Lords Sitting of 22 May 1924

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES WATER BOARD BILL.
Read 2a.
WANDSWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Read 2a.
STROUD WATER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of a Bill to extend the period during which contributions under the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act of 1922 are to be payable. I am not altogether unfamiliar with the complexities and difficulties of the salaries and superannuation of teachers, and I must confess that it was with some apprehension that I learned from my right hon. friend, the Minister for Education, that he expected me to pass a Superannuation Bill for Teachers through your Lordships' House. But when I came to peruse the Bill, and to see its nature and scope, my apprehensions

603
were largely removed, because the Bill is of a purely temporary character and is to extend the Act of 1922.
Even so, it will be necessary for me to trouble your Lordships, briefly I hope, with some explanation of how this Bill comes before you. I will take your Lordships back in the history of the subject to the year 1918. In that year an Act was passed entitled the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, under which a non-contributory system was set up for teachers very much on the lines of the superannuation which prevails in the Civil Service. Two courses, however, led to the supersession of this Act. In the first place, the financial burden of the scheme proved much greater than was anticipated, and, in the second place, there was a public demand for the curtailment of the financial obligations of the nation.
If I read to your Lordships paragraph 16 of the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Superannuation of School Teachers (which was presided over by my noble friend Lord Emmott) it would, perhaps, explain to you in a very short and concise form the first of the causes which I have mentioned as leading to the supersession of this Act of 1918. Paragraph 16 is as follows:—
"In moving the Financial Resolution on the Bill of 1918, the President of the Board of Education said: 'On the whole the best indication of the expected cost of the present measure is to say that at the present moment the salaries of teachers in grant-aided schools amount to something over £20,000,000 a year, and on those teachers and on those salaries we expect the pension system ten years from now to cost something like £2,500,000 per annum, of which £2,000,000 will he new money, and the remainder is what the present system would cost if left unaltered.' This was the only estimate which the House had before it while the Bill was under discussion. It was avowedly conjectural, and Mr. Fisher referred more particularly to two uncertain factors. He had not attempted to forecast what might be the increase in the number of teachers duo to the extension of our educational system. Nor had he attempted to forecast the rise in salaries which might take place in ten years time. The second of these factors was destined to come into play at a far earlier date, and with far more startling effect, than anyone could have anticipated. In little more than a year after the Bill had become law, the estimate was valueless."
I need not dwell on the second cause which led to the supersession of this Act.
604
—namely, the public demand for the curtailment of the financial obligations of the nation, because that is familiar to all your Lordships.
As a result of the demand for the supersession of this Act there was considerable discussion, and it was agreed that teachers should be required to contribute 5 per cent. of their salaries towards the ultimate cost of the pension scheme. It was also agreed that the question should be reviewed as a whole by a Departmental Committee and, as I have mentioned already, that Departmental Committee was presided over by my noble friend Lord Emmott. Accordingly, the Act of 1922 was passed, to provide for the payment of contributions by teachers towards the cost of benefits under the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918, to regularise those contributions on the part of the teachers; but that Act was limited in time and was to expire on May 31 of this year, in the hope that between the date of the passing of that Act in August, 1922, and June 1 of this year some permanent scheme might be devised. That hope was not realised, hence the necessity for the present Bill to which I am asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading.
Lord Emmott's Committee reported on July 30 of last year, and in view of the fact that my noble friend is, I believe, going to address your Lordships on this Bill, I think it might be well that your Lordships should bear in mind that date. It is obvious that the late Government, in view of the General Election as a result of which a change of Government took place, could hardly have been expected to pass any legislation consequent on the Report of the Emmott Committee, and I think the same might be said of the present Government without unfairness. It was hardly to be expected that in the four months that we have been in office we should have been able to prepare and carry through all stages in both Houses before May 31, a Bill of the complexity which would necessarily characterise a measure embracing the whole subject of superannuation. I think the impossibility of that will be realised all the more clearly if any of your Lordships were to peruse the Emmott Committee's Report.
I should like at once to pay a tribute to the noble Lord and his Committee on that Report. It was very comprehensive

605
and extremely lucid both in its examination of the various problems submitted to it and the recommendations which it made with regard to those problems. But I feel sure the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, would be the first to admit that some very far-reaching conclusions were arrived at in his Report and that in many respects his recommendations were of a highly controversial nature. Apart altogether from those considerations which I have attempted to put before your Lordships, I would add that superannuation must be inextricably bound up with the question of salaries, and therefore, on that score alone, there must be delay in view of negotiations which I may inform your Lordships are at the present moment going on for the settlement of salary scales. In view of this I think your Lordships can hardly have any-real expectation that there can be any permanent measure which is going to find a solution for this problem much before the end of next Session in 1925, but I may say at once, on behalf of my right hon. friend the Minister of Education, that he has every intention, barring accidents, of bringing forward a Bill in the early part of next year which will attempt to deal with the whole of this problem.
I think it must be also patent that he must have a little margin of time for the purpose of dealing with this matter. The last thing your Lordships would tolerate, I am sure, would be that someone at this Table should next year come forward with another extension-of-time Bill such as that which I am proposing to-day. Therefore, I think, it would be very much better that you should afford to His Majesty's Government a certain margin of time within which they may produce their measure and pass it through both Houses of Parliament. I may point out to your Lordships that in the one operative clause of this Bill provision is made, if it becomes an Act, for its coming into operation at an earlier date than the two years which are taken under its provisions:—
"The School Teachers (Superannuation) Act. 1022, shall, unless Parliament shall hereafter fix some earlier date for the purpose, have effect as though——"
and so on. I think in every way this Bill does provide for a measure being produced and put into effect as soon as
606
His Majesty's Government are able to pass it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Chelmsford.)
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, my noble friend opposite has referred to the fact that I had the honour of presiding over a Committee to consider this question of the superannuation of teachers, and perhaps, therefore, your Lordships will allow me to say a few words upon this Bill. It is a small Bill in itself. It merely prolongs for the period which the noble Viscount mentioned the deduction of 5 per cent. from the salaries of the teachers of this country who are the beneficiaries under the superannuation system at present in force. Owing to the change of Government, it is quite clear that some delay is almost inevitable in making any permanent, settlement of the question with which our Report deals, but the delay asked for in this Bill seems to me unnecessarily long. Even so, I should not be greatly troubled about it if the President of the Board of Education, Mr. Trevelyan, had ever shown in the debates in another place, any realisation of the entirely unsatisfactory character of the present temporary arrangement or any real desire to replace it by a permanent settlement. What the noble Viscount has just said is a more direct promise in regard to his action than anything the Minister has said in another place.
The history of the question of the superannuation of teachers in this country during the last six years is an example of how not to do things. Before 1918 there were in this country two schemes of superannuation, one contributory and the other non-contributory. Both were entirely inadequate, and their inadequacy is dealt with in our Report. In Scotland, from 1912 up to 1918 or 1919, there had been established a liberal and satisfactory scheme of pensions for teachers on a contributory basis. It was working smoothly, and everybody was satisfied with it., The teachers contributed, local authorities contributed, and it was thoroughly sound in its finances. It was done away with owing to the fact that a non-contributory scheme was introduced into England, making it necessary that a similar benefit should also be given to Scotland. I wonder if Mr. Fisher, when he brought in his Bill of 1918, ever examined the Scottish scheme

607
which was working smoothly and satisfactorily, and if he realised that his Bill of 1918 for England must inevitably smash up the Scottish scheme. Under his Bill of 1918 the scheme was a non-contributory one. For teachers who often leave their profession at an early stage, some to join again later, a contributory scheme of superannuation is much better than a non-contributory scheme. It is certainly a more direct lesson in thrift, because teachers see their contributions go into a fund and grow, and if they retire before reaching a pensionable age then they are able to withdraw all their contributions plus three per cent. compound interest. They know that a sum is accumulating for their benefit, apart from the extra sum they will eventually receive when they become pensionable.
The result of the Fisher scheme of 1918 was that the teachers of this country received a benefit in the shape of superannuation which, on the average, was equivalent to an increase of twenty-six per cent. of their salaries. When the teachers' salaries were greatly increased owing to the recommendations of the Committee presided over by Viscount Burnham, and the salaries of elementary teachers were increased to two-and-a-half times their 1918 figure, the addition given by the superannuation scheme, formerly twenty-six per cent. on the 1918 salary, became then an addition of considerably over sixty per cent. on the 1918 salaries. Altogether the salaries of teachers were increased, first by 150 per cent. in actual salary under the Burnham scheme, and, secondly, by this superannuation benefit amounting to something over sixty per cent. of their original figures. That is to say, they received about three times their previous salary in one form or another. I am far from suggesting that this is too much. Teachers had been horribly underpaid before 1918, and I do not suggest that they receive too much. What I do say is that whether Mr. Fisher forgot Scotland or not, he certainly forgot that the cold fit follows the hot.
In 1921 the country had naturally become much alarmed at our financial position. The Government were frightened. The Geddes Committee were, appointed and naturally they looked at the expenditure on education as well as on other matters. They reported that the ultimate amount that would be called for
608
under the 1918 scheme, instead of being £2,500,000, as given by Mr. Fisher, would be £9,600,000. The Geddes Committee in their first Report of 1922 recommended:—
"That a full inquiry should be held with a view to placing the superannuation of teachers on a sound contributory basis under which the teachers and the authorities who employ them would each bear a due proportion of the burden."
That Report was accepted by the Government, and the Committee over which I had the honour to preside was appointed to consider the whole question, with due regard to the economy of public funds and the provision of adequate and suitable benefits for the teachers. Pending a permanent settlement a five per cent. levy was made upon the teachers. Many of your Lordships will remember the strong protests which that levy aroused. So strong were the protests, and so strong the accusations of breach of faith on the part of the Government of the day, that a Committee was appointed, presided over by Mr. Acland, to consider the matter. That Committee reported, by a small majority only, that no breach of faith had occurred which need invalidate the legislation then before the House of Commons. That was not a very satisfactory state of affairs. From first to last the conduct of this matter has shown a great deal of hurried action and lack of pre-vision, and has been an example of how not to do things.
I am not going into this matter in any detail—this is not a suitable occasion-but I should like to say one word about my Committee. I have sat on many Committees and Royal Commissions, but I have never sat on a Committee more anxious to find a solution of a difficult question than this Committee, or one more ready to put their ideas into the common stock in order to arrive at a sound solution. There are very many unsound features in the present situation. In the first place, it is entirely wrong in principle that the State should pay pensions on salaries fixed by other bodies; that is, by local authorities. In the second place, it is intolerable that the five per cent. levy now made on the teachers should be used as an appropriation-in-aid, instead of being funded and used for the provision of their pensions in future years. In the case of a teacher twenty-five years of age, his five per cent. levy ought to be put into a fund in order to provide part of his pension at the age

609
of sixty or sixty-five. Instead of that it is used for the general purposes of education, and some minute fraction is actually used to pay his own salary. You cannot have a principle more unsound. Then again—this is a matter which I think will appeal to many of your Lordships, and I hope we shall hear more of it when the permanent scheme is brought forward—there are a great many schools that ought to come within the ambit of the scheme. They are now left outside, and that must be the case in any rigid scheme in which the State pays the whole amount of the pensions, except, of course, the levy on the teachers, and the local authorities and managers pay no portion of the cost at all.
I do not think the people of this country understand what an immobilising effect the Burnham scales plus superannuation have had upon the teachers of this country. There are tens of thousands of teachers who live in terror of losing their places because they know that it is extremely unlikely that they will be able to find other satisfactory positions. They are afraid of being turned out and replaced by cheaper people at a lower salary. Our considerations were devoted to a large extent to trying to provide greater mobility for the teaching profession, and there is nothing more important in regard to education than such mobility. Our recommendations upon these and other matters are really dependent upon the acceptance of our main recommendation of a contributory system, under which the contributions of teachers and of local authorities and managers, if they also are to contribute, should be funded. Only on some such terms as this can schools outside come into the scheme if they desire to do so. Such schools ought to be admitted into the scheme, of course on modified conditions as regards future service. I say again that no greater service could be rendered to education than by promoting mobility in the teaching profession, by making it easy for teachers to pass from school to school. That is one of the most important of our proposals, and we regarded it, and I still regard it, as a most urgent matter. We reported, as the noble Viscount opposite has said, at the end of July, and I have already acknowledged that the change of Government has almost necessitated some delay.
610
The present position is that Scotland wants our scheme, but Scotland cannot act alone, and the President of the Board of Education, so far as I have followed his utterances on this subject, is unable to make up his mind about it. It is a matter of common knowledge, and was, indeed, referred to by the noble Viscount opposite, that the Committees over which my noble friend Lord Burnham presides, are again meeting to adopt a series of new scales for teachers. The noble Viscount opposite seemed to think that a very natural thing. He said, perfectly correctly, that salaries and pensions are complementary one of the other. If that is the case, surely the conditions of pensions affect the scales of salaries, and, if that be so, then a broad statement of the lines upon which the new pension scheme is to be founded, or, at any rate, a statement whether the contributory system is to be adopted and made permanent or not, is absolutely essential if my noble friend Lord Burnham is to settle satisfactorily the new scales of remuneration for teachers. The terms of a superannuation scheme ought to come first and not second.
Unless both sides know what they are doing in this matter, no permanent settlement of these new scales for teachers is possible. Unless teachers know whether the contributory scheme with regard to superannuation is to be permanent or not, there is a danger of another accusation of breach of faith later on, if a contributory scheme is introduced, and we shall have the old story of the Acland Committee over again. Owing to past mismanagement, this matter of teachers' superannuation is in a very tangled condition, and some courage and backbone are needed by any Government which is going to deal with it. Of this I have so far seen very little sign on the part of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Education, and I am afraid I must say also on the part of His Majesty's Government.
I know that our recommendation that local authorities should contribute raises a highly controversial and difficult question. I should like to say one word upon that point. It is natural that local authorities at a time like this, when rates are very high and people are complaining very loudly, should avoid all new demands that can be avoided, and indeed, in face of these suggested new demands in regard to housing, they are

611
certain to do so. The answer is that the whole question of Grants-in-aid as between the State and local authorities is being considered by a Committee presided over by a distinguished member of your Lordships' House, Lord Meston. If local authorities cannot afford to pay more and are unable to find the 2½ per cent. that we recommend for the superannuation scheme for teachers, then clearly that fact ought to be taken into consideration in the adjustment that ha" to be made of Grants-in-aid to local authorities. There can be no permanent incentive to economy in regard to this matter on the part of local authorities unless they contribute some of the cost. Unless this adjustment is made it will be impossible to get a really economic scheme.
I have detained your Lordships longer than I had intended, and must apologise for doing so. I shall conclude with the practical question of what, in my humble opinion, your Lordships should do in this matter. I cannot, of course, oppose the Second Reading of this measure, but I have felt bound to utter the protest that I have made against this somewhat sinister policy of silence that seems to me to have been adopted up to the present time. The question arises whether your Lordships would be justified or wise in altering the date in Committee. I take it that such an Amendment would be a Privilege Amendment (though I have not looked into the matter) and there is always a disadvantage in dealing with an Amendment of that kind. There is, however, one possible reason for alteration. I do not know whether the noble Viscount opposite knows, but I am told that the Scottish Grand Committee this morning altered the date of the Scottish measure which is supplementary to this Bill, and in place of April 1, 1926, inserted some date in July—I suppose July 31, 1925. It may be that the Government itself would, in those circumstances, desire to alter the date in this Bill, but this, at any rate, is a matter which your Lordships may decide subsequently.
I beg leave to say just one word upon an even wider aspect of the matter than those with which I have dealt. I am excessively anxious about the whole trend of the education system of England and Wales. My experience upon the Superannuation Committee to which I have referred, and other investigations that I have made since, have led me to see that
612
there is at the present time a tremendous peril of over-centralisation in this country. It is not due to any malice prepense on the part of the Board of Education. It is due to the system that has been set up. In the first place, a deficiency grant system, a system by which 50 per cent. of one item and 60 per cent. of another item is paid by the State to the local authorities, makes it necessary that the Board of Education should examine into every little detail of expenditure for which the deficiency grant is made. It is their duty to do so. Then again, the Burnham scales, on the one hand, and the superannuation system, on the other, make it absolutely essential that the Board of Education should look into the salary of every teacher for a portion of whose salary, as well as for the superannuation that is based upon that salary, they are responsible. These three things together mean that the Board of Education at present has a strangle-hold on the whole education system of this country. Scotland has wisely avoided all this, and my great anxiety is whether England and Wales are going to wake up in time and recognising the danger to our educational system insist upon greater freedom for local authorities and less interference from the centre.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I find myself in the agreeable position of being able to say that in introducing this Bill the Government have followed not only the right course but the inevitable course. Indeed, if a change of Government had not taken place, I think there is very little doubt that we should be laying before your Lordships a similar proposal. The Report, to which the noble Viscount alluded, issued by the Committee so ably presided over by Lord Emmott, was of a most exhaustive and valuable character, and I should like to add to what has been said by the noble Viscount, and in another place, as to the appreciation which we feel, and which was felt at the Board of Education when I was there, of the labours of that Committee and the exhaustive nature of its Report.
It has been urged in another place—not here, I think—and in the Press, that steps should have been taken to adopt that Report immediately, and that legislation should have been introduced to give effect to the recommendations. But, as the noble Viscount opposite has said, and

613
as the noble Lord also said, the provisions of that Report were of a highly technical character, and, in some instances, of a controversial character. As the noble Viscount has said, it was obviously impossible for the late Government to do anything in the time at their disposal, and the present Government are in the same position. There has not been time in which to do anything. This, of course, is not the moment to go into the recommendations of that Report, but I may give one instance of the technical character of some of the recommendations. There is the proposal that the teachers should contribute 5 per cent. of their salaries, to be carried to the pension fund, and that it should be supplemented by a contribution of 2½ per cent. from the local authorities, with a further contribution from the State. Obviously, such a proposal is one which requires very grave consideration, because the assistance which the pensions fund would give at the outset to the taxpayer would be slight. The taxpayer would have to wait some considerable time before he got any relief from the fund. I do not wish, however, to discuss this question, because there are arguments for it just as there are others which may be raised against it, and I merely mention the matter as an example of the highly controversial and technical nature of the Report.
There is, however, one small point to which I would venture to draw the attention of the noble Viscount. When I was at the Board of Education a case of great hardship came to my notice, and if I had remained in office I should have endeavoured to see whether something could not be done to give relief. It was the case of a woman in charge of an important elementary school, I think, in London. She had married in her youth a foreigner, who had deserted her. I do not think she had ever left this country. She had reached the age of sixty-six, and the fact that she was married and was technically an alien rendered her liable to disabilities in regard to superannuation. I believe a similar state of affairs, when it occurs in regard to old age pensions, is dealt with under the Act. I venture to ask the noble Viscount if he will go into the matter with the Board of Education, and discover whether anything can be done to remedy the state of affairs. I do not know whether it is germane to this Bill, but I would ask him to see whether
614
it is possible to do anything under it. If it is possible I think it would be acting in a right and proper manner to set the matter right.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the support he has given to the plea that this Bill should be read a second time. Indeed, he really echoed the argument I put forward for the necessity of the Government taking the line it has done in regard to this matter, and my right hon. friend, the late Minister fox Education in the last Government, in another place took exactly the same line as the noble Earl has just taken, when this Bill was passing through its various stages. With regard to the particular matter which the noble Earl brought before your Lordships, I can assure him that I will bring it to the notice of the Department, but I really think there may be some difficulty in procedure in getting such a clause put into a Bill with a title such as this Bill has. I am not personally familiar with these matters of procedure, but I can hardly imagine that such an Amendment as he would propose would come within the four corners of the Bill as at present drafted.
I hope that Lord Emmott will not regard me as guilty of discourtesy if I do not follow the speech which he has just made. In the first place, I think it must be abundantly clear, from the speech which he made, that the Government attitude has been eminently reasonable in asking for time to consider the large issues which he put before your Lordships; but I would demur to one epithet which he applied to the silence of my right hon. friend, the Minister for Education, on this subject. He referred to that silence as "sinister." I would ask your Lordships to consider this: Here are some very big issues which, if they are to receive a proper and right solution, must be considered by many large interests, who have to put their heads together and come to an agreement upon them with the Government. Surely it is a little unreasonable to ask the Government at this stage of the negotiations to come forward and say that they come down on the contributory or non-contributory side. You would never tie the hands of negotiators,

615
especially the Government, in such a way as their hands would be tied if my right hon. friend in another place had declared, on that very controversial and difficult question, whether his future Bill would be on a contributory or non-contributory basis.
LORD EMMOTT: Will the noble Viscount toll us what he has to say about the re-settlement of the Burnham scales?
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: I am afraid I am not in a position to answer the noble Lord.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, there is no doubt from the discussion that has taken place that there are matters of great difficulty and importance which it would be impossible to discuss adequately at the present time, because this Bill is nothing but a Bill to provide that contributions under the Act of 1922 shall be continued for a longer period. My only reason for rising is to ask the noble Viscount who is in charge of the measure what answer he has to make to the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Emmott, that the period should be fixed for July of next year, instead of April 1, the year after. I appreciate the importance of considering these matters, but I have always found that if you let a matter be considered too long it invariably goes to sleep, and I cannot see why this prolonged period is required. Further, I do not know what it was that made the Government pitch upon this rather sinister date, April 1, instead of any other date. It appears to me that it is one of the most awkward of all dates. It is quite plain to anybody who knows anything of Parliamentary practice that it would be impossible to get an important measure such as this through both Houses if you began it in the year 1926. If you intend to proceed with it promptly it ought to be introduced in 1925 supposing the Government is still here. In these circumstances why not accept the date which I understand is being introduced into the Scottish Bill—July, 1925? After all, this is a measure for extending existing conditions for a certain period. My noble friend has pointed out that it may be difficult to alter those dates in Committee, but we should know what the real reason is for introducing the date
616
stated in the Bill. I am sorry to say the noble Viscount gave us no information upon it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, the difficulty of giving an earlier date than the one which is proposed is this. The English local authorities, unlike the Scottish local authorities, are not willing to come to an agreement about the proposals contained in my noble friend's Report. I hope they will. Negotiations are in progress with them, and are being continued, so far as I can make out, with as much energy as is possible in the circumstances. But there are a vast number of local education authorities in England, whereas the situation in Scotland is quite different. There we have local authorities which have very large areas, and which are elected on an ad hoc basis, and they have been willing to do that to which the English local authorities demurred—to make a contribution towards this scheme. If you give less time than is asked for the chances are very great that you will find your scheme wrecked. That is the real reason for the delay in this matter.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

THERAPEUTIC SUBSTANCES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Joint advisory committees.
4.—(1) For the purpose of framing regulations under this Act and for securing uniformity of standards, there shall be established a joint committee consisting of the Minister of Health, who shall be chairman, the Secretary for Scotland, and the Minister of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland:
Provided that each member of the joint committee may appoint a deputy to act for him at meetings of the committee at which he is unable to be present.
(2) For the purpose of assisting the joint committee in the preparation of regulations under this Act, there shall be appointed an advisory committee consisting of one member appointed by the Minister of Health, who shall be chairman, one member appointed by the Scottish Board of Health, one member appointed by the Minister of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland, one member appointed by the Medical Research Council, one member appointed by the General Medical Council, and one member appointed by the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "and" after "General Medical Council," and to add to the clause" and one member appointed by the Council of the Institute of Chemistry of Great Britain and Ireland." The noble Earl said: These Amendments are necessary in consequence of the decision to include the Institute of Chemistry among the bodies appointing members of the Committee.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 19, leave out ("and")
Page 3, line 20, at end insert ("and one member appointed by the Council of the Institute of Chemistry of Great Britain and Ireland").—(Earl De La Warr.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Can the noble Earl explain why it has been suggested that the Institute of Chemistry should be added?
EARL DE LA WARR: The Minister was advised that, in view of the status of the Institute of Chemistry, it was desirable that it should be included in the list. Your Lordships will probably have noticed that the Pharmaceutical Society is already included.
On Question. Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Power to make regulations.
5.—(1) The joint committee, after consultation with the advisory committee, may make regulations for the following purposes:—
(f) for prescribing the conditions subject to which licences may be issued, including in the case of a licence to manufacture conditions
618
that the licensee shall allow any inspector authorised by the licensing authority in that behalf to enter any premises where the manufacture is carried on, and to inspect the process and plant and the process of manufacture and the means employed for standardising and testing the manufactured substance and to take samples thereof;
EARL DE LA WARR: The next Amendment is simply to correct a misprint in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 1, leave out ("process") and insert ("premises").—(Earl De La Warr)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved to insert in subsection 1, after paragraph (f), the following new paragraph:—
"(g) for excluding from the operation of this Act, or of any of the provisions thereof, any therapeutic substance intended to be used solely for veterinary purposes."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is proposed as a result of an agreement between the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture. The object of this Bill is to control the manufacture and sale of therapeutic substances intended for human use, and for human use only.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 5, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved to add the following new subsection to the clause:
"(3) All regulations made under this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made."
The noble Earl said: It is proposed to insert this Amendment in order to meet a request from one of the large manufacturing firms that due notice should be given of the intention of the Department to add any substance to the Schedule. I think your Lordships will agree that that is only fair.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 28, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Offences.
6. If any person—

(a) manufactures for sale any therapeutic substance to which this Act applies without a licence for the purpose;

EARL DE LA WARR: The first Amendment that I have to propose on this clause is really a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 30, after "(a)" insert "being a person who is required by this Act to be licensed in that behalf."—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR had given Notice to move at the end of paragraph (a), to insert "or elsewhere than on premises in respect of which a licence is granted." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is necessary to secure that the paragraph should correspond precisely with Clause 2 (1) and to place it beyond doubt that it is an offence not merely to manufacture without a licence but also to manufacture elsewhere than on premises in respect of which a licence has been granted.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Ought not the last words "is granted" to be "has been granted"?
EARL DE LA WARR: I think your Lordships will agree that the ordinary layman's idea of English is rather different from that of the ordinary lawyer.
LORD PARMOOR: Might I make a suggestion as a lawyer—namely, that the words ought to be "in respect of which a licence is in force."
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Yes.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Perhaps as another layman I might point out that really the reason why these words were suggested by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill was that they correspond with some words which appear in subsection (1) of Clause 2.
EARL DE LA WARR: All these suggested words really mean exactly the same thing, but if the House would rather have the words "is in force" there is no objection. I beg to move the Amendment therefore in that form.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 32, at end insert ("on else-where than on premises in respect of which a licence is in force").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (LEAVE OF ABSENCE) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

BOROUGH COUNCILLORS (ALTERATION OF NUMBER) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I have been asked by a noble Lord to postpone the Committee stage of this Bill until Tuesday next. If that course is convenient to your Lordships I will postpone the Committee stage until that day.
House to be in Committee on Tuesday next accordingly.

ST. PAUL'S BRIDGE.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM VISCOUNT BURNHAM rose to call attention to the proposed erection of a bridge over the Thames in the neighbourhood of St. Paul's Cathedral, and to move that it is desirable that the Fine Art Committee which has recently been constituted by His Majesty's Government for the express purpose of advising on the artistic aspect of public works and buildings be consulted before further steps are taken.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I ventured to place this Motion upon the Notice Paper because I wish to recall to the recollection of His Majesty's Government the existence of the Fine Art Committee, and because I hold it to be inconceivable that in connection with the greatest public work that has ever been undertaken in the City or the County of London by any local authority or by the Crown, the Government should not have sought the advice and counsel of the Committee so far as the scheme affects the amenities and the attractions of the Capital of the Empire, which were

621
Lever more emphasised than they are to-day. As your Lordships know, the Committee is merely a consultative and advisory body, but it is a very distinguished body. It is presided over by my noble friend Lord Crawford, and one of its leading members is the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. It numbers among its members men of such artistic reputation as Sir Aston Webb, the President of the Royal Academy, whose grave illness, owing to a terrible accident, the whole country deplores.
It may be said, of course, that this is a question of local government. That this House is not averse from considering questions of local government was shown by your Lordships on Tuesday last in regard to the tramways. Apart from that, however, the Thames is pre-eminently the national river and the greater bridges that are provided in the Capital for crossing that river are matters of national concern. Therefore, I do not think that anybody will consider the question of the construction of this bridge to be merely a local one. The Government cannot possibly divest itself of responsibility in the matter seeing that it has proposed to contribute out of the Imperial Exchequer nearly £1,000,000 to the approaches and thoroughfares which are rendered necessary in carrying out the scheme. I scarcely think the Government can say that they have no responsibility for a project which seriously threatens, if it does not endanger, St. Paul's Cathedral. I know that the authorities of the Cathedral regard the matter not only with anxiety but with apprehension.
It would not be helpful to go at length into the archæology of the London bridges, though, of course it is as interesting and varied as the history of Old London always is; but most of the bridges were constructed where the old fords existed in early days. They were constructed on no exact system but as the necessities of the time seemed to suggest. There is certainly no question of town-planning involved in the way that the bridges of London have been provided. Some of them have owed their undertaking to curious considerations, for I believe it is true that when Blackfriars Bridge was built by the City of London and opened in 1769 under the name of Pitt Bridge, it was done largely because of the jealousy and emulation induced
622
among the City Corporation at the unexpected success of Westminster Bridge which had just been rebuilt and re-opened for public use.
However, I am not here to suggest or to insinuate—it would be a strange thing to do at the present moment—that the accommodation afforded to the people of London, or really to the people of England, for crossing the River Thames in this area is either sufficient or suitable. That is not part of my case. I have no intention of going into alternative schemes, because although they may have to be considered, or have already been before both Houses of Parliament at various times, it would delay your Lordships too long and I do not think it is essential. All I wish to say in moving that the opinion of the Fine Art Committee be taken on this matter is that, so far as I can see, St. Paul's Bridge is the worst of all the proposals that have ever been made for bridging the Thames. It has very few friends. I believe it was adopted only by a bare majority of the City Corporation. Two of the city aldermen are sitting behind me and will, no doubt, address your Lordships later. But it is primarily a matter for the City Corporation and the actual cost of the bridge is to be defrayed out of what is known as the Bridge House Estate.
The proposal was first brought forward in 1905. The Common Council then instructed the Bridge House Committee to report upon the best means of providing further accommodation for the transport of London traffic across the Thames. Eventually, after the Bill had been adopted in the City, it came before Parliament, was passed and received the Royal Assent in 1911 and, I believe, subsequently, in 1920. During the war period nothing was attempted and nothing was done.
All along, however, this proposed bridge has been the subject of acute controversy in the City itself. I have read in the report of the big debate in the Common Council that a man whose name is generally revered—Sir William Treloar—said: "Do let us get rid of the idea of any horrible viaducts." The whole scheme, of course, rests on the viaducts which are to provide for the traffic on the north side of the river and will create, it is said, new insanitary areas in the City—a thing which we hoped we

623
had got rid of. Generally speaking, there is a great body of opinion in the City of London which is entirely opposed to the making of this bridge. There is, however, a natural reluctance, which is not surprising considering that the City has had a good deal to put up with in the way of added charges on the County Account of recent years, to making the new contribution to Metropolitan traffic by way of a fund, it may be, for rebuilding and improving the bridge at Charing Cross or elsewhere.
There was the City patriotism, which has impelled the City to seek another bridge within the area of the City itself, although, as a matter of fact, it seems very doubtful whether it will afford much relief to the commerce and bartering of the City. Southwark Bridge, which is, I think, only 300 yards lower down, is not largely used, and it is stated by those who can speak with authority that this bridge will greatly increase the congestion when it reaches the point of the traffic branching off in the middle of the City, and that instead of relieving our present difficulties it will rather add to them. That additional accommodation for transport is required is evident not only from the state of the streets to-day, but from what we may anticipate when the full power of motor vehicles has been developed and has taken a good deal from the old lines of communication by rail and by tramway. That is the matter as it affects the City Corporation. They can, of course, speak for themselves, but I suggest to my noble friends who represent the Corporation that they are so divided among themselves, and so uncertain as to the wisdom of the course they have taken, that they ought to be the first to welcome a national inquiry in which considerations of art will have their full weight.
Then I come to the County Council. The London County Council gave a grudging support to the scheme in the first instance, of which, I gather, it has since repented, because it now proposes a Commission—I will speak of that in a moment—to examine the matter afresh, and they did it, so I am told, in the belief that they would be able to bring their tramways across the new bridge into the heart of the City. That the Corporation of the City refuses to contemplate, and so the motive which led the London
624
County Council to agree to the scheme in the first instance has largely disappeared.
In the third place, we come to the authorities of St. Paul's Cathedral. There is no doubt that they have all along opposed this scheme. It has no aesthetic attractions so far as the Cathedral is concerned, because, instead of making the end of a long and magnificent vista which might add a new beauty to London, the road will abut on the east end and detract materially from the grandeur of St. Paul's Cathedral as we know it to-day. They are alarmed—and I am permitted to say so with authority—by the risks from vibration, and also by what I suppose will be called the desiccation of the clay on which the piles rest. This fills them with very genuine doubts as to the further shifting of the building. As your Lordships know, at the present moment the scaffolding is kept in St. Paul's because of the variations, which are very serious, and which necessitate to-day, and will necessitate, the expenditure of a great sum of money in order to strengthen the foundations against their further shifting and slipping away. Therefore, the Government knows that those who can speak for the Church in this matter—and I commend this to the noble Lord, the Lord President—are against the scheme altogether.
Lastly, I come to the art societies and architectural bodies of the country, and I shall only read a short paragraph from their memorandum, because I prefer that they should speak for themselves. They include the London Society, the Town Planning Institute, the Architecture Club and the Royal Institute of British Architects. They say:
"The choice of the east end of St. Paul's-churchyard as a space for the encouragement of additional traffic appears to us singularly unfortunate, and it appears likely that the arches carrying the approaches between viaduct and viaduct may produce an embarrassment of street planning and of hygienic arrangement in a crowded area which is not yet fully considered.
"Quite apart from questions relating to the stability of the Cathedral—questions which we believe are sufficiently grave—it is clear that the introduction of a north and south highway at this part of the City must lead to a serious obstruction of the existing cast and west streams of traffic, both that in Cheapside and that in Cannon-street.

625
"If there is, as it seems to us, any chance of the proposed bridge and its contributory roads becoming a definite impediment rather than an improvement to existing traffic conditions, it is clear that funds spent on it will be funds spent amiss."
All these opinions tend in the same way, and I venture to suggest to your Lordships that this House should take a serious view of the matter.
There is naturally a great amiability on the part of His Majesty's Government to agree to any vicarious benevolence which will afford employment to the people. They may very likely think that this work, like other public works which are now being subsidised, will do something to relieve the state of unemployment, but I think the objections in this case are 30 grave and important that they should regard the matter from another point of view. It is always said that your Lordships' House exists for second thoughts. I think this is a case where second thoughts are salutary, and even necessary. For that purpose, and with that object, I have set down the Motion which stands in my name. Although it only covers the question of the Fine Arts Committee, it of course goes further in its real significance.
At their last meeting the London County Council recommended that a Commission should be formed, equally constituted of the County Council and the City Corporation, to consider the general question of traffic across the bridges and the provision of further facilities of the same nature. I think that this matter goes altogether beyond the area of local government. I hardly think Commission is the right term for a body set up by two local authorities, however important. What I should like to see myself would be a Royal Commission appointed to examine and report to Parliament on the legislative proposals which no doubt have received the sanction of both Houses, but which ought to be examined in the fresh light that we have to-day, when we know that there is not a single public body of importance which is really in favour of the proposal to construct the bridge and spend this huge amount upon its approaches and its thoroughfares. We shall then be in a better position to give a considered judgment that will be for the public welfare, as I think, not only of this City, but-looking at what it involves and what it
626
means, and considering what the City is—of the whole country as well, I beg to move.
Moved, That it is desirable that the Fine Art Committee which has recently been constituted by His Majesty's Government for the express purpose of advising on the artistic aspect of public works and buildings be consulted before further steps are taken in connection with the proposed erection of a bridge over the Thames in the neighbourhood of St. Paul's Cathedral.—(Viscount Burnham.)
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, I think we ought to. be grateful to my noble friend who has just sat down for having brought this national question to your Lordships' attention. His speech was, indeed, directed, as he himself not only admitted but claimed towards the end of his observations, to a much wider issue than that which is contemplated directly, and in terms, by the Motion which he has placed upon the Paper. His Motion is confined to a Resolution asserting the propriety of calling in the service of a body which was quite recently constituted, and asking them to offer an opinion upon the merits of the scheme. This body, the Fine Art Committee, is, as its very name implies, confined in its activities to purely æsthetic considerations. Æsthetic considerations alone come before it, and on æsthetic issues alone are they qualified to offer an opinion.
In one sense, the æsthetic issues, and the purely æsthetic issues, raised by the proposal of this new bridge are in themselves of national importance. They are of national importance because, in the first place, they deal with one of the most wonderful rivers and urban prospects in the world—that of the Thames, its bridges and surrounding buildings; and still more because it touches the very existence, or is alleged to touch the existence, of one of the greatest buildings of which London can boast, undoubtedly the greatest modern cathedral, post-mediæval cathedral, which exists in the world, and a perpetual source of pride not merely to the City of London, not merely to the great urban area which surrounds the City, but to the whole Empire. St. Paul's is a national possession. I had almost said, and I am prepared to say, that it is an Imperial possession, and we cannot in this House, or in Parliament,

627
treat anything which undoubtedly concerns the safely of that great fabric as if it were an affair either for the City, or the London County Council, or for Greater London, or London in its more restricted sense. Therefore, the noble Viscount is amply justified in saying that this should come before this Fine Art Committee.
But it is not merely, or I think chiefly, a question for this advisory body to direct the policy of the country. I am perfectly ready to admit that circumstances may arise, and do arise, in which æsthetic considerations, strong and unquestionable, point in one direction and the hard interests of utilitarian policy point in another. While admitting that, and admitting also that we cannot allow questions of mere picturesqueness or beauty wholly to guide the policy we adopt, I think questions of æsthetics might arise, and in this case do arise, of such transcendent importance that a great deal of the coarser and cruder form of utility must be sacrificed lest these greater and higher interests should be destroyed. Surely if ever there was a case for care and caution in any procedure for which we in this House are responsible, a policy which certainly and unquestionably profoundly affects the beauty of London as a City, as well as being a question which profoundly affects the safety and security of one of the greatest ornaments of that City, comes within the category I have described.
Nevertheless, it is quite evident to everybody who has considered the question that merely to refer this subject to the Fine Art Committee, and to say that their verdict is to be conclusive, would not satisfy, and cannot satisfy, the general public opinion of the Metropolis or the country. We must know what is the answer to a great many questions which are not æsthetic at all. There are two paramount and particular questions which must be determined, so far as I can see, by competent authorities before we proceed further. One of these questions is an engineering problem, or in the main is an engineering problem, and the other is a question of traffic, of town planning; and both the traffic question and the engineering question seem to me, so far as I have been able to study the subject, to be of extraordinary complexity and difficulty.
628
Take the engineering problem first—the safety of St. Paul's. As my noble friend has pointed out, the authorities of the Cathedral, the architect of the Cathedral and the engineers connected with it, are profoundly anxious about the present condition of the structure. Work is even now being done within its walls, done with great caution and with a careful examination of the effect from day to day, almost from hour to hour, of the engineering operations which are undertaken, and I do not think anybody, be he architect or engineer, or the instructed amateur, would venture to offer a dogmatic, strong and unqualified opinion either as to the present state of security of the building or as to the best method of dealing with it. You may say, and say with perfect truth, that apparently we are very remote in this debate, and in the Resolution before your Lordships' House, from these questions of the actual structure of St. Paul's, and if that consideration enters, as I think it does, into the problem which has to be decided in connection with the proposed new bridge, it is evident that you are travelling far beyond any æsthetic question. I am sure that my noble friend would be the first to admit that, and, indeed, it is quite obvious. Nevertheless, it is curious to note how this question, which seemingly is purely a question of engineering, touches the vital æsthetic interests of the community.
Unfortunately, engineering is not an exact science. It often, indeed, has to deal with problems every element of which is known, and when it is in that fortunate condition the judgment of a competent engineer may be accepted as an absolutely secure guide to practical action. If you know the materials which you are using, if you know their strength, if you know all the strains and stresses to which they are to be subjected, and if all those elements of the problem are submitted to a competent engineer, undoubtedly he will be able to give you an answer upon which you can build your policy with a perfect security that you will meet with no serious disappointments in the future. But unfortunately engineers are constantly faced with problems of which they do not know and cannot know, and, if they knew, could not accurately calculate, all the consequences. When, for instance, you come to questions of dredging great water

629
ways, the ultimate result has always, or almost always, an element of doubt, and when you are dealing with such problems as are presented by St. Paul's, where you have a structure into which a great deal of rubble was originally introduced, probably for economic reasons, which has a foundation, not upon rock, not of a simple or elementary character, but highly complex in its constitution—when you are dealing with those problems, and when you are dealing with them for a length of time, the closest examination, the most anxious and hesitating forecasts, are almost all that you can expect to obtain.
Take one simple example of that perhaps very obvious proposition. A building may stand perfectly secure on foundations apparently adequate. You bring close to it heavy traffic (and the tendency of modern traffic on modern roads is to get heavier and heavier), the traffic sets up a vibration in the structure which appears to stand so firmly, and day after day, year after year and, in cases like that of St. Paul's, century after century, you subject that structure to these uncalculated and incalculable vibrations—you cannot prophesy with security that this vast edifice on its apparently frail foundations is capable of meeting these new conditions. It is clear, therefore, that while this Committee can, without doubt or hesitation, explain or attempt to estimate the loss that would come upon the community if St. Paul's were to perish before our eyes in consequence of some error in the calculations of the engineers, while they could tell us what the magnitude of our loss would be, it is quite evident from the very constitution of that Committee that they are quite incapable of telling us how those evils can be avoided.
If I have succeeded in indicating to your Lordships the sort of difficulty that meets us when we try to estimate the effect upon an old structure like St. Paul's of new engineering works devised on a great scale and constantly bringing—as it is supposed, at all events—vast and heavy traffic within the smallest possible distance from its walls, if I have succeeded in convincing your Lordships that this is a matter of extraordinary difficulty and of extraordinary perplexity, which cannot be left, I think, to purely local treatment, and certainly has
630
not yet been decided satisfactorily by anything that has been done in the course, of the many years which have elapsed since this project was first started, if I say that this problem, in its complexity, goes beyond the Resolution of my noble friend, may not the same commentary be made upon the other question which must be raised by this project—namely, the question of traffic?
I am quite incapable of speaking to your Lordships as an authority upon these traffic problems. They are growing in intensity and, if the prosperity of this country continues to augment, they are destined to grow still further. They are problems which attack every great city whose streets were originally contrived for a small population and a small traffic, and which constantly apply to the streets at their very centre, at their very heart, at the spot where all the nerves of commerce, of manufacture and of trade meet. It attacks them all. All are faced with it. Some are faced with it in a form of extraordinary acuteness, as in New York, where expansion is rendered difficult or impossible for the present owing to natural causes. But you cannot escape it even in London, which does not suffer under that difficulty, because, so long as your City is an organisation whose chief work is carried on at the centre, so you will surely find that the streets and the lanes—we should call them lanes now, though they are dignified very often by the name of High-street or Broad-street—that were quite adequate for previous generations cannot suffice for the modern circulation of the life-blood of a community, but have at immense cost to be widened and altered.
If you bring across a system already suffering from the evils which I have described another thoroughfare which is not intended to serve the centre of the City but intended to give a power of movement across the main lines of traffic to and from the centre of the City, you greatly aggravate a difficulty which, without that aggravation, is already, I will not say almost insuperable, but the cause of great anxiety and perplexity to those interested in town planning. Are you sure that this bridge which you propose to build is only going to be a great disfigurement to your river and a great danger to your Cathedral? Are you sure it may not aggravate this very problem of transport which it is

631
intended to relieve? I know that some very competent observers hold that it will aggravate that difficullty. I am personally quite incapable of offering an opinion upon the subject. Evidently it is one which has to be considered, and most carefully considered, before this scheme of St. Paul's Bridge is gone on with.
Now that really is the case that I wish to submit to your Lordships on the Motion of my noble friend. I admit that it goes far beyond the scope of the Motion, but if I rightly interpret his speech he is not likely to object to that or to treat it as irrelevant. If, then, I am right in the. indications I have given of what the problem for us is, can there be a more complicated problem? It deals with questions widely divergent, and on which you have to deal with authorities widely different. An engineer qua engineer knows nothing about beauty, and so far as my observation goes his practice does not show that he has largely, as a rule, trespassed in the region with which my noble friend is concerned. On the other hand, the artist foams at the mouth if you tell him it is so much cheaper to build a hideous thing than a beautiful thing, and that he must consent to waive his love of the beautiful for narrowly utilitarian methods.
You have again problems not merely of an engineering kind. You have to consider what the slow effect of a process of destruction may be, when it touches the foundations of so weighty a structure, built under such different conditions, as St. Paul's. Now there are three great departments of investigation, all of which should be included in any inquiry which is going to settle the problem before us, and I earnestly hope that the Government will not—I will not say shelter themselves, because I know they mean to do the best they can—will not quote the fact that all that is going to be done now is to be done under a Bill which has twice received the assent of both Houses, for I believe that that assent was given without adequate consideration of the arguments that I have brought before your Lordships, which are really the result of recent experiences, which were not within the scope or wisdom of those who originally assented to this project.
LORD BEARSTED: My Lords, I rise on behalf of the Corporation of the City
632
of London, merely to tell the House what steps have been taken by that body since this bridge was first contemplated. The fact is that they, as one would naturally expect, consulted the very best architects available, and I am going to relate a short history of what has taken place. In 1911, when the Corporation of London (Bridges) Bill was before Parliament, it was re-committed to the Select Committee of the House of Commons to whom the Bill had been referred, with instructions to satisfy themselves that the scheme, both in respect of architectural design and convenience of traffic, was the one best adapted to the public needs and the character of the site. The Bridge House Estates Committee, when promoting the Bill, stated that it was their desire and intention to enlist the services of an architect to assist them in the scheme.
On the re-committed Bill the Corporation asked Sir William Emerson, who had been President of the Royal Institute of British Architects three times, Mr. T. E. Colcutt, Past President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, and Mr. (now Sir) John Burnett, to report on the proposal. They submitted a joint report stating:—

"(1) We are of opinion that the line of route proposed by the Corporation is best adapted to the public needs, and to the fulfilment of the objects of the Bill.

"(2) We are of opinion that the alignment proposed by the Corporation is the one best suited to the character of the site.

"(3) That an architect or architects should be appointed to collaborate with the engineers as to the general design of the bridge and approaches—that in skilled hands the bridge and its approaches can be made a magnificent addition to the river scenery about the City."

The three architects gave evidence in support of their report before the House of Commons Committee. The Chairman of the House of Commons Committee stated that he had invited the Royal Institute of British Architects to appear before the Committee. They did not appear, but wrote saying that "the announcement of the Corporation's appointment of three eminent architects who would advise them upon their proposals entirely meets the views of the Royal Institute. Now that these gentlemen are appointed, the Institute has no further views in the matter." The House of Commons Committee reported that

633
they were of opinion that the scheme for the construction of the proposed new bridge, including the approaches thereto, was both in respect of architectural design and convenience for traffic the one best adapted for the public needs, and best suited to the character of the site.
The Corporation invited designs by open competition, and Sir William Emerson was asked, and agreed, to act as the assessor in connection with the competition, when he awarded first premium to the design sent in by Mr. G. Washington Brown, U.S.A., the Treasurer of the Royal Scottish Academy. The second premium was awarded to the design sent in by Mr. Charles Barry, F.R.I.B.A. There were certain prominent features in Mr. Barry's design which the Committee thought, with Sir William Emerson's approval, might be incorporated in the final design for the bridge. They therefore asked Mr. Washington Brown and Mr. Barry to confer together with a view to the salient features of the two designs being associated in one. These two gentlemen conferred together and the design, as now approved by the Committee, is the one prepared by them. It can be dealt with in three stages without interfering with the architectural treatment of the whole: (1), for the bridge; (2), for the bridge with covered footways added; and (3), for the bridge with the covered footways and the architectural treatment of the abutments with ornamental pylons. That is the position to-day so far as the architectural treatment of the scheme is concerned. It would be most unfair and unjust to the Corporation of the City of London to assume, as has been assumed, that they did not take every reasonable precaution from the architectural side.
But there is another point that has been raised, and I agree that it is as grave a point as could possibly be raised. Again it is inconceivable to suppose for a moment that the Corporation of the City of London have not considered that—the question of St. Paul's Cathedral. It has received the most careful attention, and will continue to receive that attention. It has been somewhat premature to bring this matter before your Lordships to-day. The attitude of the Corporation is, as might have been expected, that they are always open to hear considered opinions, and, in consequence of the lapse of time since this Bill was first considered, they
634
have referred the whole question to the Bridge House Estates Committee, who are to bring up a report to the Common Council within a very short time. The Lord Mayor has rightly arranged for a special meeting for the consideration of this report, when it is quite certain that the fears entertained by many of your Lordships will receive attention.
I wish to be very frank with your Lordships and to say that, so far as I am personally concerned, I have an open mind on this question. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Burnham, one of the best friends that the City could have, that the question ought to be considered when it comes before the Council from all the points of view that have been put forward to day, and especially that advanced by my noble friend Lord Balfour, who was the honoured representative of the City in Parliament for a very long time. I hope that after hearing these explanations your Lordships will agree that the matter is not ripe for a decision by this House to-day, and that we may well await the report of the Committee of the Common Council who are considering it. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, is very hostile to the project altogether, but, as far as I am concerned, as I have said, I have a perfectly open mind.
LORD MARSHALL OF CHIPSTEAD: My Lords, I represent a section of the Corporation of the City of London which feels, as your Lordships may be aware, that this projected bridge is in the wrong position. It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Bearsted, said, that this matter has been referred back to a Committee, but it was referred back because the opinion of the Court of Common Council, was so strong that the proposed bridge was in the wrong position. That opinion is very widely entertained in the City of London. I am not in a position to speak as to the artistic or architectural features of the bridge, but I rather welcome to-day the noble Viscount's Motion, because it gives expression to a feeling widely entertained that this bridge should not be placed in the position in which it is proposed to place it. Some of us who have traffic problems to deal with know something of this question, and we feel that another bridge in this position would be detrimental to the public interest.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, it will perhaps be convenient if I answer for the Government now, because some very remarkable speeches have been made which require the most careful attention. As regards the remarks of the two noble Lords who represent the views of the City of London, I think that their speeches are of great importance, for this reason. Although I regard this as in every sense a national matter, yet as matters now stand under the Act of 1911—whether rightly or not, is not for me to say—the authority to take further steps as regards the construction or non-construction of what is called St. Paul's Bridge rests entirely, as I understand, within the discretion of the Corporation of the City of London. I think the noble Earl spoke of two exhaustive inquiries on this subject, although I think that on the second occasion it was only an Extension of Time Bill, and therefore, to put it fairly, I think there was only one exhaustive inquiry. But still, after an inquiry in which the most eminent engineers took part, an Act was passed in 1911 vesting the authority to proceed with this bridge in the Corporation of the City of London, should they, in their discretion, think it right that the construction of the bridge should be further proceeded with. So far as I know, whatever resolution this House might come to, there could be no interference with this power which the Corporation have at the present time.
I think it is a matter of gratification to hear that again, as I understand, the question is to be fully considered, having regard to the different views which have been expressed in the Corporation, or the Committee of the Corporation, which is dealing with this matter. But I am going to make a suggestion a little later that it may be that in a great national question of this kind some further safeguards should be suggested, so that the national interests should be fully protected, although I do not for a moment suggest that the Corporation are not fully alive to the considerations which were addressed to your Lordships by the noble Viscount and the noble Earl.
May I pass from that to the national aspect of this question? Speaking on behalf of the Government, I have to say-that they fully concur with the view expressed by the noble Viscount and the
636
noble Earl that we are dealing here with a question of very great national importance, and in no sense with a small matter. The only consideration which is directly raised in the Motion of the noble Viscount is the aesthetic consideration. I do not desire to limit myself to the æsthetic question, because the utilitarian and other aspects of the matter have to be considered as well as the æsthetic aspect. But so far as the Government have any authority in a matter of this kind—and, after all, their authority would be limited either to conveying the effect of a Resolution of your Lordships' House to the Corporation of the City of London or to giving advice to the Corporation—they feel that on the æsthetic side the Fine Art Committee, under the Chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, which was constituted recently by His Majesty's Government for the express purpose of advising on the artistic aspect of public works and buildings, should be consulted. I am not sure that the expression "before further steps are taken" is altogether appropriate, though that is a minor point. Further steps may have to be taken in order to get the æsthetic advice; but I understand that what the noble Viscount means is that no substantial progress shall be made, at any rate that no irrevocable step shall be taken of any kind, until the Fine Art Committee has been properly consulted. Speaking on behalf of His Majesty's Government, I am entirely in accord with that principle. In a great national matter of this kind one ought to have the advantage of the advice of the Fine Art Committee on æsthetic questions, and particularly, I think, under the conditions which prevail in connection with the proposed St. Paul's Bridge.
A second point of extreme importance was raised. I do not think that its importance can be exaggerated and, as the noble Viscount indicated, it appeals to me in a very special manner; that is, the safety of St. Paul's Cathedral. Nothing ought to be done in a matter of this kind until, so far as human foresight and expert engineering can make it certain-there may be some element of doubt, as the noble Earl said, in matters of this kind—it is made certain that there will be no damage done to the stability of St. Paul's Cathedral. It would be a national misfortune of the first importance, a

637
national misfortune which could never be remedied, if anything were done which interfered with the stability of this great Cathedral which the noble Earl has rightly described, I think, as the greatest Cathedral built in modern times. I do not think those words are in any way an exaggeration and I am sure that they appeal very deeply to our national instincts. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Bearsted, assents to that statement.
LORD BEARSTED: The Lord Mayor is a trustee of the Cathedral, and it is one of the most sacred trusts that the City has.
LORD PARMOOR: Then we are all agreed as to that. I understand that when the Act was passed in 1911 the best expert opinion was placed before the Committee which considered the Bill. After hearing the best expert opinion that could be produced—although I agree with the noble Earl that you are dealing here with some incalculable conditions—the Bill was agreed to by the Committee in 1911. I do not go to the second occasion when what was really a continuation Bill was dealt with. If I understand the noble Earl—and I accept entirely a statement of this sort from him—doubts have arisen from further experience and from factors which could not have bee" before that Committee, as to whether the proposal can be carried out while ensuring the stability of St. Paul's Cathedral. A representative of the City of London has expressed the opinion, as I have already said, that the stability of the Cathedral ought to be ensured beyond all question.
We come now to the practical point. The Government have no authority to intervene in a matter of this kind where Parliamentary powers have been vested in the City of London after prolonged inquiry; but although, as has already been pointed out, these particular questions are not involved in the actual Resolution brought forward by the noble Viscount, yet I feel sure I can say on behalf of the Government that they could have only one desire—namely, to urge the City authorities not to take any step towards the carrying out of this project until they are absolutely assured from every possible authority that there is no risk whatever to the stability of St. Paul's Cathedral. I would like to convey
638
that in the most positive way, and I am glad to say that two representatives of the City who are present assent to the proposition I am making. I hope that will satisfy the noble Earl, not only that we feel that this is a national question, but that we are desirous of doing all we can to protect a great national edifice which is of almost more than national importance. That, as I understood it, was the real point which the noble Earl pressed on the engineering side.
So far as the actual construction of the bridge or its approaches are concerned, I understand that there might be engineering difficulties but none of a special or unusual character; at any rate, they have not been brought to my notice. Therefore, the one point as to which I think the engineering difficulty must and should be given full weight is this question of the stability of the structure of St. Paul's Cathedral. I also understand—I think the noble Earl stated this—that the authorities of the Cathedral are anxious upon this point, and that those authorities are not satisfied that there is no risk to the stability of St. Paul's Cathedral. The matter is not down on the Paper, but I hope I may say, on behalf of the Government, that at any rate it would relieve them, and others, of great anxiety upon this national question to know that the authorities who are responsible for the stability of St. Paul's were satisfied before any proposal is proceeded with which might at any rate possibly risk the stability of our great national English cathedral.
I do not think I can say more on the engineering question. I entirely agree with what the noble Earl has said as to the difficulties of an engineering question of this kind. He will not mind if I say that I was almost reminded of arguments one has used in old days of the incalculable effects of traffic and vibration upon old foundations of this character, and the results which have sometimes followed, although it was prophesied with great certainty that such results could never take place. These considerations make one extremely anxious upon a point of this kind.
There is only one other question which arises, though it is one of great importance, and that is the traffic question. On an occasion of this kind, in discussing

639
what is called this great national matter, it is impossible to go in any detail into traffic questions. Everyone who knows the situation feels the truth of what the noble Karl has said, that you may get increased congestion by the meeting of an east and west traffic with a north and south traffic. I think that is what the noble Earl said. I want to say this upon the traffic question. I can offer no opinion upon it. It is quite impossible as representing the Government that I could I have not the information before me. Rut I can say that it is proposed in the Bill which is now in another place to set up a London Traffic Advisory Committee. What will be the fate of that Bill I cannot prophesy. I believe it is nearly through the other House, and if it is passed there will be a London Traffic Advisory Committee.
The noble Earl himself pointed out that owing to the congestion which has arisen from the enormously increased traffic having to pass through narrow and old-fashioned streets in many cases the problem has become one of immediate urgency. What I propose is that if this London Traffic Advisory Committee is set up. as I certainly believe it will be, an early opportunity should be afforded to that Committee of considering the proposed St. Paul's Bridge in reference to the traffic question, and of advising on the matter. I do not say that from any want of confidence in the views of the Corporation, who have naturally, in the first instance, to consider a matter of this kind, but I state it because I agree with what was said by the noble Viscount and the noble Earl, that we are really dealing with more than a local question. I hope therefore, that the Corporation of London will not resent a proposal of this kind, but-will welcome it as one of the factors which may help them in solving what is admittedly a very difficult problem.
Speaking, as we have been doing here to-day, not in a critical spirit but in a spirit which recognises the national importance of the question, we are apt to forget the care and caution which have been given, as well as the difficulties which have attached, to the consideration of this question by the City Corporation. Everyone knows that they have again and again considered and reconsidered the matter, and everyone knows that they have given the best of their knowledge in
640
order to solve it, but we are told, and very rightly so, by the noble Lord, Lord Bearsted, and the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, that they have not yet really made up their mind as to what is the best method of procedure. I hope that this discussion in your Lordships' House will at any rate tend to indicate the view of His Majesty's Government, and bring out the really great questions which underlie this matter of St. Paul's Bridge.
There is one other matter to which I desire to refer, and it is this. It is true that a grant of £866,000 from the Road Fund has been definitely offered by this Government towards the construction of the approaches of the proposed St. Paul's Bridge, in continuation of their predecessors' policy. I want to say two things regarding that. It must not be taken that an offer of that kind is intended in any way to prejudge this great national question. The assumption in these national questions is that we first of all decide in favour of the project, and, if the decision is favourable, that then the contribution is one to which the City, in making a great public improvement of this kind, is entitled. I wish to say that although this Government—arid, indeed, all of us—are anxious on the question of unemployment, it would not for a moment entertain the idea of creating employment which at the same time might interfere with the great national interests of this country. It is only after every step has been taken in connection with this project that this sum would in the ordinary course be advanced, because the money would then be devoted to carrying out a great public improvement in the City. It would be assumed that these questions of national danger and national difficulty were not incidental to the project.
I hope that will make clear the position of the Government. All these questions were not raised in the original Motion, but I have endeavoured to make our position as clear as I can. As regards the Resolution itself we certainly do not oppose it in any way. On the other hand, the matter is not in our hands; we are not the governing authority. It is in the hands of the City of London, in whom I think all the members of this House place the greatest confidence in so far as concerns their care for the protection of great

641
national institutions, and carrying out their public duties in a public-spirited way.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLES-TON: My Lords, the noble Lord, the Lord President of the Council, has made a speech which I venture to say has given great satisfaction to all sections of your Lordships' House. He recognised in a most emphatic way the national character of the project which is under examination this afternoon. He gave a succinct and correct history of the steps by which the matter has reached its present stage, and he gave advice which I am sure, in the opinion of your Lordships, will be looked upon as salutary and wise by the great authorities who are concerned with the future history of this affair. He has pointed out—and indeed it has been admitted in every speech—that, in common with a practice not unfamiliar to your Lordships' House, we have widely deviated from the Motion on the Paper. That Motion was restricted to a suggestion that on the artistic and æsthetic aspects of this case the opinion should be sought of the Committee recently instituted, of which my noble friend Lord Crawford is the Chairman and of which I have also the honour to be a member. I gather from what the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, has said that he accepts that Motion, though he is not certain as to the precise method of procedure in order to bring the Committee into action. But whatever be the method adopted, my noble friend at my side, who is our Chairman, is, I am sure, prepared to state, if it be necessary, that the Committee will at once meet as soon as it is charged with the investigation, and will proceed to devote its best attention to the matter.
I should like, before I sit down, to say one word upon that aspect of the case, but first of all I might perhaps just refer to the larger aspects of the matter which have occupied so much of our attention this afternoon. My noble friend Lord Balfour devoted a most minute and searching analysis to the engineering features of the case, the traffic features of the case, and the other large issues, whether they are in relation to employment or to finance, that are involved. I do not feel quite clear that we have made a great advance in those respects. What has happened in this debate has been the following. The noble Lord, Lord
642
Bearsted, explained with great clearness the action which has been taken by the Corporation of which he is still a distinguished member, and of which he was once the head, and the only reference I would make to his remarks is that when he was referring to decisions taken and advice acted upon by the Court of Common Council I think he was referring to incidents that occurred many years ago, in 1911, since which time, it is admitted, new factors have come into view. At the same time he indicated a very proper willingness on his part to maintain an open mind, and indeed told us he had not made up his mind on the matter. In fact, in concluding, he said that he might conceivably in the future, upon the basis of future evidence, change the opinion on which he had hitherto acted. Then we have heard Lord Marshall who, I believe, does entertain strong views in a particular direction.
When I said I was not quite clear what advance we had made in those respects I meant this. So far as I understand, what the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, suggested, is this, that the Corporation in considering, or reconsidering, the matter, or in considering the opinion of the Committee which I understand is about to be set up, should re-examine the case in its largest aspects in relation to all the questions that have been raised, whether they be with regard to traffic, the stability of St. Paul's, or otherwise. It amounted to this, that they should have another examination of the whole case in the light of the expressions of public opinion. My noble friend Lord Parmoor further suggested that when the Traffic Advisory Committee is set up, as it is likely to be in the course of the present summer, their attention should be directed to the traffic aspect of the case. So far so good. But that is likely, I understand, to be some little distance in the future, and what we have hitherto been afraid of—I hope we need no longer entertain any fears after the debate this afternoon—is that some step might be taken at an early stage by the Corporation of the City of London which might prejudge the decision of this question That is a point on which I still feel a little anxiety. I am not suggesting that the noble Lord could have gone further in the matter than he has this afternoon, and I hope the debate itself will have the effect of suspending judgment, inducing

643
a re-examination, and enabling all the points of view to which expression has been given here this afternoon to be carefully examined and considered by those who are responsible.
May I add one word about the aspect of the case in which, as a member of Lord Crawford's Committee, I am naturally concerned? The æsthetic side of this matter has been comparatively swept aside in view of the much larger practical, technical, economic and scientific considerations involved, but I hope your Lordships will not for a moment imagine that it is unimportant. To my mind it is one of the most important. Look at the position. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, remarked that we have here in our capital City of London that which is an object of pride to ourselves and to the world. We have this great City with its amazing contrast of the old and the new, the beautiful and the ugly, with its history, its magnificent open spaces, its wonderful streets or lanes which recall the history of the past, and, running like a thread through the heart of this wonderful City, we have the Thames. It is always a matter of astonishment to me that London and the people of London do not realise their Thames. In the old days, not one hundred years ago, the Lord Mayor of London did not drive through the streets in a fantastic chariot on Lord Mayor's Day. He deposited himself in a barge and was propelled through the water in a procession which recalled that of the Doge at Venice. All that has gone, and even the penny steamers, which, though not very beautiful, were at any rate useful, have disappeared. We make no use of our river at all. But I do not speak only of the river, although our river is one of the finest in Europe. Our river it is true is not as fine as the Neva at St. Petersburg, or the Hugli at Calcutta, but it is far than the Seine at Paris; it is finer than the Tiber at Rome, finer than the Spree at Berlin, and I think finer than the Elbe at Dresden.
But not merely have you the gorgeous sweep of this magnificent stream but you have also the prospect of erecting over it, if you are wise, bridges which will add to the beauty of the river scene and which may be architecturally structures of extreme loveliness and elegance. But where are our bridges? The poet Wordsworth, standing on Westminster Bridge
644
in the early years of the last century, wrote:
"Earth has not anything to show more fair."
He was not standing on the present Westminster Bridge or he could never have made that remark. I do not deny that it is a respectable, but it is a thoroughly uninspired structure. Nor had he at that time the joy of looking at the great beauty of Waterloo Bridge. I think Rennie's structure was built later. But ho had the full sweep of the river stretching right away up to St. Paul's Cathedral, with its magnificent dome floating in the air. Those were the circumstances under which he could say, "Earth has not anything to show more fair."
Anybody standing on Westminster Bridge now, with the hideous succession of bridges spanning the stream, can only look at the situation with dismay. Are we going, if a bridge is built, to add to the aesthetic horrors or to confer on the Metropolis something which will be a source of pride? I delight to know that the Fine Art Committee is going to be allowed to advise on the matter, because putting wholly on one side the question as to whether it is consistent with the safety of St. Paul's Cathedral that there should be another bridge, putting on one side the question as to whether traffic should cut across the river and run at right angles to the Strand, putting aside the question as to whether it will give employment to people, and putting aside also any question as to the cost, I do think it is of supreme importance from the æsthetic point of view, that no bridge should be built across the Thames at London unless it adds to the beauty of the landscape.
When I speak of the beauty of the landscape I am not using a mere general phrase, I am speaking of the beauty of the landscape in relation to the dome of St. Paul's. That is the dominant feature the London scene, which everybody coming from abroad into this country puts his face out of the railway carriage window in order to see. It is just like when in India we go to Agra and strain our eyes to catch a sight of the dome of the Taj floating like a great silver bubble above the Jumna, Anything you build across the Thames must be subordinate to, must fit in and harmonise with that beautiful erection. That is the æsthetic

645
side of the case. You must excuse my being an enthusiast on this subject. If I have wandered from the question of foundations, of traffic and omnibuses, and all those horrible concomitants of modern life, and have for a moment lived in an empyrean of my own, it is, at any rate, one to which I attach some importance. In conclusion, I have only to say that I was gratified to hear from the noble Lord that in accepting this Motion he would see that one of the most important aspects of it is referred to the Committee over which my noble friend Lord Crawford presides.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDERS.
APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE SUGGESTED.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motions standing on the Paper in my name to approve of certain Special Orders made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919. It has been the practice hitherto to deal with these Orders as if they were matters of course, but recently attention has been called to the fact that in each case an affirmative Resolution of the House has to be passed confirming an Order which has been made. Doubts have been raised as to whether the procedure in these cases is entirely satisfactory. Take the first Order, which is made in connection with the Borough of Andover and the rural district of Andover. Your Lordships will see that the Order was made by the Electricity Commissioners and confirmed by the Minister of the Department concerned. I can add that everything that is called for by Acts of Parliament in connection with each one of these Orders has been done in the fullest and most careful manner. The Order to which I have referred was laid on the Table on March 20, and in the Minutes of the proceedings of the House for that day a Notice appears that that Order was laid on the Table of the House. Then, on May 7, a Notice was put down in my name that after the lapse of a week a Motion would be made to confirm the Order. I might add that, by an arrangement that at present exists between my
646
self and the Department which I represent for the time being in this House, a period of not less than a week intervenes between the stages to which these Orders are subject.
I have reason to suppose that strung feeling exists on this matter in many quarters, and I should like to say that I personally feel that something more is required, where the House has deliberately put into an Act of Parliament its desire to maintain a certain control over that which happens under the authority if the Minister, and that the Minister's Orders should not come into operation until the House had determined deliberately and positively that such Orders ought to be made. I am glad to see that the Chairman of Committees is here, because I know (bar he has views upon this subject, and, while I move that this Order be confirmed and. if your Lordships agree to that, propose to move the confirmation of the others en bloc, I think it is possible that some of your Lordships may wish to say a word about the procedure before the Motion is actually put to the House.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the Borough of Andover and of the rural district of Andover, in the County of Southampton. which was presented on the 20th day of March. 1924. be approved.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for having postponed these Resolutions from the day for which they were originally set down until this evening, because as time has gone on I think that those of your Lordships who take a special interest in the procedure of the House have become a little anxious as to the method by which these Resolutions acquire the force of law. We have witnessed, in the last few years during which I have been a member of your Lordships' House, a great effort to cope with increasing difficulties of legislation. Every sort of device has been canvassed for simplifying legislation. The difficulty does not, of course, exist in your Lordships' House in the same measure as in another place, but it would not be true

647
to say that it is found only in another place. No doubt, public Bills of the ordinary legislative character go through with rapidity here, but the procedure on Private Bills or Provisional Orders, which are analogous to Private Bills, is very lengthy and, what is more, very expensive, and consequently, as Bills of importance and involving adaptations and developments have gone through, it has become increasingly usual to put in a general rules clause, or clause authorising the passage of schemes, as a short cut to legislation, and these become effective by laying Resolutions upon the Table of the House.
I need not go into the full history of this procedure, but I have over and over again taken part, as have other noble Lords, in an attempt to persuade the Government of the day to insert some such clause as would provide that the rules or schemes made under the particular Bill should not have the force of law until they have lain upon the Table of the House. For many years we were satisfied by simply laying them upon the Table of the House and allowing a certain number of days to elapse during which objection could be taken to them. Sometimes the form taken was that they should simply lie upon the Table of the House for a certain number of days.
That might have been effective so far as the House of Commons was concerned, because if, within that period, a Resolution had been passed, even if it had not a mandatory effect upon the Government, yet in practice it had an equal effect, because no Government can fail to respect a Resolution of the House of Commons. But that procedure was no use in your Lordships' House. The procedure was made rather more stringent as the evolution proceeded, and it was arranged at last that either House might pass a Resolution objecting and stopping the rule or scheme within a given number of days. Such a provision has been put into a very large number of Bills since I have been a member of your Lordships' House. I am afraid we have found, in practice, that this lying on the Table of the House is little more than a form. Nobody knew that these Orders were laid upon the Table, nobody took any notice, and it was only in eases of very considerable public interest that schemes or rules were objected to by way of Resolution.
648
In recent years we have gone one step further. We have admitted the plan of what is called a positive Resolution; that is to say, that the sanction does not depend upon the fact that neither House objects to a Resolution, but a positive Resolution must be passed by both Houses before a particular rule or scheme becomes effective. That procedure has been resorted to in a certain number of Bills in recent years. But again the same unfortunate symptom is displaying itself, and the thing is becoming a formality. Your Lordships could not have a better example of that symptom than the appearance upon the Paper this afternoon of a number of these Electricity Order Resolutions and Gas Order Resolutions, standing in the name of my noble friend opposite, which I do not suppose anybody has examined. Certainly none of your Lordships have the least idea of what is being done. That is a very considerable evil.
I took—I am sorry to say; I apologise to your Lordships for the fact—a great deal of part in passing this Electricity Bill, and at that time this particular clause was relied upon to protect private enterprise. It was said that we need not be afraid, and that private enterprise would be protected because all these schemes would be laid before Parliament and, moreover, would not become effective without a positive Resolution. When, therefore, I and other noble Lords observe that this is becoming little more than a formality, it is a great disappointment, and, I think, amounts to a mischief in our method of legislation.
A consideration which makes the matter still more important is that it will be found, I think, that as time goes on we shall be very anxious to maintain some such plan if only it can be made effective. If we do not, separate Bills will have to be introduced for each scheme. They will have to go through the procedure for Private Bills or Provisional Orders and immense delay will be involved, as well as great expense to the parties. That the expense, not only to the parties but to the public interest, is of a very material nature may be seen from the proceedings in this House only three days ago, when, merely because a particular procedure will be expensive to a very important hospital in London, the ordinary procedure of your Lordships' House was set

649
aside and a matter was decided—unwisely, as I think—on the floor of the House. It is very important, therefore, to have, if possible, a procedure by which these matters can be adjusted by means of a Resolution which will yet protect the interests involved—private interests, local interests, or administrative interests—adequately. That, as I submit, is not done at present.
I ought to say that the observations which I am venturing to make to the House do not apply merely to Bills like the Electricity (Supply) Acts or the Gas Regulation Act, but they apply to even more important Measures, because I observe that there are great Departmental Acts which have been passed, under which there is power to transfer from one great public Department to another important powers. That was done in the Ministry of Health Act recently. Those transfers are carried out by this method of positive Resolution, and if these positive Resolutions are not really a safeguard then we shall lose the value of that procedure. Then there are certain Continuance Acts supposed to be protected by a positive Resolution. Take the Mines Regulation Act. An important part of that Act came to an end unless a positive Resolution was passed. The same is true of the Emergency Powers Act—a very important Act—and lastly, we have gone as far as this, that so important a question as whether or not the Province of Burma should become subject to the new Constitution in India, instead of being under the old régime, was likewise made the subject of a positive Resolution—that is to say, it was potentially effective, but the actual decision was left to positive Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament.
Your Lordships will therefore see with what a really important subject we are dealing, and I submit that if we are going on with these positive Resolutions as safeguards there ought to be some examining authority to see, on the part of the House, that these Resolutions deal only with matters which may safely be passed without the attention of the House being drawn to them. There ought to be some method by which they shall be considered, and then, if they are found by the examining authority to be Resolutions which raise either matters of very special importance or matters which vary
650
to some extent the ordinary procedure of the House, or if in any way they are particular and peculiar, then that examining authority can bring such Resolutions before your Lordships' notice and the House can take what steps it thinks fit for the protection of the interests involved.
I have therefore been trying to acquaint myself with any precedents there may be in our legislation for the kind of safeguard which I am suggesting, and I have found two. There is, first of all, the precedent of the Church of England Assembly Act. Under that Act, as the noble and learned Lord, the Lord President of the Council, knows very well, the Measures passed by the Church Assembly become law by positive Resolution of either House of Parliament. Before they are submitted to Parliament they have to be considered by a very important Committee, the Ecclesiastical Committee, which brings in a Report as to whether the legislation suggested is expedient or not. I am not sure that it will be necessary to go so far as the elaborate machinery under that Act and I have looked for another precedent; I find it in the Ministry of Transport Act. In that Act there was a provision that where very important transactions were proposed, by way of taking land otherwise than by agreement, then that might be done upon the Order of the Minister of Transport, subject to a positive Resolution of both Houses of Parliament: but there was a further safeguard that these positive Resolutions should be submitted in the first instance to the Lord Chairman here and to the Chairman of Committees in another place, and that these two high Parliamentary dignitaries should decide whether or not the particular proposals were so important that they ought to be submitted to the ordinary Private Bill procedure before they were passed into law.
That seems to me to be a very valuable precedent. I suggest to your Lordships—and if I get any support I am prepared to submit a Standing Order to that effect—that we should lay it down that every positive Resolution, whether it be of the nature of these positive Resolutions which are at the moment being considered or such as I have described under the Mines Regulation Act and the Government of India Act, or other Acts, should all go in the first instance before the Lord Chairman and the Chairman of Com-

651
mittees in another place, and that upon their decision it shall rest whether they be submitted forthwith to either House of Parliament, or shall be examined by a Private Bill Committee in the usual way.
Whether my particular examining authority is the better one or not, your Lordships are much better judges than myself. What I do urge upon you is that if we are going to use this very valuable method of abbreviating the stages of legislation in these important Bills, and yet preserve the necessary safeguards for private rights, local interest, etc., then we ought to have some examining authority before a positive Resolution is laid before Parliament, in order that no mistakes may be made. Then we can go forward with a light heart. When we have Bills to pass through Parliament we may safely assure the House and the country that the necessary protection is given to those interested, by means of a positive Resolution. If, however, we go on as we are doing now, and these positive Resolutions are thrown upon the Table without notice and without any examination, then Parliament and the public will get to distrust them, and this very valuable method of shortening legislation will be destroyed. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for having detained you on this very important matter but, as the House is aware, I have for many years taken a great interest in the matter of procedure, and I earnestly hope that I may obtain the support of noble Lords in all parts of the House in securing some method by which these measures may be made effective.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I apologise for detaining you longer at this late hour upon what is a rather dry subject, and of which the ground was so broadly covered by the noble Marquess. My excuse is that I took some interest in these Orders so far as the Electricity Special Orders are concerned when the 1919–1920 Acts were before the House, and I have also ventured, as have one or two other noble Lords, to take exception to the procedure carried out as a result of those two Electricity (Supply) Acts. I have no objection to make to the Special Orders which are on the Paper this afternoon, but I would like to make a few remarks upon the procedure which brings them forward. I should like in that connection to express
652
my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Muir Mackenzie, for informing me that this debate was to be raised this afternoon. I say that the more particularly that I am afraid I do not at all agree with the concession which the noble Lord has proposed. The noble Lord suggests. I understand, that these Orders should lie on the Table for a week before a Motion is made. As I hold that the whole procedure is anomalous, faulty, unsatisfactory, and capable of acting unjustly, I cannot possibly see what advantage is gained by leaving the Orders lying on the Table of the House. The procedure remains exactly the same, with the objections which, as I hold, that procedure has.
As your Lordships are fully aware, before the Electricity (Supply) Act of 1919, these matters had to come forward in the ordinary way, like questions of gas, water, and so on, in Provisional Orders, confined within the pages of Bills, which enabled people who had perfectly legitimate objections—companies, corporation", local interests, and so on—to present Petitions to Parliament to appear in opposition, and the matter had then to be threshed out in a Committee. Since the Act of 1919 the whole, of that protection to the opposition in electricity matters has completely gone. It is perfectly true that these Orders have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament, but I submit that individual members of the Houses of Parliament are in no position to deal with these questions on their merits, when put forward. How is a noble Lord to become seised of the complicated and technical merits or demerits of such matters as appear on the Paper this afternoon, and on many other occasions, under the name of Lord Muir Mackenzie? And, supposing that any noble Lord were by accident to become seised of all the details of these very complicated matters, in order for his opposition to become effective he has to persuade the majority of your Lordships' House. In another place the procedure works even more unsatisfactorily, because there these Orders, being under the special protection of a Government Department, have the whole weight of Government authority behind them. The Government Whips can be put on, and members are no more in a position to deal with the Orders on their merits than are noble Lords in this House, because the Government have only to put on the

653
Whips, and these Orders go through without anybody in the House having the slightest idea even of what they are about. Therefore I suggest that there is a case, not for delaying the moving of the Orders, but for altering the procedure altogether.
I am very much confirmed in my opinion that the procedure is faulty by this fact, and I call the Chairman of Committees to witness. The Lord Chairman is, after all, the very special protector of procedure in this House, and I call him to witness, because he himself has shown that he takes grave exception to this procedure. Two years ago, in August, 1922, the Lord Chairman actually put down a Motion on the Notice Paper, proposing a new Standing Order. The new Standing Order, as far as I remember, proposed that in the case of these Special Orders, both electricity and gas, Petitions might, be presented, petitioners might appear to oppose as in the case of a Private Bill, and that an opposed Order should be referred to a Select Committee. It is perfectly true not only that that suggested Standing Order never was passed, but that the Lord Chairman never moved it, and it disappeared from the Notice Paper. I am not in a position to know either the motives that prompted the Motion by the Lord Chairman, or his motives in removing it. But the fact that the Lord Chairman put down such a Motion shows that in his judgment there is something wrong with this procedure. Not being fully in possession of the arguments which prompted the action of the Lord Chairman, I am not going to express any opinion as to whether the action proposed in that Standing Order is necessary, or the only and best method of meeting the difficulty. There is the alternative method now before your Lordships' House, proposed by the noble Marquess. All I do say is that some amendment is necessary.
It may seem to noble Lords looking down these Orders on the Paper that they are unimportant and trifling matters. Some of them are, but a great many of them are not. Under the procedure which governs these special Orders the Electricity Commissioners are empowered to set up huge electricity districts, to appoint joint electricity authorities for them, to give these authorities financial powers involving millions of pounds, and, in fact, to empower them to set up completely new organisations for the develop-
654
ment of electricity in large areas comprising several counties. The noble Marquess will remember how we raised this point during the passage of the Bill. Personally, I cannot believe that Parliament realised at the time the great importance and magnitude of the schemes which would go through under the Special Orders. I say that because Parliament has entirely reversed the procedure which it laid down under the Electric Lighting Act, 1909.. In that Act, long before these vast electricity schemes were thought of, Parliament expressly excluded cases of magnitude and importance from the scope of Provisional Orders. Now, under the Act of 1919, enormous schemes for the supply of electricity in bulk come forward in Special Orders, where opposition has no voice or authority to appear at all In those circumstances I trust that the Government will agree to some modification of the procedure beyond that already proposed by Lord Muir Mackenzie, on the grounds not only of convenience, and not only of proper and good administration, but even of justice.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, in reference to the admirable speech which, we have just heard, I should like to make a suggestion to the noble Marquess, than whom no one has more knowledge of the procedure in this House. The Government would support him if he put down a Motion on the Paper, so that everybody could know it was coming up, to the effect that a. small Select Committee should be appointed to consider the important matters of procedure to which he has called attention. I offer that as a suggestion which I think might assist us to come to a proper determination on this very important question. I will not go into the old controversies that we heard when the new electricity procedure was under consideration—I was in agreement with the noble Earl in those days—but if the noble Marquess would move for the appointment of a small Select Committee I am sure that the Government would give every assistance.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I am exceedingly grateful to all your Lordships who have joined in this discussion this afternoon. The matter has been in my mind for two or three years, and I have been very anxious about it.

655
My noble friend Lord Muir Mackenzie, in making the first Motion, characterised it us typical of the others on the Paper. It is true that it is owing to his vigilance and to the action which he took that we now have adequate Notice that these things are coming on. That is a reform for which we have to thank my noble friend, and as I look round the House I think that everyone present will agree with me, except perhaps my noble friend Lord Burnham, that nearly every little scandal in Parliamentary procedure that has arisen of late years can be traced back to the time of the Coalition Government. This is one of them.
I have in a file which I keep largely for my own information several cases in which Motions confirming these Orders were put clown on Tuesday evening—that is to say, they were handed in at the Table on Tuesday evening—and we have seen nothing of them until Wednesday morning and they have been passed on Wednesday afternoon. That procedure in many of these cases might be perfectly harmless, but in a few of them it might lead to unfortunate results. That is the reason for my anxiety and for my view that something ought to be done. I quire appreciate the point raised by my noble friend Lord Bessborough, his chief interest being the Electricity Acts. Under the Electricity Acts we have, at any rate, one safeguard in that all the Parties become aware of the fact that the matter is in the air. If I read the Gas Act correctly, however, I believe that it is quite long enough if the Order lies on the Table of the House for half a minute, and that you can then move a confirming Resolution. That might cause great injustice in certain circumstances. I am not saying that it is likely, or even probable, but I think the position ought to be safeguarded.
There are two reasons why I think that ought to be done. First of all, we ought to be certain that the Order comes within the Act under which it purports to be made. I may be told that we must rely on the public Departments for that. But, thanks again to the vigilance of my noble friend and his brother Whip, if I may use the expresssion, your Lordships recently passed an Act which was necessary because it was found that for ten years Government Departments had been making under an Act of Parliament Provisional Orders which were undoubtedly ultra
656
vires. Of course, that ought to have been noticed before and I must admit that it took me some years to realise the position. Therefore, it is not sufficient to rely upon the Government Departments. Secondly, the parties who are affected must not lose their right to appeal to Parliament for protection merely because the thing is rushed through without adequate notice being given not only by which your Lordships will know what is going on but by which the public will know what is going on.
That was the reason for the new Standing Order of which I gave notice in 1922. I think I am breaking no seal of confidence when I say that I did not proceed to move the adoption of that Standing Order because I became aware of the fact that the Government—I think it was the Coalition Government—were opposed to it. I had come to an agreement with all the public Departments except one, but that Department was very strong and declared themselves in the course of negotiations (not in your Lordships' House) to be in strong opposition to the proposal that I should put a curb upon them, which I thought was particularly needed in their case much more than in the case of the other Departments. Nothing will induce me to offer any means of identifying that Department. That is why I did not proceed further with the matter.
I am convinced that some action must be taken at your Lordships' convenience in order that we should avoid doing something for which we should be sorry. I was particularly glad therefore to hear the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord President of the Council, to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. If some such step could be taken as the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the whole matter, I think it would be very easy to find a solution which ought to be found for a matter of that sort.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, this discussion has been of a very satisfactory character and I shall not detain your Lordships with any lengthy contribution to it. We have every reason to be grateful to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord President of the Council, for the suggestion he has made, and which I hope the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, will see his way to accept. It is

657
clear that something ought to be done in this matter. There is nobody who is really responsible in this regard to your Lordships' House. I think the noble and learned Lord opposite would find himself in a difficulty if I were to cross-examine him with regard to one of the Orders which are referred to on the Paper—namely, that with regard to the Marple Urban District Council—to ask him why Clause 20 on page 11 is to be left out of that particular Order. Whenever your Lordships' House is asked to assent to anything of that kind we ought to know why the alteration is being made. Unfortunately, there is at present nobody who is really responsible in the matter.
The discussion in which your Lordships' House was engaged just prior to this one indicated, I think, another direction in which a little care ought to be taken. Under these Electricity Special Orders it is possible to disfigure the landscape to an almost incalculable extent. Enormous iron and steel standards carrying the overhead cables are put up under these Orders, and I think there ought to be some machinery by which anyone objecting to the disfigurement of the landscape should be able to bring his objection before some such tribunal as your Lordships' House, or one of the Committees of your Lordships' House, or some other competent tribunal. The Lord Chairman, of course, suggests himself to one because he has a number of competent officers to assist him, but whether it is the Lord Chairman or somebody else I am perfectly certain that the Committee suggested by the noble and learned Lord President will be able to find some solution of the problem.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends for urging these considerations upon your Lordships and also to the Lord President for the suggestion he has made. Needless to say I shall gladly avail myself of it, but if he will permit me I will confer with him upon the terms of Reference and the proper constitution of the Committee, and place a Motion upon the Paper forthwith.
LORD PARMOOR: I shall be very glad to do that.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, after the debate which has taken place and in view of the remarks which have
658
fallen from my noble friend the Lord Chairman, I feel some diffidence in moving the Motions in their present form. Nevertheless, I will have the audacity to move that all these Orders be confirmed by your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1382 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Maesteg, in the County of Glamorgan, which was presented on the 20th day of March 1924, be approved.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parish of Cockington in the rural district of Newton Abbot, in the County of Devon, which was presented on the 1st day of April 1924, be approved.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Hitchin, in the County of Hertford, which was presented on the 8th day of April 1924, be approved.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920, SPECIAL ORDERS.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Gas Orders specified on the Paper be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Birstall Urban District Council, which was presented on the 8th April, and published, be approved.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor, aldermen and burgesses of the Borough of Mansfield, which was presented on the 8th April, and published, be approved subject to the omission of the word "section" in line 4 of paragraph (1) of clause 31, and the insertion in place thereof, of the words "sections 4 and."—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
Moved, That the Draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the, Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Marple Urban District Council, which was presented on the 15th January, and published, be approved, subject to the following modification:—
Page 11, leave out Clause 20.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
Moved, That the Draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the Borough of Newbury, which was presented on the 8th April, and published, be approved.—(Lord Muir Markenzie.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.
Moved. That the Draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Penryn Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 7th April, and published, be approved. (Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHARTERED ASSOCIATIONS (PROTECTION OF NAMES AND UNIFORMS) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill for the protection of the names, uniforms and badges of associations incorporated by Royal Charter, and to move that it be now read a first time. It is in exactly the same form as the Bill which passed your Lordships' House in March, 1922.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 1a—(Viscount Burnham. )
On Question, Bill read 1a: and to be printed.

THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know whether His Majesty's Government are in a position to inform your Lordships as to the arrangements for the Whitsuntide Recess.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I can give your Lordships some information, although not complete information, on the subject. It is proposed that we should adjourn on the Thursday before Whit Sunday, which I think is June 5, and your Lordships will certainly not be recalled to the House before the next Tuesday week, that is the Tuesday after Whitsun week. If there is no pressing business the adjournment will probably be extended for another week, but that is not certain at the present moment.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock.