Lords Sitting of 3 March 1932

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

WELWYN GARDEN CITY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, the reason for this proposal is that the plan of the reservoirs showed land available for future extension to the west of the area which is not proposed to be conveyed, and the land to be conveyed was not sufficient for the construction of the additional reservoir which was advised and for which power to borrow is sought. Now that has been arranged and the Council of the Garden City are prepared to proceed with the Bill. I venture therefore to recommend your Lordships to dispense with this Standing Order.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2a accordingly.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the Bill which I have the honour to bring to the notice of your Lordships to-day is, as its title states, a purely Scottish measure, and I shall not, therefore, detain your Lordships for more than a few moments with the details of its structure. The Bill is a sequel to the union of the Church of Scotland with the United Free Church of Scotland which, your Lordships will remember, took place in 1929, after protracted negotiations covering a period of nearly twenty years. It will be recalled that in order to facilitate that union Parliament passed two Acts—the Church of Scotland Act, 1921, which dealt with the constitution of the Church of Scotland on the spiritual side, and the Church of Scotland (Property

773
and Endowments) Act, 1925, which regulated its temporal affairs. The present Bill may be regarded as the third chapter in this legislative story.
It deals with the reorganisation of the theological teaching in the faculties of divinity of the Universities and in the colleges of the reunited Church, and aims at the abolition of overlapping and duplication of theological instruction which was inseparable from the old régime, and which at present is a serious cause of embarrassment to the ordinary development of this side of University life. There is available a memorandum giving your Lordships all the details of this Bill, prepared on behalf of the Universities, and any of your Lordships who care to read that carefully will learn all the different points which are dealt with in the Bill. I should like to emphasise the act that the proposals of this measure represent the agreed views of the four Universities and the General Assembly of the Church by whom the matters with which it deals have been under long and careful consideration. The attainment of unanimity in this instance appears to me a result upon which those who have devoted so much time and anxious attention to these problems deserve to be heartily congratulated.
With regard to the clauses of the Bill itself, Clause I transfers to the. University Courts the right of presentation or appointment to any theological chair in the Scottish Universities which at present is vested in the Crown or in other bodies. I understand that in all there are fourteen chairs, the right of appointment to which will be affected by this clause, and that eleven of these are at present in the patronage of the Crown. The right of appointment will henceforth be invested in the respective University Courts, normally on the nomination of a board of nomination constituted under Clause 2 of the Bill. A board of nomination will be composed of representatives elected in equal number on the one hand by the University Court and on the other hand by or under the authority of the General Assembly, or otherwise in such manner as may be agreed on by the University Court and the General Assembly. Clause 2 extends the existing power of the University Courts so as to enable ordinances to be made for the constitution as already mentioned of boards of nomination. Clause 3 deals with bursaries and
774
scholarships hitherto tenable by students at the Church colleges. It provides that these may be held by any student of theology in any of the Scottish Universities who is preparing for the Ministry of the Church of Scotland or of the United Free Church of Scotland (Continuing). Provision is also made where a bursary was founded for the students of a particular Church college, that it shall normally be tenable only at the University in the town in which such college is situated.
Clause 4 provides that nothing in this Act shall restrict any University Court from entering into agreements with any Christian Church or association of Christians for the admission of teachers of theology to University status. This clause has been inserted at the request of the Church of Scotland in order to demonstrate that that Church has no desire to secure for itself any privileges which are not equally obtainable by any other Church if circumstances should render such a course expedient. Clause 5 is important because it abolishes what is usually termed the "test" for University officers. The religious test was originally imposed on all principals and professors by an Act of Queen Anne confirmed by the Act of Union. By the Universities (Scotland) Acts of 1853 and 1859 that requirement was limited to the divinity professors in each of the. Universities and the Principal of St. Mary's College in the University of St. Andrew's. It is now generally recognised that the imposition of such a requirement as a test of this character is an anachronism, and for that reason it is remedied by this clause of the Bill. Clauses 6 and 7 deal with definitions and repeals.
In asking your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading I would emphasise that there exists in. Scotland a very pressing practical problem with which the Bill proposes to enable the Universities to deal in co-operation with the Church of Scotland, and that its provisions have the complete approval of the University Courts and the Commission of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland specially appointed for that purpose. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY AND LOAD LINE CONVENTIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I beg to move that these Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill No. (4).]
Clause 29, page 26, line 36, after ("shall") insert ("when the ship is going ahead.")
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, there are three groups of Amendments, and they are all principally of a drafting character. The first one deals with the helm orders, and the other place has inserted the words in page 26, line 36, "when the ship is going ahead." So far as you are about to give helm orders in a direct sense, if you give the order in a direct sense when the ship is going astern, there would be a question whether the ship's stern should go to starboard when you gave the order "starboard" or whether the bow should go to starboard. It is not customary in either case to give that kind of order, and the clause has been brought into line with the Convention by the addition of these words. I think it was agreed to unanimously in another place. It really is of a drafting character, and I hope your Lordships will approve. I beg to move that we agree with the Commons Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 26 line 36, after ("helm") insert ("or steering")
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, this is really a drafting Amendment. I beg to move that we agree with it.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 26, line 40, after ("helm") insert ("or steering")
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, this is the same Amendment again and I beg to move that it be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 59, page 46, line 23, leave out ("issued by the Board of Trade")
Clause 59, page 46,line 40, leave out ("a")
Clause 59, page 46,line 41, leave out ("certificate issued by the Board of Trade") and insert ("certificates")
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, these three Amendments are purely of a drafting character. The point is that load line certificates can be issued by other authorities than by the Board of Trade. As the Bill now stands only those issued by the Board of Trade come under this clause and these Amendments provide for certificates issued by these other bodies when authorised by the Board of Trade. I beg to move that they be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 67, page 50, line 39, leave out ("first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-two") and insert ("appointed day")
Clause 67,page 51, line 3, leave out ("first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-two") and insert ("appointed day")
Clause 67,page 51,line 5, leave out ("first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-two") and insert ("appointed day")
Clause 67,page 51,line 19, leave out ("first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-two") and insert ("appointed day")
Clause 67,page 51,line 22, leave out ("first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-two") and insert ("appointed day")
Clause 67,page 51,line 32, at end insert:
("(3) For the purpose of this section the expression 'the appointed day' means such day as His Majesty in Council may appoint.")
Fourth Schedule, page 205, line 2, leave out ("1st July, 1932") and insert ("the appointed day")
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, the Amendments in Clause 67 and the Amendment in the Fourth Schedule are all consequential on each other. The first Part of the Bill was due to come into operation on a day appointed by Order in Council and the second Part was due to come into operation on July 1 next. In another place it was proposed that each part of the Bill should come into operation on an "appointed day." That was because the Board of Trade felt that as there had been some delay in the passing of the Bill there might not be time to issue load line certificates by July 1. Therefore, it is now proposed that each part of the Bill should come into operation on an appointed day. I beg to move that these Amendments be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WATERLOO BRIDGE.
LORD CHARNWOOD LORD CHARNWOOD had the following Motion on the Paper:—To move to resolve, That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that His Majesty's Government, before finally deciding to contribute towards the cost of the new bridge by which the London County Council proposes to replace Waterloo bridge, should receive and consider representations from societies interested in the matter, based upon competent expert advice, tending to show—
1, That the estimates before the London County Council, as to the comparative cost of its proposal and of the reconditioning of the existing bridge, need serious reconsideration; and
2, That making a new bridge of the width proposed at that spot can have none but an injurious result upon traffic.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall ask your indulgence while I call attention to a scheme adopted last month by the London County Council dealing with the rather familiar subject of Waterloo bridge. I understand that the Government are prepared to contribute 60 per
778
cent. of the cost—rightly, of course, if I may say so, if the scheme is a good one. The whole purpose for which I rise is to ask the Government, as urgently as I can, to be willing to receive and consider certain weighty testimony tending to show that financially the scheme is not sound and that in its results upon traffic it will be rather worse than useless. The societies referred to in my notice of Motion who desire to have this evidence considered include the Royal Academy and the Royal Institute of British Architects, but, of course, the testimony which they want to bring forward is not their own. It consists in the concurring evidence of a number of engineers of quite undoubted capacity, all of whom have been studying the subject for a considerable while. Some of them have had considerable experience in regard to bridges over the Thames. Amongst them is one I may mention specially, because I shall have occasion to quote him. He is consulting engineer to the tube railways in London, Mr. Dalrymple Hay, who besides having built one of the railway bridges—I forget which—is himself the maker of two tunnels under the Thames near Charing Cross. He has, therefore, unrivalled knowledge of what happens to be of some consequence in this matter, the state of affairs at the bottom of the Thames. The representations which the Government are asked by the architects and the Royal Academy and other bodies to receive is not in the nature of a pompous deputation. What is asked is that the Government shall receive in the most convenient way the evidence which I believe has been got together in compact form, and that it shall be considered by whoever they may select for the purpose.
Here I would venture to express a strong personal opinion of my own. In matters of this kind, one is apt to be simply dazed by the conflict of expert testimony. I do not believe myself for one moment that any inquiry in this matter need be lengthy or complicated. I feel pretty sure that on the principal points at issue the conflict of evidence would be fairly quickly resolved if one were to put to the leading experts on both sides some such question as this: "With all your great knowledge of the whole vast field of engineering what is your special knowledge and experience

779
in regard to the two or three very special points of engineering which happen here to be at issue?"
I had better, I think, first tell your Lordships the general position of this question. The general problem of traffic across the bridges has engaged attention for a good many years, but there has arisen a special problem in regard to the condition of Waterloo bridge, for, since that extremely solid structure was built, there has been—mainly owing to the building of the Embankment, but also on account of other causes—a great increase in the scouring effect of the water under its piers, with the result that some years ago the bridge was manifestly beginning to be weak on its feet, if I may use the expression. Immediately this was seen the proper authorities tried what they now frankly confess was an unfortunate experiment, which made matters rather rapidly worse. They, however, promptly abandoned that and the measures which they then adopted have, I understand, so substantially arrested the subsidence of the bridge that it is no longer in any immediate danger. When I say immediate danger, I mean no such danger as could be made the excuse for any hurried and ill-considered decision about it.
This question having arisen, in the year 1925 the London County Council adopted a scheme for the demolition of the existing bridge and the substitution for it of a much broader bridge—with fewer arches and wider spans, a steel bridge, I believe—to carry six lines of traffic instead of the existing three. That proposal aroused some protest and a Royal Commission was appointed to consider that point amongst others in connection with the whole problem of cross-river traffic in London—the Commission that sat under the quite admirable chairmanship of the noble Viscount, Lord Lee of Fareham. That Commission reported to this effect: Reconstruct, or recondition I think is the phrase, the existing bridge; do not pull it down; recondition it and by means of a corbel, a bracket structure on each side of the bridge, widen it somewhat so as to accommodate four lines of traffic. I believe the point of that change from three to four lines is not really to induce any very much greater volume of traffic, but to get rid of the dangers and inconvenient effects of cutting in and out of traffic, but that is not very material.
780
Recondition the bridge then, widen it to that extent, do no more to Waterloo bridge, but instead of building a new great big bridge there have instead a new bridge at Charing Cross: that was the effect of the Royal Commission's Report.
Upon that the London County Council without delay introduced a Bill for a new bridge at Charing Cross. The particular provisions of that Bill did not find favour with Parliament and I understand it was thrown out. So the London County Council set to work to prepare a fresh Bill for a Charing Cross bridge, but I am informed that on the 31st July last they received an intimation from the Ministry of Transport to the effect that the Ministry could no longer promise the contribution of 75 per cent, to the cost which they had hitherto intended to make. Thereupon, and very naturally, if I may say so, the London County Council promptly reverted to their original scheme of 1925 for a big bridge accommodating six lines of traffic. I understand that the Ministry of Transport now are prepared to contribute 60 per cent, of the cost of that bridge out of the National Exchequer—of course, quite properly, if the scheme is a sound one; but as to the soundness of the financial calculations involved, or as to the practical desirability of the bridge in relation to the general traffic problem, I understand the Ministry of Transport treat that as a matter for the sole judgment of the local authority concerned. If I am wrong on that point, as I hope, I shall be corrected.
There are various preliminaries to the real controversy which I cannot leave alone and I think I had better ask frankly now why it is that a number of people, by no means highbrow or artistic all of them, but a number of common people, are much interested in this question upon grounds which, of course, are not financial nor connected with the practical considerations of traffic. I do not think their interest in this matter would be called in any disparaging sense sentimental. If some proposed public work were going to damage the principal view from our own houses any one of us would at once be apt to demand stringent proof that there were really good practical reasons for that public work, and the House of Lords is the last place in the world where it would be suggested that considerations of that sort become mere sentimentality when they apply not

781
to our private amenities, but to the stately beauty of the capital of the Empire and to a part, greater or smaller, of the national heritage we have to hand on to other generations.
Among these considerations I had better refer, I suppose, to the question which may be asked: In what sense is Waterloo bridge a national memorial of Waterloo and of the Napoleonic wars? I understand that the bridge was begun some years before Waterloo under an Act of Parliament obtained by a company, and shortly before the bridge was completed an amending Act was passed which decreed that the name of the bridge was to be not what was originally intended, but Waterloo bridge—and expressly, I understand, in order that it should constitute a national war memorial. The bridge was opened in the presence of the then Prince Regent and the Duke of Wellington with great pomp on that footing, and it remains to-day, I believe, the only national monument that exists of Waterloo and the preceding glorious period in our history.
The question of the beauty of the bridge does not, I think, admit of much controversy. So far as I have been able to notice, that is a matter of agreement amongst most people who have ever looked at it and who care much about beauty of scenery. But I would like to dwell upon this one point. It is not merely that Waterloo bridge, if taken down and put up a mile or two away, would still be one of the fine bridges of the world, but that the bridge happens to be a particularly congruous, seemly feature in the actual surroundings in which it is placed. Some of your Lordships must be familiar with the point of the view, obscured now by the temporary bridge on the spot, but in which one can see St. Paul's standing above the long line of the bridge, with the really magnificent building of Somerset House on the left at one end of the bridge. Well, in that really grand view Waterloo bridge, as everyone can see, is a feature lending much to the effect, and it was designed to do so.
What I want your Lordships to notice is that the great architect whom, I understand, it is intended to employ—and it would not surprise me, for he is a great architect—might design a bridge which in itself would be quite as fine a bridge as Rennie's,
782
but he is under certain requirements, I believe, as to steel construction; and certainly as to the span of his arches and the main features of his design. He cannot have a free hand from the architectural point of view; and so, while it would be demanded of him that he should build a very beautiful bridge, it could not be demanded of him under these conditions that he should build an equally good foreground to St. Paul's. That is the nature of the consideration which makes so many people, and I again say so many quite ordinary people, very much interested in this case.
I want now frankly to ask what sort of weight ought one to give to that kind of consideration, beauty and old associations, as against the practical considerations which may exist on the other side. Speaking for myself, I put the matter no higher than this, that with considerations before you of that sort you ought, before you interfere with a valuable feature in the capital of the Empire, to be quite sure that you are doing something of real practical utility, and doing it at a reasonable cost. There is one practical consideration which I will mention at once which, to my mind, would be decisive as to preserving the present bridge, if it really arose. It has been said lately by one important newspaper, and a somewhat famous orator, that the arches of the bridge are a sort of deathtrap for lightermen and others navigating the river. All I can tell your Lordships about that is this, that the Royal Commission specially attended to that matter and found that in three recent years, of which they had the facts, not one single accident had occurred there which caused loss of life or even of cargo. I must observe here that the temporary bridge now there adds to any danger which there might be, but I have read the report laid before the London County Council last week—and the London County Council, of course, must be fully alive to any question of that kind if it really arises—and in giving their reasons for desiring a new bridge they pass over that point in absolute silence. Therefore, I can only conclude that this so-called death-trap is really a myth.
I am sorry to have taken up so much time with these preliminary matters, but I hope I can put the points in controversy fairly succinctly, because it is the extent of the controversy which arises that I

783
want to put before your Lordships. To begin with there is the estimated cost of building the new bridge. This is what is said on the subject by the report submitted by the Improvements Committee last February to the Council, and adopted by them:
"The Council was informed on the 24th February, 1925, that the approximate cost of providing a new bridge 75 feet wide and removing the old bridge would be £1,295,000."
I am, of course, not dreaming of imputing bad faith or culpable carelessness to any one, but there is reason for looking rather closely at questions of estimates of that sort.
I have told my noble friend Lord Plymouth, who, I understand, is going to reply, of the one or two questions that I want to ask. The first is as to what is included in that estimate. For example, directly the big piers of the new bridge begin to be put down it seems certain that they must to some extent block the passageway along the river through some of the openings. That may have to be met. Apart from that the old bridge would be completely blocked, and the old bridge only carries a single line and the temporary bridge a single line. It therefore appears obvious that a new temporary bridge will have to be constructed, and I presume the old temporary bridge taken down. That may not be so, but has this been fully considered and worked out, and what figure, if any, is included in the estimate for that?
Then I pass to another consideration. The old bridge has to be taken down, an immensely solid structure. The lower of the two estimates that I have seen for that is £500,000. That sounds a good deal, but I understand that that estimate is based upon the actual cost of removing, some years ago, the old Vauxhall bridge, and is the estimate of the engineer who was engaged in that work of demolition. I would ask whether that figure, or any careful figure, and if so what figure, in respect of the demolition has been included in the estimate of the London County Council. If you take one sum from the other you would only have something over £700,000 left for the whole cost of building this vast new bridge across the Thames, which would be a really startling estimate, and so that figure has aroused a good deal of astonishment.
I have been sent an estimate by a competent engineer, Mr. William Muir-head, of what he thinks would be an approximate figure for carrying out the whole work. The figure, as I say, is approximate, but you will see that the difference in the amount is so big that unless it is an absolutely incompetent or absolutely fraudulent approximation a very serious question arises. These are his figures: For destroying the old bridge, £550,000; for constructing a new temporary bridge, £400,000. The first figure is based on very real experience. I do not know what the £400,000 is exactly based upon; I dare say upon the actual cost of the existing temporary bridge. Further: for taking down the present temporary bridge—because sooner or later it has to come down—say £50,000; and for the work of building the new bridge £1,300,000. Your Lordships may have noticed that that last figure is not very far off the figure given by the London County Council, supposing that they were referring merely to the cost of building a new bridge, and leaving out of account in that figure any other large and costly items such as I have mentioned. Mr. Muirhead, I may say, has studied this question for years. I have not had the opportunity, since I had these figures, of obtaining more than most general confirmation of them by another engineer, but when a man of the standing of Mr. Muirhead will put his name to an estimate which is actually £1,000,000 more than the figure which was before the London County Council when they voted, surely a rather serious question arises.
I turn now to the London County Council's estimate of the cost of the rival plan which they have set aside. Their estimate is £1,081,000. I am not disputing at all that that is a good estimate, on the supposition on which they are going. But what is there overlooked is that since that figure was put before them in 1925 there has been brought forward a different plan for reconditioning the present bridge, for which the claim is made—amply corroborated by other engineers—that it is a safer process, that it is a much speedier process in point of time, and also that the cost of it would be far lower. As to the point of time, I understand that under the proposal to which I am going to refer the old existing bridge would not be out of use

785
for traffic for one single day, though, of course, for certain periods it would be subject to the sort of curtailment of space to an extent that we are accustomed to any year in Piccadilly during the season. It would be carrying traffic the whole time. I will not dwell further on the comparison in point of time, though there is very considerable advantage claimed on that ground, but I will came to the cost.
Making full allowance for the fact that in a work of this kind you cannot tell quite how much there is to do till you begin to do the work, Mr. Dalrymple Hay first put down as the outside estimate £650,000. He then got considered estimates from two great firms of contractors for doing the work, and the higher of those two estimates, made by a very great contractor, is only £506,400. Tint I will take Mr. Dalrymple Hay's original larger figure, £650,000. Add to that—what I believe is a pretty safe figure—£50,000 for the intended widening of the roadway, and a further £50,000, the figure I have already mentioned, for the eventual removal of the temporary bridge, which is to happen in any case. That amounts to £750,000, not something over £1,000,000. To sum up all that part of the question: on the evidence of great experts whose authority cannot possibly be lightly brushed aside, we have the cost of the London County Council's plans put in that paragraph which I quoted to you at £1,000,000 lower than it actually is likely to be, and the cost of the alternative work of reconditioning put about a quarter of a million higher than it is actually likely to be. Surely that discrepancy of a million and a quarter between the two expert views is worth just a little consideration.
Now, put aside the question of comparative cost. Is the object to be gained by what anyway is going to be the more expensive plan a good object at all I May I read a short paragraph from the Report of Lord Lee of Fareham's Commission upon that subject:
"We do not think that it is either necessary or desirable that a bridge of such dimensions should be erected at this spot. It could not be fairly utilised unless the streets on both sides, and particularly on the northern side, were greatly altered; otherwise the bringing of more traffic over the bridge would only intensify the congestion at the Strand. A very large expenditure of money on street improvements would be required in order to make such a bridge
786
meet the demand of through London traffic, and this demand could be far better satisfied by a new bridge at Charing Cross."
Many of your Lordships, I dare say, are members of road authorities elsewhere, and you are quite familiar with the principle that it is no use—it may be harmful, particularly in the case of a bridge—widening a short section of a throughfare if it is going to lead at either end to greater congestion. Here you have the Report of the Lee Commission saying that the widening of the bridge to that extent would not be an advantage at all and that a far better plan, that of the Charing Cross bridge, can be substituted and will entirely meet all requirements.
All that would be quite intelligible if it were intended in the end to run trams over the bridge. As I understand it is denied, and, of course, convincingly, that the project of running trams over the bridge was at all in the mind of the majority of the Council when they gave their vote for it. We are assured of that and I accept it. But when this scheme was first being considered, the Highways Committee of the London County Council, in 1925, certainly clearly expressed their desire for a six-roadway bridge on the ground that they wanted to link up their system by running two lines of tramways across it. That must be still in the air. You will have your great new wide bridge, if you have your way, and you will have it, as I have pointed out, with this extra space useless for practical purposes. There are the trams that the tramways officials want to link up. Will you not necessarily get your trams over after that? I am not saying whether those trams would be a good or a bad thing, but I do say that it is a very difficult and very important question and one which I assume the Ministry of Transport have considered and upon which they have some decided view to express to us.
Putting that aside, we have the recommendation, which I need not weary your Lordships by dwelling upon, of the alternative of a big new bridge at Charing Cross. I want to ask what happens when you have your Waterloo bridge? Is the Charing Cross project-going to be abandoned for ever, or do you still contemplate having a costly bridge at Charing Cross and all the while incurring an unknown additional amount of money for the construction of another route which you are told by the Commis-

787
sioners is not wanted? I hope I have: made my question perfectly clear and I have no doubt we shall hear the considered views of the Ministry of Transport upon it. What it comes to is this. On the evidence put before me which I have tried to summarise—I am not attempting to dogmatise upon it—we have this result. The proposed scheme is, firstly, extravagantly costly; and, secondly, it is futile or even injurious having regard to the larger question of traffic as a whole.
I thank your Lordships very much for the patience with which you have heard me and I have only a word to add in conclusion. I would like to express the particular interest I have apart from that of beauty and association, which we all share. I have this special interest in this matter, that I happen to have been a member of a county council elsewhere for a great many years now and have been very familiar on various occasions with negotiations about works with one Department of the Government or another. Our intercourse with Government Departments has uniformly been most pleasant. They have been most kind. They have been extremely stimulating; but never have they been at all restraining in their influence over us. I have had to try to pilot a small scheme, not under the Ministry of Transport but another Department, requiring a considerable expenditure of money, and I know from experience that when I next go to the Department concerned I shall have it frankly pointed out to me if my scheme is in any way inadequate to the proper carrying out of the object; but I shall not have it pointed out to me that it is possibly in any way excessively costly or that my county council may have some other object for which they could better afford that amount of money.
For years it has been growing upon me that the whole of that part of our national expenditure (of course also the local expenditure which it elicits) which passes through the hands of local authorities, badly needs some more thorough system of Treasury control than it has received in the past. I will not develop that point now because I confess that the question of this general tendency is one on which I may be tempted to weary your Lordships upon some future occasion. I will only say that here is a crucial and conspicuous instance of the
788
relation between the two authorities. My Lords, this is an economical Government! I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that His Majesty's Government, before finally deciding to contribute towards the cost of the new bridge by which the London County Council proposes to replace Waterloo bridge, should receive and consider representations from societies interested in the matter, based upon competent expert advice, tending to show—
1, That the estimates before the London County Council as to the comparative cost of its proposal and of the reconditioning of the existing bridge,
need serious reconsideration; and
2, That making a new bridge of the width proposed at that spot can have none but an injurious result upon traffic.—(Lord Charnwood.)
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, as this is the first serious occasion on which I have had the honour of addressing your Lordships I hope you will extend to me, as a newcomer, the indulgence which the House generally gives to a recruit. The proposition which the noble Lord has put before your Lordships in the Resolution on the Paper to which I would direct your attention is one of the most extraordinary I have ever come across. It is divided into two parts. In the first part he says that the London County Council and, incidentally, the Ministry of Transport are not fit to make an estimate for the building of a bridge. In the second part he says that if you widen a bridge from three lines to six lines you obstruct the traffic. Those two propositions seem to me to require a good deal of proof and, with all respect to the noble Lord, I do not think he has proved either of them.
When you ask yourselves if the County Council is fit to make estimates for a bridge or must seek the advice of learned societies, consider what the County Council is. The County Council is a body which represents nearly five millions of people, a number greater than the population of the Republic of Switzerland. It is a body whose revenues are far greater than many of the minor European States. It is a body which has proved its taste by the extraordinarily fine County Hall which it has built for itself. I submit, therefore, that

789
If we are to say in your Lordships' House that the County Council is not fit to make these estimates we might as well bring in a Bill to abolish the County Council. You really must trust the County Council to be sane in finance and to approve its own proper experts.
Then I turn to the Ministry of Transport. After all it may be one of the young Ministries and probably, therefore, one of the best, because the need for it has been apparent and it has recently been created. But it is not one of those Departments which has not had the handling of money. Ever since it has been in existence it has dealt annually, under the supervision of the Treasury, with anything from £15,000,000 to £25,000,000 a year, and if you cannot trust a Government Department, subject to the scrutiny of the Treasury, to give an appropriate contribution to a bridge I do submit you had better abolish the Ministry of Transport as well. As I understand it, the Minister of Transport has not promised to give 60 per cent, of the cost of this bridge whatever it is. What he has said is that he would not under any circumstances give more than 60 per cent., but this 60 per cent, must be subject to his being satisfied that all precautions have been taken, and that the estimates are as near as they possibly can be.
Estimates for under-water work are always a leap in the dark. Take the case of that fine new bridge over the Tweed at Berwick. There the estimates were largely exceeded because when they came to make the foundations of the new bridge they found there was a second river Tweed under the first river Tweed, and they had to carry their foundations almost as many feet deeper as the depth originally intended because of this unknown river which no one could fore see. Therefore, when the noble Lord says these estimates may be wrong I agree with him. They may be wrong I Nobody can possibly tell in under-water work what they are going to find. What I do most strongly dissent from is his saying that the London County Council and the Ministry of Transport, under supervision of the Treasury, are not fit to carry out these estimates and to do the work themselves—
LORD CHARNWOOD: I never said that
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: There are one or two interesting points in the very able speech of my noble friend to which I should like to refer. This controversy is an old one. It has been going on now for over eight years. I had hoped that at long last we should see an end of it, and something done to Waterloo bridge so as not to leave it any longer lying there in a derelict state, an eyesore and a sorrow to the whole nation. In December, 1923, the County Council engineers reported to the Council that not only was a certain pier in the river in a very decrepit state, but they also reported that the expectation of life, if I may put it in that way, of the bridge was a very short one; and, very rightly, I think, the London County Council then appointed a special Committee to go into the whole question not only of Waterloo bridge but of all the bridges under their jurisdiction. AK your Lordships know the London County Council are the statutory body for building and maintaining bridges within their own County Council area. The Committee reported to the Council, and the County Council then decided, rightly or wrongly—it was within their province to decide—that the bridge should be reconstructed with five piers over the river and with six lines of traffic.
There were some at the time, and I suppose still are, who wished that underpinning could be undertaken instead of reconstruction. Naturally, those who love the old bridge admired its massive proportions and wished to retain it, wished to underpin it if at all possible, but the chief engineers of the Council, Sir Basil Mott and Sir Maurice Fitz-maurice, reported that under-pinning was a very hazardous and uncertain engneering proposition. They could give absolutely no estimate as to the cost. As a matter of fact they gave estimates varying from £300,000 to £900,000—practically no estimate at all—and said that in consequence under-pinning was undesirable and ought not to be attempted. Indeed, the County Council went further and consulted the Council of the Institute of Engineers, the most authoritative body in the engineering trade. That body wrote definitely, saying, in effect: "We advise you to accept the advice of these three or four consultants." What option had the London County Council? They were bound to go by the advice of these

791
advisers whom they had retained, and, therefore, they decided that underpinning was impossible and reconstruction necessary.
LORD CHARNWOOD: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. May I ask in reference to what the noble Lord has last said, was not the answer—I think I have seen it reported—of the Institute of Engineers simply to the effect that they advised the London County Council to consult their own engineers individually. Did it not amount really to a refusal to give a corporate opinion on the subject?
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Yes, and no, if I may put it so. I believe those are the words. I have tried to give them as nearly as I could in colloquial terms. They wrote that in their view the County Council would be well advised to act on the considered individual opinion of their consultants.
LORD CHARNWOOD: I am sorry to interrupt again. I think there are preceding words which qualify that.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I did not mean—if I conveyed that I apologise—I did not mean to say that the full weight of the council's opinion was on the side of the London County Council. All I did mean to say was that they would not commit themselves, and said: "You employed these eminent consultants and we do not dissent from you following their advice." I think that is a fair way of putting it.
LORD CHARNWOOD: That is it exactly.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: What happened next? Those who loved the bridge, those who considered that reconstruction without under-pinning was impossible—that reconstruction for either three lines of traffic or four lines of traffic was the best way to deal with the problem—were up in arms. They conducted a well-engineered agitation in the Press, especially in The Times newspaper. They put pressure upon the Prime Minister, and I think the Government of the day very weakly appointed a Royal Commission. I am not saying anything against the individuals who sat upon the Royal Commission—I see my noble friend Lord Lee of Fareham here—but I
792
think it was weak of the Government to appoint a Royal Commission when there was such a body as the London County Council, who had statutory authority to deal with these things and in the past had always carried out their duties very well.
The Royal Commission was appointed. I should here like to pay a tribute to the London County Council. I was Minister of Transport at the time and you might have expected that the London County Council, very legitimately, would have been rather hurt at their statutory right being, by implication, over-ridden, and that some other body should make recommendations upon what was their province. Not at all, they behaved with great public spirit. They never showed any sign of dissent, either privately or in debates in the Council, and carried on their business and decided not to proceed with reconstruction till the Report of the Royal Commission was in the hands of the Government. In November, 1926, the Royal Commission reported. That Royal Commission, if the noble Viscount, Lord Lee of Fareham, will allow me to say so, was a model of expedition, and its Report a model of clear exposition. Moreover, the Report was embellished, which is so seldom the case, with delightful drawings at the end which enabled one to digest more easily the rather heavy contents of a Blue-book. Viscount Lee of Fareham and his colleagues were most expeditious. They were not appointed until July, they gave up all their holidays to carry out their work, and they reported in November of the same year, in four short months.
I think your Lordships will agree that that was a great achievement because they had not only to survey Waterloo bridge but to go into the whole question of Charing Cross bridge—a far bigger proposition—and they surveyed bridges from the mouth of the Thames up to Twickenham. What were their recommendations as far as this debate is concerned? They recommended inter alia that Waterloo bridge should be reconditioned and widened to take four lines of traffic, and they linked up that with a recommendation that there should be a new bridge at Charing Cross. Now, supposing the Charing Cross bridge scheme had materialised, I should have been in absolute agreement with the recommenda-

793
tion of the Royal Commission that Waterloo bridge should only be widened to four lines, because if you had, as you would have had in that case, six lines of traffic at Charing Cross bridge and four lines at Waterloo bridge, ten in all, that would have been ample. But now that Charing Cross bridge has disappeared, for a generation at least most unfortunately, after having received a four to one majority in its favour in another place, we shall have instead of the ten lines of traffic visualised by the noble Viscount, Lord Lee of Fareham, only six. Even if the London County Council's proposals are now carried through we shall have only six lines instead of ten to carry all the traffic, and if the views of the noble Lord who moved this Motion were carried into effect we should have only three, or possibly four at the most.
You really must consider, my Lords, other things besides æsthetic conditions in this controversy. You must consider how people are going to get across the river. After all, that is the most important point. Can you carry people across the river or can you not? It seems to me that the six lines provided by the London County Council would be the absolute minimum which would carry the traffic. If it is not out of place, I would say this: Your Lordships will remember that the Charing Cross Bridge Bill after having, as I have said, a majority of four to one in the House of Commons, was rejected by a Select Committee of the House of Commons on certain details connected with the south side of the river. Sir Henry Cautley was Chairman of that Committee and I know that yesterday at a Committee meeting in another place he said that he and his colleagues on the Select Committee, if they had known that the Charing Cross scheme was to disappear, would have been strongly in favour of six lines of traffic at Waterloo bridge instead of three or four.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Has he said that publicly? Can you give us the exact words and those of his colleagues as well?
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I am afraid I cannot but he said it publicly in a Committee room. I cannot go further than that. I do not know whether you would call that publicly, but the public were admitted to the Committee room.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I should like to have his exact words.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Well I was not there. My noble friend, if he will allow me to say so, made a good point at the end when he said that it was no good widening Waterloo bridge to take six lines of traffic if you got a block at each end when you got on to the land, if I may put it that way. If conditions were as they were five or six years ago when the Commission of the noble Viscount, Lord Lee, reported, although I do not say it would have been a convincing reason for adopting the noble Lord's views it would have been a fair argument to put forward. But since then five or six years have passed, and conditions have very much changed. If he will go now to Aldwych he will notice a new traffic arrangement which has so accelerated the movement of traffic that there is very little congestion at all. Things are very much better there than they were five or six years ago. Therefore the criticisms of the noble Viscount's Commission, although no doubt proper at the time, are not true now. Furthermore, supposing congestion did occur at Aldwych and the Strand I am informed that it would be perfectly feasible at no great expense to make a tunnel from Aldwych to go under the Strand, and therefore there need be no hold-up of traffic at all.
There is a further point. I hope, and in fact I am sure, that the bridge which the London County Council is going to build is not going to be a shoddy structure. It is not going to be a jerry-built bridge which will fall down in twenty years. It will be a bridge which will stand 150 or 200 years and will be a monument to the time in which we live. We must have vision and look forward and not be content now with something that will scrape through. We must look to the future and we must remember the very large increase of traffic which may take place and the wider bridge which will be necessary. Six lines of traffic will be the absolute minimum. I do not want to detain your Lordships very much longer, but my noble friend made somewhat expansive remarks and therefore I have to deal with them on the same lines. There are many ardent admirers of Rennie's masterpiece who take the line that they will have the bridge, the whole bridge, and nothing but the bridge; that

795
they will not have any widening even for four lines of traffic; that it must stand as it was made, and that the harmony of the bridge would disappear if we touched it in any way. It must be reconstructed as Rennie finished it in 1817 or whatever year it was. From their point of view they are probably right, because if you have a masterpiece of architecture and you lengthen it there or shorten it here obviously the harmony of the whole is destroyed. Therefore it seems to me that there can be no really ardent admirer of the masterpiece who would go any further than reconstruction. Even if it was widened for four lines of traffic, which I understand to be the most that what I may call the Bridge-ites would wish, it must destroy its harmony.
I read with interest on page 96 of the Report of the noble Viscount's Commission what was said by Sir Reginald Blomfield, who was a great protagonist of the bridge. He was asked by my noble friend to give some designs which would enable the bridge to be widened 7 feet 6 inches, and he said:
"My proposals [for this 7-foot 6-ineh widening] must alter the appearance."
And my noble friend the Earl of Crawford, in his evidence, said:
"By widening Waterloo bridge to a four-line traffic bridge you cannot fail to impair the unity and the perfection of Rennie's design."
So I put it to your Lordships—
VISCOUNT LEE OF FAREHAM: Will the noble Lord read the words that follow?
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Whose? Sir Reginald Blomfield's?
VISCOUNT LEE OF FAREHAM: No, Earl Crawford's. May I read them? He said:
"If such a course proved necessary we should think it regrettable, but carried out with scrupulous care and respect, such a course in our opinion would be preferable to the destruction of the whole bridge."
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Quite so, but at any rate the noble Viscount cannot deny that the Earl of Crawford was of opinion that it would impair the perfection of Rennie's masterpiece. He may have regretted it, but what I am trying to press home is that if you once depart from three lines and nothing but three lines you have impaired the perfection of
796
the bridge, and then, for Heaven's sake, make it a bridge worthy of London and the traffic it has to carry. It seems to me, therefore, the County Council are perfectly right to make it six lines of traffic because that is only going to cost £214,000 more than if you had four lines of traffic.
Finally, I would ask those who are opposed to the London County Council's proposals to take heart and to consider, as is true, that we in this age, this decade, this year, can build just as well, with just as much perfection, and with just as much consideration for aesthetic beauty, as any of our ancestors. I deny that we are decadent in art. I consider we can build bridges as beautiful as any of our forefathers. The London County Council have been well advised to get the advice and co-operation of Sir Gilbert Scott, and then you have Sir Frederick Palmer, who has done excellent work in advising upon and carrying out technical details. Surely we ought to trust this great body to carry out a work worthy of the capital city of the Empire. I am sure that if the House of Commons, in a month's time, votes the money for which the London County Council asks those who live to see the completion of the bridge—as to the time it will take I think the estimates are rather optimistic—will be sure that we were right in supporting the local authority in this matter, and that we have produced something really worthy of London.
LORD CONWAY OF ALLINGTON: My Lords, as a very new comer to your House I should in the ordinary course have hesitated to occupy any of your time before I had become more familiar with this place. My noble friend who has just spoken appealed to the House for kindness to him. It would ill become me, I think, to make myself the mouthpiece of that kindness; rather would I become his partner in an appeal for like kindness from your Lordships to me.
I am impelled to address your Lordships about Waterloo bridge because it is a subject in which I have taken a great deal of interest, involving proposals that I have opposed with whatever energy I could in another place. Now that the question arises again I do not wish to let it pass without a few words. The problem is essentially a problem of traffic, and the problem of traffic in London is a great one. It does not

797
depend upon a bridge here or a new road there, but on the entire organisation of the streets of this vast Metropolis—an organisation that will have to take into account what the London County Council has entirely neglected, and that is the whole of the square mile of South London which some day will have to be replanned and rebuilt. The first necessity for improving facilities for London traffic in these parts is to form a great road on the south side of the Thames in the neighbourhood of Waterloo Station to London bridge. That road would automatically relieve the strain of an immense amount of traffic. It would be the cord of a great are passing round the bend of the Thames which might be perfectly well by-passed by a shorter route. It is, therefore, in my opinion a necessity of the first importance to consider the whole question of the town-planning of South London, and until that is done to talk about bridges and avenues of approach is beside the mark.
If you plan South London properly you will open up that square mile, which is actually in the very centre of London, and bring it into practical utility, you will accomplish a total change in the whole problem of traffic and, yet more important, you will provide some solution for that site hunger which presses so upon men of business and the population generally on the south side of the Thames. If you can replan South London and make it really the headquarters of London life—because it is the centre and might well become more important than the areas north of the Thames—so as to bring all that area into vitality, the question of the bridges across the Thames would follow naturally. My noble friend spoke of the necessity of having regard to the future. The proposal for this six-line bridge pays no attention to the future. It is a merely temporary expedient and bears no relation to the development of London as it may take place in the next two or three centuries. Instead of development being on the north side of the river the more important part of it may yet be on the south, and if that should take place the problem of the bridges will have changed.
I have been terribly puzzled by all these estimates that have been poured upon us. We have been told that the building of this bridge will cost much more, or less, according to whether we build a new bridge or recondition the old
798
one, and the last figure my noble friend gave was that the difference between building a new bridge and reconditioning the old one was only £214,000.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I said the difference between a four-line bridge and a six-line bridge is only £214,000.
LORD CONWAY OF ALLINGTON: That is what I meant to say. On the other hand, Lord Charnwood tells us the difference may be well over £1,000,000 and between the two estimates it is difficult for an amateur to form any opinion. But all these estimates concern themselves only with the bridge, whereas there must be a great expense involved in planning and altering the two ends so as to deal with the traffic. I think you could relieve the traffic in the Strand by building at once, or as soon as it can be done, that great main highway of South London, from Waterloo to London Bridge. You could in that way relieve the traffic enormously, much more than any bridges can do. Bridges only pour more traffic from South London into North London, and the more bridges you have the more the traffic will come. You want to have an alternative route, where the whole thing may flow away in a different direction, and that is to be done by re-organising South London. I was sorry to hear, although I suspected it, that the six-line bridge will tempt the London County Council to bring trams along it. The London County Council has been obsessed with trams from the very beginning.
Let me cite one instance which came under my observation. Those of your Lordships who have occasion to go down into Kent would naturally have had to go from Lewisham to Eltham. Mr. May-bury, now Sir Henry Maybury, and then road surveyor to Kent, decided to make the road between Eltham and Lewisham the finest road in the world. He closed the road for many months, but he made what was the most splendid piece of road surface we can possibly imagine. It cost, I believe, £150,000 to £200,000, and when it was done he said that it would last without any attention for approximately 100 years. He reckoned without the London County Council. No sooner was the road done (or very shortly afterwards) than along comes the County Council, takes it all up, and lays down trams, which nobody wanted, and utterly

799
destroyed that piece of road which had been built at so great a, price.
I do not wish to recapitulate the things that have already been said, but I would say one more word about the beauty of this bridge. We are always told that we ought to respect the beauty of our cities and strive to make them more beautiful, and so forth. But when the problem assumes a concrete form, nine times out of ten we are told that practical considerations have to override aesthetic considerations. I do not think that practical considerations ought to over-ride the question of the retention of Waterloo bridge. Can your Lordships imagine another great city in the world, possessing such a magnificent architectural composition as Waterloo bridge and Somerset House—can you imagine Paris or Buda Pesth, or any other city, in which such a question could arise as to whether such a thing should be destroyed? This is the only country in the world where a subject of this kind could even be debated. The London County Council is the only body which could be expected to bring forward such a proposition. My noble friend has instanced the London County Hall as proving the æsthetic enterprise of the London County Council. I am not going to criticise the County Hall, but I do not think it gives the County Council carte blanche for destroying the finest architectural composition that we have in London. I have therefore the greatest confidence that I am doing right in supporting the Motion of the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I would not inflict upon your Lordships my maiden speech were it not for the fact that I represent a part of London upon the London County Council, and your Lordships will recollect that the resolution passed on February 16 last for the rebuilding of Waterloo bridge was the final climax of a very old quarrel, which had been in existence for eight or nine years. I need not worry your Lordships with all the resolutions passed and rescinded in the Council Chamber, again and again, in the effort to arrive at a conclusion satisfactory to all sides; but let me assure Lord Conway that there is not the slightest suggestion, so far as at present can be ascertained, that the London County Council should at any
800
future date allow trams to run over the bridge.
I do not wish to reiterate the words which came from Lord Mount Temple, but perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words as to the physical condition of the bridge to-day. Your Lordships will recollect that a special Committee on the Thames Bridges reported in 1925 that it must be admitted that the old bridge was worn out and must be taken down to prevent it from falling down. Since that day the settlement of the piers has continued, and No. 5 pier is now five inches out of plumb while No. 6 pier has sunk another three inches since the last settlement in 1924. That is to my mind a very clear indication that the bridge is in u, very unstable and dangerous condition. I feel sure that the London County Council do not wish wantonly to destroy any beautiful monument, whatever it may be, but when a structure such as this becomes dangerous to the modern-day traffic requirements there is obviously no other course open for the Council to take. May I also remind your Lordships that in addition to other expenses, connected with under-pinning and so forth, the Council have to maintain a very heavy charge for watching the piers, amounting, I believe, to something like £8,000 per annum, which the London ratepayers have been called upon to pay?
I do not propose to deal with all the aspects of the case right from the very beginning to the end of the discussion, but perhaps it is necessary that I should draw your Lordships' attention to the traffic considerations which have necessitated the destruction of the present bridge and the introduction of the new six-line bridge. Waterloo bridge is one of the main-road bridges of London, and something like 15,000 vehicles a day pass over it, and 1,600 in the busiest hour of the day. It is therefore to my mind plain that the capacity of a three-line bridge at that part of London must have reached saturation point, and I would respectfully ask the noble Lord not to press his Motion to a Division, for the Council will then be again in the midst of a re-opened controversy. I can assure the noble Lord that all the considerations have been taken into account, and the Council was definitely of opinion that if it could keep Waterloo bridge it would be a very wise thing, but with the announcement last July that the Govern-

801
ment were unable to continue their offer as to bearing part of the cost for the new Charing Cross bridge, it was obvious that something had to be done at once. Although, in common with many of your Lordships, I greatly regret the necessary destruction of this bridge, I do look forward to the time in the very near future when we shall see another bridge in its place, of brilliant design and architecture, by Sir Gilbert Scott—a name which can only command the greatest respect and admiration in your Lordships' minds. The estimate of expenditure, amounting to £1,295,000, which was prepared in 1923 and 1924, may still be taken as representing the expenditure involved, and the county engineers and architect have been informed of this estimate in order that they may have it in mind in connection with the preparation of the design of the new bridge.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, it is seldom the privilege of a Peer addressing your Lordships to have the opportunity of offering congratulations to a succession of three Peers who have made their maiden speeches. My noble friend Lord Mount Temple is a very old and experienced statesman whom we nave heard for many years in another place and who, we hope, will frequently address your Lordships here. Lord Conway is a Peer of the utmost distinction in learned and academic circles, whose accession to your Lordships' House will be very welcome indeed; and, as for the speech we have just heard from the noble Earl, all I can say is that your Lordships will join me in congratulating him most heartily. He is one of those younger Peers who have never sat in the House of Commons, and who do their best by putting in a great amount of work for local government to supplement the work which they are able to do in this House.
I should like to congratulate one other personage also, and that is the representative of the Treasury—my noble friend below me, I suppose—for his optimism in this matter in believing the estimates put forward by the London County Council, for being so bland and so innocent as to fancy that £1,300,000 is going to finish off this affair of Waterloo bridge. I hope he will do what Lord Charnwood did—give us an analysis of that figure, tell us how much of the £1,300,000 is allotted to
802
destroying and removing the existing bridge, how much to destroying and removing the temporary bridge, how much to the preparation and erection of a second temporary bridge, how much for building a new bridge, and whether there is any money in this estimate for the supplementary outlay which is all-essential if this bridge is to be any good whatever. On those five items perhaps he will give us the analysis of this £1,300,000.
My noble friend below the gangway (Lord Mount Temple) says "Trust the London County Council. They are the road authority. It is their business. How impertinent of the House of Lords to criticise anything they do!" Let me remind him that I and other members of this House and of the House of Commons represent the taxpayer, and the taxpayer has to find 60 per cent, of this money. It is a very simple thing for the London County Council to say that, with 40 per cent, of the money contributed, by them, they are going to control the whole thing. The taxpayer is paying the bulk of the money, and the taxpayer is not only entitled, but it is the duty of the taxpayer, to see that his money is not wasted. "Trust the County Council," Lord Mount Temple says, "it is bigger in population than Norway, bigger in wealth than Switzerland, bigger in area than Monte. Carlo and San Marino combined! Trust the County Council. Let them do anything they like. They are sacrosanct, they are infallible." What is the history of this, or the history of the Ministry of Transport for that matter? Why, he told us just now that the whole estimate of the bridge over the Tweed had to be revised because he, as Minister of Transport, forgot to do adequate boring before estimates were made. That is a very hopeful outlook! Have adequate borings been made in the bed of the Thames to know how you are going to extract these gigantic teeth, which must weigh some 500, 600 or 800 tons apiece? What is the estimate for that? Has it been made? What about the estimate for the Mersey tunnel? I do not know whether it is £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 under-estimated—no doubt by very earnest and very painstaking engineers. But, again, it does not give me any particular confidence in the estimates which are put forward now.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Will the learned societies do any better, do you think?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think they can take very good care that these things are gone into much more closely than the London County Council seems to be going into them. But still we are going to hear from my noble friend Lord Plymouth what the estimate actually is, and then people who are not necessarily learned people will be able to give some clear opinion as to whether there is some fundamental fallacy in this estimate.
Waterloo bridge, we are told, is too narrow now. It is what you call a three-line bridge now. Waterloo bridge is going to be closed, for how long I do not know—five years, six years, seven years? And during that time the traffic will have to travel along the temporary bridge. Well, if Waterloo bridge, which is a three-line traffic bridge, is too narrow, what will the situation be when the whole of the traffic is diverted on to a single-line bridge—the present temporary bridge, which is 10 ft. narrower than Waterloo bridge—18th ft. against 28 ft.? What is going to happen to the traffic of London for those seven years? I do not know if any of your Lordships are in the habit of going over that bridge. You will remember that at either end there are immense notices to say that the permissible speed is only five miles an hour. It is quite true that the authorities allow traffic to go much more quickly, but the fact that that notice is there is an indication that the bridge cannot be looked upon as an ordinary structure, and that caution is necessary. Anybody who travels over that bridge or walks over it knows that at one particular point towards the Surrey side there is a very uncomfortable vibration. For seven years we are going to have the whole of the traffic, which you say ought to be six lines, carried on this swinging bridge 18 ft. in breadth, over which traffic technically cannot go more than five miles an hour. It proves to me that another bridge will prove essential.
But, even so, even if you should get traffic over the three lines of the existing Waterloo bridge one way and the two lines over the temporary iron bridge the other way—single line—there can be no necessity in my opinion for a six-line
804
bridge at all at that point. Lord Charnwood was quite right when he said that some years ago the fifth and the sixth line of traffic over that bridge was justified on the ground that trams were going to go over it, and four lines are enough if there are to be no trams—enough, for any bridge at all. A bridge is a bit of thoroughfare where nobody has any business to get in or out of a carriage, where nobody wants to shop, where no cross traffic goes over the bridge transversely. No traffic goes off it to one side or the other. It is a constant through stream. Four lines of traffic on a bridge with no stop upon the bridge is capable of feeding at either end of the bridge ten or twelve lines of exit and access. Four lines are sufficient. Six lines in my opinion are wasteful. I do not know what figure my noble friend gave of the number of vehicles that cross the bridge per hour. I am told it is 1,600 in the rush hours. That number has, therefore, to go across this swinging bridge, this 18-ft. bridge, this five-miles an hour bridge. It is impossible to inflict that upon London for seven years.
What is going to be the solution? Clearly a second temporary bridge up-stream. I think the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, made a mistake in the figure he quoted. He quoted too high a price for the temporary bridge. It is not as big as the figure he quoted. But a second temporary bridge would be certainly more expensive, I fancy, than the existing bridge. It would have to have a longer span, and the result would be completely to upset the finance of the bridge.
LORD CHARNWOOD:I quoted figures which were sent to me.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I know, but I think the noble Lord is mistaken about that figure. If I am right in thinking that a second temporary bridge will be necessary, when you put it up you will add enormously to the difficulty and therefore to the cost of destroying the existing bridge, and to the difficulty and therefore to the cost of building the new bridge, because you do not allow free access to the existing structure from either side of the river.
A NOBLE LORD: And the navigation.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Never mind the navigation for the moment. Any-

805
body, of course, who watches a bridge being built known that the whole machinery of building and demolition is necessary. If you look at Vauxhall bridge, a little way down the river, you will see the immense structures on each side of that bridge which are essential to its election. In this case you have to destroy the bridge as well. If I am right in saying that you have to put 1,600 vehicles an hour over this swinging metal bridge, which is only about 18 feet broad, you paralyse the traffic of London and in doing so completely upset your finance.
I wish to ask this question of the Treasury. The statement of the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, and the statement of the noble Earl, Lord Munster, about trams were far from clear. I read the announcement in The Times this morning by Sir Percy Simmons about trams as being a pledge that if Parliament passes this Bill the County Council will not put trams across the bridge, and that if trams were put across the bridge afterwards on a fifth and sixth line it would be, in effect, a breach of faith. The noble Earl, Lord Munster, on the other hand says that in certain circumstances it might be possible.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: With great respect, I anticipated a little of what might happen if the Labour Party were returned to power in the Council.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Let us hope that might not happen. Lord Ponsonby smiles and seems to think there is some risk of that occurring.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I think it is inevitable.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Every great progressive town is steadily doing away with its trams. Many boroughs in the North of England have already got rid of their trams, which are the greatest obstruction to traffic that exists. Is it conceivable that the Labour Party would come in and put two lines over the new bridge? I hope they will not do it. But let us be cautions having regard to what Lord Ponsonby has said. If there is anything of that kind in the mind of the County Council or of any section of the County Council, I for one shall oppose the Bill when it comes up for Second Reading. There is going to be a Bill to give us an opportunity of being a little more clear about some of these things,
806
these obscure points upon which it is essential that Parliament should be informed. That is necessary. Those concerned have been wrong about hundreds of things in connection with these bridges, and I hope that long before this Bill is introduced into your Lordships' House we shall have full opportunity not merely as residents in London, as most of us are, not merely as ratepayers, but as ordinary taxpayers of having full information upon this matter which affects ourselves in every way as residents, as taxpayers, and as citizens of this great City.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, after what has been said by Lord Charnwood and the Earl of Crawford, I should not have intervened in the debate but that I have been for many years on the executive committee of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. I feel that every voice possible ought to be raised to prevent the act of vandalism which the Government are proposing to commit. I belong to many of these societies, including the London Society, and they are all unanimous against the destruction of Waterloo bridge. The Government, consisting as it does entirely of men of action, probably looks upon these societies with contempt. It probably looks upon them as little hole-and-corner societies full of cranks. Although that may have been true about ten years ago, I think the whole attitude of the English people towards the preservation of their country has recently changed and that the attitude of mind displayed by the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple—the attitude of mind of a man who would do away with St. Paul's in order to relieve: the congestion at Lud-gate Hill—is one which is disappearing from the country.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT ESHER: If the Government were now proposing to do away with Temple Bar in the Strand or to destroy the famous Holbein gateways in Whitehall I do not believe they would have public opinion behind them. The case for not destroying Waterloo bridge is not only an aesthetic one, it is also a utilitarian one. Everybody is agreed that the bridge is a masterpiece, and that the engineers can restore it. It is also agreed that the restoration of a four-line

807
bridge would be cheaper than building a new one. It is also agreed that a new six-line bridge would dislocate the traffic in the Strand. It seems to me, therefore, that the case against destroying Waterloo bridge is complete, and it is a little difficult to understand why the Government have supported the London County Council in this matter. Probably their main reason for supporting them is boredom with the whole question. They feel that this question has been before the public for eight years and that some decision, even a bad one, would be better than none.
It seems to me that that is the psychology of defeat, and I think it is based on two things. One is that they think that London is such an ugly city already that it does not matter how much uglier they make it by destroying Waterloo bridge. I should like to point out in reply that even if London is ugly, the most beautiful part of it is that stretch of the river between Westminster and St. Paul's. If you wish in any way to retain the beauty of this City you must concentrate on the preservation of that particular bit of it. The other sign of the psychology of defeat is the feeling that we are too poor to build Charing Cross bridge. There is no doubt that we are too poor to build Charing Cross bridge. We are also too poor to rebuild Waterloo bridge. But if we are too poor to build Charing Cross bridge at this moment I think we should not despair of being rich enough in the future to build that bridge. If, owing to our psychology of defeat, we give up at this moment the idea of building Charing Cross bridge and we destroy Waterloo bridge, the people who come after us and eventually desire to build Charing Cross bridge will curse us for having destroyed Waterloo bridge. It is an open secret that in this matter Sir Percy Simmons is the strong man behind this movement. He is a strong man because he knows what he wants, and, knowing what he wants, he will probably get what he wants, but I would appeal to the Government who will be asked to stand up to M. Tardieu and Senator Borah to try if on this occasion they cannot practice that attitude by standing up to Sir Percy Simmons.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I do not want to intervene
808
for more than a few minutes. In this vulgar and utilitarian age I am afraid the word Waterloo conveys to most people not a battle but a station or a cup, and the idea that people reverence this bridge because it is a war memorial, I think must be dismissed as an exaggeration of sentimentality. With regard to the beauty of Waterloo bridge, everybody seems tacitly to be very much afraid to say anything against it. I do not believe anybody thought of the beauty of Waterloo bridge till before 1925. Very few people can see Waterloo bridge because it is obstructed by the railway bridge at Charing Cross. But directly this question came to the front then everybody said Waterloo bridge was one of the most beautiful things in London. I agree with the noble Viscount who has just sat down that that stretch of the Thames is one of the most beautiful things in London, and it was of that that Ruskin wrote when he referred to Waterloo bridge in these terms:
"It is not indeed the fault of living designers that the Waterloo arch is nothing more than a gloomy and hollow heap of wedged blocks of blind granite."
So even artists do not agree on this question of beauty.
I was very much disappointed at the speech of the noble Earl Lord Crawford, because I was prepared to be convinced of the beauty of Waterloo bridge if I was instructed by him on the subject. There is no greater authority on beauty than the noble Earl, but, like these artists and architects who intervene in this question and will not stick to their last, the noble Earl comes to this House as a traffic expert. The noble Earl is no more a traffic expert that I am an expert at Chinese chess. He is, like everybody else, bewildered by the amount of traffic there is, with a general idea that you must have wider streets and roundabouts, but with no expert knowledge of the traffic question at all. I do not think even the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, has dealt sufficiently with this question of the block that may arise in Wellington Street if this bridge is a six-line bridge. The fact of its being a six-line bridge will prevent what are now two bottle necks, one on either side of Waterloo bridge, and that in itself will help the flow of traffic. But at the junction of Wellington Street and the Strand an enormous advantage

809
has been gained by the one-way system and the roundabout in Aldwych. That has very much relieved traffic, and that can further be done by the demolition of the triangle of buildings on the east side of the lower part of Wellington Street.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That would cost three-quarters of a million of money.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I am not talking about the financial side of the question. I was trying to meet the argument that was brought forward by the noble Lord who introduced this Motion, that you would find a very serious traffic congestion if six lines of traffic were to be allowed to cross at Waterloo bridge. Another point I should like to reply to in the noble Lord's eloquent speech, and also in the speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down, is this despairing idea that we have not got an architect to-day who can build a beautiful bridge in harmony with the river at this point. I cannot understand why that should be so. When I was at the Ministry of Transport I had an opportunity of travelling about the country and looking at a good many modern bridges of very fine construction and beautiful proportions, and just recently I have seen one in Wiltshire which is most satisfying in every way.
LOKD CHARNWOOD: May I correct the noble Lord's reference to my speech? I did not say that we had not a great architect who was capable of building a beautiful bridge, but I did venture to point out that he would labour under conditions which must greatly impede him in building a bridge like the existing Waterloo bridge in scale with the objects in the vicinity.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I did not want to misrepresent the noble Lord, but the expression he used was that you would be damaging the amenities by destroying the present bridge, and he seemed to suggest that any new bridge would be damaging to the amenities of that particular part of the Thames. I really do not see why that need be considering what engineering and architecture can do in these days. The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, besides being an expert on traffic, is also a great engineer, and I cannot follow him in all the difficulties that he foresees in the necessary construction of temporary
810
bridges while the main structure is going on. Really I do not think in these days of engineering triumphs that constitutes any great obstacle. I do feel after the experience we had with Charing Cross bridge, Parliamentary interference coming at a moment when the construction of that bridge would have avoided all the difficulties we are in to-day, and would have been laying the foundations of a great new scheme for bringing the southern traffic of London to the north and the northern traffic to the south with an easy flow—I think, considering the experience we had of Parliamentary interference in regard to Charing Cross bridge, we ought to be very chary in making out that the London County Council, that great local authority, are unable to draw up their estimate, are unable to chose the proper engineers and traffic experts and architects, and, in fact, are unable to look after their own business. Anybody who goes through the papers and sees the enormous trouble the County Council have taken, and the efforts they have made year after year in examining this question in every conceivable detail, must feel that they, as an authority, are better suited to deal with this problem than the two Houses of Parliament, in which there may be a score of members who are specially interested in this question. With regard to the finances and the other points, we shall get full information from the noble Earl who is to reply for the Government, and I feel he will satisfy those who have raised the question.
VISCOUNT LEE OF FAREHAM: My Lords, I had no intention of addressing your Lordships when I came down to the House and I shall not detain you for more than a few minutes. It is more in sorrow than anger that I do so, after the résumé we have had this afternoon of the history of this matter. I find it is six years ago that it was impressed upon me and my colleagues that unless we proceeded to give up all our leisure and to work ourselves regardless of considerations of health, Waterloo bridge would fall down before the end of the year 1926, and that the matter was really most vital. We did our best to respond to that appeal, and we brought in a scheme which was admittedly a compromise but which after all did do certain things. It did preserve Waterloo bridge. It did get rid of Hungerford railway bridge, the

811
greatest eyesore on that stretch of the river which the noble Lord so much admires, and rightly so. It did provide ten lines of traffic across the river, and most of them at places where all traffic experts agree that facilities are most wanted. We also did not interfere with the traffic across the river at Charing Cross for one single hour during the progress of that scheme. And then, as so often happens in this life, the rule that the best is often the enemy of the good was amply demonstrated by the enthusiasm of the friends of Waterloo bridge who at once came on the scene and filled the newspapers and the platforms with their discordant criticisms of the scheme on the ground that it was not the particular scheme which they individually favoured.
The distinguished gentlemen of the London County Council who have been eulogised this afternoon as the strong men who knew what they wanted saw at once that all that was wanted was Divide et Impera, and for a series of years it became perfectly clear that it was inevitable that the friends of the bridge were going to tear each other to pieces to prevent any scheme being adopted, until the London County Council would be in a position to say: "Really this kind of thing cannot go on any longer," and a Government would be in power which was also bored to death with the whole business and the original policy to which Sir Percy Simmons was committed would be adopted. That policy was to get rid of Waterloo bridge for other reasons than those advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who I understand particularly dislikes Waterloo bridge because it is a war memorial. We all know that the Party to which he belongs loathe anything that suggests commemoration of our achievements in war, so that is an additional reason why he should desire to destroy the bridge.
At any rate, these gentlemen who knew what they wanted were put in a very strong and favourable position by what I can only call the extraordinary folly of the Committee which threw out the Charing Cross bridge scheme, introduced by the London County Council frankly as a compromise, as all these schemes must be. It was thrown out on a question of detail. As a result London is now in the deplorable position that it
812
will lose one of its greatest monuments—not necessarily a war monument, if that offends the noble Lord opposite, but a great architectural monument—and will have to go on with that red iron behemoth, as I think somebody has described it, and be denied any facilities for cross-river traffic at Charing Cross. London will have to incur this very heavy expenditure for a bridge which is primarily constructed to take trams across from the south to the north side. It is true that all these things will take a long time. Someone said he doubted if any one of us would live to see the bridge completed. When I look around those Benches I can only come to the conclusion that the only person likely to see it completed is the noble Earl who addressed us earlier in the debate, Lord Munster. I am certain that I shall never see it completed.
Personally I am not at all convinced by the engineering evidence brought forward—not that I set out to be an engineering expert; but after all the Royal Commission was advised by the most distinguished engineers of the day, who assured us that the reconditioning of Waterloo bridge was a perfectly practical problem which could be carried out without danger and without interfering with river traffic. But, of course, we now find that all engineers who advise the London County Council are eminent and all engineers who advise those who wish to preserve Waterloo bridge are incompetent and insignificant and their opinions are not worthy to be considered. The whole thing really has got to a stage where it is perfectly clear that nobody is going to agree upon what I consider to be the proper and sane solution of the traffic problem of Greater London. It has become partly a political question, mixed up with the trams of the London County Council, and partly an economic question because the bodies concerned are not prepared to face the expenditure on the Charing Cross scheme, which really is the only one which will permanently relieve London traffic. Therefore they come down with this miserable compromise, which I again say more in sorrow than in anger is going to deface London and reduce its traffic to a standstill within ten years, and also, I am convinced, is going to run the Government and the taxpayers into far greater expenditure than they have any idea of at the present

813
time. That is, I believe, the position, but I regard it as a foregone conclusion that we shall have to put up with this scheme. I can only regret, as I do most heartily, that I worked so hard at the question six years ago.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, may I be allowed to say that I fully appreciate the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, raised this debate. I must confess, however, that I am somewhat depressed by the very gloomy prognostications of the noble Viscount, Lord Lee of Fareham, with regard to what he conceives to be the inevitable end to this problem. Unfortunately this controversy has dragged on for a considerable time. A great many people have taken a deep interest in this question and feel very keenly indeed about it, as is evidenced by some of the speeches which we have listened to this evening. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, will not think that I am predisposed to be unsympathetic to the point of view which he has put forward and the point of view of those who want to do everything they can to see that the present Waterloo bridge is retained. My father held for some years the office which the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, held, that of First Commissioner of Works. He took a great deal of interest in all these matters and I venture to hope that I have inherited at least a portion of his great love of beauty and beautiful things. Therefore I should be as sorry as anybody, in many ways, to see the present bridge go. But I think your Lordships will agree with me that there are innumerable other considerations which have to be taken into account in coming to a final conclusion on this very vexatious problem.
I need hardly say that before arriving at their decision to contribute 60 per cent, towards the cost of a new bridge where Waterloo bridge now stands, the Government gave the very fullest consideration to all the representations which have been made by various distinguished bodies at various times. It really is untenable to suggest that this matter has not been considered fully from every possible side and every possible aspect. One of the under-
814
standings on which they came to a decision to make this contribution was that the cost of the bridge was going to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of the £1,300,000 that has been estimated by the London County Council. Furthermore, in agreeing to this they laid down certain conditions to which I will refer a little later.
VISCOUNT LEE OF FAREHAM: When the noble Earl says the Government agreed to pay 60 per cent, of the cost, have they limited themselves to 60 per cent. of £1,300,000 or 60 per cent. of whatever the cost may be?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I want to make myself clear. Of course they have not definitely limited themselves to 60 per cent. of that actual sum. No doubt there must be some latitude in the estimates connected with a big structure of this kind, but I do say that if there is any considerable variation in the estimate of £1,300,000 that would give rise to a new situation and the Government would have to reconsider its decision.
I agree that it is quite clear that the Government, owing to the history of this matter, and owing to the fact that they have interfered in it already, cannot divest themselves of all responsibility, and naturally they do not wish to do so. But there is one point that ought to be emphasised and that has been emphasised, I think, by Lord Mount Temple. It is that the London County Council are the statutory authority responsible for maintaining the roads and bridges in their area. If the present bridge were now to be reconditioned to take four lines of traffic at a considerable cost, and if in twenty or thirty years it was found that this bridge was entirely inadequate to carry the greatly increased volume of traffic that may eventuate, a new bridge would then have to be built at a very great cost again, and it would be the London County Council that would have to bear a very large proportion of the financial burden that arose even if they did not, owing to altered conditions, have to bear the whole cost of that new bridge. In the circumstances I would suggest that it is very difficult indeed to set aside the considered decision of a body such as the London County Council unless there are overwhelming reasons for doing so, and

815
I do not believe that this debate this evening has established that those overwhelming reasons exist.
I have naturally followed this controversy in the Press with a very great deal of care and a very great deal of interest. I have read, I think, all the letters that have appeared in The Times and a certain number of other newspapers, and various leading articles, and what astounds me is that there is a general assumption that everyone knows how to build a bridge, and particularly a beautiful bridge, except the London County Council, its engineers and advisers. That is patently unfair and unjustifiable. The London County Council, as the properly constituted authority in this matter, have a greater interest, I venture to say, than anybody else in seeing that London is kept beautiful, that no eyesores are erected, and in seeing that a really beautiful and sound structure is put up where this bridge now stands. I cannot see why people think that that body is not an able and worthy custodian of the heritage of Londoners generally.
With regard to the engineering aspect it is quite clear that the London County Council have taken the very best possible advice. Furthermore, they and their staff are not at all new to these things. They probably have more experience than anybody else as far as bridge-building goes. They are at present engaged in building a new bridge at Lambeth and in widening the bridge at Putney. As long ago as 1924, as my noble friend informed your Lordships, they took into consultation, as well as their own experienced engineer, Sir George Humphreys, Sir Basil Mott and the late Sir Maurice Fitzmaurice, who were preeminent in their profession. From the aesthetic point of view they have constantly consulted well-known and eminent architects. It must, therefore, be admitted on all sides that the London County Council have the most efficient and experienced staff at their disposal. They have taken the advice of the greatest experts on these matters, and now, as your Lordships know, with this new bridge in view, they are going to consult on the one hand Sir Frederick Palmer, the eminent engineer, and on the other hand Sir Giles Gilbert Scott, whose great work is, I am certain, familiar to many of your Lordships.
816
The noble Lord who initiated this debate and several other noble Lords have dwelt upon the estimates that have been brought forward, and I will try to deal as fully as possible with some at any rate of the innumerable points that have been put to me. It is estimated that the provision of an entirely new bridge of a total width of 75 feet between parapets, including the demolition of the existing bridge, will cost £1,295,000. Of that the demolition of the existing bridge is expected to cost £275,000. You cannot go into great detail at this stage with regard to these matters. After all, these are only preliminary estimates and they are based very largely upon the experience these eminent engineers have had with regard to similar matters in the past.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: They do not include the construction of a temporary bridge.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: No, and for the reason that it is not thought that a new temporary bridge will be necessary.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Does it include the demolition of the present temporary bridge?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Yes, of both bridges, and as I have said it is not considered that the erection of a new temporary bridge will be necessary. The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, referred to the present temporary bridge as being incapable of dealing with the traffic that will wish to make use of it when the present bridge is being taken down. No doubt some difficulty will arise, but it will be capable of dealing with two lines of traffic, one going each way, and undoubtedly a certain portion of the traffic will have to be diverted to the bridges on either side, but I do not see that that is a difficulty which is in any way insuperable. Then the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, raised a point in connection with the navigation of the river while this work is going on. I have made inquiries with regard to this point which he raised, and I am informed that when the existing temporary bridge alongside Waterloo bridge was constructed allowance was made for the possibility of a permanent six-line bridge at Waterloo, and it will not be necessary to interfere with the temporary bridge during the construction of the new six-line bridge.

817
The difficulties of navigation during reconstruction were also foreseen by the London County Council's technical advisers, and the span of the temporary bridge over the navigable channel of the river was made 260 feet (254 feet clear between protective works). This large span equals two spans of the present Waterloo bridge, plus the width of one pier. There is therefore no difficulty in this respect. Actually, and on the assumption of a new five-arch bridge, a greater width in one measurement will be available for navigation during construction than exists at present. Then, recurring for a moment to the question of the estimated cost of this bridge—
LORD CHARNWOOD: May I intervene for one moment about this temporary bridge? It cannot be the case that during the rebuilding the whole of the traffic is going to pass along this one temporary bridge. Will the noble Earl explain what will happen?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It will go round about Blackfriars and Westminster.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am advised that will be so. In connection with the estimated cost of the bridge, I would like to remind the noble Lord that the estimated cost of the new Lambeth bridge, with five arches over the river, designed by Sir George Humphreys in collaboration with Sir Reginald Blomfield, including the taking down of the old suspension bridge, the very considerable raising of the levels of the roadways on both sides of the river and extensive tramway alterations on the Surrey side, amounts to £839,000, and so far as I know there is no indication that that sum will be greatly exceeded. I merely bring those figures forward as giving perhaps some indication of what it may cost to build a new six-line bridge at Waterloo bridge. I venture to say that when you take those figures into consideration there is no prima facie reason for assuming that the London County Council's estimate of £1,295,000 is likely to be out to any considerable extent.
May I now say just a word with regard to the alternative courses that have been suggested—those of reconditioning the existing bridge to take four lines of
818
traffic, or reconditioning it in its present dimensions to take three lines of traffic, as it does now. I do not want to take the aesthetic side which has been dwelt upon by Lord Mount Temple. The London County Council's estimate for reconditioning for four lines of traffic is £1,081,000, and reconditioning the existing bridge as it is, £988,000. I am well aware that other estimates considerably lower than those have been put forward by other well-known architects and engineers. Lord Charnwood referred in particular to the comprehensive estimate put forward by Mr. William Muirhead. He stated that this estimate amounted to something like a million more than the estimates put forward by the London County Council, and said that in view of his great reputation it was very unlikely that Mr. Muirhead was prepared to risk it by quoting a figure of this kind unless he was confident that he was approximately correct. That may be so, but the technical advisers of the London County Council have just as great reputations to risk as Mr. Muirhead, and I can see no reason why you should give any more weight—in fact I think the balance is considerably on the other side—to Mr. Muirhead's estimate than you do to the technical advisers of the London County Council.
There is no reason, so far as I can make out, to suppose that the London County Council's estimate of £1,295,000 for taking down the existing structure and constructing a new six-line bridge in its place is in any way inadequate as an estimate indicating the order of the expenditure involved. I do not wish to compare the relative merits of the technical experts that have been quoted this afternoon, but you cannot disregard the fact that the advisers and officials of the London County Council have enjoyed prolonged opportunities for the daily study of Waterloo bridge and its problems, and that they are actually engaged to-day in bridge building operations on the Thames.
The other point that the noble Lord particularly stressed was the traffic difficulties that would arise if a six-line bridge were erected on the north side at the junction of Wellington Street and the Strand. It is the considered view of the London County Council and their advisers that, in view of the fact that it

819
would cost a very large sum of money to recondition the bridge, and would cost not so very much more to build a new six-line bridge, and in view of the fact that they are building a bridge which is expected to last 100, 150 or 200 years, it would be quite unjustified for them to spend a large sum of money on reconditioning, when it is more than likely that a six-line bridge will be required within a comparatively short space of time. As to the question of the congestion of traffic that may arise on the north side of the bridge in the event of a six-line bridge being built, that has been dealt with at considerable length by various speakers this evening. In reference to it I should like to speak of the Report of the Cross-River Traffic Commission over which the noble Viscount, Lord Lee, presided. Quotations have been made from it, and they quite definitely, I think, prove that this recommendation in favour of reconditioning Waterloo bridge to take four lines of traffic was made in conjunction with a recommendation for making an entirely new bridge at Charing Cross.
Furthermore, if we go on to paragraph 84 we find these words:
"We have been informed by the Minister of Transport that if Waterloo bridge were widened to take four lines of traffic, and if a new bridge were provided at Charing Cross in addition to that proposed at St. Paul's the traffic difficulties in this central area would be solved for a period of thirty years."
We are told that you would solve the problem for thirty years if you built an entirely new bridge at Charing Cross to take six lines and reconditioned Waterloo bridge to take four lines—that is an increase of seven lines of traffic. But what is the position now? Charing Cross bridge is not going to be built at all, at any rate for a generation or more, and the suggestion made is that Waterloo bridge should only be reconditioned to take four lines of traffic. It is therefore quite clear that the position which has now arisen was not envisaged by the Commission when they made this Report, and the proposal to do no more now than to increase the lines of traffic over Waterloo bridge from three to four must be entirely inadequate to deal with the volume of traffic that wishes to cross the river at that and other places.
With regard to the next point, I can only stress what has already been said.
820
Undoubtedly there is some congestion at the junction of Wellington Street and the Strand. But that congestion has been recently very greatly lessened by the introduction of the circular system round Aldwych. I have been there once or twice myself to see it working, and I think it can only be maintained now that there is any considerable difficulty at limited hours of the day. The introduction of that system, which of course took place long after the Report of Lord Lee's Commission, has improved the situation there considerably, and, in addition to that, Wellington Street is in the course of being widened to 85 feet, which I think will relieve the situation on that side. In addition to that, if in the course of time it is found necessary—I dare say it will be necessary—to improve the lay-out on the north side it is not considered that there will be any great difficulty in doing so owing to the fact that the property is in the hands of those from whom, I gather, it can be comparatively easily purchased.
No, I think that if you take all these problems into consideration, and if you realise that you have got to build not only for the near future but for the comparatively distant future as well, you must come to the conclusion, in view of the recent history of this problem and the fact that there is not likely to be a new bridge at Charing Cross for a considerable time, that the London County Council have been quite justified in coming to their conclusion that the only proper thing to do in this case is to build a new bridge at Waterloo bridge to carry six lines of traffic upon it. In this connection something has been said about the possibility of taking the trams across. I am informed quite definitely that it is certainly not the intention of the County Council to take the trams across the river, and, in addition to that, the Council would not be able to do so without the express sanction of Parliament.
I have tried to deal as fully as possible with some at any rate of the various posers that have been put to me this evening. If there are others which I have forgotten I hope the noble Lord will remind me of them in case I may be able to give him some satisfactory reply. But before I conclude I want to assure the noble Lord that I do not want, if I can help it, to be anything but very

821
sympathetic to the various suggestions he has made, and the various points of view he has put forward. At the commencement of his speech he alluded to certain representations which various societies interested in the matter desired to make, and I think it is only right and fair that those facts should be available for the London County Council for their help and use in approaching this question. If the noble Lord would care to forward these representations to the Minister of Transport I am sure that my hon. friend would be only too glad to transmit them to the London County Council at the earliest possible moment.
When a short time ago the Government were approached once more by the London County Council on the question of Waterloo bridge they reviewed the matter from every point of view, and, after the fullest consideration, they agreed that, should the London County Council decide that the only satisfactory way of dealing with the situation was to pull down the present bridge and build a new six-line one, they would not feel justified in interfering, and they agreed to contribute 60 per cent, towards the cost of the construction of the new bridge. That is on the assumption—may I repeat—that the cost would be in the region of £1,300,000. But they laid down certain conditions, the first and foremost of which I have already mentioned, and that is that the Council should take into consultation on the matter an eminent engineer and an architect of high repute and standing. This has been done, as you know, by taking Sir Frederick Palmer and Sir Giles Gilbert Scott into consultation.
The other point I want to refer to is this. Before the London County Council was offered this grant by the Government the Minister proposed, and Sir Percy Simmons on behalf of the Council very readily agreed, to give the Royal Fine Art Commission an opportunity of making any observations they wished on the proposed design of the new bridge. The Government did not feel justified in putting the London County Council in the position of having its proposals vetoed by the Royal Fine Art Commission, but it is, of course, understood that the Council will refer to the Commission at a stage at which it would still be possible to give effective expression to any suggestions as to the
822
design of the new six-line bridge which the Commission should wish to make, if it were decided to adopt them, and I feel certain that the spokesman of the London County Council would be prepared to confirm this assurance. I really do not know that there is anything I can add to what I have already said. I can only conclude by saying that whatever bridge is put up where Waterloo bridge now stands, I sincerely hope and believe that it will be a worthy example of the genius and skill of the British architects and engineers of our generation.
LORD CHARNWOOD: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl very much for the courtesy and fullness with which he has answered my somewhat long list of questions. There is one small point about which I should like to know whether I misunderstood him. Is it really the case that during this interval of an unknown number of years—seven, I think it is—which this great work will take, the whole of the traffic is going to be carried along the single line of the present temporary bridge?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: One line each way.
LORD CHARNWOOD: It is only a one-line temporary bridge.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: One line each way.
LORD CHARNWOOD: I have no doubt it is clear to other noble Lords, but I have not quite got it. What I do distinctly gather is that the Government have pledged themselves to support this scheme on the understanding that the cost reasonably approximates to the figure of £1,300,000. I further understand that if within a reasonable time a concise and adequate statement of facts can be put before the Minister leading him to regard it as very doubtful whether there can be anything like approximation to that ultimate figure, such representations will be taken into full consideration. That is what I understood.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I must make it quite clear that this is a definite and final decision on the part of the Government. What I did say was that if these representations were to be made the Minister would be very glad to

823
receive them and transmit them to the London County Council who are engaged now upon the matter.
LORD CHARNWOOD: I see. Of course I do not want to pin the noble Earl further, but if any statement of the sort that I am assured is possible were brought to the notice of the noble Earl's
824
Department, I absolutely refuse to believe that they would not be still open to an impression from it. In any case I thank the noble Earl and beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock.