Lords Sitting of 13 December 1932

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Ravensworth—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
ROLL OF THE LORDS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had prepared and laid it on the Table. The same was ordered to be printed.

VISITING FORCES (BRITISH COMMONWEALTH) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM):My Lords, this is a Bill which was introduced and passed through your Lordships' House at the end of last Session, and went to another place very shortly before the Prorogation. In the other place it passed its Second Reading without debate, but on the Committee stage a point was raised with regard to one particular subsection which gave rise to some controversy; and, as the Government was not anxious to force anything through without full discussion at the end of the Session, the Government dropped the Bill for last Session with the promise that it would be reintroduced this Session. In those circumstances your Lordships will not wish me to take a great deal of time in explaining the Bill, as was so admirably done by my noble friend Lord Stanhope on the last occasion.
Quite shortly, the Bill is one which is rendered necessary by the effect of the Statute of Westminster, which keeps on having somewhat unexpected repercussions, although this particular one was
348
foreseen before the Statute was actually passed. As your Lordships appreciate, before the Statute of Westminster was passed the discipline of His Majesty's Forces, whether in this country or in any of His Majesty's Dominions, rested upon the annual Army Act and the Naval Discipline Act. After the Statute of Westminster it became unconstitutional for this country to legislate for the discipline of any of the United Kingdom Forces of the Crown when they were in a self-governing Dominion to which the Statute of Westminster applied; and, similarly, it became unconstitutional for the Forces of a Dominion to come under any discipline in this country by virtue of British legislation without the assent and agreement of the Dominion concerned. Accordingly, at the same time that the Statute of Westminster was arranged there was agreement between the Mother Country and the various Dominions that it would be necessary to legislate in the terms of the present Bill both here and in the various Dominions: and, in fact, the Dominion of South Africa has already passed legislation exactly in the form of the Bill which I am submitting to your Lordships' House.
The plan adopted is that our country shall be exclusively responsible for the discipline of its own Forces wherever in His Majesty's Dominions they may be—that is to say, that when United Kingdom forces visit one of the self-governing Dominions then, by legislation of that Dominion, the discipline shall be enforced by the officers of the particular unit and there shall be no appeal to the Dominion Courts. It shall not be possible for the disciplinary provisions of the British Army Act to be canvassed or challenged in the Dominion Courts. The man, of course, will have his appeal to His Majesty and his appeal to the Army Council just as he has now. The sentence of any Court-Martial will come up in the same way as it does at present, but that will he a matter for the United Kingdom Government and not for the Dominion Government. Conversely, the legislation passed in this country will provide that where a Dominion Force visits this country, then its discipline shall be a matter for the Dominion officers and for the Dominion Courts, and the law of the particular Dominion concerned shall not be canvassed or chal-

349
lenged in the English Courts. Actually, this was the plan adopted when the American Forces were in this country during the Great War, and the scheme which was then adopted, I think under the Defence of the Realm Act, is the scheme which is embodied in the present legislation.
The point raised in the other place in Committee was a point which was made by several lawyers in the debate, and I think only by lawyers. Although I am the last person to suggest that that makes the point less worthy of attention, still it is exclusively, I think, a legal point, and one which really has more legal plausibility than real substance. The point that was raised was that by one subsection, subsection (3) of Clause 1, which prevents the challenge in an English Court of a Dominion sentence so long as it is on a member of a Dominion Force, you were depriving that member of his right of application to a British Court. It is perfectly true you are depriving him of his right of application to an English Court. What rights he has will depend entirely on the legislation of the particular Dominion in which he enlisted, and he will have whatever rights are conferred on him by that legislation and subject to which he actually enlisted. I cannot think that the provision is one which is so very shocking that it would be repugnant to natural justice or to English instincts. The clauses, with that exception, were passed through quite quickly.
Clause 1 provides, as I have stated, that the discipline of each country shall be enforced when the Forces of that country are visiting the United Kingdom—shall he enforced by the officers of that unit, and shall be exclusively enforced by the officers of that unit. Section 2 enables Orders-in-Council to he made regulating relations with the civil power and civilians in this country. Clause 3 has provisions with regards to deserters from Dominion Forces in this country, giving the like powers of arrest and detention which exist with regard to deserters from the Regular Forces. Clause 4 makes provision for a state of affairs which so far has never been the subject of legislation, although obviously it ought to have been—namely, what happens when a United Kingdom officer is attached to a Dominion unit, or a Dominion officer is attached to a United
350
Kingdom unit, and it gives to the officer so attached the like authority as if he were an ordinary member of the Force to which he is attached. Clause 5 enables this Bill to be applicable in the Colonies. Clause 6 enables it to be applied to mandated territories. Clause 7 preserves the existing arrange-merits with regard to the Naval Discipline Act and certain provisions regarding the Air Force Act. Clause 8 is the definition clause. I hope the explanation I have given with regard to the only point so far raised may be satisfactory to your Lordships. If not, when we reach the Committee stage I shall be glad to give any further explanation. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
LORD ATKIN: My Lords, as a lawyer I do not feel disposed to apologise for raising, in reference to this Bill, a point which appears to me of great constitutional importance affecting the liberty of the subject. There is a subsection in this Bill which has the effect of repealing the Habeas Corpus Act so far as it relates to British subjects who come to this country as members of visiting Forces of the Dominions. I think that the proposal that is being made is one which is all advised and I very earnestly hope that On consideration it will be abandoned by His Majesty's Government. The tradition of the military Forces has been from time immemorial one in which their Military Courts have been subject to the control of the Civil Courts. It is a cardinal feature of our military law that the British soldier, though he comes under the disciplinary powers of the Army Act and the King's Regulations, is still a British subject with the rights and immunities of a British subject, subject to his position as a soldier. The Civil Courts have, up to to-day, always exercised a control over the Military Courts so that any arbitrary punishment, any punishment that is inflicted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, can be at once redressed by the summary procedure which 'the Courts in this country have always given to those who are improperly imprisoned or oppressed.
The great remedy has been the remedy of habeas corpus which has been invoked in military cases before now and which is a remedy given to anybody who sets his

351
foot upon these shores. It is given to foreigners, it is given to aliens, it is given to alien criminals, because they cannot be extradited if the Civil Courts of this country can be satisfied that something has been done to them in excess of jurisdiction. Now, for the first time, it is suggested that the military Forces of the Dominions shall be put in an entirely different position to the military Forces of the Crown, the standing Army, the people who are born in this country and are subject to the Army Act. Members of the British Forces have got these rights of which I speak. They can complain at once of any unfair punishment, and they can go at once to the Courts and can get the position put right. But under this provision in this Bill the Military Courts of a Dominion Force are to have an exclusively extra-territorial jurisdiction.
It seems to me, with great respect, to be quite without precedent and, if I may say so, to have nothing to do with the principle of the Statute of Westminster. The Statute of Westminster, it is true, gave power to a Dominion to exercise its legislation extra-territorially, and in the same way the Statute of Westminster forbids this country from passing Acts of Parliament which would operate in the Dominions. But nobody has ever suggested that the Statute of Westminster was intended to give power to a Dominion which certainly no foreign nation could possibly have—namely, a power so to legislate that it might set up courts in this country and that those courts should function without any control by the Civil Courts at all. There is no reason for it, and I venture to think that it would be most unfortunate if the position were to be, when troops were side by side in the same camp, that the members of a Dominion Force should be subject to arbitrary punishment while the members of the British Force should have recourse at once to the Civil Courts.
But the matter does not rest there, because as I understand the position as stated by the noble and learned Viscount, not only are the Dominion Forces to be deprived of the protection which the Civil Courts can give them here, but the British Forces when they go into the Dominions or Colonies are to be deprived of the protection which up to now they have always had from the Civil Courts of the Dominions. I venture to think that this is not the time, when we are all talking
352
of peace, to tighten the bonds of military service. There is no reason for it. If it were a question of discipline, and a necessary question of discipline, I should be the last to raise any objection if I were satisfied that military conditions demanded this change. But they do not. It is not suggested that they do. Discipline has been maintained in the British Army both here and abroad, when its troops are here or when its troops are in the Dominions, by the existing law, and under the existing law when the troops have the full protection of the Civil Courts. I think that the bargain is a bad bargain to have made, and I hope very much that it will not be carried out.
It is true that this is a point which only touches one particular subsection and I am very glad it is so. This subsection could be taken out of the Bill without affecting in the least, as it seems to me, the substantive provisions of the Bill. Nobody, as far as I know, objects to the Dominions sending their troops here and making them subject to the Dominion Army Acts whatever they are. What is objected to is that when those troops do come here they should be in a different position to the British troops, and that the old established principle by which the Civil Courts control the liberties of the British soldier should be infringed. Therefore, when we come to the Committee stage there is no doubt at all, I think, that there will be a substantial difference on this matter. So far as the Second Reading is concerned I have no doubt at all that your Lordships will see no reason why that should he refused.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I often think it is very unfortunate that a subject which involves a question of real principle of great value to any citizen of this country should be deemed to be relegated to the arid and dusty arena of legal controversy. Unfortunately I am afraid that in this case it is necessary. I hesitate to use the word "resent," but I feel strongly that the language used by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has no real justification. To say that this is a legal plausibility and not a matter of real substance is to suggest that we are discussing something which is nothing but a hollow sham. I think there can be no more unprofitable discussion than the chaff chopping of

353
legal plausibility; and if by legal plausibility he means something which appears to be good to lawyers and fails to appeal to anybody else the thing is condemned.
I should like to say one or two words as to why, although this matter is to some extent involved in legal considerations, it touches something far more serious and far-reaching. The clause to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, has referred provides that:
"Where any sentence has, whether within or without the United Kingdom, been passed upon a member of a visiting force by a service court of that part of the Commonwealth to which the force belongs, then for the purposes of any legal proceedings within the United Kingdom the court shall be deemed to have been properly constituted, and its proceedings shall be deemed to have been regularly conducted and the sentence shall be deemed to be within the jurisdiction of the court and in accordance with the law. …"
I cannot help thinking that this is a grave denial of rights possessed by people in this country. Military tribunals are subject, and rightly subject, to the Courts of this country and a sentence passed by a tribunal that is imperfectly constituted or that for other circumstances possesses no jurisdiction can be challenged, as it should be, before the Law Courts and the wrong put right. Directly this Bill is passed we find that that disappears and upon the certificate of the officer commanding, the constitution of the court, the regularity of the proceedings and the infliction of the sentence are all to be assumed to be right. That is surely not a mere question either of legal plausibility or of matters in which lawyers alone are concerned.
I know that nothing is more distasteful than a discussion in which lawyers only are engaged. Every one of us who has been in another place remembers perfectly well the occasions when some one would say: "Oh! the lawyers are talking about this," and with a look of fatigue on the face determine not to go into the House till the Division bell rang. It was assumed that a matter in which lawyers were concerned was one that concerned lawyers only. It is not so and it is unfortunate that it should be so regarded. It is true that to discuss the rights and wrongs of the subject in relation to the Habeas Corpus Act is a legal matter, but surely it is something far more. Neither Magna (Marta nor the Petition of Rights nor Habeas Corpus was the re-
354
sult of lawyers' efforts, but of the efforts of the people of this country who were determined that their rights should be put in their Statutes.
I do most sincerely hope that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill will realise that the objection taken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, is not a legal technicality or a mere legal plausibility, but that it is a definite matter which affects the rights of people who, although they are soldiers, have rights as citizens. It is poor consolation to hear that if we pass this Bill in this form it is part of the bargain that our people should be deprived of similar rights elsewhere. Unless this can be justified in essence here I cannot see how you can look forward with complacency to seeing the same provisions in force elsewhere. The noble and learned Viscount said that this was carrying out the provisions of the Statute of Westminster. That leaves my withers un wrung. I protested against that Statute before this House. I thought then, and I still think, that it was a Statute passed in defiance of the teaching both of history and of experience, and an attempt to produce in written form a relationship that should have been kept as undefined as possible. When people have seen the way in which another great nation is struggling to escape from the bonds of a written Constitution we might have thought longer than we did before we attempted to bind ourselves in the same way.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I want to say only a few words in answer to the two speeches because I understand that the matter will be discussed on the Committee stage and I do not wish to say now what I shall then have to reiterate. First may I correct what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buck-master, finished by saying. I did not say that this was carrying out the provisions of the Statute of Westminster. I am sorry to deprive my noble and learned friend of the peroration which appeals so much to many of your Lordships in denouncing the iniquities of that Statute, but what I said was that this Bill was rendered necessary by reason of the fact that the Statute of Westminster has become law. It is no longer possible to go on as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, wishes to do, carrying on the existing discipline. Discipline no

355
longer exists in regard to a Dominion Force in this country or a United Kingdom Force in a self-governing Dominion to which the Statute of Westminster is applicable. If no such provision as is contained in this Bill becomes law, the result will be that the moment a Dominion Force comes here its soldiers will be subject to no military law or discipline, and you cannot attempt in any way to keep them under any sort of military control because there is no military law applicable to them. The purpose of this is to apply some form of military law to them. Similarly, if we send to one of the Dominions any British contingent—such a visit as the Air Force is likely to make occasionally and some military bands have made—unless some Statute of this kind is enforced in the Dominion when they land there they cease to be soldiers because there is no Act imposing any discipline.
For that reason, once the Statute of Westminster became law it became necessary to pass some such legislation as this, or else you render it impossible for any Dominion Force ever to come to this country, because no Dominion is going to send its Forces here when the effect is equivalent to a disbandment. It is essential, too, for Dominions to whom the Statute of Westminster is applicable to pass some such Bill as this. That is the reason why this Statute is necessary. The noble Lords who criticised subsection (3) of Clause 1 seem to think that the effect of it was that all right of any sort to complain to any Court disappeared, if this became law. That is not what happens at all. What happens is this. A Dominion soldier can only challenge in a Dominion Court the act of a Dominion officer, and similarly a United Kingdom soldier can only challenge it in a United Kingdom Court. That may be a wise or an unwise provision, but it is not accurate to suggest that once this Bill becomes law then, whatever happens to any Dominion soldier in this country, nobody can ever interfere.
LORD BUCKMASTFR: Here. That is the point.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: That is the point. A British Court will not interfere with the discipline of a Dominion Force, and similarly a Dominion Court will not interfere with the discipline of an English
356
Force. At any rate it cannot be said that the rights of appeal to a Court disappear.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The noble Viscount has misunderstood the point, which is, that the rights which exist here have been taken away.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am very glad that the noble and learned Lord agrees with me. What happens? I will take the case of a Canadian contingent, because in Australia and New Zealand the Statute of Westminster does not apply. To South Africa and Canada it will apply. In South Africa, as I have told your Lordships, already this form of legislation has been passed and does apply to-day to any United Kingdom Force that visits South Africa. What happens is that if, for example, a Canadian contingent comes over here, as it did last summer to take part in the Tattoo, without this Statute there is no discipline enforceable on this contingent when it lands. With this Statute it will be enforceable, and it will be discipline enforceable by the law of the Dominion in which that particular contingent enlisted, and if there is any excess of jurisdiction by a Dominion officer over his men that can be challenged in the Dominion Courts but not in the United Kingdom Courts. That is the whole effect of this subsection. The Bill as a whole applies discipline generally and I hope that for the reasons I have given your Lordships will realise that it is a desirable provision to make. I gather that nobody disputes that some Bill is necessary.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Will the noble and learned Viscount refer to page 10 of the Bill? He made a statement about the subsection not applying to the Forces of Dominions such as Australia and New Zealand. Will he look at page 10, where there is a definition of "Visiting Force"? Surely, it does apply, because the Bill says:
"Visiting Force' means any holy, contingent, or detachment of the Naval, Military and Air Forces of His Majesty raised in the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia. the Dominion of New Zealand,"
and so on.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think the noble and learned Marquess will find that the answer is that they come in

357
when the Statute of Westminster becomes applicable to those various parts of the Commonwealth. It has not yet become applicable to Australia and New Zealand. If the Statute of Westminster he adopted by Australia and New Zealand then this Bill will, without further legislation, be applied to them. I will, however, look further into the matter.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: There appears to be nothing in the Bill to that effect.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EVIDENCE (FOREIGN, DOMINION AND COLONIAL DOCUMENTS) BILL, [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I really can claim for this Bill at any rate that it applies to technical and legal matters. I do not think there is any controversy about it and I need only detain you for a very few minutes. The objects of the Bill are three: (1) To save costs where certain official documents, such as certificates of births, deaths and marriages are required for use in legal proceedings or for other legal purposes in this country; (2) to carry out the reciprocal agreement already made with Belgium to dispense with the "legalisation" of such documents, the effect of which is to save time and expense to officials and other persons in this country when English documents of this kind are required for use in Belgium; and (3) to enable reciprocal agreements to be concluded for similar purposes with other suitable foreign countries and with parts of the Empire outside Great Britain. In asking your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading let me say at the outset that it does something to diminish the cost of litigation and that it will enable this country to fulfil an agreement already made with Belgium. Your Lordships would hardly wish me to explain the technicalities of the Bill at any great length, but I will try to state its effect as shortly as possible.
358
Clause I relates to the proof of such documents as certificates of births, deaths and marriages. These documents, as your Lordships know, are issued officially in this country and are often required for the purpose of proof, not only in this country but in foreign countries and in the Dominions. Such documents are also issued officially in the Dominions and most foreign countries, and they are often required for the purpose of legal and other proceedings in this country. As we happen to have made an agreement with Belgium, I will take Belgium as an example. Before the agreement English documents of that kind required for use in Belgium had to go through a process known as legalisation. This meant obtaining the signatures of a number of official personages, which involved time, trouble and expense to those concerned.
Permit me to give an example. Such a document is "legalised" in practice by the signature of the President of the Court of First Instance who legalises the signature of the Officier d'Etat Civil or the Registrar of the Court as the case may be; the signature of the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs who legalises the signature of the Minister of Justice; and the signature of a diplomatic or consular officer in Belgium of the country in which the copy is to be used, who legalises the signature of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The legalisation by the Minister of Justice is sometimes omitted in practice. In some cases where there is no Court of First Instance the signature of the officier d'Etat Civil is legalised by the jute de paix instead of the President of the Court. The practice has been subjected to criticism on the grounds that it imposes great trouble on a number of busy persons holding official positions and considerable trouble, expense and delay on the person requiring the certificate. Similarly, when Belgian documents of that kind were required for use in England, signatures and so on were required in Belgium. These signatures have been felt to be of little practical value, and in pursuance of the agreement they may now be dispensed with, both on the English documents required in Belgium and on the Belgian documents required in England, except in English Courts of Law. But, as the English law of evidence is concerned, the agreement cannot be effective in English Courts of

359
Law without the authority of an Act of Parliament. One object of the Bill is to give such authority.
But that is not all about Clause 1. The English law of evidence requires certain matters relating to the Belgian registers to be proved in Court before the Belgian certificates can be accepted in evidence. An expert witness must prove that the Belgian register is a public register, kept under the authority of Belgian law, and recognised by Belgian Courts as an authentic record. But these very facts have been established by the Foreign Office for the purpose of making the agreement, and it seems unnecessary to put the parties to the expense of calling experts in Belgian law whenever a certificate has to be proved in Court. Under Clause 1 an Order-in-Council can be made relating to Belgium, the effect of which will be that Belgian certificates of this kind can be proved in evidence in our Courts of Law as simply as English certificates. Clause 2 relates to a different but kindred matter and is also very technical. The births and deaths of British subjects born or dying abroad are registered in British consular offices, but there is at present no authority under which banks and similar bodies can safely act upon the birth and death certificates issued by those registries, and evidence of such births and deaths has to be obtained by other means, sometimes at considerable expense. The object of Clause 2 is to enable these certificates to be recognised. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LONDON TRAFFIC CONGESTION.
LORD KILMAINE LORD KILMAINE rose to call attention to the congestion of traffic in the London streets; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is with considerable diffidence that I venture to bring this subject before you, but, having been absent from London for over three years, when I returned to it a few months ago I was at once most unfavourably struck by the terrible way in which the congestion of traffic had increased in that period. I dare say many of your Lord-
360
ships have experienced the same sort of thing as I have in coming up for a day's shopping or business from a South Coast resort, and having about two hours to do it in. One could not go by Underground, one had to take a taxicab. My experience was that at intervals I was held up for five minutes, ten minutes, or a quarter of an hour. By the time one had got one's business done one was run in for a bill of 20s. or 30s., and it was nearly three o'clock. Having experienced this several times I thought I had better try to see, if I possibly could, what was the cause of all this.
As far as I can see, one of the chief causes is the very slow-moving horse-drawn traffic, heavy motor lorries with goods, and numerous omnibuses in the busiest hours of the day, proceeding along some of the narrowest and busiest streets more than half empty, with perhaps five or six or ten people in them. I do not know whether any of my suggestions will be of any use, but I will venture to suggest the entire prohibition of all horse-drawn vehicles in the main streets between 10 a.m. and 11 p.m. Limit the number of omnibuses except those running to parts of London not served by an Underground railway, such as Chelsea, and stop their circulation entirely in the busiest and most frequented streets between the hours of 11 a.m. and 11 p.m. It has been represented to me also that the circulation of omnibuses in Bond Street is most extraordinarily unpopular. It is unpopular with the shopkeepers and it is unpopular with other people who use the street. It is one of the busiest and narrowest streets of this City, and it is not a street for vehicles the size of omnibuses. I am told that it would be a most popular move with the shopkeepers and everybody else if these vehicles could be stopped.
I know the omnibus is a very popular vehicle. But surely it is not necessary to have omnibuses in such numbers as they are. They are the cause of all this congestion. I have been in the Haymarket sometimes and seen ten or twelve omnibuses, all held up, with hardly anybody in them. I know that one of the sights of London is the policeman directing traffic, but surely he would be better employed trying to detect crime. We have also got a beautiful broad river. I cannot see why it should not be possible

361
to have fast-moving motor launches or vedettes, as they have in some parts of France, to convey passengers quickly up and down the river. Now that there are no steamers there is nothing on the river. You could have motor launches, and to anybody living in Chelsea it would be extremely nice on a summer day to be able to take a launch at Westminster and go down to Chelsea. Then, is not it possible to institute some service of goods traffic on all the Underground Railways? I do not say you could run goods trains in the day time. Probably not, it is too busy. But why not run them at night? You would have a cheap and swift way by which merchandise could be taken from one part of London to another.
I have been told that another thing is that long distance omnibuses coming from other parts of the country ought to have their termini on the outskirts near some Underground station, and not be allowed in the centre of the City. I suggest it with all diffidence, but would it not be possible to allow the omnibuses to circulate to the public parks? If you could allow the omnibuses to go inside St. James's Park it -would relieve the traffic enormously. If it is held that it might be annoying to Ms Majesty the King, I think some compromise might he possible, for example, when the Royal Family are not in residence. If taxicabs are allowed to go through the public parks, why not omnibuses? I think it would be extraordinarily popular with people if they could drive through the parks of London in omnibuses and see Buckingham Palace and the Victoria Memorial. Of course, if His Majesty objects to it, that is another matter.
I venture to say that the state of congestion and chaos in the London streets is an absolute disgrace to a City of the importance and wealth of London. You do not find it in any other capital city, and it is a source of perpetual danger, annoyance, and expense to His Majesty's loyal and very over-taxed subjects. If something could be done it would also provide employment, for we need to find work for our unemployed people, and it could be done in a making stations and things of that sort. If work is not available for the unemployed at present, it simply has to be provided for them somehow. In this connection I may say that the other day I was driving from Bexhill
362
to Eastbourne along a new arterial road, and about every quarter of a mile there were two men working. Why are there only two men working? Why are there not hundreds of them. Surely it is better to have them working rather than just giving them the "dole," which breeds ever-increasing discontent? I see that in another country—I think it was in America—a town had a large street paved with wood blocks. An advertisement was inserted in the local Press inviting the poor people to come and remove the blocks for fuel, and the result was that the street was cleared in record time and everybody was satisfied. I suppose if we did a thing like that we should have the trade unions against us. "What are you doing?" it would be said, "taking the bread out of workmen's mouths." But who is governing this country? is it Parliament or the trade unions? I do not profess to be any expert on traffic. I only wish to bring this subject forward as it is one which I think certainly does require some attention. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I think we shall all be agreed that we are much indebted to the noble Lord for his speech and for the various suggestions he has made. I should not have risen if he had not condemned the state of London traffic, and said London was the worst city in the world for traffic. I do not think, if I may say so, that the noble Lord is a very good judge on this matter, because he has been away for three years, and he tells us that his method, when he is for a short time in London, is to go about in taxicabs. I am sorry Lord Ashfield is not here to-day, because he. would tell your Lordships that the quickest way to go about London is by Underground. If you go by Underground you know that you will travel more quickly and for longer distances than you would in any other city.
LORD KILMAINE: Will the noble Lord excuse my interrupting him? I beg to inform him that I always go by Underground whenever I can, but there are some parts that cannot be reached by Underground.
LORD JESSEL: I think the parts that the noble Lord wants to go to when he comes from the country are the parts lie can go to by Underground. We should not have heard so much about that

363
"ticking-up," which seemed to be the great complaint of the noble Lord, if he went by Underground. I do not want to delay your Lordships at undue length because the noble Lord who represents the Minister of Transport will, I am sure, answer the complaint of the noble Lord who moved for Papers. I am sure he is going to say: "If you only pass the London Passenger Traffic Bill into law all will be well." I do not agree. At the same time I was sorry to hear the attack that was made on the horse. I have always been very interested in horses, and it seems to me rather ridiculous to say you can exclude the horse from the whole of London. It has been done in certain streets with success, but you really cannot, in view of the commercial value of the horse as a means of transport, exclude horses altogether from London.
Another point made by the noble Lord was about the use of the Thames. Your Lordships will remember—the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, knows as well as I do—that years ago the London County Council ran steamboats, which unfortunately were a failure because of our climate. They could not be made to pay, and were therefore discontinued. The same objection applies to-day. A gentleman who is interested in a well-known coal firm tried recently to run some steamboats on the river, but they had to be given up. The real truth of the matter is that except for a few days in the summer it does not pay to run them, and that is why steamboats and motor boats cannot be used on the Thames.
There is one other point I should like to touch upon, and that is the congestion arising from the omnibuses. Part of the trouble comes from the long-distance omnibuses that are allowed to come into the centre of London. In the City of Westminster, of the council of which I am a member, we brought up a case before Lord Amulree's Committee last summer in which we asked that these omnibuses should not be allowed to add to the congestion by going through the heart of the City of Westminster, which, as your Lordships know, comprises the principal shopping centres. There are two very interesting documents on traffic. One is the final Report of the Committee of Inquiry upon London Motor Coach Services which was presided over by Lord Amulree. That Report was issued in
364
August of last year. Unfortunately no conclusion has been come to about it; at least no action has been taken. I should be glad to know from the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, who is to reply, what is the reason for that. It always seems to me that that is one of our troubles. It was recommended in that Report that the long-distance omnibuses should not land their passengers or go through the centre of the City, but that they should, like the railways, have stations outside the centre Where people visiting London could be set clown, and from there take the ordinary omnibus. I do not wish to discuss these things further now because there will be many opportunities of doing so. I am glad the noble Lord brought forward his Motion, because it does give us an opportunity of knowing what we are anxious to learn in regard to this question of congestion in our streets by vast numbers of omnibuses, green and red and of all sorts of colours.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, I should not have ventured to intervene if it had not been for the speech of the noble Lord. It does seem to me that everybody who deals with London traffic is far too drastic in their recommendations. I expected the noble Lord in his speech every minute to say that London should be completely burned down and given into the hands of Sir Reginald Blomfield to rebuild. It does seem to me that there are several suggestions that could be made on moderate lines which would make a great difference to the traffic in London. One is this. London is the only city in the world in which a motor car is allowed to draw up facing the traffic on the wrong side of the road. In every other city a motor car is obliged to make a turn and go to the place where it is going to set down in the same way as the traffic is proceeding. It is obvious that it is much easier for a motor car to turn in the middle of the road than it is for it ultimately to turn when it goes away from the side of the road. If that was made a law of this country, and every motor ear was compelled when it draws up to do so in the way that the traffic is going, I think that would make a great difference to the congestion. It would be a good thing if such a law were made universal not only in the town but in the country also. Everybody knows that a motor car drawing up at night on the wrong side facing the traffic

365
is a cause of innumerable accidents in the country owing to other cars misjudging the lights.
There is another alteration that might be made in the law. The police have got into a bad habit which I think the authorities should try to cure. When there is a block at a street point they allow the block to get so long that it overlaps a side street. The police ought always to leave a. hole in the block so that traffic coming from the side streets can pass across during the times that the block is continuing. Most of your Lordships will have seen what happens in places like Curzon Street, Bruton Street and Bond Street. The police will allow a line of traffic to accumulate and it blocks not only Conduit Street but side streets and Grosvenor Street and Brook Street beyond. The police ought to be instructed always. to leave a space so that traffic from side streets may cross.
A further thought which occurs to the ordinary person in London is that the machine in Oxford Street has turned out to be more intelligent than the human beings who regulate traffic in Piccadilly. I think if the police were given instructions by the authority to make the time during which they hold up traffic of exactly the same length as in the case of the lights in Oxford Street, the police would be as efficient as the lights in Oxford Street. There is no doubt the police allow much too long lines of traffic to accumulate before they change. At Bruton Street and Bond Street I have seen the police allow traffic to accumulate down Bruton. Street until it reaches Berkeley Square before the change is made. It is obvious that the efficiency of the lights arises from the fact that they move quickly and. do not allow traffic to accumulate.
The other thing I have to say to your Lordships is that I think the authorities ought to keep an eye on that dangerous being, the pedestrian. The London pedestrian is one of the wildest and most uncontrolled creatures who has ever been known in the whole world. In every other city the traffic dominates the pedestrian. In London alone the pedestrian dominates the traffic. At this moment there is no doubt that the lights system in Oxford Street, which is obviously going to be the thing of the future, is being endangered by the way
366
the public are behaving. The Government have never been able to control the public. They tried to snake them walk on the left, but the public refused. Of course, as a Liberal occupying a seat on these Benches, I am very glad to see that spirit of independence, but I should have thought that noble Lords opposite, and especially noble Lords to the Left who consider it their mission to tyrannise over the public, would have taken sonic steps to deal with the pedestrian.
It is clear that he is endangering the system of lights in Oxford Street by paying no attention to the lights whatever. The time allowed for traffic from the side streets to cross is very short indeed. That is quite right. The traffic along Oxford Street is allowed a long time and the traffic from side streets only a short time, but the time is so short that the public, who never look at the lights, are all the time crossing the entrances from the side streets and the traffic has no chance of moving until the lights are beginning to change and they have lost the opportunity. If the public are going to behave like that the whole system of lights is going to fail. The Government ought to consider the question of either educating the public or else putting up some notice which will prevent them from behaving in this way. The suggestions I have made could be carried out by the Government without anything so drastic as that proposed by the noble Lord who introduced this subject.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, if apology is needed, as I often think it is, for addressing your Lordships once in an afternoon, the need for it must be doubled when one has to trespass on your patience by speaking twice. The subject raised by the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmaine, is one in which I am deeply interested, but I thought it would be difficult indeed to find somebody who, as I thought, shared my views expressing so many opinions with which I profoundly disagree. There is no doubt that the traffic of London is not as well regulated as is possible. Very few people will doubt that. First of all it has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, and said rightly, that the institution of lights in Oxford Street has enormously facilitated traffic along that street. It certainly has, and I want to know why those lights are not universal. Why are there

367
not these lights in Piccadilly, and why do they not extend all down the Bayswater Road?
The Bayswater Road is an extraordinarily good illustration of where they ought to be. I know of no more dangerous road in the whole of London. As the roads that enter it do not run through, the motor traffic appears to think that it has an entirely unimpeded line along which it can go at any pace it pleases, and everything does go at any pace it can. Motor lorries, omnibuses, motor vans, pour along the road, and the result is that when people come in from the side streets they are in grave danger of being destroyed. So grave is that danger that police have now been placed at nearly every one of these entrances in order that they may let traffic in. The whole of that could be stopped by merely putting up lights. I cannot understand why it is not done. Then the police could do what they ought to do—not stand at points where the traffic is held up, but walk down the street and see where the traffic is exceeding the already lax regulations by which it is controlled. It is really ridiculous to put police at these places, sometimes two at a time, when what they do could be done much better by automatic lights. I am unable to understand why it is that the Ministry of Transport has not adopted that system.
The noble Lord, Lord Jessel, pointed out something, with which I entirely agree. It, really is ridiculous to allow fleets of omnibuses to come into London that do not facilitate the London traffic in the least. They do not take up passengers in London but they tear down the streets as fast as they possibly can, generally in the middle, and then leave their cars to litter our squares and public places. It is an astonishing thing to me that it should 'be permitted. I see no reason why they should not be obliged to stop at convenient spots on the outskirts where London omnibuses and trains can pick up the passengers and convey them to their destinations. It is absurd to suppose that these alien omnibuses deposit people exactly where they want to go. There is far greater elasticity of movement in the London omnibuses and passengers could get London omnibuses which would take them much nearer their final destination.
368
I am inclined to think that in the end that is what they will have to do.
The noble Lord said he was disappointed with the Ministry of Transport. I would respectfully suggest to him that he had better consider when he is dealing with the Ministry of Transport. the great beatitude: "Blessed is the man who expecteth nothing for he shall not be disappointed." I must say I am amazed at the apathy of the Ministry of Transport. I cannot find a single thing that they have done except set up these lights in Oxford Street and there stop. Although there have been impressive expressions of opinion from your Lordships' House and although there have been reports by competent people, you find that nothing is done. The last Report was in regard to heavy traffic, and it seems to me a most astounding thing that a Report which they asked should be presented as quickly as possible and which they received in July, should be something which they are still incubating. So far as I can see, if they do introduce it into the next Budget, which they say is the appropriate time, it cannot be made operative for another year and so the Report which they asked for quickly, which they received in July, will remain a dead letter if it is ever acted upon at all. I must confess that I am not fond of any Ministries but the one that least attracts my affection is the Ministry of Transport.
I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmaine, who has his views about omnibuses, that the London General omnibus driver is by far the most skilful, the most careful and considerate driver of any motor vehicle of which I have experience. He has no reason to fear the London General Omnibus Company's vehicles. As for their going down Bond Street, the noble Lord must remember that Bond Street was not created merely for shop keepers. It is one of the few thoroughfares from the north to the south. You cannot get direct from Oxford Street to Piccadilly except by going clown Bond Street or Park Lane. To suggest that this street should be closed to people who cannot afford to ride in taxi-cabs or who do not own motor cars is to interfere with the rights of the people who use omnibuses, which I think quite wrong. At the same time I view with some considerable alarm the proposal that omnibuses should

369
invade the parks. There is still one little spot left in London where you can for a few short moments be free from the incessant din arid aggravation of motor traffic, and that is in the parks. His suggestion is that even that small spot of respite from our annoyances should be taken from us I certainly hope the Ministry will not adopt that suggestion of the noble Lord.
With regard to Lord Esher, I fail to recognise myself as wild—I have forgotten the other epithet, but it was something far removed from my nature which, he said, was the quality of pedestrians in London. If I had been asked to reason backwards when I heard that speech I should have said that that is a man who always goes about in a motor car; it seemed to me he knew little of the difficulties of and dangers for pedestrians. I am one of those who, I should think, walk about London more than anybody else because, of all forms of transport yet devised, walking is the one I like best and when I have time I like, at the risk of my life, to walk. Then I am told that I dominate the motor traffic. If domination means that I am in peril of losing my life, which is sometimes nearly realised, then I suppose I do, but I understand that what was meant was that "these pedestrians get into our way and we have either to run over them or to slacken speed." What I want to-know is why they should not slacken speed and why it is that directly there is a pedestrian in the road they say: "Here is a nuisance, get him out of the way"? I wish motorists would remember that pedestrians are on the road by right and the whole of the motor traffic is there by licence, and that the people there by licence have no tight to interfere with and attempt to destroy, as they do, the rights of people who were there before motor cars were thought of. I do not for a moment suppose that anything said this afternoon will have the least effect on the Ministry of Transport. I am sure it will riot. But it will do something to enable us to hear once more one of the pleasant and attractive speeches that Lord Plymouth invariably makes on behalf of the Ministry he does not represent.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH)My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has once again taken
370
an opportunity of chastising the Ministry of Transport. He has said he has no great affection for any Ministry and least of all for the Ministry of Transport. I can assure him I gathered that a very long time ago. But curiously enough there are one or two matters with which I entirely agree with him in what he said this afternoon, and that does not very often occur. I entirely agree that it would be most undesirable that we should have omnibuses running up and down the Royal Parks. I also agree that it would be quite impossible in the present circumstances and conditions to attempt to remove the omnibuses from Bond Street. As he rightly pointed out, Bond Street forms one of the few thoroughfares from north to south in London, and if you were to order omnibuses off Bond Street it would only have, apart from other reactions, the result of still further crowding the other north and south thoroughfares such as Regent Street and Park Lane.
I refuse to be lured once again into the controversy of the motorist and the pedestrian. I really do not think it is appropriate on this occasion. After all, we ought to view these problems from the point of view of all users of the roads and not of any particular kind of user. I need hardly say that this question of the congestion of our streets in London has naturally been food for thought for the Ministry, and for all those others who are interested in the subject, for a considerable number of years, but I think it is quite unnecessary for me to go into the history of this question. I need only refer quite shortly to recent developments in regard to it. Your Lordships are aware that in 1924 the London Traffic Act did impose upon the Minister of Transport considerable measures of responsibility with regard to the control and regulation of traffic in London. There was set up by that Act the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee which advises the Minister on all questions connected with London traffic. The Minister is bound by that Act to consult that Committee before making any orders or regulations under the Act. Although he is not in fact bound to accept its advice, at the same time in practice he almost invariably does. This Committee has given a great deal of careful thought to this general question and has made a large number of sugges-

371
tions and recommendations which are designed to facilitate the movement of traffic in the streets and to provide conditions of greater safety.
As I see it, the congestion of the streets is due mainly to three causes: (1) Standing and slow-moving vehicles which hamper the free movement of other vehicles; (2) cross traffic at road junctions; (3) inadequate road facilities. The noble Lord who introduced this Motion made several suggestions. His first was that horse traffic should be removed entirely from the main thoroughfares of Central London. The Committee have naturally examined the possibility of that, but on the evidence before them they have definitely come to the conclusion that it would not be fair to prohibit the use of horse traffic altogether in Central London. They take the view that the requirements of certain traders can only be met by the use of horse transport. A point which I think is often lost sight of is that in a narrow street or a congested area what may be termed the manoeuvring capacity of a horse-drawn vehicle is considerably greater than that of a motor vehicle. This is the view that has also been taken by the Minister. The Minister recognises that there are still many large haulage contractors and certain other traders, as well as the railway companies, who make use of horse-drawn vehicles particularly for short journeys because they have proved to be the most economical form of traffic they can employ.
It is interesting to note that the volume of horse-drawn traffic in London has decreased continually and regularly for many years past. I have a table here—I will not read all the figures out to your Lordships—which shows that the number of horse-drawn vehicles which passed 98 selected points in London on the same day in each of the years from 1924 to 1931 decreased from 210,000 in 1924 to 105,000 in 1931. That decrease is almost exactly 50 per cent. Similarly there was a decrease between 1913 and 1924 of something like 60 per cent. This shows that there is a regular and almost continual decrease in horse-drawn vehicles which should go some way towards the object desired by the noble Lord. In connection with this question of the prohibition of horse-drawn traffic it is only fair for me to point out that the Traffic Advisory Committee have
372
expressed the opinion that any restriction would have to be applied not only to horse-drawn vehicles but to motor vehicles which are slow moving. It would be clearly unfair to apply a restriction of that sort solely to horse-drawn vehicles.
In connection with the scheme referred to this afternoon, the Oxford Street scheme, the Minister accepted the advice then put forward by that Committee to the effect that slow-moving vehicles, including horse-drawn vehicles and motor vehicles restricted to a speed of eight miles an hour, should be prohibited from using Oxford Street between the hours of twelve and seven, unless they were proceeding to a destination in Oxford Street or to a destination which could not be reached without making use of Oxford Street. That regulation, of course, has the effect of further reducing the volume of horse-drawn vehicles which use Oxford Street now, and whereas, as I have told your Lordships, the reduction throughout the area had been 50 per cent. since 1924, in Oxford Street, as a result of this further restriction, the reduction is about 72 per cent. The reason why this restriction or regulation was made, so far as Oxford Street is concerned, was that the traffic light system which has been instituted there was installed and synchronised on the basis that the traffic using Oxford Street would be going at sixteen miles an hour. It was done on that special basis, and therefore it is clear that if you still have a number of vehicles going at a slower rate than sixteen miles an hour it would have a serious effect and do a great deal to minimise the advantages which have been derived from the installation of this system.
These restrictions were naturally opposed by interests concerned, but I understand that since the regulations have been in force there has been no serious complaint up to now. I can quite understand that the question will be asked why, if you can do that kind of thing in Oxford Street, cannot you do it more generally throughout London. The answer is comparatively simple. It must be realised that restriction on the entry to a single street which has good alternative routes is an entirely different thing from a general application of a restriction of that kind. It is per-

373
fectly obvious that if you were to make a general restriction throughout the centre of London, prohibiting horse-drawn vehicles from using the main thoroughfares in that part of London, the effect would be to make in practice a general prohibition. It would make it impossible for horse-drawn vehicles to get from one point to another within that area. We do feel that the entire prohibition of horse-drawn traffic within the central part of London would create a great deal of hardship in certain cases. As I have pointed out, the reduction in the number of horse-drawn vehicles using the streets is progressive and regular, and taking all things into consideration it does not seem to me that there is sufficient reason for departing from the policy pursued up to now, by taking the more drastic action suggested by the noble Lord who moved this Resolution, which is to prohibit entirely the use of horse-drawn traffic in London.
There are a considerable number of other matters to which I might refer. Efforts have been made in various ways to minimise the congestion in the streets. For instance, there is a regulation in force which prohibits taxicabs from proceeding at a speed below that of the general run of traffic. This restriction has been applied in many of the congested streets in London. There is also a regulation made in connection with the Oxford Street traffic scheme, prohibiting passenger-carrying vehicles from waiting during certain hours for a longer period than is necessary to pick up or set down their passengers. Also goods vehicles are not allowed to stand for a longer period than ten minutes. Similar regulations apply in the Piccadilly Circus area. One could go on; but I want to refer to other questions which have been referred to this afternoon. Clearly the capacity of important main roads in London is materially reduced by the large number of cross-roads, many of which themselves carry large volumes of traffic, and we feel that the most effective method of dealing with these is by the provision of roundabouts, wherever possible, such as have been instituted in Trafalgar Square, Sloane Square, and the western approach to Lambeth Bridge. The difficulty is that owing to the lay-out of the streets they are extremely difficult to institute, and one cannot adopt them at all widely because the cost of acquiring the land,
374
which is often a necessity, is so heavy as to be almost prohibitive at the present moment.
There is another method of dealing with cross streets, and that is by installing the system of traffic signals as in Oxford Street. No doubt there is a great deal to be said for the system which in Oxford Street has been a great success, and the noble and learned Lord has asked why similar systems have not been installed in many other parts of London, to deal with the difficulties which exist there. I quite agree that it would be a very good thing if we could get on faster with the installation of these systems. The matter is one for the local authorities primarily, and the Minister of Transport has urged them to proceed as quickly as possible with the installation of these traffic signals at other places. We have offered them 50 per cent. both of the capital cost of installation and also, I think, of maintenance as well, but I am not certain on that latter point. We have had one or two debates, at which the noble and learned Lord has not been present, when these matters have been thoroughly discussed, and it is quite definitely the. policy of the Minister to help and to urge the local authorities to instal these traffic signal lights wherever they would be of use and would be practicable. We quite realise the value of them. We have had the experience and now know the results of their installation in Oxford Street, and I entirely agree that it would be of great assistance if a great many more could be installed wherever they might prove useful.
A number of other schemes have already been passed, and I believe we shall progress a great deal more quickly in respect of them in the future than we have done in the past. I understand there is a scheme for Piccadilly which has received general assent, and I believe it will not be long before some system of traffic lights will be installed in Piccadilly. The difficulties created by inadequate road facilities are, of course, another great factor in the congestion of London traffic. Quite a number of improvement schemes have been formulated by the London County Council in collaboration with the Ministry of Transport which arc calculated to assist. There is the Victoria Dock road scheme which will give greatly improved access to the

375
dock area and which, I am glad to say, is making satisfactory progress. But there are other large schemes which, owing to economic pressure, have had to be shelved, for the moment at any rate, and it is clearly, owing to the great expenditure involved, difficult to proceed very quickly on those lines.
The noble Lord who introduced this Motion suggested that the congestion of the streets might be considerably relieved by making use of the Metropolitan and the Underground Railways for goods traffic at night. I can assure the noble Lord that this question has been put both to the Metropolitan Railway Company and to the Underground Railway Company, and they have both assured us that this suggestion is an impracticable one. To begin with, the number of trains that use the system in the daytime is far too great to make it possible for them to put goods trains on at the same time, and I am told that, as far as the night is concerned, the limited hours which are available for the proper inspection and renewal of railway equipment preclude these lines from being further used for goods traffic. It is quite clear that both companies are of one mind in the view that it. would be impossible to put further goods trains on their systems. Of course, the Metropolitan system at night time is, to a limited extent, used for goods trains.
My noble friend Lord Jessel and the noble and learned Lord have referred to the question of motor coaches coming into the centre of London. This was a question which was examined very carefully by the Committee over which the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, presided. The reason why no action has been taken upon the two Reports of that Committee is a simple one. It is that at the moment there is an application for an injunction on the Minister of Transport in the High Court restraining him from giving any decision as the result of the findings of the Amulree Committee. But it is a matter which was examined very fully, and we believe that this difficulty will be cleared away before very long. I quite agree that we ought to explore every means of trying to minimise this very great evil in London. The noble Viscount, Lord Esher, has made one or two suggestions. I feel certain that they have been examined already, but I do not
376
know exactly what the position is in regard to them. I will certainly draw the attention of the Minister once again to the suggestions that have been made, but I honestly do not think that any substantial progress can be made on the lines suggested by Lord Kilmaine.
In my view there are three main ways in which you can grapple with this problem. The first is by installing more roundabouts throughout London wherever practicable. The second is by the extension of the traffic control signals, and I have told your Lordships that we are urging the local authorities to get on with these and to instal further ones as quickly as possible. The third is by street improvements generally. So far as street improvements are concerned, I am afraid the present economic and financial situation makes it very difficult indeed to enter upon schemes of that kind, because in most cases they entail the expenditure of very large sums of money. I have tried to deal with the various points that have been raised, and, although I dare say I have not succeeded in giving a satisfactory answer to every question that has been asked, I hope at any rate that what I have said will go some way towards satisfying those who are interested in this subject.
LORD KILMAINE: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CARLTON HOUSE TERRACE.
LORD CONWAY OF ALLINGTON, who had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government what are the building operations proceeding at Carlton House Terrace, and move for Papers, said: My Lords, I had some hesitation in putting down this Motion because I thought it probable some senior member of the House would take the matter up; but, as the days passed and nothing was done, I took my courage in both hands and put down the Motion. It was just about one hundred years ago that the great architect Nash, who is reckoned to have been one of the four greatest architects this country has produced, laid out the finest piece of town planning that exists in England, and one of the very finest that exists in the world. I mean the planning which installed Carlton

377
House Terrace at one end and Regent's Park at the other, and in between the two a noble street—Waterloo Place, Lower Regent Street, Piccadilly Circus, Regent Street, the Quadrant, Oxford Circus, Langham Place, Portland Place, and so out to Regent's Park. Now, that was a very great piece of town planning. It was clever, i was original. It has never been repeated. It is one of the great treasures of this country.
What is happening to that now? Carlton House Terrace at one end has been described as the finest terrace in Europe, a very beautiful architectural composition. That is the point where the modern threat of change is at the moment moving. We arc told that financial considerations involve the destruction of Carlton House Terrace. These financial considerations are everlastingly being brought forward, first for this and then for that piece of vandalism. Waterloo Bridge is attacked on one side, now Carlton House Terrace is attacked on the other. Park Lane has been half destroyed already, and, one way or another, every part of our City is threatened by one or other of the authorities that administer its government. Who is at the back of these various threats nobody can ever discover. Who was it that seized upon the idea that it would be a fine thing to destroy Waterloo Bridge? Who is it that has seized upon the idea that it would be a fine thing to destroy Carlton House Terrace? Somewhere in some back office, in some Government or municipal department, I picture to myself the existence of a gnawing worm of an individual who labours to level with the ground the great works that our forefathers have left us. It is the old story. One after another of our great monuments is attacked, and it is almost conceivable, I suppose, that some day even these Houses of Parliament might be found to be in the way when financial considerations involve their destruction.
Why, for instance, should they fall upon Carlton House Terrace as a thing to be destroyed? Why do they not attack St. James's Palace? It is riot much more venerable. Part of it is not so old as Carlton House Terrace. People do not generally remember that a great deal of St. James's Palace was burned down and stood as a gaunt ruin for many years. It was rebuilt, and now people think
378
that what they see there is altogether a venerable structure, but a great deal of it is no older than Carlton House Terrace. Why do you not attack St. James's Palace I suppose that will be the next thing. You will have the great processional road along the Mall to Buckingham Palace and in the opposite direction spoilt. Carlton House Terrace looks down upon that processional road and adds dignity to it. We are told it is necessary that it should be destroyed. Why should it be destroyed? There are a variety of cheap reasons given, but I cannot find any of them to be worth really serious consideration.
There is one foundation trouble in the whole of these matters, and that is the hunger on this side of the Thames for sites on which to build important commercial buildings. There is a square mile of unused land just over the other side of the Thames which might be brought into use, and which would satisfy this site hunger for several generations to come. If anybody would drive a great boulevard through from somewhere near Waterloo Station to somewhere near London Bridge, they would find that they would create a thoroughfare which relieved the Strand, which relieved all the pressure on this part of London, and which would offer sites for very fine buildings and which might be made into the noblest part of modern London. Therefore let my friend Sir Reginald Blom-field design South London, and I shall applaud him, but let them leave Carlton House Terrace alone. The immediate problem was raised by the house No. 4 Carlton Gardens. I suppose that house and its fate have been discussed for some time, but what did the public know about it? We knew nothing. The first thing that most people knew was that there was a hole in the ground where No. 4 Carlton Gardens had been. It always happens like that. Government Departments keep their secrets to themselves, take steps which are important and face you with a fait accompli, so that you begin to protest about the destruction of a house six months after it has been levelled to the ground. What is the good of that? We are always being taken in in that way. The same thing happened in the case of Waterloo Bridge.
The houses in Carlton House Terrace and Carlton Gardens are very fine residential houses. Everybody knows that.

379
It has occurred to the Commissioners of Crown Lands that at present, it being difficult to let some of those houses, the only thing to do is to pull them down and build offices instead. Why should these Commissioners of Crown Lands be surprised that they have to suffer from exactly the same difficulties as everybody else suffers from in these hard times? There will be a difficulty, no doubt, in letting some of these houses, but that difficulty is only part of the present misfortunes of which we all have to complain. We do not want to knock down every building that we cannot let at this moment. The time will come, I believe, when prosperity will return, and people will want these houses again. The Commissioners of Crown Lands, when they were approached by a gentleman with proposals to turn No. 4 Carlton Gardens into maisonettes or flats, said that should not be done; they were not allowed to do that. "You are not allowed to make any alterations," they said. The result was nothing was done and down came the house.
Another of the big houses in Carlton House Terrace was turned into the Union Club. Its inside was modified, changes were made, and it makes, I believe, a very good club house indeed. There is no reason why you should not find other uses for some of these houses, possibly for all of them, but I am not so much concerned with the use you make of these houses, I am concerned in preserving the facade towards the Park. That is the thing we prize. In to-day's Times there is a reproduction of a drawing by Sir Reginald Blomfield of part of one half of the proposed substitute for Carlton House Terrace, and underneath it there is a small piece of the existing facade shown, so that you can contrast one with the other. I am not one of the detractors of Sir Reginald Blomfield. He is an architect whose position is assured, everybody knows who he is, and the great work that he has done; but in this particular case I am bound to say it seems to me that the old facade was far more beautiful than his design. His design is very like all the big offices that have risen on the banks of the Thames. In any case the instruction which he received was that he was to preserve the residential character of the old building in this new facade. Well, if he is to
380
preserve the dignified residential character of the building, what will be an industrial or commercial building inside has to look on the outside as though it was a residence. That is not the way to make a beautiful and attractive London.
It is one house that is in question now, hut what is involved in that one house is the whole of Carlton House Terrace. When you have built the projected block of offices fifty feet higher than the existing terrace you have condemned the rest of Carlton House Terrace to destruction. And it is intended. That is why it is clone, in order to get the lever underneath the houses before you prize them up and over they go. We are not informed—we never are informed, as I have already said—of what is going on. As late as November 23 Sir Reginald Blomfield replied to a correspondent that "the time is not ripe for the publication of information in regard to this matter." Well, that is not a month ago. Why should it be in the interest of the public that we should be kept in ignorance of these matters? Of course it is nonsense. The interest of the public is to know. The interest of bureaucracy is to hide, and the longer they can hide a proposed revolutionary change the better chance they have of carrying it through. The residents of these houses were not consulted. They were told that the houses were incapable of being repaired and were no longer suited to modern life. They were told that the only thing to do was to take the houses away and build new ones. They were told that it was impossible to turn the houses to any modern use. Then they found that the houses were being turned into the offices of a commercial company.
Well, my Lords, the purpose of a building ought to be visible outside as well as inside. To transmogrify any of these houses into anything except clubs or residences is no doubt difficult or even impossible. They have to be maintained as they are. They have come down to us through a hundred years. They have formed a feature of one of the finest views in London. They are a background for every great ceremonial that passes along the Mall. They are part of London, and when any visitors from other parts of the world come to London that is one of the views which they carry away with them as one of the characteristic views

381
of London. Down went No. 4: down it went! The house breakers, I suppose, came in and amongst other things found some fine mantel-pieces and fireplaces. They took them out and put them in a stoneyard. Then the authorities of the Victoria and Albert. Museum came along and had to buy a couple of these very fireplaces which the Commissioners of Crown Lands had overthrown. One branch of the Government destroys and another collects and preserves the same thing. It is really a very foolish arrangement.
I have here any quantity of printed statements of great authorities of all kinds in this country. Men of letters, artists, men of business, lawyers, leaders of various professions, heads of great scientific, literary and art societies—they all write in the same way. I might spend the rest of the afternoon and evening if I were to start reading them. Here they are, a hundred of them. They are all unanimous in their condemnation of the action of the Commissioners of Crown Lands in what they have done and what they propose to do. Perhaps I might read just one. It is the opinion of the Society for Protection of Ancient Buildings:
"With regard to Carlton House Terrace, the opinion of the Committee of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings is as follows:—
This Society holds that Carlton House Terrace is an example of the best architecture of the second quarter of the nineteenth century; that it forms part of a noble example of civic planning, perhaps the very finest example in this under-planned City; for it flanks the grand entrance to Regent Street from the south, it forms an important part of that great scheme'—
That is Nash's scheme—
'and, in addition, it fittingly marks the importance of the great approach to the King of England's most important. Palace. For these reasons the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings strongly hopes that these terraces will not be demolished, and it holds that the nation is justified in enduring considerable economic loss as far as these buildings are concerned, if by that potential or real loss these terraced houses can be maintained.'"
That I cite merely as an example of opinions which I have in dozens here by my side.
I do not want to detain your Lordships longer than I can help. There is a great deal more that I could say and would
382
like to say, but time passes. One of the saddest timings about this proposal is that it proves to us that historic and beautiful buildings are no safer in the hands of Government Departments than in those of impecunious private owners. We look to a Government Department to protect us against exactly this kind of thing. But it becomes partner with the enemy instead of assisting the defence. We are told that London cannot stand still, that it must keep pace with modern conditions. Where are we going to draw the line between what is to be kept and what is to be lost? We must keep what is fine and valuable and we may surrender what is worthless. In fact we do neither the one nor the other. We should be told the facts from time to time when it is proposed to do something, and not wait until the mischief is accomplished. The final conclusion of the whole matter is that the whole of London ought to be properly town-planned now before the worst happens. We ought to have really serious consideration of what London may need, what it can dispense with, where the slums may be cleared away and where buildings that are of value can be maintained and preserved even should they happen to stand a little bit in the way. That is the conclusion of the whole matter from my point of view. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, the Royal Fine Art Commission have been concerned to some extent in this matter and I beg leave to make a statement on the subject. Plans of the new building at 4, Carlton Gardens were submitted to the Royal Fine Art Commission on July 27, as a matter of extreme urgency. It was understood that the height was settled, and that rebuilding along the Terrace might shortly occur. The opinion of the Fine Art Commission on the scheme as a whole was not invited. Accordingly the Commission felt impelled to acquiesce, but they submitted an explicit warning about excessive height, both in the interests of general appearance and good zoning. The buildings will be 25 to 30 feet higher than the top of Buckingham Palace, and the drawing in The Times of to-day will show that the roof line as seen from a moderate distance would intersect the figure at the top of the Duke of York's column. However, on September 16 we were informed by the Commissioner of

383
Crown Lands that no rebuilding of the Terrace was in contemplation, and that his hands were entirely free and his mind entirely open. A conference took place on October 28, and the Fine Art Commission stated in a fully considered report, dated November 3, that the projected height was open to serious objection. To this a reply was received on November 9. After a further review of the whole position the Royal Commission, in a second report, dated November 22, repeated and emphasised their previous objections on general and on specific grounds. We have suggested that the project should be examined as a whole in relation to the site available, in order that any new structure which may be necessary should be kept at a moderate height.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I am sure I shall have your Lordships' agreement when I say that we have listened to a very interesting speech from the noble Lord, Lord Conway. Speaking for myself, and for those I am representing, I am sure we cannot quarrel with the noble Lord for having brought before your Lordships' House this very interesting subject. After all, the beauty of London is the concern of every one of London's citizens and we are all naturally jealous of any undertaking which can in any way mar the beauties of the City or change what already exists for what some of us may not think for the better.
The noble Lord who has initiated a very interesting debate has clothed it in the mild phraseology of a Question to His Majesty's Government as to what are the building operations proceeding at Carlton House Terrace and a Motion for Papers. I am sure the noble Lord will not expect me, much as I may like to do so, to digress from the subject matter of the question. He has mentioned the subject of town planning and he went so far as to adumbrate in a few words what is certainly a very grandiose scheme holding out, I am sure, many attractions. But I think, in the few remarks I shall address to your Lordships, I cannot do better than draw attention to the second paragraph of Sir Reginald Blomfield's letter which appears in The Times to-day and which, in my judgment, defines very
384
concisely and clearly the position in Carlton House Terrace. He says:
"Carlton House Terrace was built in 1827-29 from designs by Nash and Pennethorne. Whatever one may think of the facades, the buildings were exactly suited to the social conditions of the time, to the days of great receptions, a lordly aristocracy and obedient servants. The basement is 17ft. 6in. high, floor to floor, the ground floor 19ft. 6in., the first floor 20ft., the second floor 15ft. 6in., and above this there are only the attics in the roof. Buildings of this character are wholly unsuitable under modern conditions, and for structural reasons it was found impossible to convert them.",
These last words precisely define the state of things with which we have to deal.
I feel that in dealing with a matter of this sort we must be guided by something besides esthetic sense and our reverence for antiquity. Common every-day considerations of utility must. I think it will be agreed, play their part. I claim to be second to none of your Lordships in my love and appreciation of what is beautiful but I do recognise, and I am sure most of your Lordships do also, that in these days of progress, or so-called progress, we must move with the times and be prepared to make sacrifices in the interests of utility. I might say at this juncture that no building operations are proceeding at what is called Carlton House Terrace proper. A new building is in course of erection on the site of No. 4, Carlton Gardens, to which the noble Lord has referred. This house, which adjoined Carlton House Terrace, but did not strictly overlook The Mall and St. James's Park, became vacant on the death of the Earl of Balfour in March, 1930. His trustees made strenuous efforts to dispose of the lease. In those efforts they sought, and were freely given, the assistance of their lessors, the Commissioners of Crown Lands. For some time their efforts met with no success. Then, late in 1930, there appeared to be a prospect of disposing of the lease with a view to the reoccupation of the house as a private residence. The Commissioners of Crown Lands did all in their power to support the trustees in their endeavours to turn this hope into a reality.
The proposed lessee, however, pointed out that the accommodation in the house was completely out-of-date and that a very large outlay would be required to bring it up to modern standards. The

385
Commissioners of Crown Lands, when approached, expressed their preparedness to make a strong recommendation to the Treasury for the grant of a considerably extended term in order to compensate the proposed lessee for the sum which he would have to spend on modernising the house. On this 'Oasis the Crown surveyors were instructed to open negotiations for the grant of the extended lease. In the course of the negotiations, however, it gradually became clear that the highest rent which the proposed lessee was prepared to offer was substantially below the lowest rent which the Commissioners could honestly feel justified in accepting, having regard to their position under the Crown Lands Acts, and the negotiations finally broke down on the question of rent in. July of last year.
Meanwhile the trustees were finding that the payment of the rent and the maintenance of the house, which was of course still empty, were becoming burdens too great for them to bear, and they asked to be allowed to surrender their lease. The Commissioners of Crown Lands, having satisfied themselves after full consideration of all the circumstances that the request was reasonable, sought and obtained the sanction of the Treasury to accept a surrender at January 5, 1932. They, however, advised the trustees to wait before completing the surrender and in the meantime to explore certain other possibilities of selling their lease which were suggested to them. It was intimated to them that an application for the use of the house for practically any purpose within reason would be sympathetically considered. At the end of a month they indicated that nothing had come of their further efforts and that they wished the surrender to be completed. The house then came back to the Crown and its maintenance became a charge on the Land Revenues of the Crown. The result was that the Exchequer, into which the net receipts of the Land Revenues are paid, suffered not only by the loss of the rent for the house but also by the burden of the cost of maintenance.
Towards the end of April last the Commissioners received an application from a well-known commercial firm for the grant of a building lease of the site of No. 4 Carlton Gardens for the erection of headquarter offices for their own occu-
386
pation. The Commissioners felt that they could not but give this application the most serious and full consideration. The house had been empty for more than two years and there seemed to be no prospect of re-letting it as a private residence at anything approaching the rental value of the bare site, although the noble Lord who has raised this Question feels that when times get better we shall find a resumption of desires to return to Carlton House Terrace as a place of residence. That is the noble Lord's opinion, and I know he is aware that there are other opinions on that particular subject.
Furthermore, while this house remained unlet the cost of maintenance, estimated to be £200 per annum, was a charge on the Land Revenues, and, therefore, indirectly on the Exchequer. The Commissioners were of opinion that the fact that the proposed new building was to be used for office purposes was not of itself a sufficient ground for declining the application, and they came to the conclusion, after very thorough consideration of all the relevant circumstances, that they would he failing in their duty if they refused to open negotiations with the applicants. They therefore instructed the Crown surveyors to get into touch with the applicants with a view to arranging terms. From the outset, however, they made the important stipulation that the design of the new building was to be submitted to the Royal Fine Art Commission, and we have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, the view taken by the Royal Fine Art Commission. When, shortly afterwards, the Commissioners learnt that the building lessees had appointed Sir Reginald Blomfield, R.A., himself the senior professional member of the Royal Fine Art Commission, to act for them, they felt satisfied that there was no risk of aesthetic considerations being overlooked or subordinated to commercial convenience.
At the beginning of July the Crown surveyors reported the terms on which they had agreed with the proposed lessees. These provided for a 99 years lease and a ground rent of £1,600 per annum. This rent was £350 more than the rent paid under the former lease, which itself considerably exceeded the highest figure which had been offered in the 1931 negotiations. The Treasury

387
authorised the transaction in mid-July, and at the end of the month the Royal Fine Art Commission approved the design of the proposed new building, but I am informed by the noble Earl who has spoken that, they questioned the matter of the height of the building. This question has already been fully discussed between the Commissioners and Sir Reginald Blomfield, who stated that in his deliberate opinion no reasonable objection could be taken to the height of the building. He added that in forming this opinion he had kept in view the rebuilding, sooner or later, of Carlton House Terrace. Sir Reginald's views are more fully set out in his letter which appears in The Times of to-day. The building agreement was accordingly completed and the work began in September. Special provisions were inserted in the agreement for minimising annoyance or discomfort to the occupants of property in the vicinity during the rebuilding, and the lease will provide that the building shall be used only as offices of the highest class, and that there shall be no external display of commercial advertisement.
In conclusion I should perhaps add a few words about Carlton House Terrace, and here I really have very little to say. Two of the houses in the Terrace overlooking St. James's Park are at present unlet, with resulting loss of substantial revenue, and it is probable that other houses will fall into the Commissioners' hands before very long. The Commissioners therefore cannot ignore the possibility that sooner or later, and perhaps sooner rather than later, the Terrace Houses will have to be rebuilt. At present, however, no decision of any kind has been come to, and I can only assure your Lordships that when the time comes those with whom the responsibility will rest will he fully alive to the exceptional importance of the site.
The noble Lord who sits behind me has said a few words in praise of Nash, and I hope he will not think that I presume to question the authority of his artistic judgment, but I would venture to remind him that it is possible to hold an opposite view of Nash and Nash's achievements, and yet find oneself in very good company. May I quote for his information, and that of your Lordships, a short passage from an article on Nash which I
388
have found in the Dictionary of National Biography? It is this:
"Few architects have been given such opportunities of distinction as Nash, but it cannot be said that he proved himself quite worthy of them. Never original in his ideas, Nash seemed devoid of any sense of grandeur or freedom in his style. Not one of the buildings designed by him qualified him to rank as a great architect; and when an effect of solidity and massive repose is produced, it is marred by his persistent use of stucco. This gave rise to the well known epigram"

'Augustus at Rome was for building renowned,

For of marble he left what brick he had found:

But is not our Nash, too, a very great master?

He finds us all brick and he leaves us all plaster.'"

"
VISCOUNT ESHER: Before this debate closes, may we ask the noble Marquess who is responsible for these operations? Have the Office of Works, who have real experts, been consulted?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The Crown Lands are under the Minister of Agriculture, though I am not quite sure it is right to say they are under the Ministry of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture is the individual who deals with these matters at the present moment and, as the noble Viscount is aware, that is a question which is really being discussed on all sides. As I am only representing the Minister of Agriculture at this time, I should not. be entitled to embark upon that subject.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think perhaps the closing words of my noble friend gave but little cold comfort to your Lordships. He said that the Minister of Agriculture answered for these things, but that the Ministry of Agriculture was -not responsible. What we want to know is who is responsible? We seem to be presented with a case in which public money is spent and public property is administered without any Minister of the Crown being responsible to Parliament for it. That appears to us to be very unsatisfactory. We want to know on matters of this kind, which are of the greatest interest to the people of London and really to the people of the whole Empire, as being one of the central sights of London, what Department of the Government is responsible for the action which has been taken. My noble friend, of course, is well aware that

389
the feeling which has been excited by this proposed—I must not even call it proposed—this charge which has actually been carried out, is very acute, and all he has to tell us is that it is a matter under discussion and which Minister is to he responsible.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My noble friend will forgive me, but that is not what I was proposing to say. What I wished to say was that the Minister of Agriculture is responsible for Crowd Lands, and therefore answers all questions on those matters. The Crown Lands, as my noble friend is well aware, comprise a vast amount of property in London. The Minister of Agriculture is responsible for those Crown Lands, but I think probably the noble Marquess holds the same view as I do, that it would he better if they came under the Office of Works. At present the First Commissioner is not responsible.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am well aware that the First Commissioner is not responsible, but my noble friend says that the Minister of Agriculture is responsible. Was the Minister of Agriculture consulted? Was this matter ever before the Minister of Agriculture? That is what we really wish to know. What appears to be the case to us who are outside is that, these things are decided by persons who are altogether irresponsible from a Parliamentary point of view, and that appears to me to be a state of things which does require the consideration of Parliament and of the Government. If that is really to be the case, it seems as if Parliament was not in control of public money and public property.
I do not want to go into the personal details of these matters, although indirectly I have been myself concerned. But when my noble friend, of course speaking, not from his own authority at all, as we all know, but simply from the information supplied to him, spoke of the peculiar difficulties in which the Commissioners of Crown Lands have been placed by the situation, he was not instructed to tell your Lordships that the trustees had to pay £500 to the Commissioners for the surrender of the lease. It is no part of my business as a member of your Lordships' House to intrude my private affairs or the private affairs with which I am acquainted on your Lordships' notice, but it does seem an incom-
390
plete statement which my noble friend made of the financial difficulties in which the Commissioners were placed if he was not instructed also to inform your Lordships that, in return for being allowed to surrender the lease, the trustees had to pay £500. That, however, is only an incidental.
I do think that, in view of the public feeling which is excited, we ought to have had some assurance from the Government that sonic action would be taken, if possible, to arrest the procedure in Carlton Gardens until it became quite clear what the real opinion of Parliament was on the matter. When I speak of Parliament I mean, of course, both Houses of Parliament. Here is a matter of great public interest, a matter upon which it is quite clear that, though the great artistic body represented by my noble friend Lord Crawford were consulted, their advice has not been followed. In a case of that kind the matter ought to be arrested and stopped until the mind of Parliament can be ascertained. What I hoped my noble friend would have said just now was that, having regard to the public feeling, nothing more would be done about this until it had been carefully considered by His Majesty's Government and Parliament had been consulted. Of course, to say it has been consulted by His Majesty's Government -when certain irresponsible Commissioners have instructed the Ministry of Agriculture what to say, and no Minister has been consulted, is really a travesty of what we mean by responsibility. What we want to know is what the Government think, and not what a permanent official has decided. Until that assurance can be given to us I urn quite sure my noble friend will find that neither of the two Houses of Parliament will be satisfied.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I should just like to emphasise the point which the noble Marquess has made, because I think it is really a very important point. Judging by the speech of the noble Marquess who replied for the Government, to which I listened very carefully, a very large project is really in prospect—the rebuilding of a great part of the centre of London. I really think that before that is embarked upon we ought to know with whom exactly responsibility rests, to whom questions should be addressed, and whether the

391
Government are quite satisfied that public opinion has been properly consulted. The noble Marquess said that he thought it was rather an anomalous position. He went so far as to say that he thought the Office of Works would be a better authority to be responsible in a case of this sort than the Commissioner of Crown Lands. And I noticed that he did not reply to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury's question as to whether the Minister of Agriculture had ever been consulted. There seems to be some doubt as to whether he was consulted until the last moment, when people saw that a good deal of fuss was going to be made.
Quite apart from the merits, architectural, residential, commercial, which are involved in the rebuilding of Carlton House Terrace, I feel that we have got here a large bit of Government property, and Parliament should be consulted as to what its future is to be, just in the same way as Parliament was consulted recently with regard to the erection of new Government offices in Whitehall. That was very fully discussed by committees, and everybody knew where they were because it was the Office of Works who were responsible. In this case the thing has been sprung upon us, and at the end of the debate I am really not quite sure where we are with regard to the future.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I can only speak by leave of the House, and I hope your Lordships will grant me that leave. The noble Marquess asked a specific question as to whether the Minister had ever been consulted. I can enlighten him on that point, and I am very glad to do so. The late Minister of Agriculture was responsible, and he gave his consent.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I should like to know when and to what this consent was given—whether to the scheme as we see it to-day in The Times or to a single house?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I do not know whether the noble Earl is aware that the Crown Lands are not the Government's property, they are Crown property, and there is a distinction. The Member of Parliament in another place who answers for these matters and who is responsible has given his sanction. Our attention is directed to No. 4, Carlton Gardens, and I understand that the late
392
Minister of Agriculture gave his consent to the whole scheme in connection with No. 4, Carlton Gardens. In connection with the other matter about which the noble Lord opposite has asked me—namely, as to the whole project of Carlton House Terrace—I may say that at the present time there is no project in being. The fact that Carlton House Terrace may be altered in the future is a matter which is in the minds of a great many people, but, as I understand now, and as I am authorised to say in this House, there is no project at this time in connection with the rebuilding of Carlton House Terrace.
LORD CONWAY OF ALLINGTON: My Lords, I think this debate has thrown some light upon the questions raised, though not a very bright flood of light. Anyhow, I must thank the noble Marquess for what he has said, and with your Lordships' permission I will withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

FRENCH DISARMAMENT PLAN.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Paper,.
[The Question was as follows: To ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the far-reaching proposals submitted by the Government of France to the Disarmament Conference and which have been endorsed by the French Chamber, they are prepared to publish and circulate the French plan as a White Paper to all members of Parliament.]
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord in his speech last week dealt with the very important and stimulating disarmament proposals recently put forward at Geneva by the French Government. A cordial recognition of the spirit which inspired this plan was offered by my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in another place on November 10 last, and I feel sure his remarks on the subject were generally endorsed. The French plan merits prolonged and profound study here and at Geneva, and I do not think the time has come for any further comment on it on the part of His Majesty's Government; nor do I understand that the noble Lord

393
has asked me to make such a comment. What he has asked is whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to publish and circulate the French plan as a White Paper to all members of Parliament.
In reply I would remind him that it has never been the practice of His Majesty's Government to issue as White Papers documents emanating from other Governments and published by the League of Nations. At any time, and still more at the present time, such publications would in their opinion be an unjustifiable expense. The French plan has been issued both in French and English by the League of Nations, and the noble Lord or any other of your Lordships who are interested in it will find it in the Library of your Lordships' House as
394
Conference D. 146 of the 14th November last. I think there are some ten or fifteen copies available for your Lordships' perusal.

MOTOR VEHICLES (ARMED FORCES) VARIATION OF SPEED LIMIT REGULATIONS, 1932.
Regulations, dated 9th December, 1932, proposed to be made by the Minister of Transport under Section 10 (4) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.