§ Order of the day for the Second Reading, read.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Chairman of Committees).
§ LORD EBURYMy Lords, when this Bill was before the Standing Orders Committee, I understood my noble friend the Chairman of Committees to tell the promoters that in regard to a very material, and, from my point of view, a very objectionable part of the Bill, the Standing Order had not been complied with and it could not be dispensed with in their behalf. In the very brief epitome of the proceedings before the 5 Standing Orders Committee which was distributed to your Lordships, it seemed to me that that decision of my noble friends—in the absence of which, as he is aware, I should have felt it to be my duty to enter an emphatic protest against the Second Reading—was very inaccurately expressed. I have gathered incidentally that before this Bill goes to a Committee some of its most objectionable features will have to be expunged. Meanwhile, however, it comes before your Lordships in an unamended form, and if it were now read a second time without comment or explanation the inevitable result would be much local misunderstanding, much needless expense, and much prejudice to the case of those who, at a later stage of the present session, or in a future session, may desire to oppose the Bill. In these circumstances I have felt justified in troubling my noble friend with the question that stands in my name—namely, Whether he will state the circumstances under which it is proposed to read the Bill a second time. I shall be quite satisfied if he is able to tell me that that portion of the Bill, in regard to which the Standing Orders have not been complied with, will not be submitted during the present session to a Committee of your Lordships' House.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)I think I can give my noble friend the assurance he desires. The tramway proposed in the Bill consisted of three parts. One part went through the urban district of Watford, another through the rural district of Watford, and the remaining mile-and-a-half through the urban district of Rickmansworth. The two urban districts had consented to the Bill, but the rural district of Watford, through which the longer length of the tramway was marked out, had not consented. The consequence was that under your Lordships' Standing Orders the Examiners reported a non-compliance. The promoters desired that the Standing Order should be dispensed with. The position I took up was that that portion of the tramway which went through the Watford rural district, and in respect of which the local authority had refused their consent, should be excluded altogether from the Bill; but I said that if the promoters thought it worth their while to proceed with the Bill including only the tramways going through the 6 districts that had given their consent I should not oppose it. They said, at the time, that probably it would not be worth while going on with the Bill, but I now see that they desire to do so. On the distinct understanding that the Bill should be amended I allowed it to proceed. These are the circumstances under which the Bill now comes before your Lordships for Second Reading.
§ LORD EBURYI am quite satisfied with my noble friend's explanation.
§ On Question agreed to, Bill read 2a accordingly.