Lords Sitting of 1 June 1937

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
GRIMSBY CORPORATION (GRIMSBY AND DISTRICT WATER, &c.) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MR. BALDWIN AND HIS SUCCESSOR.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, before I read the terms of a question of which I have given the Government private notice, I ask your Lordships' permission very briefly to comment upon certain changes in the constitution of the Government that have taken place since your Lordships' House last met. An old, friendly, and generally respected Prime Minister has laid down the heavy burden of his great office, and my noble friends and myself think that it would not be in accordance with our own feelings, or with the best traditions of our nation, if we were to allow him to depart without some expression on our part of our great gratitude for his many public services. Those of us who were his colleagues in another place knew him far better than even those of his own Party who had not that privilege could possibly have done. We fought many battles, some of which were keen and all of them sincere, but I think I should be borne out by all my colleagues if I said that in those fights he never sacrificed a principle or lost a friend. We never knew him to take an unfair advantage over a minority or to deliver a foul blow in any of our disputes. On our side of the House he had no enemies, and all of his opponents liked him. He had other political enemies of course. What man in his position has not? It is said that he sometimes made mistakes. Is there any man who has not made mistakes? I should hate my own life to end with the reproach that I had made no mistakes! The possibility of that dreadful thing happening does not give me a moment's anxiety.

311
Mr. Baldwin bore the weight of his great responsibilities with dignity, with patience and with composure, and, if he did not suffer fools gladly, he at any rate did not make them too aware of his impatience. This is not the occasion when one should try to estimate his place among the Prime Ministers of this country, but, if the object of statesmanship is to avoid unnecessary dramatic situations, he succeeded as well as most who have held that high position. I do not believe that Mr. Baldwin had the real temperament of the traditional Party leader. He was not a master of the questionable technique of bluff, but he won and held the respect of his friends and his opponents by higher and more enduring qualities. Speaking for my noble friends and myself, we send to him our respect for his services and wish for him many years of happy leisure among his books and, as I think, somewhat mythical pigs.
I should also like to extend on behalf of my noble friends a word of congratulation to the new Prime Minister. He brings to his great task the prestige of a great name. He has admitted capacities and an unusual gift for clear expression. Those of us who remember his distinguished father will be glad that a great family tradition rests in capable hands. We also would like to offer our sincere congratulations to those of our own House who continue their services and especially to those who assume new responsibilities. It is the wholesome duty of an Opposition to remind Ministers that they do not necessarily appear to other people as they appear to themselves, and, within the rightful limits of our duties, we shall try to make their political lives as uncomfortable as possible and try to secure that their tenure of office is not unduly prolonged. With those limitations we do offer them our very sincere congratulations. I beg to ask now whether the Government can make any statement on the subject of coal legislation.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, the noble Marquess who speaks on behalf of my Party from these Benches—[the Marquess of Crewe]—is unfortunately away, and the noble Lords, Lord Gainford and Lord Lothian, are also unable to be here to-day; therefore, unworthily, I have the
312
honour of speaking in their place for a moment. Everything that my noble friend Lord Snell has said is echoed from these Benches. I, personally, have the greatest pleasure in adding a few words to what he has said. I have the honour of knowing Mr. Baldwin a little, and I remember one interview that I had with him some years ago when I was writing a book. He said three things to me all of which I have remembered.
The first thing he said was that when he was at Harrow as a school-boy he had every promise of being a good classical scholar. He said: "I really did know my classics then, and took the greatest interest in them, but when I went up to Cambridge I became immersed in other pursuits and my mind wandered away from my books at Harrow." That was typical of his modesty, because I feel, and I think those of your Lordships who are interested in such matters feel, that those of us who can attain to the level of Mr. Baldwin's classical knowledge have no need to be dissatisfied with ourselves. Another thing he said was that when he went to work in his father's business in Worcestershire he knew every single man employed there by sight and to speak to. That, I remember, impressed me very much. The third thing he said, not voluntarily but in response to a question of mine, was with regard to the very large and very generous contribution that he made out of his own fortune and anonymously to the funds of the Treasury during the War. I feel that all those of us who have read his speeches will agree that no one better than Mr. Baldwin is an example of the pietas and gravitas which he always put in front of his belief—that reverence, that reticence and that dignity which he peculiarly fulfilled. I should place him on the same plane as a man like Sir Robert Walpole—quieta non movere. We, on these Benches, have always regarded Mr. Baldwin as a most liberal-minded statesman, and we greatly regret that he has relinquished his high office; but we shall warmly welcome him when he comes into your Lordships' House.
I have also the privilege of being a slight friend of Mr. Chamberlain, and I extend on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches an equally warm welcome to him as the new Prime Minister. He is the scion of a family which for fifty years has taken a leading part, and a very

313
brave and thoughtful part, in the politics and statesmanship of this country.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, it was a very kindly and a generous thought that prompted the noble Lord opposite and the noble Viscount who spoke last, associating himself with him, to preface the formal question of which he had given me notice by a reference to the events that have passed during the last few days. The noble Lord opposite spoke I think truly when he said that the time had not yet come to appraise the place that Mr. Baldwin will permanently hold in history among those who have held the office of Prime Minister in this country, and I certainly would feel that it was not for one who has owed to Mr. Baldwin as much in the way of friendship as I have owed to seek to make any such appraisement. The noble Lord ventured to doubt whether Mr. Baldwin could be said ever to have possessed the true temperament of the Party leader. Whatever the answer to that doubt may be, this, I think, at least is quite certain, as has been evidenced by what has been said this afternoon, that for all Parties in this country, as I think for all Parties in the Dominions, and I would almost add for foreign countries also, Mr. Baldwin has come to fill a position far different from and far higher than that which we ordinarily connote by the term of Party leader.
We may all speculate as to what has been the secret of that achievement on his part. Certainly, I suppose, from the angle of our own domestic judgment, it has been immensely due to a constitutional inability on his part to do other than judge of every problem, as of every person that presented itself or himself for judgment, except upon terms of a complete fairness of judgment and of a desire to make judgment reflect the understanding upon which the judgment itself was based. I myself have always felt not the least part of the secret of the influence that Mr. Baldwin exercised over his fellow-countrymen to be the fact that he, as much as any one I have ever known, had the supreme gift of recognising that reason was not always the final arbitrator in the affairs of men. It was not difficult, think, for him to recognise that there was even in the affairs of men something stronger than reason and it
314
was that, at least so I suppose, that on critical occasions gave him the particular power he had of influencing the thought of his fellow men to whom he appealed. It was that, I suppose, that transmuted the confidence that his fellow-countrymen extended to him into something very like real personal affection. It is, as the noble Viscount who spoke last said, a great satisfaction to us all that if his services are to be lost to the country as Prime Minister we shall have the opportunity of watching them still given, as I hope, through the counsels of your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord was kind enough to combine with what he said about Mr. Baldwin a word of welcome of a nonpolitical kind to his successor. He wisely reminded us that it must be the constant endeavour of Ministers to try to see them-selves as others see them. That advice will be constantly no doubt in our minds, but for my right honourable friend the Prime Minister I can assure the noble Lord that his words will be received in the same kindly spirit with which they were given, and that while we may—and indeed I hope we shall—have our political disputes which will be conducted with all the urbanity and the restraint that befits this assembly, it will make those disputes none the less real to know that behind them lies a background of common tradition and common feeling that have made it possible for the noble Lord to give expression to his kindly sentiments this afternoon. On behalf of the others of my colleagues who are members of His Majesty's Government, I can assure the noble Lord opposite and all others that it will be our endeavour, as far as we may, to serve according to our lights the cause of this people and of this Commonwealth and to enable both to make the best contribution that they can to the cause of the world outside.
I think it is perhaps true to say that there is a tendency in all Parties to-day to look upon the affairs of the world less and less with the eyes of Party than might formerly have been the case. The times are too grave and the world is too difficult to admit of anything but the best judgment that liberty of judgment can bring to them and I can assure noble Lords in whatever quarter of the House they may sit that it will be in that spirit that this Government, as I think did the last, will approach all the problems that

315
they may have to confront. We recognise on this side of the House—the noble Lord opposite will hardly think it necessary for me to assure him of this—that the things which we value, or most of them, are perhaps in a different way but a not less real way valued by noble Lords who sit on the other side. It is just that common background of political possession and political tradition that seems to me to distinguish this country from all other countries in the world, and to give to the political life of this country the particular savour of value that those of us who are in it appreciate and are able to make our own. My Lords, I thank the noble Lord again, and the noble Viscount who spoke from the Liberal Benches again, most warmly for the kindness of what they said.

PROPOSED COAL LEGISLATION.
After these references the Lord President went on to answer the question put by Lord Snell—namely, whether he could make any statement on the subject of coal legislation.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX said: My Lords, I must now turn to the more formal part of my duties which is to answer the noble Lord's question on the subject of coal legislation. My Lords, it was the desire and the intention of His Majesty's Government that the legislation necessary to give effect to their proposals for the unification of coal royalties under public control should be introduced and carried into law during the present Session of Parliament. Your Lordships may remember that on April 26, in announcing in another place the Government's acceptance of the findings of the Tribunal on the global purchase price of the royalties, the Prime Minister said that it was the intention to introduce the necessary legislation as soon as possible. It has, however, unfortunately become clear that the state of Parliamentary business will not permit of the passage of this measure, which will inevitably be lengthy and complicated, during the present Session.
An alternative form of procedure is, however, possible which will, I hope, obviate any serious delay. The unification of coal royalties must inevitably involve a great deal of preliminary work—in particular, the ascertainment of
316
existing proprietary interests in coal and associated rights. The Government have accordingly decided that this preliminary work shall be proceeded with at once by means of a Bill to provide for the collection and registration of particulars concerning the units of separate ownership of coal and associated rights, and of existing working leases. It will be obvious that this task is an essential part of any scheme for the unification of the property concerned; and that such progress as can be made towards its completion will, pro tanto, shorten the period required for collecting information and assessing individual claims for compensation under the main Bill. It is intended, therefore, that a Bill providing the machinery for this purpose shall be introduced in your Lordships' House almost at once, and I hope that it will be possible for it to become law before the Summer Recess. The main Bill embodying the coal policy of the Government will be introduced at the beginning of next Session, with a view to its passage into law before the end of the present year.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount whether there is any precedent for the introduction of a Bill of this character, and if he can give us any indication of what will be the provisions in the Bill?
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I am not quite sure that I correctly appreciate what my noble friend has in mind in asking if there is any precedent. There are plenty of precedents, of course, for the introduction of important measures into your Lordships' House, and this Bill will not be concerned with finance. In answer to the second part of his question asking what the Bill will be, it is not in my power at the present moment to define the purpose of the Bill more closely than I defined it in my answer. I hope that it will not be long before it will be possible to introduce the Bill for a First Reading, after which, of course, my noble friend will be able to see and study it at leisure.

CLERK ASSISTANT OF THE PARLIAMENTS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I have to acquaint the House that by virtue of the power

317
granted to me as Lord Chancellor by the Statute 5 George IV, Chapter 82, Section 3, I have appointed Robert Leslie Overbury, Esquire, to be your Lordships' Clerk Assistant in the place of the late Montagu Ronald Alfred Muir Mackenzie, Esquire. Mr. Overbury has been Reading Clerk and Clerk of Outdoor Committees since June, 1934. For many years before that he was one of the officials in the Lord Chancellor's Department, filling successively there the posts of Secretary of Commissions of the Peace and Chief Clerk and Establishment Officer. I beg to move: That this House do approve the appointment of Robert Leslie Overbury, Esquire, to be their Lordships' Clerk Assistant in the room of the late Montagu Ronald Alfred Muir Mackenzie, Esquire.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente.

READING CLERK AND CLERK OF OUTDOOR COMMITTEES.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to acquaint your Lordships' House that by virtue of the power granted to me as Lord Chancellor by the Statute 5, George IV, Chapter 82, Section 3, I have appointed Francis William Lascelles, Esquire, C.B., M.C., to be your Lordships' Reading Clerk and Clerk of Outdoor Committees in the place of Robert Leslie Overbury, Esquire, who has been appointed Clerk Assistant. Mr. Lascelles holds the post of Clerk of Public Bills, the duties of which office he will continue to discharge. His knowledge of the work of this Department and of the procedure of your Lordships' House will fit him to a singular degree to hold the post to which he has now been appointed, subject to your Lordships' approval. I beg to move: That this House do approve the appointment of Francis William Lascelles, Esquire, C.B., M.C., to be their Lordships' Reading Clerk and Clerk of Outdoor Committees in the place of Robert Leslie Overbury, Esquire, who has been appointed Clerk Assistant.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente.

EXPORTATION OF HORSES BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
MARRIAGE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
STATUTORY SALARIES BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
EAST ANGLESEY GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
GRANGEMOUTH BURGH EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).
GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
JOHNSTONE BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

METHYLATED SPIRITS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, the Bill which I beg leave to introduce into your Lordships' House is the Methylated Spirits (Scotland) Bill. I feel confident that this Bill will have your Lordships' sympathy, and I am hopeful that it is one which your Lordships will consider to be worthy of your support. Over

319
many years methylated spirit drinking has reached dimensions that cause grave anxiety. The object of this Bill is to stop the drinking of methylated spirits. Surgincal spirits are also included, as this provision was added in the House of Commons, and therefore, when I refer to methylated spirits, surgical spirits are included. An objection might be made, "Why interfere with what people eat and drink?" My answer would be, first of all, that methylated spirit is not fit for drinking, as it is a distinctly dangerous beverage; and secondly, that the people whom we hope to help by this Bill are among the poorest people of Scotland. Many of them are also most ignorant, and they need our help. They drink it because they need a stimulant and cannot afford to buy the ordinary stimulants which other people are able to buy, and they are largely ignorant of the danger to themselves. Because it is desired to help these people, I am confident that your Lordships will look with sympathy upon this Bill.
It is a commonplace to say that you cannot make people sober by Act of Parliament. I agree, but it is possible to stop people from running into an unknown danger. Your Lordships might ask whether there is a demand in Scotland for this measure. My answer is, decidedly yes, the Church of Scotland are most anxious to see this Bill become law; so are the Free Churches and the other Churches; so are all or nearly all the welfare societies. Your Lordships will have read in the proceedings in another place how many Scottish members have spoken in support of this measure and of the efforts that were made to make it a stronger Bill than it is. As for the local authorities, as long ago as 1933 a conference was called in Scotland of ten local authorities, at which the retailers of methylated spirits were present. It was agreed at that time by all that it was time to take action, and the local authorities again made representations to the Secretary of State for Scotland. During the last fortnight in Edinburgh I have had the opportunity of meeting many representative Scotsmen from all parts of the country. I have taken the opportunity of asking them their opinion of this Bill, and I have found that without any exception they are of opinion that this is
320
a good Bill; the only criticism was that the Bill did not go far enough.
It is interesting to note that the Bill will also help the trade. Take the case of a public-house. Public-house keepers would benefit from this Bill, because owing to the lasting effects of methylated spirits, which I will mention later, if a man who has drunk methylated spirits and afterwards become sober, goes to a public-house and orders and drinks one glass of beer, he will become drunk from the lasting effects of the spirit. Obviously, under those conditions, it is very difficult for the public-house keeper to conduct his business in an orderly way.
May I say a word about statistics? In one of the largest towns in Scotland the statistics show that in the cases of one-twelfth of the people who were arrested for drunkenness the drunkenness could be attributed to the drinking of methylated spirits. But statistics do not show a true picture of the evil, because the purchaser must mix methylated with some cheap red wine, or other liquid, before he consumes it. The result is that the purchaser takes the methylated to his own home and gets drunk there. Obviously, if he is drunk at home he does not get arrested and so appear in the statistics. The police report of the City of Edinburgh for 1936, when giving the statistics, states the following:
"The question of persons drinking concoctions of methylated spirits, cheap wine and eau de cologne is a serious one, the practice, especially in large industrial areas, haying grown to an alarming extent."
Is there any doubt as to the disastrous effects of this spirit on the health of people who drink it?
I am informed by the largest manufacturers of spirit, who make, I believe, over 6o per cent. of all methylated spirit, that 9·5 per cent. of methylated is wood alcohol. I do not know if "wood alcohol" conveys anything to your Lordships, but I remember that when I was in the United States in 1929, and that country had elected to go dry, if anybody had an opportunity of drinking any spirits the terror was lest that spirit might contain wood alcohol. If I may I will read a short quotation from Professor Sidney Smith, Professor of Forensic Medicine at Edinburgh University. He says:
"It is much more toxic than ordinary alcohol, owing to the fact that it takes much

321
longer to be destroyed in the tissues and the effects of one dose may last for several days. One of the most disastrous of its effects is connected with the disorders of vision. Coupled with the toxic poisoning is the poisonous effect on the central nervous system."
Medical officers of health, police surgeons and others, affirm:
"It saps moral strength and leads to more depravity than ordinary beverages, and in chronic drinkers leads to mental confusion and next to chronic dementia."
In plain words that means that a man who drinks methylated is in danger of becoming blind, and if he persists is in danger of becoming mad.
Now I will say a word as to the remedy proposed in this Bill. Miss Florence Horsbrugh, whom we have to thank for introducing this measure in another place, has studied this problem for many years. She has based this Bill on an Act in force in Northern Ireland. This Act was chosen because it is considered by the authorities there to be the most successful of the various regulations they have had in force. It is proposed, under the Bill, that certain further conditions be attached to the granting of a licence, such as the registration of the applicants with a local authority; a record to be kept of all sales; selling only upon receipt of an order signed by the purchaser stating the purchaser's address and the purpose for which he requires the methylated. It also makes it an offence to sell to children under fourteen years of age, or in a bottle that is not labelled with the nature of its contents, and the name and address of the seller.
A criticism has been made that this will not be effective. Is it a good answer to say that experience in Northern Ireland convinces the authorities there that it is effective? I would add that yesterday I had the opportunity of discussing this Bill with the Lord Provost of Dundee and the Chief Constable, and the Chief Constable was definitely of opinion that this Bill would be effective. In his opinion the signing of an order by the purchaser will be effective because a purchaser will not readily sign a false statement. As your Lordships know, methylated spirits are widely used in trade and also in private houses. It is sold by grocers, ironmongers, drysalters, chemists, and others. Of course this Bill will cause additional work, but your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that the representatives of these bodies have said that
322
they are willing to undertake this additional work for the sake of their fellowmen. The desire of those responsible for the Bill has been to provide a minimum of inconvenience to those who sell or buy methylated spirits for a legitimate purpose. I hope your Lordships will consider from my very inadequate remarks that this is a Bill worthy of your support. Admittedly, it is an experiment. I have tried to show that there is a danger; that there is a demand for this measure in Scotland; that such a measure has worked in Northern Ireland; that police authorities are definitely of opinion that it will help in this country; above all, that it is an effort to help some people who are in need of our help, and that it is another effort to bring light into one of the darkest spots in Scotland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Kinnaird.)
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I do not want to oppose the principle of the Bill in so far as it is concerned with the stopping of the drinking of methylated spirits. Whether it will do so or not is another matter, because I do not see anything in the Bill to prevent a person purchasing four gallons in one place and then going on to purchase further four gallons at each of a number of other places if he chooses to do so. Still, the Government may have observations to offer on the Bill as a whole. I merely rise to say that I shall put down certain Amendments for consideration in Committee to prevent overlapping and to protect the interests of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain for whom an Act of Parliament was passed as recently as 1933. They are under the discipline of the Lord President of the Council—I do not know whether he has been consulted in regard to this Bill—and of a statutory Committee; and it appears that this Bill implies double listing, if not taking away power, authority and discipline which is given to the Pharmaceutical Society by a very recent Act of Parliament. I may add that my noble friend Lord Leverhulme supports me in this matter, and some other noble Lords too.
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, I desire in a very few words to support what my noble friend has said in commending this

323
Bill to your Lordships for Second Reading. When a Bill of this character is introduced it always seems to me that two questions arise for consideration. The first is whether the evil which the Bill purports to cure or abate is demonstrated, and the second is whether the remedy proposed is an adequate and an appropriate one. It seems to me that the answer to both those questions in this case must be in the affirmative. As regards the existance of the evil, I am afraid to any of us who know Scotland well that is beyond all doubt or controversy, and if I may be allowed a personal allusion, I desire to say that, speaking from a somewhat lengthy experience both at the Bar and on the Bench in Scotland, I am prepared to affirm not only the existence of this evil but also its magnitude. So far as that is concerned, the Bill requires no further defence.
As regards the appropriateness of the remedy, I apprehend that at this stage the House is invited merely to consider whether the Bill is founded upon sound principle, leaving all details for consideration on the Committee stage. Now, what is the principle of this measure? As I understand it, the principle on which it is based is, with the least possible inconvenience to the public, to check and regulate the sale of this noxious drug. While I do not desire to commit myself to all the details of the Bill, or to subscribe to supporting them in Committee, I do very humbly suggest to your Lordships' House that that is a sound principle and very necessary to be applied. Your Lordships will remember—what impressed me very much, if I may say so, and what cannot have failed, I think, to have impressed your Lordships as well—that we are not being invited in this matter to traverse an unexplored hinterland, but rather to follow a trail which has been blazed in a sister country at our doors, where a similar measure, with similar provisions, has not only been passed but has successfully operated for a considerable period of time. Bearing in mind the various considerations to which I have referred, I venture to think that, so far at least as the Second Reading in your Lordships' House is concerned, my noble friend has made out an overwhelming case.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, as I entered your Lordships' House this afternoon I heard just outside of it a junior member of the Government plaintively inquiring why such a Bill should be required for Scotland if not for England. One reason is that my fellow countrymen on the whole are more addicted to the use of spirits than are the English people, and a succession of hardhearted Chancellors of the Exchequer has raised the price of spirits to such an extent that many of my fellow countrymen are quite unable to indulge that taste. Hence they are driven, most unfairly, to seek refuge in various most deleterious substitutes. I do not know whether any of your Lordships ever tasted methylated spirit—I did myself once for the sake of interest—but it is a most unpalatable substance. At the same time, there are a considerable number of people who contrive to drink it merely with the addition of water. Others try to disguise the unpleasant taste by mixing it with cheap red wine of some kind or other, or with another noxious drink known as kola which is very popular in Scotland, and, by various other methods, producing beverages known by the names of Red Biddy and similar very picturesque names.
The effects are very serious indeed—far worse than the effects of alcohol. They affect the mind and body alike in a most distressing fashion, and the habitual methylated spirit drinker becomes a menace to himself and a nuisance to the community. In these circumstances I think there is no doubt whatsoever that this Bill will be of very great benefit, and everyone who has studied the subject seems to agree that it will work. If necessary it can be strengthened later on. If it has a fault in its present form it is that it does not go far enough. I hope very much that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading, for I am sure that those in charge of it will be willing on the Committee stage to meet any points that may justifiably be raised.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I have been asked to define the attitude of His Majesty's Government on this Bill. In brief that attitude is one of benevolent neutrality. We welcome discussion of the question,

325
and hope that in the event of the Bill reaching the Statute Book it will do so in a satisfactory and workmanlike form. With that object, and in view of what noble Lords have said this afternoon, I think the House will agree that it is desirable that a reasonable interval should elapse between the Second Reading and the Committee stage of the Bill, in order that any points which the promoters desire to consider can be properly dealt with beforehand.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MEMBERS' EXPENSES) (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to make provision for the payment of the travelling expenses incurred by persons in the discharge of their duties in connection with assessment committees, guardians committees and certain other committees mentioned in the Bill. The principle of payment of the travelling expenses of members of public bodies was first introduced by the Local Government Act, 1929, which enabled a county council to pay the travelling expenses of members of the council attending its meetings or attending committees within the area of the county. Provision had already been made for payment of travelling expenses of members of councils outside the area of the council. The Act of 1929 was repealed by the Local Government Act, 1933, and this provision in regard to travelling expenses was re-enacted in that Act. The Act of 1933, by Section 294, provided that the county council may defray the expenses necessarily incurred by members of the council or of any committee in travelling to and from the meetings of the council or committee, or in travelling, by direction of the council or committee, for the purpose of carrying out any inspection necessary for the discharge of the functions of the council or committee.
There is also a further provision in the section enabling the county council to pay the travelling expenses of a member attending a meeting of a sub-committee or a joint committee or joint board appointed
326
by a county council jointly with the council of another county or of a borough. This provision has given rise to a curious anomaly. Take, for instance, the guardians committees. The guardians committees have been appointed by county councils for different areas throughout the county. In a few counties there is only one guardians committee for Me whole county, and the extraordinary position arises that under the Act of 1933 which I have quoted the county council can pay the travelling expenses of their own members attending meetings of the guardians committee, but they cannot pay the travelling expenses of members appointed by borough councils, urban district councils, or rural district councils, nor can the latter bodies do so. Yet, the county councillors are often in a better position to pay their own travelling expenses than, for example, members of urban district councils. The members sit in the same room transacting the business of the committee, but only those who are members of county councils are entitled to receive their travelling expenses, although the members of the other bodies—the borough councils, the urban district councils, and the rural district councils—may have travelled long distances to attend the meeting. The same point arises in regard to a joint committee or a joint board which may be appointed by a county council along with the borough councils. There the members of the county council attending the joint committee or the joint board receive travelling expenses, but the members of the borough councils do not. The time has come to remove these anomalies, and one of the objects of the Bill is to do so.
Then there is the case of the assessment committee. Before 1925 the area of the assessment committee was, speaking generally, the area of the old board of guardians. That was an area of limited extent, and the travelling expenses of members attending meetings of the assessment committee were negligible. But under the Rating and Valuation Act of 1925 the area of the assessment committee was considerably enlarged, sometimes comprising the area of a county and in the larger counties a larger division of the county than the area of the board of guardians. In addition the work of the assessment committee has

327
been greatly increased in accordance with the larger area and more frequent and more prolonged meetings are held. This is a grievance which has been felt for a long time. Members of the assessment committee have in many cases to travel long distances—ten, twenty, and even thirty miles—to attend these meetings, and some of them unfortunately are not in a financial position to afford the expense. The result is that in many cases men who are in a position to do useful work on the assessment committee are unable to attend and, in some cases, attendance at the meetings of the committee suffers.
The payment of travelling expenses of members attending assessment committee meetings has been a burning question ever since the passing of the Rating and Valuation Act of 1925, more particularly among urban district councils. In 1927, two years after the passing of the Act, at the annual conference of the Urban District Councils Association, attended by eight hundred delegates, a resolution was passed in favour of an amendment of the law to enable travelling expenses to be paid. A similar resolution was passed at the annual conference held in 1930 and, passing over the next few years, in 1935 a resolution was passed at the annual conference pressing the Government to introduce legislation not only to meet travelling expenses in the case of assessment committee meetings, but also in the case of the other committees I have mentioned such as the guardians committee, joint committees, and joint boards. Parliament has recognised the principle of payment of travelling expenses in other directions. In the Local Government Act for Scotland wider provision is made than is claimed in this Bill, but the provision therein made includes the payment of travelling expenses. Certain Acts forming joint boards have contained special provisions for the board to pay the expenses of members attending meetings of the board—for example, the Fylde Water Board Act, 1935, and the Kingsbridge and Salcombe Water Act, 1936. The matter has also formed the subject of a discussion in another place. Last December it was debated at considerable length, and a Resolution was adopted nemine contradicente in favour of the payment of the travelling expenses incurred by
328
members of district councils, urban and rural, attending meetings of assessment committees and other committees as detailed in this Bill. Following upon that debate the present Bill was drafted giving effect to the principle of the Resolution.
The Bill has the support of the Urban District Councils' Association, and I think I am right in saying has the sympathy of the Minister of Health. The Bill does not go nearly so far as the provision in the Local Government Act of 1933 in regard to county councils. That Act, as I have stated, authorises the payment of the travelling expenses of members of county councils attending meetings of county councils and committees. This Bill does not authorise the payment of the travelling expenses of members attending meetings of the municipal corporations, urban district councils or rural district councils. All that it does is to enable the travelling expenses incurred in attending meetings of the guardians committee, the assessment committee, joint committees, and joint boards to be paid. The Bill was backed by members of the various Parties in another place. It passed through its various stages there without amendment, and I submit it to the favourable consideration of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Amulree.)
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: Do I understand the noble Lord to say that members of a county council, when they sit on committees appointed jointly by the county council and other bodies, such as rural district councils, receive their expenses?
LORD AMULREE: If I understand the noble Earl's question, it is whether members of a county council travelling to a meeting entailing expense are reimbursed. The answer is, "Yes."
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I rise only for the purpose of saying that this Bill is welcomed by the Government and we are glad of its provisions to do away with the anomalies which the noble Lord has described.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MAGDALEN HOSPITAL BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, this is a Bill to implement a scheme approved and certified by the Charity Commissioners. The scheme was published in their Report for 1936. The object is to vary the purpose of the charity so as to enable it to carry on similar work more suited to modern conditions, and it was found that it required an Act of Parliament to do this. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POOR'S ALLOTMENTS IN WALTON- UPON-THAMES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, this is another Bill brought forward under similar conditions. It was part of a scheme drawn up by the Charity Commissioners to simplify the administration by placing the management in the hands of a single body, and to extend the beneficiary class so as to suit altered circumstances.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CORONATION SERVICE: MOTOR CAR ARRANGEMENTS.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK had the following Notice on the Order Paper:—To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the great confusion and of the serious inconvenience caused to many members of their Lordships' House, and others, owing to the breakdown in the motor car arrangements after the conclusion of the Coronation Service in Westminster Abbey on the 12th May; and what steps it is proposed to take, in so far as the Houses of Parliament are concerned, to prevent a recurrence of such deplorable conditions on any important occasions in the future; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I regret to have to introduce what may be regarded by some as a jarring note into what was perhaps one of the most successful and epoch-making events in the history of our country. The Coronation procession of our Sovereign King George and Queen Elizabeth will go down to posterity as one of the most resplendent and stirring spectacles of our times, and those of us who were privileged to witness the religious ceremony in Westminster Abbey and to see the Coronation itself will always treasure in our memory the glorious and glittering scene there, the beautiful spirit of reverence which permeated the whole service, and, perhaps especially, the simple and touching dignity of Their Majesties King George and Queen Elizabeth at what will be one of the most moving and probably most trying episodes of their Royal lives.
May I, at this moment, take this opportunity to add a meed of praise to those responsible, and perhaps especially the Earl Marshal, for the perfection of the arrangements within the Abbey itself? It may in the light of this be thought somewhat strange that I should raise any question of the nature that is in my Motion, and that I should let the occurrences indicated in that Motion be forgotten in the magnificent success which, generally speaking, attended the whole of that occasion and the arrangements for coping with one of the most unprecedented traffic situations which has ever arisen in London. I should indeed on this occasion be failing in my duty if I did not pay tribute, and I do pay tribute with great pleasure and great sincerity, to the splendid and indefatigable manner in which the police, apart from the incidents to which I refer, conducted and handled the huge crowds and the complicated traffic on that momentous day.
If I have brought up this matter of the breakdown of car arrangements after the conclusion of the Abbey ceremony at all, I have done so for one reason at least, and that is the effect of the inconvenience upon a very large number of people who included guests of His Majesty the King, representatives of foreign Powers, delegates from overseas, and many of your Lordships and members of another place and their guests. Some of those suffered not only inconvenience but they suffered in health by having

331
to stand about for lengthy periods in the wet and the damp. Both in the Abbey and in the Houses of Parliament the last of those to get away did so somewhere about 8.30 in the evening, and many of them had had very little food or refreshments from the early hours of the morning. This picture, which I have presented to your Lordships in very broad outline, is in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, a justification of my bringing this Motion forward. I do so especially with the object of determining who in the Palace of Westminster—that is in the Houses of Parliament—is responsible for the traffic arrangements, and, further, so that for the future we shall have some scheme devised which will prevent the recurrence of such conditions as existed on the day about which I am speaking.
It is not my intention to diagnose in great detail where and how the organisation failed, but we can assume from the public statement of apology which was issued in the Press by the Commissioner of Police on the 16th May—and I should like to interpolate here that I feel sure that that apology has been accepted in the spirit in which it was made—that the Commissioner of Police does at least accept a certain degree of responsibility for what happened. As I read that apology it was very noticeable that it referred especially to the getting away of the guests from Westminster Abbey, while it was quite silent on the point of the getting away of the guests from the Houses of Parliament who came here after the Westminster Abbey ceremony for luncheon. I do not propose to say anything about the luncheon arrangements, but I believe it is possible that other noble Lords may raise that matter. I think we can take it that for a variety of causes over which the police had no great control the police car arrangements did break down, not only for Westminster Abbey, but also for those guests who proceeded to the Houses of Parliament after the ceremony.
It was obvious to many of us who were present in the Houses of Parliament afterwards that there were contributory causes to the breakdown of the car arrangements. First of all, I understand that in Victoria Street and the vicinity, where a great many of the cars were parked, there were no loud-speaker
332
arrangements for giving instructions to the chauffeurs, or if there were such arrangements they broke down, with the resulting chaos and confusion which arose. Beyond that, in the Houses of Parliament themselves there were no loud-speaker arrangements, either at the House of Lords entrance or at the St. Stephen's entrance. The telephone arrangements, we were informed, at the House of Lords entrance had broken down, and so far as the St. Stephen's entrance was concerned they were not functioning at all. What was the result? At both entrances a sort of bottle neck was formed and individuals, both ladies and gentlemen, were trying to force their way through this bottle neck in order to find their cars. When cars actually did pass and the police shouted out the names of the owners of those cars, people inside did not receive the information in time to be able to force their way through this bottle neck, and by the time they could do so the cars had already moved on again.
Another point that is obvious to some of us is that when you have several entrances to a huge building like the Palace of Westminster, it is quite insufficient, to say the least, to use only two of those entrances when you are faced with traffic arrangements on a day like Coronation Day or upon any occasion when arrangements have to be made upon a large scale. It seems to me that there could not have been proper collaboration between responsible officials inside the Palace of Westminster and the police outside. I venture to suggest—and I do so with great trepidation of course—that no proper provision had been made inside the Houses of Parliament to cope with a situation which it was well-known would be on a scale unprecedented.
It is not, however, of that occasion that I am particularly thinking, but of the future. Proper steps should be taken in the future to cope with similar situations such as the opening of Parliament or any other similar function. This, in my belief, can only be achieved by first of all determining who is the responsible official or officials in the Houses of Parliament to organise traffic arrangements from within. I believe that a proper scheme of traffic arrangements should be devised for the future, and that we should make sure that there shall be in future full collaboration between responsible officials inside the Houses of Parliament and the police

333
authorities outside. I do not know how best this can be achieved, but I am going to suggest to your Lordships and to His Majesty's Government that a small ad hoc Committee should be set up within the Houses of Parliament for the purpose of going into this question and arranging matters for the future. As to how the Committee should be composed I am not in a position to say, but I venture to suggest that perhaps if that Committee were composed of two or three officials of the Houses of Parliament and two or three Peers and members of the other place, they would constitute a Committee which could deal with this subject and make proper recommendations to the Government.
I do not think that is asking too much. I feel that some steps ought to be taken. This is not the first time that your Lordships have, perhaps not publicly but at any rate privately, condemned and criticised the arrangements within the Houses of Parliament in connection with the traffic on the occasion of important functions. I suggest that the time has come when this question should be fully and adequately dealt with, and that in future we should not have to put up with the conditions which existed on Coronation Day. I wish once more to reiterate that I raise this question in no spirit of recrimination. I want nobody's head. I only want—and I am sure all your Lordships want—arrangements for the future that will be satisfactory, arrangements on which we can rely, and which will obviate the conditions which so many of us experienced so recently. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, I had some feeling of doubt as to whether I should take part in this debate, owing to my recent connection with the Metropolitan Police, but, rightly or wrongly, I thought that perhaps I ought to say a few words. I have been in the fortunate position of being able to see the opening of Parliament from three angles—once when I was principal Air Aide-de-Camp to His Majesty, secondly as a member of your Lordships' House, and finally as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. I took up the office of Commissioner of Police, I think, on November 2, 1931 and the opening of Parliament was on November 6. Next morning a letter was put in front of me for my signature. It was a similar letter to that which has
334
been sent for many years to your Lordships' House thanking the officers of the House for their co-operation and the success of the organisation. I received the same day a letter from a senior official of your Lordships' House thanking the Metropolitan Police for their excellent cooperation and organisation. When I sent that letter, I wrote at the same time to a senior official in your Lordships' House, to the effect that "I have signed this letter as is customary, but I have never seen anything so awful." In those days I felt that I did no good, and when I left office, the arrangements for the opening of Parliament were, I regret to say, as bad as I found them. That was one of the contributory causes perhaps of the breakdown in one small item on May 12.
We are dealing now, of course, with a much bigger event than the opening of Parliament, and that is the Coronation. I have heard and seen on all sides what a wonderful organisation was carried out, not only by the Metropolitan Police but by all concerned in the streets, in enabling the vast majority of people to get without any hitch to and from their places. I know from the hitches that I have had in the past that there were many fewer hitches this time than there have been at other events. The arrangements for the opening of Parliament, however, have a very close connection with the Coronation. I was not present at the leaving of the Abbey and so cannot say what happened there with the cars. I agree with the noble Viscount that it is not of the past that I should talk, but of the future. In my short experience as Commissioner I found that the one important thing was to keep the crowds—and it does not matter who they are or whether they are large or small—in a good temper. You cannot he in a good temper if you are getting wet through, and I should like to suggest that the first thing to do is to see that the awnings do not leak. Twice have I got wet through here. Another suggestion is that we should double the awning and put it out a little further, and let two rows of cars come up. Another means of keeping people in a good temper is to provide seats for them—or for a certain number of the more elderly and infirm—to sit on in the corridor, so that the porch can be kept clear.
A point which perhaps your Lordships will think very small, but one which I

335
am certain is important, is this. One noble Lord who is sitting on the Front Bench had to use his voice in order to warn people that their cars were approaching. Is it not possible to ask the Commissioner of Police to have a man with a good voice to come in and assist the loud-speaker in keeping the porch clear? It is very hard to keep any doorway clear with one's own people; it is easier to keep it clear if you can bring somebody in. The door at the end of the corridor where we hang our coats could be used and enlarged to allow a larger number to get out. I should also like to suggest this: Besides using the Victoria Tower door and the Peers' entrance, if this door cannot be enlarged, could we not use the small door at the end of the corridor—that is for the Office of Works to decide and not for me—and could not the Peers go out according to the initial letters of their names, so many being allotted to a certain door? The great point is to keep that porch clear, and you will not be able to keep it clear if you do not have somebody from outside—I do not want the people dragooned, but somebody who can speak and ask the people to keep the entrance clear.
One other point I am not really competent to deal with, but I should like to suggest that more notice should be given to your Lordships when cars are approaching from some distance. I do not know which direction will suit the Metropolitan Police at the time, but if the cars pass the Victoria Tower Gardens the name might be called out when the car first gets to the Victoria Tower Gardens so that the party will have four or five minutes to get out. If the cars are going the other way, that is, coming from Parliament Square and going up Millbank, then a telephone could be put at the corner of Parliament Square, which could be a permanent one, sufficiently far off so as to give at least four minutes' notice. It is perfectly impossible for the ladies and members who are up here to get down and get out in less than four minutes. These suggestions are very small, but I feel they ought to be tried before we commit ourselves to saying that we are not to use our own cars or that we must go in each other's, or to having rows of taxicabs. I am not saying anything against that,
336
but I think that the simple plan should be tried first.
It is not my duty to shield the police, and I am certain that they want no shielding by me. They did monumental work. I would ask you to consider how easily a breakdown occurs on a day like Coronation Day. I am not saying how it did occur; I do not know; it is not for me to say; but if only one man out of the enormous numbers, the thousands in the Metropolitan Police and all the officials, gave a wrong order, say, that the cars which had an "L" on them for lunch here were to go via Victoria Street and the Abbey, then it would be almost impossible to put the error right again that day. Those are the things which happen. I know they happen, and I regret the inconvenience which I must many times have caused many citizens of London through a breakdown produced by one man, not necessarily one of the police, doing something completely wrong. But it is almost impossible, with thousands and thousands of cars, to put the mistake right the same day. I hope your Lordships will forgive my talking on these small matters, but I thought perhaps I ought to do so.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I rise because I think it would be most unfortunate if the speech of the noble Viscount who introduced this Motion were reported in such a way, perhaps in foreign newspapers, as to make it appear that we cannot organise in this country as well as in any other country on a great occasion like the Royal Coronation. With the one exception of the delay of getting Peers, Ambassadors and others away from this House, I do not think there was any serious complaint of any lack of efficiency anywhere. You had a huge City, with everyone trying to come to this great event, and conditions were made more difficult by the omnibuses being stopped; foreigners from all over the world were here and strangers from our own Dominions; and yet the only people who suffered were members of your Lordships' House and other distinguished persons who came in here for lunch after the Coronation. That is the sum total of the trouble.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I should like to interrupt the noble Lord, if I may. He says that the only people who suffered

337
were members of your Lordships' House and those who came in here for luncheon. Those who came in after the Coronation included Ambassadors and their wives, overseas delegates, His Majesty's guests, and many others like those. My noble friend ought not to misrepresent the position, which was perfectly obvious to everybody else.
LORD STRABOLGI: No, the great governing class of the Empire was there, the representatives of every foreign Power, the most distinguished gathering that could be assembled outside the Royal Family. I give the noble Viscount all that, and admit that some of them had to wait a very long time arid it was rather unfortunate. But apart from that one episode, the whole matter went like clockwork. I confess that I was a little alarmed this year about the Coronation because of the size of London, and I said to some of my friends that when another Coronation comes—I hope only after very many years—we ought to go back to Winchester, the City of Coronations, the ancient Capital. If we did that, people would know that they could not get into Winchester; but you could have a procession by motor-car from Winchester to London of the crowned Monarch. Then as many people as wished could have a perfectly good and free view along the excellent highway between London and Winchester. They could see the procession going and coming, and only the élite would be allowed into Winchester—people who had to be there, like ourselves!
If the noble Viscount had said a little more about the disgraceful catering arrangements within this House I should then have been so bold as to agree with him still more warmly. That was absolutely within the control of some person; somebody's head ought to be had for that! We paid a high price for our luncheon here, but the arrangements were miserable, and that fact may have given a very bad impression. With regard to the arrangements generally, the First Commisioner of Works at that time has now become the Minister of Education. I only say, re-echoing a part of what Lord Snell said early in the afternoon, that I hope he will be as successful at the Board of Education as he was in making arrangements outside the Abbey for the Coronation. I should really like to pay a small
338
tribute to the great office which he adorned, and to his own personal part, which I am sure was very great. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said that it was not for him to defend the police. It is not for me, either, but I am going to make an effort to do so. I have heard from people who have nothing to do with your Lordships' House—people who went to the stands in the ordinary way—nothing but praise of the tact and good temper of the police.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I must protest. I paid a very great tribute to the police at the beginning of my speech. If the noble Lord was not here to listen to it then I will repeat it in his presence.
LORD STRABOLGI: Then we are in agreement about the police. That is good. Now what was the trouble—the real trouble? It was this, that there was this great assembly of Peers and their ladies, and of Ambassadors and high officials, and all the rest, everyone of whom had to have a separate car. If each of these cars had to take up one of these parties of two or one how could you possibly do it without delay? Does the noble Viscount realise that the number of cars which had to pick up distinguished strangers from this House covered a road way space of twelve miles? When you consider the millions of people who were trying to get away from the precincts of the Abbey can you be surprised that there was delay? If one tried to get down to one's car there were all these noble personages crowding in the passages, and it was quite impossible to get through. After I got down to the door I was accosted by a beautiful Peeress, who said: "You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Your car has been round three times and you were not there." I could not get down to the doors or into the passage. I said I was very sorry. I do not know who the lady was, except that she looked her part. I thought I had to make amends, and I was the person who stood at the end and, as the police announced a car, shouted out "Lord So-and-so." I think Lord Dufferin helped me—at any rate there was another Peer who did so—to pass the word along. Of course there was room for improvement, but if we all tried to get away at the same time then congestion was bound to occur. How could o you possibly avoid it?

339
I hesitate to make suggestions. I think we have had some very useful suggestions from Lord Trenchard, and the only other suggestion which I can make is that we might try to use the river. Peers used to have State barges at one time. That is the only suggestion I can make, apart from the fact that people might really be prepared to wait and settle down here until they can conveniently get to their cars. That is what I did. I put my wife into the Whips' Room. After all this is not a bad place in which to shelter. We had food of a sort to eat, and it was raining outside. The latest at which people got away was about eight o'clock. I got away myself at seven. There was not very much hardship in that. I know the noble Viscount's intentions are admirable. He is thinking of the older people who might have suffered from fatigue. I am sorry for them, but after all I am sure these matters can adjust themselves, and I must say that I think the noble Viscount has made rather too much of this particular episode. I am sure that arrangements can be made for the opening of Parliament—I believe Lord Dufferin is replying for the Government—and I am sure that our suggestions will relieve congestion on that occasion.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA): My Lords, it is not my purpose in any way, nor indeed would it be possible for me, to pretend that there is no substance in the complaint, or rather complaints, that we have heard this afternoon. I am perfectly prepared to agree with my noble friend that there was very grave confusion for many people, both at the Abbey and for those who were trying to leave the House of Lords after lunch, and I would like to take this opportunity of reiterating the apology which has already been made by the Commissioner to those members of this House, and to our distinguished guests, who were in any way inconvenienced by anything which occurred.
In a few moments I will try to explain to your Lordships as best I can how the confusion arose, but I would first like to remind my noble friend, if I may, that the problem of picking up and setting down at the House of Lords and at Westminster Abbey was by no means the only problem
340
which confronted the police on that day, although, as the noble Viscount has said, it was the only problem with which they were not able to cope perfectly satisfactorily. Quite apart from the management of a crowd of a magnitude unsurpassed in history in these streets, the police, in order to get away the guests from the Abbey, had to dispose of nearly two miles of Procession—a Procession which on no account could be halted because if the Procession were halted the Royal Coach would also be halted. They also had the problem of the dispersal of the troops who lined the streets, and of course the dispersal of the crowds from the stands and pavements. I will only add that the problem of getting eight thousand people away from the Abbey was vastly complicated by factors which must be taken into account.
If I may I will briefly state the arrangements which were made, and what happened to them. So far as the setting down of guests at the Abbey is concerned the estimated time for doing that was two hours thirty minutes, and the actual time taken was two hours twenty-seven minutes. Every guest was in his place on time. So far as the parking arrangements of the cars after setting down at the Abbey were concerned every car except two was in its appointed place at the appointed time. Therefore you see that so far the arrangements worked remarkably well. Now we come to the arrangements for taking up. It is quite obvious of course that the problem of taking up must take much longer than the setting down, because it involves two variables, the car and the person. It may interest your Lordships to know that under the most elaborate scheme that had been devised the time allowed was still four hours. The idea was, of course, that certain blocks in the Abbey were to be released, and at the same time the police would release equivalent blocks of cars, which would then come up, be announced by loud speakers, and the guests would get into the cars and depart. For the first half hour or so that scheme worked well enough, but then delays began to occur.
The first reason was that, for various causes, the cars were themselves slower in getting from the parking places to the Abbey than had been expected. The second reason—and a very important one

341
—was the rain. The original plan involved the conception of sixty cars at a time alongside the awning outside the entrance, that is to say that sixty couples would be getting into their cars at the same time, and be moving off more or less at the same time. Of course, when the rain came the awnings leaked—as indeed I think every awning known to man has so far leaked. The guests would not stand getting wet, and insisted on getting into the entrances. The result was that, instead of sixty cars at a time taking people away, there were only six. That again congested the doorway, and all the troubles to which the noble Viscount has so urgently called attention occurred. People's cars came to the door, their names were called, but there were twenty Peers and Peeresses who were away and who were unable to force their way through the crush before the cars disappeared. Moreover, each car in turn managed, by some ingenious way known too chauffeurs, to re-introduce itself into the stream of moving traffic and came round again and again, thus causing further confusion. Therefore, as far as the Abbey is concerned, I think the reasons I have given for the confusion are fairly clear. In point of fact, the West Cloister Door was cleared at a quarter to six, the Great West Door was clear at six o'clock, and Poets' Corner at half-past five. It was only at the North Door where great confusion occurred owing to the great crush of cars and people; it was not cleared till 8.39 p.m.
So much for the difficulty of taking up from the Abbey. But of course that was greatly complicated by the fact that a large number of people were going to have lunch over here, and those people were going to leave this House in no prearranged order which the police could foresee. Accordingly a very elaborate scheme (which I have seen) was devised to remove the cars of those having lunch from their parking places during the ceremony, and to re-park them down Mill-bank, from whence it had been arranged to have them called up as the guests required. That scheme broke down because, when it came to removing the cars, it was found that a great number of chauffeurs—many of whom, I would remind your Lordships, were hired for the day—were not there, either because they had misunderstood the orders of the police, or because they failed to comply
342
with the arrangements that the police had made. In fact, I think I am right in saying that only about twenty per cent. of the chauffeurs of the lunch cars could be found. It was therefore decided, in these circumstances, that the cars should be left in their parks, and should be removed to Millbank later on, when the same arrangements were to be carried out.
Again, two further complications occurred. I am sorry to pile Pelion on Ossa all the time, but I want your Lordships to realise what little things can wreck complicated schemes. It was suddenly decided that, instead of the guests who were going to lunch over here remaining at the Abbey until Their Majesties had departed, they should cross over here during the pause directly after the ceremony. A further complication was that, impressed no doubt by the solemnity of the occasion, your Lordships exhibited a frugality in your repast which to me, and to the Commissioner, was quite inexplicable. The lunch was over far sooner than anyone had any reason to expect. The combination, therefore, of the early crossing to the House of Lords and your Lordships' lack of appetite meant that the cars were required over here far earlier than anyone had expected, and before they had ever been parked in Millbank at all. The result was that the chauffeurs naturally made the best of their own way up here without discipline, without order, and indeed with only one intention—that of finding their own particular masters and mistresses. Hence the confusion for which I have already apologised.
Therefore, I make no excuses for what happened. I only say that there were other factors involved in the breakdown, or rather the confusion as I prefer to call it. There was also our own temperament. We as a nation are not very amenable to discipline, whether we are Peers or whether we are chauffeurs, least of all if we are Peeresses; and we certainly are not in our best tempers, or most amenable to discipline, when we are wet, or hungry, or bored. The earlier move to the House of Lords and the short duration of the lunch worked against all the elaborate arrangements which the police had made, and, in fact, perhaps almost rendered them useless. But, even allowing for these unfortunate factors, which I do not think anyone could foresee, the problem is: Can this question of getting

343
large numbers of people away from very narrow entrances, all of whom depart at the same time, be solved? I was extremely glad to hear the various views that noble Lords expressed on that problem. I would ask them all to remember that the problem of the party, the rout, or the reception is an entirely different one from the problem of getting people away on this occasion, because at a party the departure of the guests is spread over three or four hours, whereas this is a problem of getting people away all of whom desire to depart at the same time, and the difficulties are vastly increased when the exits are very narrow, as they are in this House, and there is no modern arrangement for the approach of the cars. The result is almost bound to be a crush at the door, which prevents people being able to take advantage of their cars when they arrive.
The only practical solution as it seems to me is probably for every vehicle to take up someone when it arrives at the door. Human nature being what it is, I doubt whether the suggestion that one might pool all the private cars would really work in practice. I am not at all sure—and I only throw this out as a suggestion—whether the real plan would not be to park all the private cars, after they have set down their people, in some convenient place, such as the Horse Guards, and then for the guests to be taken away as rapidly as possible in long streams of public vehicles, such as taxicabs, and taken to their cars, where they would disembark and be removed as rapidly as possible. I am not at all sure that the suggestions, interesting as they were, made by my noble friend Lord Trenchard, would really be sufficient to meet the case of a place like this, with its very narrow doors, its very narrow entrances, and it slightly undisciplined population. I am very glad indeed that this debate has taken place. I can assure my noble friend that it is the intention of the Commissioner to take up the whole matter afresh with the officers of your Lordships' House and in the light of the suggestions he has made, and I hope very much that the unfortunate results of which we have heard to-day will not recur.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, if I may intervene for one
344
moment to supplement what my noble friend has so well said, it would be merely to deal with the point raised by the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches with regard to the arrangements at the opening of Parliament by His Majesty. That was gone into after the last opening of Parliament in November, when there was again a very heavy fall of rain and again great congestion. I discussed the matter as First Commissioner of Works with the then Lord Great Chamberlain, and we eventually came to this scheme which will be put into operation during the course of the long Recess. At the end of the Peers' Lobby, where the hats and coats are, there is a double door with a sort of wooden partition on each side. We propose to take away these doors and partitions so that we may get the advantage of the full width of the archway leading into the outer Lobby. That will prevent some congestion as Peers go out of the House.
A second point I have always had in mind—and I have been a member of the House for thirty years—is that there is not enough room for Peers outside to stand and wait for their cars. Your Lordships may remember that there is a sort of little island outside the portico at the Peers' entrance. We propose to put down a covered roadway up to that island and bring a sort of triangle back on each side of it until it joins the pavement against that wall. It is hoped that this will enable about six cars to draw up at that part so as to allow Peers to get in simultaneously, and it will also widen materially the general awning at that spot. What we hope to do later on, after the facade of the Houses of Parliament has been repaired—all the stone work will have to be done in the next three or four years—is to bring the wooden pavement in line with the island, a matter of about 180 feet, which will involve the width of the awnings being doubled. Although my noble friend says that awnings always leak, I hope we may be able to find something that does not leak. Personally my part of the awning did not leak at all except where it joined up with other parts. As a result of these arrangements the then Lord Great Chamberlain hoped that we might find a partial solution of the trouble whenever there is a wet day at the opening of Parliament.

345
One proposal put forward was that there should be an additional entrance immediately opposite the stairs that go clown to the place where the hats and coats are kept. The trouble with that is that if you get a bad wind blowing you would have a draught that would strike into the Lobbies and into the House, and it was felt by the then Lord Great Chamberlain—and I agree on that—that it would require an outside Lobby destroying the whole aspect of that frontage, or an inside Lobby, which would make for greater congestion in the hat and coat place than under present conditions. One suggestion made was that Peers should be asked to leave the House by two separate doors according to their initials. I shall not tell your Lordships the reason why that proposal was not accepted. It was not entirely complimentary to some of your Lordships. It was felt that some Peers would almost certainly go out by the wrong door!
May I thank the noble Lord opposite for what he said in regard to the work of my late Department during the Coronation? I was extremely fortunate in having the assistance of an efficient and enthusiastic staff, and we are rather proud of our achievements. It may interest your Lordships to know that there were 1,200 yards of awning put up round the Abbey and around this side of New Palace Yard. Counting the seats that we erected outside Government Offices, there were 96,000 places to dispose of. Every one of these seats was sold by the night before the Coronation, and although there were different numbers to the seats in each row and different numbers in each stand, so far as I know there was no case of wrongly numbered tickets and no case of tickets being issued twice for the same seat. The only complaint I heard was from an individual who had been allotted a place in Victoria Gardens. He said that because of the four rows of chairs he saw no better than he would have seen had he been on the pavement, and on that account, although he had seen the procession twice over, he did not think fifteen shillings was a proper payment to make but that it ought to have been very much less. I am afraid that my late office replied to him more politely than I should have liked to do. I am grateful for what was said, and my late office will be grateful to the noble Lord for what he said. We are glad to
346
have had the opportunity of doing that service on such a great occasion.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, I would just like to say one word with regard to the prospective arrangements which the late First Commissioner of Works has indicated as being in contemplation outside the House. I hope he will bear in mind the King George V Memorial which will probably occupy some of the space which is now open to the public. It will probably extend over some part of the road which is between the statue of Richard Coeur de Lion and the Chapter House. Therefore, in making any prospective arrangements, it would be well first of all to keep a close watch upon the schemes which are proposed by the King George V Memorial Committee and then see whether some arrangement could not be come to with them to leave plenty of space at this spot.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, if I may again speak, I was a member of the Memorial Committee and so I do know something about it. The scheme has of course not yet been drawn in detail by the architect, but I can assure my noble friend that there is no proposal to take in a great part of the roadway at that point. The idea is that the bend that comes in on the other side shall be brought out so as to make an angle of it rather than a big bend as it is now. There will be no question of impinging seriously up the roadway. In fact there was a hope amongst some of us that we might be able to widen that piece of roadway where it begins to narrow going towards Lambeth Bridge.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I understand one of the proposals was that a very good sit-down luncheon should be provided on any future occasion which would induce your Lordships to rest and not want to go away so quickly afterwards.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I think the noble Viscount has read more into my remarks than my words warranted.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, it is not always popular to raise an awkward question, and I felt during the past week that this issue which I have raised would not be generally popular with some of my fellow members. But actually now, after the debate we have had, and in spite of

347
what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said in the course of his remarks, I think it was very necessary to raise this question. We have had a highly profitable debate. We have had a debate which has shown that there is a great deal of uncertainty still as to how it is possible to deal with the situation in the future. My noble friend Lord Trenchard made some very valuable suggestions in that connection. The noble Marquess, replying on behalf of the Government, said that he thought those suggestions might be valuable, but he was not certain about it. I feel that the reply of the Government that they propose to hand this subject over to the officials, whoever they may be, of your Lordships' House to deal with, may not secure the results which this debate warrants. I should like to urge upon the Government, with some experience in administration myself, that it might be advisable, without saying that they are going to do so now, to appoint a small Departmental Committee, if I may
348
put it so, within the House of Lords to examine this subject and take the whole of these points into consideration and see if they cannot devise a definite scheme. Merely to hand it back to certain officials—we do not know who they are; we have not heard who they are—who have been responsible, as far as we know, for what happened the other day does not seem to me to carry it as far as it ought to be carried after what we have heard in this debate. But I am not going to press the noble Earl to say anything about that at the moment. I am only going to urge the Government to look at it from that point of view, and if, after further consideration, they come to the conclusion that it may be dealt with more competently in that way, to adopt it. I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past six o'clock.