§ Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
§ MR. J. C. STEVENSONI was proceeding, at the moment the discussion 1332 was interrupted, to explain, as Chairman of the Committee to whom this matter was referred, that as to the powers of the Board of Trade the Committee came to no conclusion whatever. They felt justified in coming to the conclusion that they had no power to go behind the Order of this House.
§ THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY) (Cornwall, Bodmin)As the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire (Mr. Tatton Egerton) has appealed to me, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word before the Bill is read a third time. I fail to see that any principle is now involved in the matter. It is agreed that under certain conditions the Board of Trade may make a Provisional Order for the construction of a tramway with the consent of the Local Authority, which in the Metropolis means the Metropolitan Board of Works. The necessity of this consent is not denied. The only question in this case is whether or not the Metropolitan Board of Works gave their consent to the granting of this particular Order. The Board of Trade are under the impression that the consent was given, whereas the Board of Works deny that they gave it. The Board of Trade admit that consent was necessary, and as to whether it was or was not given depends upon the interpretation put upon a particular document, because while using the word "consent" the Metropolitan Board proceeded to add conditions which the Board of Trade disregarded. It is not for me to add anything more, except that the two Boards are now in agreement as to the expediency of not opposing the third reading of the Bill, and, in future, I think it will be wise on the part of the Metropolitan Board of Works to give their consent unequivocably, one way or the other. I do not think it is wise to give a conditional consent when in reality something else is meant.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read the third time, and passed.