this block which is formed to defend the new régime of peace and democracy. Moreover, it was several times said very plainly that, this being the sole object of the treaty, it is open to one and all and can be joined at any time by anyone who will adhere to its principles. Should anybody protest that there was no need, therefore, to make the treaty, it will suffice to point to the fact that if the treaty was not needed by such European States as are secure in their position or remote from Germany, to Central Europe, at any rate, it means greater security and support for the constructive and consolidating policies which are being followed. At any rate, it is my firm conviction that, just as the policy pursued by Czechoslovakia in Central Europe has, by its results, disproved all suspicions in regard to its supposed aggressive aims and anti-Russian, anti-Italian, or, finally, anti-German tendencies, the results of the Czechoslovak-French Treaty, too, will show all the objections now made against it to be entirely groundless. I believe, in particular, that the treaty will rather facilitate the rapprochement of France with a democratic Germany than widen the abyss between them, and that, by its indirect results, it will aid in the solution of the difficult problems which have as yet obstructed the consolidation of Europe.

In another place I have already shown that Czechoslovakia would have welcomed the conclusion of an Anglo-French Guarantee Pact, which would have supported the Peace Treaties, and would also form an important guarantee for the new Central Europe as regards the independence and security of the States that have been formed there. Such a pact would, undoubtedly, have made the present Czechoslovak-French Treaty wholly superfluous. Yet, although this treaty had to be concluded, because we waited in vain for that Anglo-French Pact, it does not necessarily mean that our policy turned sharply against Great Britain, and I think that we shall show in this respect too that we do not depart in the least from the line we so far have followed, and that now, as always, we think it to be in our interest when the great European questions are solved with the participation of all the Entente Powers.

There is little doubt that treaties of the kind entered into by Czechoslovakia-and the recent Czechoslovak-French Treaty is one of them-may become superfluous as soon as the League of Nations has full authority throughout Europe, as soon as its spirit has permeated the politics of all States and its methods are universally accepted. As this has not yet been realised, there is nothing left to us but to prepare by degrees the way for the future, which can be done by settling disputes by friendly agreements, safeguarding the new order of things in Europe by partial treaties and employing the methods of the League of Nations. Our policy

has always been conducted on these lines, and I am convinced that it has rendered many valuable services to the pacification of Europe by strengthening new political ideas in this part of the world and that in this last treaty it has not departed in the least from its natural sphere of action.

EDUARD BENEŠ.

THE LONDON TRAFFIC SCANDAL

THE question of improving the conditions of London traffic has so often been the subject of investigation by Government departments, Royal Commissions, and Committees in the past, without anything useful being achieved, that one cannot avoid the feeling that its recent recrudescence may again prove to be barren of practical results. The problem is, undoubtedly, very difficult to deal with effectively, even from a purely traffic standpoint, but perhaps the chief reason why it remains unsolved is that, owing to the many political and municipal interests involved, no Govern ment has hitherto set about it with a genuine determination to produce and enforce the solution which the situation requires. If the new Government will resolutely take it in hand, and provide even a partial remedy, it will, in that respect at any rate, display greater capacity and courage than the older and more experienced Administrations in whose stead it now reigns. If, on the other hand, matters are allowed to drift as before, it will be more blameworthy than its predecessors, for the traffic position was never so bad as it is to-day, and consequently the need for improvement was never so urgent, nor the public demand for it so universal.

Owing to the gradual abandonment of crowded centres as places of residence, much larger sections of the population now pass to and fro between Inner London and Outer London than was formerly the case, and this change-so beneficial to the health and general well-being of the community-has been made possible by a remarkable development of the transport services: omnibuses, tramways, and underground railways. In the area of what is known as Greater London the number of passengers conveyed annually by omnibuses has gone up from 291,000,000 in 1905 to 1,214,000,000, and the number by tramways from 478,000,000 to 1,030,000,000. Passengers by rail also show a great increase, and whereas the aggregate number carried by the three services during 1905 amounted to 1,289,000,000, the yearly total now exceeds 3,000,000,000, or an average of about 414 journeys per head of the population. The convergence of traffic on the central area represents something like 3,000,000 persons a day, who have to be VOL. XCV-No. 566 491

K K

brought in in the morning within the space of an hour or two and taken away again in the evening within a similar period of time. In the City of London alone the day population exceeds the night population by over 400,000, and it is estimated that of the people employed in business or labour in the whole of London 60 per cent. at least live in one place and work in another, and must travel daily between their homes and occupations. To this legion of workers must be added the vast army of Londoners and outsiders who daily visit shops, institutes, and places of entertainment. It has been calculated that the transport organisations of Greater London now carry an average of more than 9,000,000 passengers a day.

The partial replacement within recent years of horse-drawn vehicles by mechanical transport, which takes up less room, moves faster, and conveys heavier loads in proportion to its size, has helped towards keeping down congestion in the streets. This, however, has been more than outweighed by the large numbers of privately owned motor cars now in use, and by the custom which has grown up of sending direct to their destinations by road goods which formerly were conveyed there by rail. Huge motor vans, laden with merchandise of every kind, daily leave London for distant parts of the country, while Smithfield, Billingsgate, Covent Garden, the Port of London, and similar places are responsible for placing on the streets an amount of heavy traffic quite unknown twenty years ago. The number of vehicles which in a twelve-hour day pass road junctions like Hyde Park Corner (56,000), Trafalgar Square (42,000), Piccadilly Circus (41,000), and the Marble Arch (33,900), is now fast approaching twice as many as at the beginning of the century.

Facts such as these serve to illustrate the growing urgency of the traffic problem, and it is to be regretted that the value of the excellent passenger transport services now available to the public should be so greatly impaired because successive Governments have failed to provide a proper system of traffic control.

In considering the obstacles which stand in the way of traffic improvement-some of which are probably more important, and others more absurd, than most people realise-we are confronted at the outset with the fact that, while it is nobody's business to study the question as a whole, many authorities are constantly engaged in studying their own particular bits of it, and this they do only too well. There are, for example, in the 'County of London,' the London County Council, the City Corporation, and the twenty-eight Metropolitan Borough Councils, while outside this area, but within Greater London, are five County Councils, three County Borough Councils, six Borough Councils, sixty-five Urban District Councils, and thirteen Rural District Councils, or

122 different bodies in all. Besides these there are the Commissioners of the City and Metropolitan Police, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Health, the Home Office, and the Ministry of Transport. All these authorities are entitled to have their say regarding matters by which traffic is, directly or indirectly, affected.

Additional complications arise from the fact that separate Londons have been created for the purpose of dealing with the different public services, all of which, again, in one way or another, are bound up with the question of traffic. There are separate Londons for police, for sewage disposal, for criminal jurisdiction, for electricity supply, for burial regulations, for markets, for water, for telephones, for the Port Authority, and so on.

It may also be recalled that London has reached its present size in piecemeal fashion, as local conditions or accident prescribed, and without any proper provision being made to meet possible future requirements. The streets of to-day are, in many cases, the survivals of village roads and lanes developed into metropolitan thoroughfares by independent bodies and on no general plan, and their suitability for the traffic they have to carry is, therefore, entirely a matter of chance both as regards direction and dimensions. To make matters worse, streets are broken up for different purposes far more frequently than they ought to be, or need be. Numerous bodies, such as the General Post Office and the gas, water, electricity and hydraulic power companies, have statutory authority to take them up almost as and when they choose, subject to notice being given to the local administrations, and, as a rule, no objection is raised. In 1903, forty-six bodies within the London County Council area alone had the right to break up streets, and although, owing to the amalgamation of certain companies, the number is now somewhat less, there are, in Greater London, no fewer than 117 authorities which deal with street repairs. Moreover, when streets are taken up, little or no special effort is made to hasten the completion of the work, nor is it anybody's duty to consider what the effect may be if a similar operation is carried out at the same time in an adjoining district. The two great east and west avenues, Holborn and the Strand, were once simultaneously up, the only alternative route being Long Acre, which is itself always crowded with traffic. Some system for co-ordinating and expediting street repairs is badly wanted, and it should not be difficult to establish. In Fifth Avenue, New York, banners were last year hung across the road warning all and sundry that the roadway was to be relaid, and requiring all parties having work to execute under the road surface to have it done by a given date, under penalty of not being allowed to do it for a period of time, except for accident or emergency. London needs a similar