roadway, and the other would be by placing a second roadway above and behind the lower roadway which is proposed. As regards the first method, we cannot, of course, tell with absolute certainty what the views of the Highways Committee will be, but the Select Committee had before them evidence from highly placed officials who told us that in their opinion such an arrangement was not likely to be allowed, as the council had of recent years set their face against any roadways which were not open to the sky. That seems to me to be likely—I would not care to put it higher—to rule out the first suggestion.

The second, namely, that the lower road should be a continuation of the one in front of Savoy Court, past the Shell-Mex building and on past the Adelphi, and that there should be another road on the level of the present Adelphi Terrace, and standing behind the lower road, would mean taking away such an immense depth of frontage that in all probability the promoters would decline to go on with the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] That may be. Although I think the promoters could hardly be bound by evidence which they gave across the table at a moment's notice on a proposal of that kind, nevertheless they did indicate that it would mean the deprivation of such a large depth of frontage that it would hardly be worth pursuing. That would be a Pyrrhic victory for the opponents of this Measure, because, instead of the existing Ade1phi buildings, they would get some built within the margin of the restriction imposed by Parliament, but over which Parliament would have no further control —buildings, in fact, which would be limited to a height of 20 feet in front, but which at the back could go to a greater height than the existing buildings; and there would be no control, if the Bill were dropped, of the elevation and general appearance of those buildings.

I should like to say a word or two with regard to the actual merits. I suggest that this Amendment is really a wrecking Amendment, and would be more suitable as a ground for the rejection of the Bill on Third Reading. I should like to say a word in regard to the merits of the particular proposal that is put forward. We have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) an almost lyrical expression of delight at the view from Adelphi Terrace. It will be some comfort to him, I think, to know that, as the result of the work of the Committee upstairs, we have secured from the promoters the promise that, if it goes through, there will be two viewpoints retained at the end of Robert Street and at the end of Adam Street, both adequate to carry a large number of people, both out of the traffic area and, therefore, available for them to stand upon for any length of time and enjoy the beauties of the view. But there is a, practical point which I think the Movers of the Amendment have possibly not given enough weight to.

There is the question not only of the view from Adelphi Terrace but of the view of Adelphi Terrace, for instance from the Embankment, from Hungerford Bridge, or even from the South side of the river. Of course, when we get to matters of personal taste, it is no good being very didactic because, whatever we say, we are sure to find equal, perhaps greater, authority in direct opposition to us. But, looking at Adelphi Terrace from these other points, I believe it will make a nicer line to have a lower road passing Savoy Court and the Shell-Mex building and carrying on beyond the Adelphi, and possibly into Charing Cross or whatever its ultimate destination may be, than a sort of crow's nest erected to carry on over this one portion. I believe the general line will really look better with the road hidden away behind the Embankment Gardens than with a sort of road rising up out of nowhere and coming down again which we should get if the Amendment were carried.

7.48 p.m.


There are several points in the speech to which we have just listened on which I should like to comment. The crux of the matter was very pungently put by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir J. Withers) on the Second Reading Debate when he said that what we wanted to ascertain was whether the public were getting adequate compensation for the undoubted rights that they were giving up. For nearly 200 years there has been a semicircular roadway connecting up John Street, Adelphi, with Adam Street and Robert Street through Adelphi Terrace, so that people can circle round one side and out at the other. I was not aware that the Fire Brigade Committee of the London County Council had altered their rule but, when I put up a somewhat similar scheme a few years ago in another part of London to the London County Council, I was informed that their Fire Brigade Committee would not approve of any new road running into a cul-de-sac where their engines and high fire escapes would not be able to turn. That is a point which has not been alluded to before and which is germane to the Amendment.

The public have had a right of way round this Adelphi building for many years. I am not now discussing whether it is a building of merit or of demerit. In any event, if this Bill passes, we are giving up very great rights and, when my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford (Mr. Smith-Carington) says that so far as the public are concerned it is more desirable that any new building should be kept in line, I do not at all agree. The little strip of Embankment Gardens in front of the Savoy Hotel and the Shell-Mex building is practically a pathway with a few trees on either side but, when you come out on the further end, where the Adelphi is set back, you have something in the nature of a small park. I would rather have the Ade1phi rebuilt by the trustees on the present site in any way they please—and, as common-sense Englishmen, they are not likely to cover it entirely with Epstein statues—and set back with a low building not exceeding 20 feet on the foreground than have a new building under the most careful supervision coming out right on to the Embankment Gardens on the line of the Shell-Mex building and the Savoy Hotel. If you walk along those two bits of garden, you will see that the Ade1phi is far away back and you have a feeling of spaciousness, whereas in the other case you have a feeling as if these great stone masses are going to fall on top of you and you had better hurry up in case something befalls.

I cannot see why the public should give this up unless we are satisfied that we have preponderating advantages given to us in its place. I should be the last man to interfere with an owner doing what he will with his property provided that he observes the law and does not injure anyone else, but this is quite a different matter. It is a very curious thing altogether about this site that the people of Scotland have fully maintained their reputation as clever bargainers all the way through. First of all, the Scottish Adam brothers obtained an Act of Parliament in 1771 to deal with the site, and they embanked it and built Ade1phi Terrace. They then found that it was not a very profitable speculation, so they came to Parliament again in 1774 and said: "We are going to lose money over this. Will you allow us to have a lottery to make good the loss and put us in funds?" Parliament again came to the rescue of these Scottish gentlemen and they made a very handsome profit by disposing of the property in a lottery.

When I saw that a whip had been issued opposing this Amendment signed by a considerable number of Scotsmen, many of them well known, I wondered if these Adelphi trustees were Scottish people. My secretary tells me that the bank with which one of the promoters has been honourably concerned for many years past has become the Royal Bank of Scotland. They are, therefore, still closely connected with Scotland and they come again to Parliament and say: "We want to make more. We are not satisfied with the valuable property that we have obtained. We want to rebuild it, but it is not sufficient to rebuild it. We want to rebuild on to the foreground as well," whereas Parliament in its wisdom in 1771 said: "You shall not go up more than 20 feet or else you will spoil the amenities of the district." I do not see that we have had any case submitted to the House which justifies that. They say: "It is true you are giving us amenities which are worth][50,000, but as against that we are giving you street widenings which are worth even more than that figure." My reply to that is that these street widenings are not required unless you put up a huge building on the site. It is just as though I said to someone: "Do something for me and I will give you my watch chain." He may say: "I do not want your watch chain. I have a very good one of my own." We have a very good circular watch chain round the Adelphi building with views over the gardens, and I had much rather keep that than have this foreground built upon.

I understand that the promoters are prepared to accept a suggestion that they should put a. new roadway in the forefront of their new building arcaded all the way along, but I have had a letter from the Westminster City Council this morning saying they are not willing to approve of the whole roadway made like that. I have myself suggested, as a possible compromise, that instead of having what I described in the Second Reading Debate as a tunnel-funnel roadway—Adelphi Terrace being made a tunnel as to 50 feet, then a well hole up to the sky of approximately 112 feet and then another tunnel of 50 feet —that tunnel and funnel should be moved to the forefront of the new building. That is to say, they should be allowed to build over the site as they like but they should put this wellhole or tunnel in the forefront of the ground along which the new Adelphi Terrace would be built and, instead of having a tunnel of 50 feet on the Adam Street side and a tunnel on the Robert Street side, they should have an arcaded roadway with the right to build over the arches overlooking the river and the gardens. That will take very much less of the superficial area from the promoters and I have reason to believe that it would be acceptable to those who are opposing the Bill if we have to give up Adelphi Terrace.

I cannot see that the Westminster City Council could object to this because, surely, it is better to have an open air space to the sky, as agreed to by them, if put in the middle of the site and, instead of having a tunnel of 50 feet at each end, it would only be half a tunnel. That is to say, the tunnel would be open on the side towards the river. I think that suggestion is deserving of consideration. It would need only a very few words added to the Amendment, provided the House was satisfied with having 50 feet at each end arcaded. Of course, the middle part is provided for already by the Amendment. For years past the public have been able to circulate round this building. We are giving up great and valuable rights. Surely, if we cannot preserve the Ade1phi, we should preserve for the public, at any rate, a thoroughfare open on the riverside instead of this horrible tunnel-funnel street where the public would have to go right underneath this large block of buildings with only a funnel in the middle to give them air. I support the Amendment.

8.15 p.m.


I had a good deal of sympathy with the opposition to the Bill in its earlier stages, and I have listened to all the arguments, but I feel that the opponents now are carrying the matter too far. They have had every opportunity of placing their ideas before both Houses of Parliament. In the other place they had them considered most carefully. They had a very fine public Debate. The Bill was also considered very carefully in Committee in another place. The Bill came down to this House and we spent 31 hours discussing the question, and an Instruction was ultimately passed on to the Committee upstairs. The opponents have had an opportunity of placing the whole of the facts before the Committee, and now that the Bill has come down I feel that further discussion at any length will really be a waste of time. Look at the position in which we are placed to-day. We are at the end of this part of the Session. Our Debate this afternoon on the very important subject of the postal service has been cut short, and we are faced, at 10 o'clock, with a large number of very important Votes which are to be placed before the Committee and passed without discussion. In these circumstances, to take up any more time in the discussion of this question will not reflect very well upon the businesslike aptitude of the House.

I am very much taken with the interest which my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) is showing in this question. I had never looked upon him as a sentimentalist before, but it is obvious that he is a sentimentalist and has allowed his heart to run away with his head in this matter. I hope that the House will decide once and for all to allow the Bill to go through. The Westminster City Council can be relied upon to see to all the details when they come before them. The suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington will no doubt be considered very carefully. But we do want to get on with the Business to-night, and I suggest that we should, without much further discussion, take a Division, if necessary, and go forward with the more important Business on the Order Paper.

8.4 p.m.


I do not think that the House ought to allow the last speech to pass altogether unanswered. After all, what is the Bill? Here you have certain persons who hold some property which is subject to restrictions laid down by this House. They come to the House and ask that those restrictions should be abolished in their favour, and that advantage is to mean, so we understand, a sum of £150,000.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Sir Dennis Herbert)

May I correct the hon. Gentleman?—£125,000.


Of course I accept the correction of £125,000. Despite recent precedents, I do not think that the House ought to consider making large donations of this kind to private persons without some inquiry. The hon. Member for Wad-sail (Mr. Leckie) rather suggested that it was the fault of this House that the Bill was being discussed in the midst of a lot of important business. It is not the fault of this House in the least that this Bill has been brought forward.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne)

I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not on the Third Reading.


I am dealing with the point made by the hon. Member, in re- gard to which he was not corrected, that there was some special need for disposing of the Amendment at once in view of the state of business in the House. I have yet to learn that there was any special urgency for the business. I suggest that the proposal which has been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) is a very reasonable one. He suggests that we should continue to have this pleasant roadway from the Strand, with a view of the river. Why should we, without any discussion, submit to having the roadway done away with? I was not very much impressed by the points made against the road. The suggestion is that you cannot have in London some feature that is not alreády there. I should have thought that something in the way of a jutting roadway like that would be rather a pleasant feature for the Embankment. I cannot see any impossibility about it. It is extraordinary that these promoters who come before the House and ask to be allowed special privileges and to have this large sum of money, should seem very unwilling to concede anything to this House in its place. As has already been said, the suggestion that they are to put up a lot of money for road widening does not go to the point at all.

The only reason why those roads have to be widened is because they want to put up high buildings. Therefore they are not really giving a quid pro quo at all. As to whether you should have a lower or an upper roadway, I do not see why you should not have a lower roadway and a kind of walk up in the air, as it were, with a view of the river as well. It ought to be clear to us beyond all doubt that what is to happen to this particular site, for it is a very valuable site and one which is dear to many Londoners, is that these proposals are not going forward without someone doing pretty well out of them. -There is no difficulty as far as I know in letting the accommodation at the Adelphi. The Adelphi, I understand, is not in such a condition that it should be pulled down at once. If new and enlarged buildings are to be put up, it is because some people think that they are going to do pretty well out of them. I cannot see why, for the benefit of Londoners, we should not get the fullest public advantage.

It may be said that the proposal put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth has not yet been fully looked into, and that it is a very difficult thing to make, and so forth. Why the extraordinary haste about this matter I cannot see why it is necessary to get the Bill through before we rise. I have seldom known of a private Bill being brought forward and put through at this pace. I think that all Members who are Londoners, and, after all, London is the capital city, ought to look carefully into this matter and see that we get good value for the public. If private enterprise is to do all right—we are not taking away the value of private property—we ask that we should get our fair share of amenities and values. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth is a very good suggestion. We must remember that we cannot attack the trustees. It has been pointed out that they are trustees who are solely concerned with making as much money as possible for the people for whom they hold this trust. Therefore, we do not attack them in the least for trying to get every penny out of us but the difficulty from the point of view of Londoners is that they are not concerned with the aesthetic and public-spirited motives which animate the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison). They cannot be, because they have their duties as trustees, and therefore it behoves this House to act as trustees for the general public. If there is any difficulty in accepting the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Tamworth, there is no reason to rush the matter. They can very well hold it over and bring it up again when they have had time to consider it at the latter part of this Session. In the meantime, they can circulate their objections, and the right hon Member for Tamworth can circulate the picture of his scheme, but do not let us sell our birthright because this thing is being rushed through at the fag end of the Session.

8.10 p.m.


There are one or two points which, I think, I ought to put before the House as to what happened in Committee on the point which is dealt with in this particular Amendment. Before I do so, I feel bound to say a word in reply to what the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) has just said as to the Bill being rushed. That is a matter upon which I feel somewhat strongly personally. The Bill was dealt with in another place with unusual facilities for those who were opposing it in what they believed to be the interests of the general public, and a special locus standi to appear before the Committee was granted to certain bodies who could have had no locus standi in this House. The hon. Member knows as well as anybody that it is not intended that this Session shall continue for any length of time when we come back after the Recess. The question, therefore, for the House on that point, if and so far as there is any question—and that is a question for the House to judge—the question is whether the House is going to throw upon the promoters the heavy burden of having to bring in a, new Bill in another Session of Parliament, after all the work, trouble and expense incurred in promoting this Bill and carrying it through all the lengthy procedure in another place and the ordinary procedure in this House and before the Unopposed Bill Committee—


Has it not been the case that a Bill has been carried over to another Session?


I am speaking from recollection, but I do not know of any case where that has been done with regard to a Private Bill, except in the case of a dissolution or of other special circumstances. However, the matter upon which I really want to assure the House is, that in so far as this Bill has been pushed forward in any way by me, it has only been done in the performance of my duty.


May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it has not been a precedent in the case of some railway Bills of carrying them over, or whether indeed it is clear that the Session is to come to an end on Friday? I should be the very last to suggest that my right hon. Friend had done anything but what was strictly right.


Perhaps I have been a little thin-skinned in this matter. At any rate, perhaps there have been harder things said outside the House than have been said inside. Of course, it is not suggested for one moment that the Session is to end on Friday. What has been said is that we shall adjourn on Friday, but when we meet again after the Recess it will only be for the shortest possible time before the new Session commences. I am afraid that I cannot answer from memory as to whether a railway Bill as such has ever been carried over. At any rate, it is fairly obvious that at this stage there will be some difficulty in doing it.

I come to the question of the particular Amendment. I want, first of all, to point out what it really proposes, because my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) seemed to think that his Amendment meant something different from what the Amendment says. Apparently he was under the impression that under the Amendment the proposed roadway or thoroughfare now suggested would do away with the proposed roadway through the centre of the building which is to be erected. This Amendment does not say so. Therefore, I call the attention of the House to the fact that if the Amendment were carried in its present form— [Interruption.] The hon. Member is a little late in saying it, can be altered; he should have thought it out when drafting his Amendment. it would mean that the promoters would have to make the roadway that is proposed, through the building, covered at both ends, and an additional upper roadway in front of the building. That would mean an immense tax upon the value of the property.

While the Debate has been going on I have been trying to see whether I could make any arrangement which would satisfy the right hon. Member for Tam-worth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) and the hon. Member for South Kensington, and which would be accepted by the promoters. First of all, I ought to say that the Committee were satisfied from the evidence before them that the local authorities would object to an upper roadway over the proposed lower roadway. Then comes the alternative question of another roadway, not above, but alongside the lower roadway. The evidence that we got as to the view of the local authorities on that point was not so conclusive, but we had the opinion of the City of Westminster surveyor, who said that his advice would be against it.

That was a point on which the Committee did not think it necessary to obtain further evidence, for the simple reason that the promoters said that if they were obliged to give up that extra land for the whole width of the roadway, it would so detract from the value of their property that they would prefer to rest upon their rights as they existed now, without the removal of the restriction. In other words, they preferred not to go on with the Bill if it was to be amended in that form.

The other proposal is a half-way proposal, namely, that there should be an upper footpath behind the proposed lower road, but above the proposed arcaded footway on the level of the lower roadway. My right hon. Friend intimated to me that if I could get consent to something of that kind he and his friends might be prepared to accept it and to withdraw their opposition to the Third Reading of the Bill. I have done my best in that regard, but at the moment there are very considerable difficulties. I have been authorised by the promoters to say that they would not object to the arcaded pathway above the arcaded footway now proposed and on the level of the present Ade1phi Terrace, not exceeding 10 feet in width, provided, and this is a very important proviso, that the local authorities—by the local authorities I mean the London County Council and the Westminster City Council—raise no objection to it.

It is only fair to tell the House that I am practically certain, from evidence given before the Committee, that the local authorities would raise objection to this proposal, and I think the House will agree with me that I cannot find it consistent with my duty to accept, at any rate at this stage, an amendment to a Bill which would force the local authorities to give that consent. The House by doing that would be over-riding the powers and duties which are given to and vested in the local authorities under the London Building Acts. The consequential results of doing anything of that kind would be so serious that I do not think any Private Bill Committee of this House would ever agree to override the powers of the local authorities in that way.

Therefore I am afraid that the only suggestion I can make to my right hon. Friend is this, that the promoters would give an undertaking, if the Amendment is withdrawn and the Bill allowed to go through in its present form, that in the preparation of their plans for submission to the local authorities they would provide for such an upper arcaded footway, but on the distinct understanding that if the local authorities object to that arcaded footway they would be relieved from the undertaking. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend would be prepared to deal with the matter in that way and whether he and his friends would rest upon the undertaking which I am authorised to give on behalf of the promoters, that in the preparation of their plans they would provide for such a pathway but that they should be released from the obligation to carry it out if the local authorities object. If so, I might be able to arrange the matter in that way.

I will say nothing more on the merits of the Amendment, although perhaps it would be only reasonable to point out that the Committee have been to the greatest possible trouble and have exercised every care to preserve the viewpoints desired by the Opposition, and by obtaining those view-points they have obtained better view-points than the existing Ade1phi Terrace, because they are carried forward to a very considerable extent.


I understand that the effect of that compromise would, in effect, be that we should withdraw our opposition to the Bill to-night and allow it to go through, but if the Westminster City Council object to this arcaded footway in front of the building our opposition would have been withdrawn and we should not get any quid pro quo. I am wondering whether the Chairman of Ways and Means thinks that we might arrive at a compromise on these lines, that we would give an undertaking not to oppose the Bill when the House resumes, which may be only a matter of two or three days. If there was no opposition the Bill would go through in a few minutes, but if the Westminster City Council do object to this special point, to which we attach a great deal of importance, perhaps we might be able to reserve our right to contest the matter further.


Is it not the case that the promoters would agree to a suggestion for a footpath eight feet wide but not 10 feet wide 7


If the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters are prepared to accept my suggestion I should want to be careful that I got the undertaking in a form which was definitely approved by the promoters, and I shall no doubt have an opportunity during the further course of the Debate of finding out whether I can get the approval of the promoters to that undertaking. I am not in a position at the moment to say whether only an eight foot footway would be accepted by the promoters and not a 10 foot footway. With regard to the point put by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson), the difficulty I see about that is this, that in the first place I am a little doubtful, indeed I feel fairly certain I could not, as to whether between now and November next I could get any definite arrangement with the local authorities one way or the other.

Let me explain why. The consent or otherwise of the local authorities could not be obtained to a scheme of this kind unless and until they had before them I will not say every detail but in outline, at any rate, the complete plans of the whole of the proposed new buildings, and when you add to that the fact that this Bill has to go back to another place for it to deal with the Amendments which were made in Committee, I think it would be quite impracticable. Therefore, I do not feel that I can go beyond the suggestion I have made. But I want to be perfectly frank to the House. In my view —I may be wrong, and I hope I am—it is practically certain that the local authorities would object to this. That is the most I can offer to those who are supporting the Amendment, that is, an undertaking on the lines which I have suggested. Let me add this, that while I have been speaking I have taken the opportunity of having a communication made with the promoters and I am given to understand that I am authorised to give an undertaking in the terms I have stated, subject to the one alteration that the width of the upper arcaded footway shall not exceed eight feet instead of 10 feet.


Why should not this House override the local authorities?


I thought that I had already answered that point. I do not want to go into detail a gain, but the overriding of the rights and duties of the local authorities in a matter which is dealt with by the London Building Acts is inevitably such a serious matter that in my own opinion, judging from my experience in dealing with Private Bills, it would be a very dangerous thing indeed for the House to attempt to interfere with these particular powers. Indeed, it is a common form which occurs in this particular Bill in two places, that the restrictions which are put upon the estate owners are not to derogate in any way from the rights and powers of the local authorities in regard to buildings.

8.30 p.m.


Many of those who have addressed the House have made the excuse that they are not London Members. I am not a London Member, but I am not going to make that an excuse for entering into the Debate. This is not a matter which affects London Members only. Anything which affects London does not affect London only, it affects something which is national property. I listened carefully to the proceedings which took place before the matter was sent to the Committee and, frankly, I was one of those who voted for the Bill going to Committee largely on the ground that there would be full opportunity for these matters to be discussed. Unfortunately, although there is a report from the Committee I can find no report of the evidence given or the discussion which took place. That is a great drawback, because I was relying on reading what was said and done in the Committee. I want to be respectful to the Chairman of Ways and Means, but as an ordinary Member of the House I must object to the arguing that has taken place at this stage as to what might and what might be acceptable. That should have been done in the Committee. I object at this particular time to anyone saying what the promoters say they will give and on what conditions they will give.


The hon. Member is not quite fair to the Committee. These matters were gone into most fully and it is not the fault of the Committee if, when they have discussed them carefully and given their decision, the House wants to go into them all over again. But beyond that, may I suggest that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) apparently is now dealing with a matter which might more properly be dealt with on the Third Reading. He has departed somewhat from the Amendment.


I am speaking in support of the Amendment because it is the only thing I can see that we are likely to get out of this Bill. I repeat, I do not wish to be discourteous to the Chairman of Ways and Means or to the Committee, but we have not had an opportunity of reading the evidence given or the discussions in the Committee. I think the Committee should have given an opportunity to Members of the House of seeing the proceedings in this particular case.


Has the hon. Member asked for the proceedings?


I am told that a report of the proceedings is not available, and I do not think it should be necessary for every Member to ask for it. I understand that they are not provided.


It is a perfectly well known procedure of this House that no shorthand note is taken of proceedings before the Unopposed Bill Committee, and it is equally well known that the hon. Member, or any other hon. Member, who takes such an interest can attend the proceedings of the Committee.


If I had known that it was necessary for me to attend the proceedings of the Committee in order to become acquainted with them—in the case of other Committees it is usual to give Members of the House an opportunity of reading them—I should have attended the Committee and heard the Debates. But even now, I understand, a new undertaking is being offered to the House by the promoters. If the undertaking was given in Committee it is unnecessary that it should be given here now. I maintain my objection to the way in which the proposal is coming before the House. Having listened to the Debate, I have heard and can appreciate what the public are giving away in this case. They are giving away the right to a roadway on the present Terrace. I understand that, without the Amend- ment, they are giving away some garden space which now is enjoyed by the public. But I have not heard anything said as to what the public are to get out of this. The suggestion is that there should be a continuance of the present road which goes past the Shell-Mex building and the Savoy Hotel, but that is a continuance of a cul-de-sac, which would be no advantage. There is no evidence that the road will go through to Charing Cross.


The hon. Member is now making a Third Reading speech.


I do not wish to infringe the Rules of the House in the least. I support the Amendment because it does preserve to the public something of the right that they now have.

8.37 p.m.


I hope the House will have received with somewhat mixed feelings the speech of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) about the statement submitted to the House by the Chairman of Ways and Means. We have received substantial assistance from the Chairman of Ways and Means. It is a very helpful thing in this Assembly that the Chairman of Ways and Means can from time to time intervene in Debates on private Bills and give us such help. It comes with bad grace from any hon. Member to criticise a statement so helpful as the statement we have had.


I believe in maintaining my right, and I prefaced my statement by saying that I did not wish to be disrespectful either to the Chairman of Ways and Means or to the Committee.


I do not want to enter into a controversy with my hon. Friend. I hope that the House has now arrived at a point at which a compromise can be established. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) presented his case with moderation, as he always does, and I hope that the suggestion made by the Chairman of Ways and Means can be accepted. It would be a satisfactory ending to a long controversy. I hope no one will leave the House feeling that the subject has not been examined with all the thoroughness suggested by the Chairman himself.

8.39 p.m.


I can speak again only by leave of the House. After what the Chairman of Ways and Means has said it looks as if, with good will, it ought to be possible to reach a compromise. On the other hand everyone will realise that it is a difficult thing to fit in the Amendment with the other provision of the Bill. No one knows that better than the Chairman of Ways and Means. In the course of the Debate it is difficult to arrive precisely at the, terms of the compromise. I do not know whether it is possible within the rules of the House to adjourn the Debate for half an-hour.


It is not possible.


I am sure no one will accuse me of having any arrière pensée and a wish to obstruct. I suggest that we should adjourn the Debate to-night and take it to-morrow. Meantime we should go into this matter. I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that in that case we shall not raise any objection to the suspension of the Standing Orders so that the House could take the Third Reading to-morrow. We should take such an objection to-night.


What about ordinary business to-morrow?


I understand that the most important Debate of the week is on Wednesday.


No, coal and oil are being taken to-morrow.


If we can come to an agreement meantime, so far as hon. Members opposite are concerned, we will undertake to facilitate the passage of this Bill to-morrow with the least possible delay. Otherwise the Bill will take up a lot more time to-night.


A very important matter, so far as Scottish Members are concerned, is to be debated tomorrow.


A word ought to be put in for Scottish Members. It is not only oil and coal that are being discussed to-morrow, but there is a Scottish Debate which we have had cut down, and we should strongly object to five minutes of the time being taken.


After the consultation I have had with the Chief Government Whip and the Opposition Whip regarding the considerable difficulty of dealing not only with this but other private business this Session, I could not possibly agree to any Adjournment of this Debate.


Then let me point out, in wishing to get a compromise on fair terms, the difficulties in which we find ourselves. This Amendment has been on the Paper for the last three days. It is only now, in the middle of this Debate, that we are told that the promoters are willing to come to some agreement. How is it possible with profit to go into the, question of an Amendment which my hon. Friend has been trying to draft, hoping that it may suit the case, and also to come to agreement on the substance I say for myself—some of my friends may not agree—that a nicely calculated less or more, of eight feet or 10 feet, does not really matter. The promoters ought to be thankful to get this with 10 feet instead of eight feet. I do not mean to be controversial over that. I would be prepared to agree to accept a pathway of 10 feet about the height of the present Adelphi Terrace, to the South of the new buildings, provided that if the Westminster City Council have an objection to an arcaded pathway the whole way along, it should be understood that for the centre half of it they would agree to have it open and then they could arcade it for the whole of the 50 feet at either end. I suggest that.

Personally, I am prepared to take the risk of the Westminster City Council not agreeing to a pathway, provided that on their part the promoters would be ready to meet the Westminster City Council by having 50 feet at either end arcaded and the intermediate space left open. That would make it easier for the Westminster City Council to intervene. I say with absolute conviction that this is far from being a wrecking Amendment. It goes far beyond what I personally would like in what it offers. It is an Amendment which is possible in itself. It exactly corresponds with a portion of Sir Edwin Lutyen's letter, with which I did not want to detain the House, in which he said that that kind of arrangement would be infinitely the best way of trying to construct a new building there, with wings on either side. For my part, if the promoters agree to that proposal and on the understanding that they submit the matter to the Royal Fine Art Commission—not, I hope, to the Crown Lands Advisory Committee—I for one would take the risk involved in not pressing opposition to the Bill further. If this offer is accepted it ought to be possible to produce an Amendment which would harmonise with the other features of the Bill.

8.46 p.m.


May I make a further appeal to the Chairman of Ways and Means. (We all recognise the fairness with which he has advised the House but we are undoubtedly in a difficulty. The House is asked to part with its control over this Bill on a compromise which seems extremely doubtful and which we do not thoroughly understand. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask that the Debate should be adjourned. I agree that the Bill cannot then be dealt with this week, but the Session does not end on Friday next and there will be a few days available in November. If those opposed to the Bill undertake to refrain from any factious opposition, the matter might be agreed upon outside the precincts of this House, one way or the other, between now and 7th November. After all, the promoters of the Bill are gaining a very important concession from the House if they get the Bill, and it should be no great detriment to them if the carrying through of their scheme is postponed until November. I would appeal to my right hon. Friend to consent to an adjournment until November.


Does the hon. Gentleman move the Adjournment of the Debate?


I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."

8.48 p.m.


I may appear to be rather thin-skinned on this matter, but again I must say that I feel somewhat hardly treated when I am apparently blamed for bringing forward some suggestion of the promoters at the eleventh hour.


My right hon. Friend will acquit me of that. He is, so to speak, in the position of the honest broker, from some points of view, in this business and we know it is not he who has landed us in this difficulty at the last moment. No one suggests that, but those who put down the Amendment gathered that it was going to be agreed to and I, personally, had no information until I got into the House that it was going to be resisted to the uttermost. That came as a complete surprise but it is abundantly clear to us that this is a new business and we never wished to make any implication against my right hon. Friend.


I acquit my right hon. Friend on that score but the point which I want to put to the House is this. This is not a case of the promoters or anybody else trying to rush some new proposal through the House at the last moment. The proposal comes about simply and solely as a result of my attempting—perhaps I have been wrong or perhaps I have taken an extreme view of the duties of my position—to ease matters as between the promoters and other interested parties. It is due entirely to my initiative that the suggestion which I made in the course of the Debate is now before the House. I am afraid I must put it to the House plainly that if my efforts in that direction have failed, we must recognise the fact and deal with my right hon. Friend's Amendment in the form in which it appears on the Paper. Knowing as I do the danger and the difficulty of inserting a hasty Amendment in a Bill of this kind at this stage I guarded myself in the suggestion which of made to the House by offering an undertaking given here on the Floor of the House on behalf of and with the authority of the promoters. I cannot go beyond that. I do not feel that it would be fair, even if I had the revised Amendment before me at this moment to ask the promoters or myself to agree to it at once.

Therefore, it was only as what might be called a last-minute effort to meet hon. Members that I made the suggestion which I have made to the House. I cannot agree to carry it any further and I cannot agree to the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate. I hope that my hon. Friend who moved it will be good enough to withdraw it, because I do not think it is putting the House in a position to deal with this matter satisfactorily to ask hon. Members to vote upon it on the Motion for Adjournment. Honestly, I am bound to say, although I know it is not intended by those who put it on the Paper, that the Amendment in its present form must be regarded by the House as in a sense a wrecking Amendment. I say it was not intentional on the part of those who proposed it, but in practice it is in the nature of a wrecking Amendment for this reason —that if it is accepted and passed, to the best of my knowledge and belief the promoters will not desire to proceed with the Bill. In these circumstances I think the House would be better advised, if I may respectfully say so, to get on at the earliest possible moment to the Debate on the Third Reading of the Bill. That is a matter which rests with the House. The Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate is of course for the House and not for me to deal, but I respectfully suggest that it might be better to withdraw that Motion. At any rate, I could not consent to it.


I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

8.54 p.m.


I made a specific statement of the terms which my hon. Friends and I were prepared to take and there are those here in the House who, within a minute, could communicate with the promoters on that offer, so that we might know whether or not they are prepared to take my specific and moderate proposal.

8.55 p.m.


I rise to support the Amendment, and I resent strongly the superior lecturing tone of those who support the Bill. The House has a perfect right on Third Reading to discuss the Bill in all its bearings. I would like very much to have been on the committee, but I was not. Now I have my opportunity of saying what I think ought to be said, and I should like to say so without being addressed in patronising and superior tones by other Members of the House as to what my duty is. I am not disposed to beat about the bush with regard to the promoters of this Bill. This land was, at least in the opinion of the citizens of London, stolen from the citizens.


The hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to make a statement about the Bill, but he must do so on Third Reading, not on this Amendment.


Surely I am entitled to make the point that this land was stolen in the first instance, and that therefore we are not called upon to take measures to any great extent to help the promoters of the Bill.


That seems to be exactly the point for a Third Reading Debate.

8.57 p.m.


I have been authorised by the promoters of the Bill to say that they cannot accept the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland). This Debate has gone on a, very long time, and the promoters of the Bill have been extremely accommodating in the way they have met every kind of objection brought up by interested parties since the Bill was first brought forward—interested, that is, from a technical and historical point of view. The promoters have done their very best in every possible way to meet objections.

With regard to the Amendment, I do not think that, if it were carried, the public would gain any more than they are likely to gain under the Bill as it stands. If hon. Members examine the plan for the. new building which is proposed under the. Bill, they will observe that there Are two very important view-points, at each end of the building, which give an incomparably better view of the river than you can at present get from any part of Adelphi Terrace. Furthermore, the promoters of the Bill are prepared, I understand, to make a new roadway which goes all the way along and joins up with the existing roadway by the river. I hope, therefore, the House will refuse to accept the Amendment, and I also trust that, if the Movers of the Amendment intend to press it to a conclusion, they will not be successful.

8.59 p.m.


I should have remained silent in this Debate, but the tone adopted by the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) rouses me to fury. He has the effrontery to come here and say that the promoters are accommodating, and he is asking the House to give him something for nothing. Why should we give away public rights for nothing? I protest strongly against the attempt to abolish this terrace.

9.0 p.m.


I do not think hon. Members have had an experience similar to that which we have had to-night, that people promoting a private Bill, obviously for the purpose of making additional profit, are allowed by the House of Commons to bargain apparently with two sides as to whether they will accept something from this House. I hope the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) will force this Amendment to a, Division, 'and I hope further that the House will carry it, even if, as the Chairman of Ways and Means says, it is in its present form a wrecking Amendment. I have no desire to wreck any scheme that would be for the benefit of the people of London, even if it means that certain people because of that scheme get an additional profit out of it. I have read all the literature issued by the promoters and all that issued against the Bill, but the speech of the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) has compelled me to come to the conclusion that the best thing for this House to do, in the interests of the people whom they represent, would be to turn down the Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers). I have not seen such effrontery in this House in my experience of it as the statement to which we have just listened that the promoters have acted in any way generously with regard to their attitude on this Bill. Even if it means that they are compelled to promote a new Bill in the new Session of Parliament, perhaps it will be a lesson to them and their friends in the House that they cannot treat this House with the contempt with which they appear to have treated it up to now.

9.2 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW

I would not have intervened but for the fact that there has been a tendency to try to size up, on each side in this controversy, the relative money values either to be taken or given away, whereas, on the contrary, I feel that the merits of the Bill, and therefore of this Amendment, rest on what the public are going to get in amenities if the Bill is carried through. I think it must be agreed that if the Amendment is carried, it will wreck the Bill, because then the promoters will not wish to have anything more to do with the matter, and they will be free, on the old site, with the old restricted access, and the inconvenient streets that are of no use, to erect a New York skyscraper or some other thing which will be hideous and not serve towards the re-development which we would all like to see. In that conviction, I would like to mention one point about which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) spoke. He said that the promoters were going to get a great deal out of this, and the public nothing. Actually, of course, a cursory study of the plans under the Bill would show what a very great deal the public will get. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] They are going to get a new roadway from Shell-Mex House and the Savoy, and a road linking up with York Street.


In exchange for a very fine roadway with a beautiful view, they will get one road down at the bottom with no view at all.

Mr. MOLSON rose




The hon. and gallant Member for Camborne (Lieut.-Commander Agnew) has given way, in which case the lion. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) is quite entitled to speak.


Does not the hon. Member realise that under the Bill that road will only end in a cul-de-sac, and that only at some subsequent time, when one of the local authorities concerned carries the road further through what are at present public gardens, it may or may not be connected with York Buildings?

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW

I understand quite the contrary, namely, that the road will give a semi-circular sweep round York Buildings, and although that may not be made at the beginning of the scheme, it will be the only possible way in which that part of the site can be re-planned. If I talk about re-planning, I wish to make an appeal to my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches. They stand out as a party for the policy that it does not matter about money, if there is a real improvement for the public welfare they will support it. Here they can get a real improvement and two new viewpoints from where the public will get the alleged view of the river, and it will be pushed further forward so that the view from the two points will be even better than it was before. That cannot be contested. If this Amendment is carried, we shall be left in a state of chaos. About seven years work of adjustment and accommodation between the present promoters of the Bill and the Westminster City Council and the London County Council will be utterly wasted, and we shall be back where we were when we started. If the House wishes to seize the opportunity of helping on the Minister of Health in the work on which he started out last year by passing the Town and Country Planning Act, they will reject the Amendment and enable the House to give effect to the Bill.

9.7 p.m.


The hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick), who spoke for the promoters said that they had been very accommodating. I venture to think that I should be very accommodating for £125,000. If that really represents their view, it is an impertinence on the part of the promoters to come here and make any such statement to the House of Commons. I desire to support the Amendment, because I think that it will make the best of a difficult situation. I find it difficult to work myself into a state of excitement over Adelphi Terrace in its present state. My right hon. Friend quoted from Sir Herbert Baker as to the great beauty of the Adam work in the Adelphi Terrace, but you cannot see it. It has been covered by a Victorian superstructure since 1871, and it might be possible, I understand, to remove it at a cost of £15,000. Is there the least likelihood of that happening l Sir Edward Lutyens expressed the view, cutting across the architectural view, that the trees there were very beautiful and attrac- tive, but other architectural opinion has expressed the view that the trees ought to be cut down.


I find difficulty in connecting anything in the Adam work or the trees with the Amendment before the House.


I do not know whether I shall be in order in raising a point that comes out of the report of the Unopposed Bills Committee to the House in regard to the suggestion that, the Crown Lands Advisory Committee should approve the new building.


The hon. Member might be in order on the Third Reading, but not on this Amendment.

9.9 p.m.

Captain DOWER

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, after the word "always," to insert the words: in place of the proposed new street in the centre of the building. If this is agreed to, I shall move to insert at the end of the proposed Amendment the words, subject to 50 feet at each end of the suggested building being arcaded. I think that this Amendment will be acceptable to all parties and to the Westminster City Council.


I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

9.10 p.m.


I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

I do this in order that the representatives of the various interests can have time to get together and print the Amendments so that the House can see what their proposals really are. I have been coming behind the Chair and having a look and a listen every now and then—

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW

On a point of Order. Is it in order for a right hon. Gentleman to suggest that hon. Members are representing interests?


We very frequently hear that suggestion.


If the cap fits any hon. Gentleman, he must put it on.


You try it on.


I will not try it on because in this particular case I have no interest at all. I think that a very great deal of fuss is being made about this business and that we might have gone on with the discussion of the public business that was before the House, seeing that there is apparently no agreement among the promoters as to what they really want or as to what sort of compromise they are prepared to make in this matter. It seems to me that instead of our continuing to have various proposals made in the House in this fashion, the Bill ought to be put on one side until the promoters can come to a rational agreement among themselves, which the House can either accept or reject.

9.13 p.m.


There is no doubt whatever as to the position of the promoters in regard to this Amendment and to the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman had been a little more frequently behind the Chair, he would perhaps have heard that I made by way of a suggestion a proposal that an undertaking should be given on behalf of the promoters of the Bill to a certain effect. I have to say definitely that no other course will be accepted or agreed to on behalf of the promoters by way of a compromise than that which has been offered by me. So the right hon. Gentleman may definitely understand that there is nothing to be gained by adjourning the matter, and that the House is now fully competent to decide whether they propose to make this Amendment.


The Chairman of Ways and Means has spoken very authoritatively, but I am not at all sure whether the Amendment to the proposed Amendment is the last or the first word on the subject. If it is true, however, that this is the limit of the concession. let us vote on it and get on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

9.15 p.m.


The reason why this Amendment to the Amendment has been put down is to secure that it is a road way and not a footway which will be accepted by the Westminster City Council. As I understand it the Westminster City Council will not approve either a pathway or a roadway arcaded over its whole length. They have approved, on the other hand, a roadway which is tunnelled, that is to say with walls on either side, which is worse than an arcade, in the centre of the building, with an open space up to the sky in the middle. What is proposed by this Amendment is that that should be done away with, and that instead of that the whole thing should be moved to the forefront of the building—an open space of 112 feet of roadway on the front of the building, with 50 feet arcaded at each end. I have reason to believe that that would be accepted by the Westminster Council and that we could all agree.

9.16 p.m.


I have listened to as much of this Debate as most other Members, and have interrupted perhaps less frequently than some of the ardent opponents of the Bill, but to have amateur architects drawing plans for us in the House of Commons seems a little stupid. Let us lock at the architectural plan on the paper which we are now being asked to amend. The proposal is to drive a carriageway through the middle of a building, which would bring all the plaster down on the floor beneath and nobody would live on the floor above. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Surely that is the proposal. There is great enthusiasm among hon. Gentlemen who are going to vote for a proposal which they have not tried to sketch out on paper. There is before us an Amendment to the Amendment. It is now been realised that the Amendment on the Order Paper is nonsense architecturally and nonsense from an engineering point of view, judging by the speeches in support of it, which have no relation to it. A proposal is made on behalf of the promoters by the Chairman of Ways and Means which is surely practicable from the engineering point of view, because it does not involve the movement of heavy traffic and does not involve damage to the floor below or to the floor above, and yet would preserve those amenities which we all desire to see preserved, but there is a risk that, for reasons with which I am not familiar, the Westminster City Council may be unwilling to accept that proposal.

Then we have put forward a most extraordinary scheme which involves as to one half of it the scheme the Westminster City Council will not have, because this new scheme of Sir Edwin Lutyens involves an arcaded footpath for roughly half the distance—one quarter at each end—and a hole in the middle. I think those who are criticising this proposal ought to come forward with more substantial views; it is grossly unfair to those who are concerned with this Bill that others should at the last moment be bringing forward all kinds of fancy schemes. If they held those views the proper thing for them to do was to petition against the Bill and to appear by counsel and have their schemes submitted to proper examination. Now they come and criticise the promoters for rushing the Bill merely because they have been slow and have not brought forward their proposals earlier. This protest does not involve this Bill only, but any Bill which may be brought forward by any person who finds it necessary to come to Parliament. If a Bill can go through all its stages with nobody troubling to petition against it, and then, at the last moment, a lot of amateur architects can come forward and ask us to insert all kinds of fancy schemes, it is a degradation of the procedure of the House of Commons; and I hope that in a few minutes we shall take a Division, first of all on this most extraordinary Amendment to the Amendment, and finally reject the Amendment itself.

9.20 p.m.


This is an attack on all who have really tried to meet the other side, and we are not going to lie down under it. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), who generally takes the trouble to understand the case with which he is going to deal, clearly does not understand a single word of this case. He has suggested that those of us who have objected to this Bill should have taken the opportunity to appear ourselves or by counsel before the Unopposed Bill Committee.


I am not suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman himself should have done that, because I imagine that he has no locus standi in the matter. If there is a substantial body of opinion who have any connection with the district there would not have been the slightest difficulty in finding people with a locus stanch.


The hon. Member has not remembered his dates. While the Chairman of Ways and Means sent word to one or two of those whom he thought might be interested, the Bill was taken by the Unopposed Bill Committee at such a short interval after the Second Reading that the general public and some of the societies particularly interested never knew it was being considered.


Surely my hon. Friend knows that this Bill was introduced months ago in another place, and every legitimate interest has had months in which to take the usual steps.


That is not the point which the hon. Member made at all. He said that those who thought with us ought to have been represented by counsel in the Committee here—in the House of Commons Unopposed Bills Committee. That was the obvious purport of his observation. Perhaps he had forgotten that there was no time for the societies really to realise that the Bill was being taken. We in the House of Commons who did realise it sent letters and we were told we had no locus standi. As to the amateur architecture about which he complains, if he had put his mind more acutely into this business, as he does with other Bills, he would have realised, as to the proposal that there should be a street in the front of Adelphi Terrace, that it may have been quite true, as the Chairman of Ways and Means said, that the promoters of the Bill told him it would not be worth their while to proceed with the Bill, and that to that extent it was technically, though it was not intended to be, a wrecking Amendment, but architecturally it was perfectly possible. The first Amendment was perfectly possible. When representations were made to my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) that it would involve a street in front in addition to the expense of the covered roadway in the middle, he carefully drew that Amendment in order to meet that difficulty. Everything has been done by putting forward Amendments which were perfectly possible architec- turally to meet the difficulties which have been put up, and I trust that the House, when it comes to vote for the Amendment, will understand that a perfectly honest endeavour has been made to meet the difficulties advanced by the promoters.

9.25 p.m.


Perhaps it may be for the convenience of the House if I say at once that this Amendment to the proposed Amendment cannot be accepted. In reference to what has been said by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), may I say that I have no complaint to make in regard to the course which has been adopted by those supporting this Amendment? Perhaps it is only just to the right hon. Gentleman to remind the House of what I said in the beginning, that these particular bodies who are interested would have had no locus standi at all and could not have been heard before the Unopposed Bills Committee. I can only say, on the other hand, that nothing has been done in regard to this Bill outside the ordinary and well known procedure of this House. Directly the Second Reading was carried and the Instruction given to the Committee, the order for the Bill to come before an unopposed Committee was put on the Order Paper in the ordinary way, and it was open to any hon. Member to

take action. I say this merely to try to prevent any bitterness or acerbity among those who are indulging in this particular controversy. I rose to say that the position must be accepted by the House as definite and that this Amendment to the proposed Amendment must be resisted.




On the instructions which I received I am obliged to say that the promoters cannot accept it.


May I just ask—


The hon. Member must please allow me. An appeal was made to those in charge of the Bill as to whether I could accept the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, and my reply is, "No." That is all it comes to. I want with the greatest respect to say this in addition, in the hope that it may help the House to come to a decision. I cannot consistently with my position agree to any proposal at this moment beyond that which I have already made and which apparently is not acceptable and therefore I hope, having the issue clearly before them, the House will now agree to come to a decision.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes. 92; Noes, 191.

Division No. 281.] AYES [9.28 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Grundy, Thomas W. O'Connor, Terence James
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Parkinson, John Allen
Aske, Sir Robert William Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd) Perkins, Walter R. D.
Attlee, Clement Richard Harris, Sir Percy Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Balniel, Lord Hicks, Ernest George Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Banfield, John William Hirst, George Henry Rankin, Robert
Batey, Joseph Holdsworth, Herbert Rathbone, Eleanor
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Horobin, Ian M. Rea, Walter Russell
Briant, Frank Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Burnett, John George Janner, Barnett Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cobb, Sir Cyril John, William Savery, Samuel Servington
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Cove, William G. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry Kirkwood, David Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Cripps, Sir Stafford Knight, Holford Tate, Mevis Constance
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle) Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Thorne, William James
Curry, A. C. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Tinker, John Joseph
Dagger, George Lawson, John James Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Dobbie, William Leonard, William Wellhead, Richard C.
Edwards, Charles Lindsay, Noel Ker Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander White, Henry Graham
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan) Lunn, William Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace Mebane, William Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Goldie, Noel B. McEntee, Valentine L. Williams, Thomas (York. Don valley
Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton Wilson, Lt.-Cal. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Magnay, Thomas Withers, Sir John James
Granville, Edgar Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Mander, Geoffrey le M. Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Martin, Thomas B.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.) Maxton, James. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pon'yoool) Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw;k) Sir William Davison and Sir R.
Groves, Thomas E. Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale Mitchell Banks.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Grenfell, E. C. (City of London) Patrick, Collin M.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Pearson, William G.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Guy, J. C. Morrison Peat, Charles U.
Moil, Duchess of Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Penny, Sir George
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. Hales, Harold K. Petherick, M.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) Hammersley, Samuel S. Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar Hanbury, Cecil Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.) Harlington, Marquess of Renter, John R.
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel Hartland, George A. Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Boulton, W. W. Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Runge, Norah Cecil
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Hornby, Frank Salmon, Sir Isidore
Brass, Captain Sir William Horebrugh, Florence Salt, Edward W.
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Hewitt, Dr. Alfred B. Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Broadbent, Colonel John Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.) Shaw, Helen B, (Lanark, Bothwell)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y) Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Buchan, John Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Butt, Sir Alfred Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm Jamieson, Douglas Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Smithers, Waldron
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.) Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Somervell, Donald Bradley
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Clarke, Frank Kimball, Lawrence Soper, Richard
Clarry, Reginald George Knox, Sir Alfred Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Clayton, Sir Christopher Law, Sir Alfred Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Leckie, J. A. Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Colfox, Major William Philip Lees-Jones, John Spens, William Patrick
Conant, R. J. E. Levy, Thomas Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Cooke, Douglas Lewis, Oswald Stevenson, James
Cowan, D. M. Liddall, Walter S. Storey, Samuel
Cranborne, Viscount Loder, Captain J. de Vere Strauss, Edward A.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Cross, R. H. McCorquodale, M. S. Thompson. Lukf
Daikeith, Earl of MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Davies, Mat. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil) McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Thorp, Linton Theodore
Dickle, John P. Maitland, Adam Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Donner, P. W. Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Llonel Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Duggan, Hubert John Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington,N.) Marsden, Commander Arthur Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.) Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres Wells, Sydney Richard
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr) Weymouth, Viscount
Fleming, Edward Lascelles Moreing, Adrian C. Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Ford, Sir Patrick J. Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.) Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Fox, Sir Gifford Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Fuller, Captain A. G. Moss, Captain H. J. Wills, Wilfrid D.
Ganzoni, Sir John Munro, Patrick Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
George, Major 0. Lloyd (Pembroke) Nall, Sir Joseph Wise, Alfred R.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald Womersley, Walter James
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Gluckstein, Louis Halle Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Goff, Sir Park North, Edward T. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Gower, Sir Robert Nunn, William Lieut.-Commander Agnew and
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas Owen, Major Goronwy Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen.

Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 97; Noes, 196.

Division No. 282.] AYES. [9.39 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Burnett, John George Dabble, William
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Caporn, Arthur Cecil Edwards, Charles
Asks, Sir Robert William Cobb, Sir Cyril Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Attlee, Clement Richard Cocks, Frederick Seymour Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Balniel, Lord Cove, William G. Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Banfield, John William Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry Goldle, Noel B.
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell Capps, Sir Stafford Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Batey, Joseph Curry, A. C. Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Dagger, George Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Briant, Frank Davison, Sir William Henry Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) Logan, David Gilbert Salter, Dr. Alfred
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Savery, Samuel Servington
Groves, Thomas E. Lunn, William Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Grundy, Thomas W. Mabane, William Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Hales, Harold K. Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) McEntee, Valentine L. Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd) Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton Tate, Mavis Constance
Harris, Sir Percy Magnay, Thomas Thorne, William James
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot Tinker, John Joseph
Hicks, Ernest George Mander, Geoffrey le M. Todd, Capt. A. J. K (B'rwick-on-T.)
Hirst, George Henry Martin, Thomas B. Wellhead, Richard C.
Holdsworth, Herbert Maxton, James. Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Horobin, Ian M. Milner, Major James White, Henry Graham
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k) Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Janner, Barnett O'Connor, Terence James Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
John, William Parkinson, John Alien Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Perkins, Walter R. D. Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)
Kirkwood, David Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada Withers, Sir John James
Knight, Holford Raikes, Henry V. A. M. Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Rankin, Robert Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Rathbone, Eleanor
Lawson, John James Rea, Waiter Russell TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Leonard, William Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l) Mr. Molson and Captain Dower.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Fuller. Captain A. G. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Ganzoni, Sir John Monseil, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Athol', Duchess of Gillett, Sir George Masterman Moreing, Adrian C.
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Gluckntein, Louis Halle Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) Goff, Sir Park Moss, Captain H. J.
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupon Gower, Sir Robert Munro, Patrick
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas Nall, Sir Joseph
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.) Greaten, E. C. (City of London) Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Blindell, James Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Boulton, W. W. Guy, J. C. Morrison North, Edward T.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Nunn, William
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Owen, Major Goronwy
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Hammersley, Samuel S. Patrick, Colin M.
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald Hanbury, Cecil Pearson, William G.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Peat, Charles U.
Brass, Captain Sir William Hartington, Marquess of Penny, Sir George
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) Petherick, M.
Broadbent, Colonel John Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Heligers, Captain F. F. A. Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division) Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y) Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Ray, Sir William
Buchan, John Hornby, Frank Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Horsbrugh, Florence Remer, John R.
Butt, Sir Alfred Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.) Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Runge, Norah Cecil
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H. Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Chapman. Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) Jamieson, Douglas Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Clarke, Frank Joel, Dudley J. Barneto Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Clarry, Reginald George Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Salmon, Sir Isidore
Clayton, Sir Christopher Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Salt, Edward W.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Kimball, Lawrence Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Colfox, Major William Philip Knox, Sir Alfred Scone, Lord
Conant, R. J. E. Law, Sir Alfred Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Cooke, Douglas Leckie, J. A. Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Copeland, Ida Lees-Jones, John Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Cowan, D. M. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Cranborne, Viscount Levy, Thomas Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle) Lewis, Oswald Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Cross, R. H. Liddall, Walter S. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick) Smithers, Waldron
Daikeith, Earl of MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Somerven, Donald Bradley
Davies, Mal. Geo. F. (Somerset. Yeovil) McCorquodale, M. S. Somerville. D. G. (Willesden, East)
Dawson, Sir Philip MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Soper, Richard
Dickie, John P. Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Donner, P. W. McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Drewe, Cedric McKie, John Hamilton Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Duggan, Hubert John Maitland, Adam Spens, William Patrick
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest Stevenson, James
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Storey, Samuel
Einney, Viscount Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Strauss, Edward A.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Marsden, Commander Arthur Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ) Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Fleming, Edward Lascelles Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Thompson, Luke
Fox, Sir Gifford Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Thorp, Linton Theodore Waterhouse, Captain Charles Wise, Alfred R.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford) Wells, Sydney Richard Womersley, Walter James
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey) Weymouth, Viscount Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Wallace, John (Dunfermline) Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.) Lieut.-Commander Agnew and
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock) Wills, Wilfrid D. Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G. Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

9.45 p.m.


I beg to move, That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time. I would only say that, if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have been opposing this Bill make up their minds that the Divisions which have taken place have in effect settled the fate of the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I am saying that, if they do, I hope they will allow this Motion as regards the suspension of Standing Orders to be carried without a Division; if they desire further to debate the Third Reading, that Debate may be entered upon at once, in view of the short time that now remains. That is the only object of the Motion—in order that we may get on as soon as we can.

9.46 p.m.


In any ordinary circumstances I should have been willing to allow this suspension of the Standing Orders to pass unchallenged, but on the present occasion, speaking for myself, I would not dream of doing so, and I would ask others who have voted in the recent Divisions in favour of the Amendment which we proposed not to allow it to pass either. The object of these Standing Orders, when they were passed, was to enable Members of the House of Commons to have sufficient time in which to consider the subject-matter of Private Bills, and to be able to take into judgment all that they could gather about them.

This evening it has been made abundantly clear that what was wanted on this occasion was that there should really be some agreement, when at one point we seemed to be very near to coming to an agreement. Had it only been possible for us this afternoon—I am speaking now against suspending the Standing Orders, and against curtailing the time that Members should have at their disposal for considering the merits of a Bill before proceeding to the next stage of the discussion—to have had a little more time, it might have been possible to arrive at an understanding which would have pre- vented any further controversy about the merits of the Bill. I think that, had we been able to meet outside with the promoters, it might perhaps have been done. I cannot, however, be sure about, that, because we made one attempt after another from these benches, each of them an absolutely sincere attempt, to meet what the promoters put forward. In each case we met with ill-success. An offer was made to us by the Chairman of Ways and Means, which he said he thought the promoters might perhaps accept, though he did not think that in the end it would be permitted by the Westminster City Council. We just tried to amend that so as to ensure the possibility of its being taken by the city council, but we were met with an everlasting "Nay," which appeared to come from outside the precincts of the House.

The House has been put through a process which cannot have enlightened hon. Members, but which must have only left them bewildered as to the true merits of the Bill, and, indeed, some Members of the House happened not to be here during the earlier stages when these Amendments were debated. That being the case, I think that this is a most unsuitable occasion on which to suspend Standing Orders which were devised for the purpose of giving Members of the House time and opportunity to realise the merits of the question upon which they were pronouncing opinions. Therefore, in my view—and I think that probably it will be the view of all other Members of the House—we ought not to allow these Standing Orders to be suspended on the present occasion. I sincerely hope that if, as I trust will be the case, the Standing Orders are not suspended, when we come to the Third Reading of the Bill those Members who have not been present during to-night's discussion will have had time to reflect upon the true merits of the contentions which have been made on either side, and I am sure that, if they do so, they will see that what we proposed went a long way beyond what we should have liked, in order to reach peace and agreement on the subject of the Bill.

If hon. Members will think over the matter calmly, instead of in the somewhat heated atmosphere which always ensues after these discussions and excursions and alarums, they will be able to give a vote on the final stage of the Bill of which they would in their cooler judgment afterwards approve, instead of one which they might now give in heat, and of which they might repent at leisure. [Laughter.] There are some hon. Members who laugh, because they seem to think that they would never alter their minds about anything on reflection, and I can hardly venture to appeal to those who make up their minds in that way, especially if they have not had the opportunity of being present during the earlier stages and of listening to the discussions. It is, perhaps, of no use to appeal to them, but for the sake of all others I most sincerely hope that these Standing Orders will not be suspended to-night. All that that will mean will be that there will intervene one clear day before the next stage of the Bill. I am sure that that is not too much to ask. At an earlier stage this evening we were told that it might jeopardise the passage of the Bill, but I cannot believe that that would be the case. It would only jeopardise the passage of the Bill if the Session came to an end during this week, so that there was no time to pass it, and if it were also impossible to provide that a private Bill should be carried over into 'a new Session. It seems to be clear already that the Session is not going to end next Friday, but that we are going to meet again, when there will be ample opportunity, even though the concluding days of the Session when we meet again are short. There will be ample opportunity, if need be, for the concluding stages of the Bill to be taken then.

On the other hand, although it may not be within the actual memory of the Chairman of Ways and Means, I believe there is a precedent, not only for carrying over a Government Bill or a private Member's Bill into a new Session if there is not time to take it in the existing Session, but for carrying over a private Bill 'also. I believe that that was the case with regard to a Railway Bill. Naturally, in the confusion of to-night, I have not had time to look up precedents, but I believe that that is the case; and, if that be so, there is every conceivable reason for allowing Members of the House to have what is their undoubted right under the Standing Orders, namely, one clear day between the Report stage of the Bill and the Third Reading, and for not suspending these Standing Orders for the purpose of taking 'away that right from them. I make this appeal from the point of view of those who have received encouragement from the Chairman of Ways and Means, but, I am bound to say, have received extraordinarily scant encouragement from 'any other quarter. I ask that we should have our right of consideration preserved without the matter being pressed unnecessarily quickly.

9.56 p.m.


I suggest to the House that they have already heard almost all the arguments that I can imagine against the Third Reading and, therefore, I only want to ask the House to listen to two or three sentences in regard to the question of suspending the Standing Orders and reading the Bill a Third time forthwith. If it is passed in its present form, substantial advantages are obtained for the general public in that two viewpoints upon the river are preserved for ever.


On a point of Order. Are we discussing the merits of the Bill or the question whether the Standing Orders should be suspended? Are we to be allowed to discuss the whole issue on this Motion?


The Third Reading is included in the Motion.


Under the Bill as it stands there is considerable control as to the sort of building that may be put up in its place and, if hon. Members desire to preserve the view over the river and to have some kind of control as to the appearance of the new building, there is no question that they retain those advantages if they pass the Bill and, if they do not pass it, they do not retain those advantages. It is my duty to put that matter before the House, and that is all that I want to say on this question at present.

9.59 p.m.


I hope that many Members who do not agree with the opponents of the Bill on the merits will join with us in opposing the suspending of the Standing Orders.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 218; Noes, 110.

Division No. 283.] AYES. [10.0 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas Peat, Charles U.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Grant ell, E. C. (City of London) Penny, Sir George
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'1. W.) Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. Petherick, M.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. Guy, J. C. Morrison Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Hammersley, Samuel S. Ray, Sir William
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.) Hanbury, Cecil Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham
Bouiton, W. W. Hartington, Marquess of Remer, John R.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Robinson, John Roland
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division) Ropner, Colonel L
Brass, Captain Sir William Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Hornby, Frank Ross, Ronald D.
Broadbent, Colonel John Horsbrugh, Florence Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Howitt, Dr. Alfred B Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.) Runge, Norah Cecil
Brown, Brig -Gen. H C. (Berks., Newb'y) Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Buchan, John Hume, Sir George Hopwood Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. Salmon, Sir Isldore
Butt, Sir Alfred Jamieson, Douglas Salt, Edward W.
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Scone, Lord
Carver, Major William H. Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Castlereagh, Viscount Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.) Kimball, Lawrence Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Knox, Sir Alfred Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) Law, Sir Alfred Smiles, Lieut.-Col, Sir Walter D.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) Leckie, J. A. Smith, R. W. (Aderd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Clarke, Frank Lees-Jones, John Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Marry, Reginald George Leighton, Major B. E. P. Smithers, Waldron
Clayton, Sir Christopher Levy, Thomas Somervell, Donald Bradley
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Lewis, Oswald Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Colfox, Major William Philip Liddell, Walter S. Soper, Richard
Colman, N. C. D. Lindsay, Noel Ken Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Conant, R. J. E. Locker-Lampoon, Rt. He. G.(Wd. Gr'n) Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Cooke, Douglas Loder, Captain J. de Vera Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. Lyons, Abraham Montagu Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Cowan, D. M. MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick) Spens, William Patrick
Cranborne, Viscount MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootie) McCorquodale, M. S. Stevenson, James
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) MacDonald, Malcolm (Batsetlaw) Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Strickland, Captain W. F.
Daikeith, Earl of Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) McKie, John Hamilton Tate, Mavis Constance
Dawson, Sir Philip Maitland, Adam Thompson, Luke
Dickie, John P. Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Donner, P. W. Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Thorp, Linton Theodore
Orewe, Cedric Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel Marsden, Commander Arthur Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Duggan, Hubert John Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington,N.) Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Eastwood, John Francis Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Eimley, Viscount Mansell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr) Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Meriting, Adrian C. Wells, Sydney Richard
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardin. S.) Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.) Weymouth, Viscount
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.) Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H (Denbigh) Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Falls. Sir Bertram G. Moss, Captain H. J. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Flint, Abraham John Munro, Patrick Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Fox, Sir Gifford Nail, Sir Joseph Wills, Wilfrid D.
Fraser, Captain Ian Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Fuller, Captain A. G. Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Wise, Alfred R.
Ganzoni, Sir John North, Edward T. Womersley, Waiter James
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton Nunn, William Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Gillett, Sir George Masterman O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Owen, Major Goronwy TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle Patrick, Colin M. Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen
Goff, Sir Park Pearson, William G. and Lieut.-Commander Agnew.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Martin, Thomas B.
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Maxton, James.
Applin, Lieut.-Col, Reginald V. K. Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Milner, Major James
Aske, Sir Robert William Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.) Mitchell, Harold P.(Brif'd & Chisw'k)
Attlee, Clement Richard Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) O'Connor. Terence James
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) Grimston, R. V. Parkinson, John Alien
Balniel, Lord Groves, Thomas E. Perkins, Walter R. D.
Banfield, John William Grundy, Thomas W. Pownall, Sir Assheton
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell Haler, Harold K. Price, Gabriel
Batey, Joseph Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Rea, Walter Russell
Bonn, Sir Arthur Shirley Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd) Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Harris, Sir Percy Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn) Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Briant, Frank Hicks, Ernest George Savory, Samuel Servington
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Hirst, George Henry Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Burnett, John George Holdsworth, Herbert Smith, Sir J. Walker-(Barrow-in-F.)
Cape, Thomas Horohin, Ian M. Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Danner, Barnett Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Cassels, James Dale John, William Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Cobb, Sir Cyril Jones, Henry Haydn (Merieneth) Storey, Samuel
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Cove, William G. Kirkwood, David Thorne, William James
Cripps, Sir Stafford Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Tinker, John Joseph
Cross, R. H. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Curry, A. C. Lawson, John James Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Daggar, George Leonard, William Wellhead, Richard C.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Logan, David Gilbert Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Davison, Sir William Henry Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander White, Henry Graham
Dabble, William Lunn, William Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Dower, Captain A. V. G. Mebane, William Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Edwards, Charles Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Emrys-Evans, P. V. McEntee, Valentine L. Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan) Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton Withers, Sir John James
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Goidle, Noel B. Magnay, Thomas TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W. mallalieu, Edward Lancelot Mr. Molson and Mr. Bernays.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Question put accordingly, "That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House proceeded to a Division.


(seated and covered): I wish to raise a point of Order. I desire to know whether there will be any opportunity for debating the Third Reading of this this Bill in connection with the Motion now before this House?


The House has already decided that the Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," should be put, and there can be no opportunity for a discussion upon it.

The House divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 97.

Division No. 284] AYES. [10.10 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Buchan, John Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l W.) Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Butt, Sir Alfred Daikeith, Earl of
Atholl, Duchess of Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) Davies, M a). Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm Dawson, Sir Philip
Balfour. George (Hampstead) Caporn, Arthur Cecil Dickie, John P.
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) Carver, Major William H. Donner, P. W.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Cassels, James Dale Drewe, Cedric
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar Castlereagh, Viscount Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.) Duggan, Hubert John
Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portam'th, C.) Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Bonn, Sir Arthur Shirley Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) Eastwood, John Francis
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Blindell, James Clarke, Frank Eimley, Viscount
Boulton, W. W. Clarry, Reginald George Emmett, Charles E. G. C.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Clayton, Sir Christopher Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Colfox, Major William Philip Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Colman, N. C. D. Falle Sir Bertram G.
Brass, Captain Sir William Conant, R. J. E. Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Cooke, Douglas Fox, Sir Gifford
Broadbent, Colonel John Copeland, Ida Fraser, Captain Ian
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. Fremantle, Sir Francis
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) Cowan, D. M. Fuller, Captain A. G.
Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y) Cranborne, Viscount Ganzoni, Sir John
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Salt, Edward W.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Gillett, Sir George Masterman Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Scone, Lord
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle McKie, John Hamilton Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Goff, Sir Park McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Gower, Sir Robert Maitland, Adam Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London) Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Marsden, Commander Arthur Smith, R. W. (aberd'n & Kinedine, C.)
Grimston, R. V. Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Smithers, Waldron
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Somervell, Donald Bradley
Guy, J. C. Morrison Milner, Major James Somerville, D G. (Willesden, East)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Soper, Richard
Hales, Harold K. Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Moore, Lt,-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr) Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Hammersley, Samuel S. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Hanbury, Cecil Moreing, Adrian C. Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.) Spans, William Patrick
Hartington, Marquess of Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) Moss, Captain H. J. Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Munro, Patrick Stevenson, James
Hellgers, Captain F F. A. Nail, Sir Joseph Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division) Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald Storey, Samuel
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie Normand, Wilfrid Guild Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Hornby, Frank North, Edward T. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Horsbrugh, Florence Nunn, William Sugden, Sir Wilgfrid Hart
Hewitt, Dr. Alfred B. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Thompson, Luke
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Owen, Major Goronwy Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) Patrick, Colin M. Thorp, Linton Theodore
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Pearson, William G. Todd, A. L. S. (KingswInford)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Peat, Charles U. Touche, Gordon Cosmo
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. Penny, Sir George Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Jamleson, Douglas Petherick, M. Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
K err, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Ramsden, Sir Eagane Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Kimball, Lawrence Ray, Sir William Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Knox, Sir Alfred Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Law, Sir Alfred Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham- Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Leckie, J. A. Remer, John R. Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Lees-Jones, John Rentoul, Sir Gervais S. Wells, Sydney Richard
Leighton, Major B. E. P. Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U. Weymouth, Viscount
Levy, Thomas Robinson. John Roland Whiteside, Boreal Noel H.
Lewis, Oswald Ropner, Colonel L. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Liddell, Waiter S. Rosbotham, Sir Thomas Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Locker-Lampoon, Rt. Hn. G.(Wc1.Gr'n) Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) Wills, Wilfrid D.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A. Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere Runge, Norah Cecil Wise, Alfred R.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy) Womersley, Walter James
Lyons, Abraham Montagu Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick) Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l) Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen
McCorquodale, M. S. Salmon, Sir Isidore and Lieut.-Commander Agnew.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) bobble, William Janner, Barnett
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) Dower, Captain A. V. G. John, William
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Edwards, Charles Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Asks, Sir Robert William Emrys-Evans, P. V. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Attlee, Clement Richard Evans, David Owen (Cardigan) Kirkwood, David
Bainiel, Lord Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Banfield, John William Galbraith, James Francis Wallace Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell Goldie, Noel B. Lawson, John James
Batey, Joseph Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Leonard, William
Bernays, Robert Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Logan, David Gilbert
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn) Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Lunn, William
Briant, Frank Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) Mebane, William
Burnett, John George Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Macdonald. Gordon (Ince)
Cape, Thomas Groves, Thomas E. McEntee, Valentine L.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Grundy, Thomas W. Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Cove, William G. Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd) Magnay, Thomas
Cripps, Sir Stafford Harris, Sir Percy Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Cross, R. H. Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n) Mender, Geoffrey le M.
Crossley, A. C. Haslam, Henry (Horneastle) Martin, Thomas B.
Curry, A. C. Hicks, Ernest George Maxton, James.
Dagger, George Hirst, George Henry Mitchell, Harold P.(Brtf'd & Chlew'k)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Holdsworth, Herbert O'Connor, Terence James
Davison, Sir William Henry Horobin, Ian M. Parkinson, John Allen
Perkins, Walter R. D. Smith, Sir J. Walker-(Barrow-In-F.) Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Pownall, Sir Assheton Smith, Tom (Normanton) Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Price, Gabriel Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M. Tate, Mavis Constance Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Rathbone, Eleanor Thorne, William James
Rea, Walter Russell Tinker, John Joseph TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling) Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-n-T.) Sir A. Steel-Maitland and Mr.
Salter, Dr. Alfred Wellhead, Richard C. Molson.
Savery, Samuel Servington White, Henry Graham

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Forward to