moved to delete Clause 40, empowering the promoters to use the water of a stream on Snowdon for the creation of electric power. He understood the promoters to say that the clause was of vital importance. They would probably say the same of any clause which they considered to be of moment. But if this clause were struck out they would still he able to get their power elsewhere, and if water power was not practicable, they could use steam. A threat was held out that if the Amendment were carried, the promoters would drop the Bill. He knew something of the promoters, and he believed them to be a body of gentlemen well able to look after their own financial interests. He did not believe they would embark on any enterprise where the difference in cost between steam and water power represented the margin of profit upon which they relied—that was to say, that if water power were used they could make a dividend, but if steam power were used they could make none. He did not object to any other part of the Bill. If the objectionable clause were struck out, all the useful proposals in the Bill —for electric lighting and other purposes—could be still carried out, while the threatened danger to the scenery of Snowdon would be removed.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 20, to leave out Clause 40."—( Lord Balcarres. )

Question put, "That Clause 40 stand part of the Bill."

, in supporting the Bill, said he was not personally interested in the scheme, but some of his constituents were, and on their behalf he wished to say that the apprehension of danger to the scenery of Snowdon was groundless. He might observe at once that the omission of Clause 40 would mean the destruction of the Bill. In the matter of cost there was the greatest possible difference between coal and water. In this country we were not fortunate in the possession of great resources of natural water power, but such power was being used with advantage in America at the falls of Niagara; and in Switzerland and other countries in Europe. Whenever it could be used it might well be employed for the prosecution of enterprises of this kind. He was informed that the locality was entirely in favour of the scheme—not, only the local councils and local authorities in Wales, but the local landowners as well. When the Bill was before the House of Lords two or three objections were made by the National Trust for the Preservation of Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty. The promoters met the society; everything they wished inserted was inserted in the Bill, and they had received a letter from the society expressing satisfaction at what had been done. And now, on the Third Reading of the Bill, when it was impossible to hear expert evidence on the points raised, the House was asked to reject the Bill. He thought the House should hesitate to reject a Bill which was approved of by the locality concerned, and which would tend to increase the material prosperity of the locality. This country was behind other countries in enterprises of this kind, and he thought they were beginning to see that it was not to the benefit of the country that useful works for the supply of electricity for lighting and other purposes should be thrown aside by the House. The greatness of this country depended on its material prosperity, and it was not for the House to object to the average of material prosperity on sentimental grounds. In throwing out this Bill they would inflict an injury not only on this district but on material interests of this country, which in these days of commercial rivalry was of great importance.

sincerely trusted that the House would not reject this clause without taking the circumstances into full consideration. In the first place the whole of the councils in the locality supported the Bill, the local Members of Parliament supported it, and the local opinion was absolutely unanimous on the subject. This district depended very largely on visitors and tourists, and he did not think it would be to the interests of the district to destroy the scenery What was the real case with regard to the Bill? It had passed through both Houses without opposition, and now objections were raised on the last stage, when no opportunity could be given to the promoters to state their case. There was a dispute as to facts. The noble Lord said it would mar the scenery. He (Mr. Lloyd-George) said it would not mar the scenery, and that was a question that should be tried before a Committee. He was sure everyone was in sympathy with the objection of the National Trust; but why did not the noble Lord raise this objection before the Committee, and give the promoters an opportunity of making out a case 1 The Society objected to another part of the Bill at an earlier stage, and in order to meet them the promoters diverted the line from its original course, and incurred an expenditure of thousands of pounds, purely to meet the objections of the National Trust, after which the society wrote a letter saying they were perfectly satisfied and had no further objection to the Bill. In face of that, he submitted that it was not fair to bring forward a new objection on the last stage of the Bill. It was not fair to the promoters, to the local authorities, or to the House of Commons. The House could not try this question, which was exclusively one of fact. He and his colleagues did not believe that the Bill would mar the scenery, and the local councils were absolutely unanimous in holding that the scheme would be a great benefit to the locality without in any way marring the beauty of the scenery. If it was intended to use the locality to set up anything like the aluminium works at the Falls of Foyers, it would be quite a different thing, but that was not an analogous case. This proposal was to set up something to be consumed on the premises, which was purely, simply, and exclusively for the benefit of those who lived there, and not for the benefit of those who came there for a couple of days per year. He thought the locality had a right to be consulted in the first instance. They had not only to consider those who lived there in the sunny weather, but also those who lived in the locality through the rough time of winter, and if they could add to the convenience of the latter by giving them electric traction, then they ought to do so. The difference between the cost of steam and electricity if those mountain streams are used was very great, and they ought to allow the locality to use all its local resources as far as possible without destroying natural scenery. An electric tramway to Snowdon would be a great convenience not only to tourists but also to the locality. It would certainly be better to have a nice little electric tram up Snowdon than a steam engine. It was not fair to the district that this Bill should be thrown out.

said that the Amendment moved by the noble Lord had been the means of eliciting facts which might not otherwise have been forthcoming. He thought that the National Trust might have appeared in this matter a little sooner than they did. The hon. Member for Carnarvon had told them that, mainly in consequence of the objections of the National Trust, the promoters had decided to divert certain works, and carry out their scheme in a less objectionable manner than they would otherwise have done. Therefore he was grateful to the noble Lord for having evoked that expression of opinion. This was not altogether a local matter, A similar criticism was made at the time of the erection of the aluminium works at the Falls of Foyers, and a good many works had since been erected there. When one saw what had been done to the Falls of Niagara through the lack of a National Trust one viewed with apprehension what might happen if the promoters of electrical and water undertakings were allowed to do as they liked with national places of interest. He hoped that one of these days landlords would refuse to exercise their rights to sell their property and spoil national scenery simply for manufacturing purposes. He was always anxious to help local authorities, but local opinion could go too far. He knew of one local authority which declared itself in favour of a syndicate to build an architectural monstrosity to the west of this House, where it would have destroyed the view of the parliamentary buildings. He had also heard it suggested that parts of the public commons and open spaces should be appropriated, because the rateable value of the district would be increased. Some local authorities would be quite willing to destroy all objects of national interest and beauty if only the rates could be reduced for the benefit of a limited class. In such matters as these local needs, artistic taste, and national obligations should be harmonised, and some further guarantee ought to be given to the House that in the carrying out of this railway the side of the mountain should not be defaced, that the beauty of the lakes should not be destroyed, and that nothing should be done to injure the artistic and the natural beauty of the neighbourhood.

said the promoters of the Bill had already given that guarantee, and they were prepared to. enter into any obligations which might be suggested by the National Trust.

said, if that were, so, much of his objections were modified; but, in answer to a previous speaker, there was cause for alarm when the ideal of national greatness had sunk so low. This view had to be tempered by what John Ruskin conceived to be the greatness of Britain in matters affecting scenery and objects of beauty. The hon. Member for St. Helens seemed to gauge the greatness of Britain by the number of grimy streets in Lancashire, the forest of chimneys in St. Helens and Wigan, and the innumerable number of smoke stacks in our large manufacturing centres. Electrical enterprise should be undertaken subject to the preservation of objects of national interest, and he should support the noble Lord's Amendment if he went to a division, but he appealed to the noble Lord to be satisfied with the guarantee which had been given and to withdraw his Amendment.

I am not aware that any guarantee of the nature referred to by the hon. Member for Carnarvon has been given. I think the House is entitled to know why the opposition to this Bill came at such a late stage. The reason was because the body which usually investigated those matters did not discover what was the real effect of the clause until letters reached them from the locality pointing out that the effect of this clause would be to destroy the beauty of one of the finest views of Snowdon. As soon as this was discovered then notice of opposition was given. Unfortunately, the Bill had then passed its Second Reading, and it was unopposed before the Committee. Therefore this is the first opportunity we have had of asking the House to deal with this matter. I do not think that it ought to make the least difference, whatever the National Trust may have done. When the secretary to the National Trust wrote the letter read by the hon. Member for St. Helens he was not aware that the Bill proposed to take the water from those lakes. We are asking the House to protect one of the finest pieces of scenery in the United Kingdom. With reference to what the hon. Member for Carnarvon said about this measure being for the benefit of the people of the locality, he would remind the House that the district affected had a very small population. As for the visitors, they would see the scenery much better by driving than if they got inside a tram. I agree that wherever electrical power can be properly used it ought to be used, and wherever a mountain stream could be used in any industry without injury to the surrounding scenery I should be glad to see it used. But where there is a piece of scenery of exceptional grandeur and beauty, I object to it being destroyed in order to increase the dividends of a private company. Those hon. Members who know Snowdon know that the south side is one of the grandest pieces of scenery in the British Isles. The mountain pass, the lake under the cliffs, and the towering cliffs above, make one of the noblest pieces of scenery in the whole British Isles, which nobody who has seen it can ever forget. I am disappointed that my hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon and his colleagues, who represent Wales, are willing to sacrifice this charming piece of scenery.

I shall only intervene in this debate for a few minutes. I think that the discussion we have had here to-day shows that it is a very dangerous and difficult thing to discuss details in the House which could be properly argued out in Committee upstairs. If this opposition to the Bill had been raised at an earlier stage I should have suggested that the precedent which was established some four or five years ago in the case of the Lochnearnhead Railway Bill should have been followed, for that precedent was really on all fours with this Bill. That Bill had gone through unopposed, and in the last stage the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire objected to the Bill on the ground that it would destroy the scenery. It was then referred to a Committee upstairs, to consider that question alone. Now, unfortunately, we have reached a period of the session when it is really impossible to ask hon. Members to form themselves into a Committee upstairs to consider this matter. By the time the Committee is formed and counsel instructed and witnesses summoned we hope that the end of the session will be here. Whose fault is it that this opposition has been raised at such a late stage? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen said that they did not find out until recently that the scenery would be injured. But this clause, which it is proposed to leave out, has been in the Bill from the beginning. It has been before the Committee for a great many months. The solicitor who acted for the National Trust discovered that in another matter the scenery would be interfered with, and the promoters met the National Trust in this matter. It is only within the last few days that it has been discovered that Clause 40 will cause some damage to the scenery. Therefore I think the onus of proof on this occasion really lies upon the opponents of the Bill, because they are so late in discovering the damage which is likely to take place. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said it was a mere question of money only, and that it was a matter of whether the railway was to be worked by a power generated at the top or electric power generated at the bottom of the mountain. I may point out that the mere question of money may decide in many cases whether a railway shall be built at all or not. If coal, more especially at recent prices, had to be brought long distances and used for generating electricity, such an undertaking as this would never be carried out at all. As it is impossible to send this Bill back to the Committee we must do the best we can. Although I do not know the district, I have seen excellent maps of it, and I have gone into the matter as carefully as I could. At the foot of Snowdon there lies a small lake, and the water of this lake would be used by the company. I think it is obvious that the company would wish to keep this lake as full as possible, and it would not be in the interests of the company to deplete it of water. It would be to their interests, rather, to raise the level of the water. We happen to have a well-known lake in my own constituency, Thirlmere, which supplies Manchester with water, and I remember the discussion which took place when it was proposed to supply Manchester from that lake. The noble Lord's predecessor informed the House upon that occasion how the scenery of that district would be destroyed Any person who knows that lake knows that, so far from its being destroyed, the scenery has really been enhanced, and I do not know any bit of scenery which will compare with that lake in its present state. It will be to the interest of the company to raise the level of the water in this lake. They will insert a nine-inch pipe, and this will take from the lake the water which at present flows down as a small mountain stream over the side of the mountain into the valley below. To that extent the scenery will be damaged. There is no doubt about that. As far as I can make out, that is the only damage which the scenery will suffer. I cannot believe that the scenery of that district depends solely upon one mountain stream. The question is whether the effect of this one mountain stream ceasing to flow and being confined in a 9-inch pipe underground is so great as to deprive the locality of the benefits which will accrue to it through the working of this railway; and whether the damage is so great as to warrant the House rejecting these proposals. The surest and safest course, having regard to the lateness of the session, the little harm that will be done, and the slight chance of passing the Bill if this clause is omitted, will be to reject the motion and pass the Bill.

Question put.

The Committee divided:-Ayes, 162; Noes, 52. (Division List No. 410.)

Bill to be read the third time.

said he wished to move the resolution which stood in his name on two grounds—First, that the pledges given to the House on Monday last by the Vice-President of the Council on Education had not been fulfilled, and, secondly, because the merits of the case had not been fully or sufficiently inquired into. It would be in the remembrance of the House that on Monday last week he moved that it be an Instruction to the Private Bill Committee upstairs that the Blakesley Street site in the Borough of Stepney, threatened by the school board, be left out of the schedule. At the close of the debate the Member for Greenwich made the following suggestion, which he would venture to quote to the House— in the districts concerned. The Stepney Borough Council got notice on Wednesday morning that they had to appear with counsel and witnesses on Thursday at eleven. They did their best, but of course the time was utterly inadequate and prejudicial to their case; and, further, their counsel, Mr. Littler, who benefitted by the manœuvre, adroitly complained that the alternative site suggested by the borough council had been sprung upon him. Of course, as no time had been allowed, no notice could be given. The borough council was adjourned, and the officials were away on their holiday. Should the right hon. Gentleman say that the course he had seen fit to adopt was to their interest, he would tell him that the local authority and the people they represented were bitterly aggrieved and indignant at this further proof of the utter want of consideration with which they had been treated. He shared their indignation to the Bill. He said the whole proceedings before the Committee were a farce. No time had been allowed to put in a formal statement of the council's case by way of petition, as was invariably done. Even the promoters of the Bill did not know what they had to meet, and Mr. Littler, the counsel for the school board, opened the proceedings by saying that he had—

He did not blame the Committee. The reference to them was so worded as evidently to create considerable doubt in their minds as to the matters to be dealt with by them, and the manner in which they were authorised by the House to deal with them. Although the borough council suggested a new site, distant only 187 yards from the Blakesley Street area scheduled by the school board, and comprising property the bulk of which was used for immoral purposes and the harbouring of bad characters which it would be a real benefit and blessing to clear, the chairman intimated that as he had no power to bind both parties to the site, and the Education Board would be thrown over for a year, the Committee, although willing to hear evidence on the point, could not allow such evidence to affect their decision, and altogether refused to accept the view put forward by Mr. Courthope Munroe on behalf of the council that—

Now let the House observe this closely, and follow how and why the Act of Parliament and Standing Order was evaded. A public inquiry, repeatedly so called by the school board's own counsel, Mr. Littler, was held by a duly appointed inspector, who made his report. But that report had never, so far as he could discover, seen the light of day; it remained in the secret dossier of the Education Department. By the ingenious device of labelling the public inquiry a "conference," and the "report" a "privileged communication," the Education Department sought to put their pen through the provisions of the Act of 1870. Under Standing Order No. 183A, if twenty or more houses inhabited by the working classes were taken, rehousing must be done. But there was a further provision under which, if twenty houses are acquired, certain negotiations have to be opened with the central authority, and their consent obtained. The central authority would now be the borough council or the county council, and the latter were opponents of this Bill themselves. In any case, had the recommendations of their experts been adopted, the school board and the Education Department would have delivered themselves into the hands of their enemies. They had no hope of getting the requisite consent; hence they suppressed the report and acted against its recommendations. There was much more to be said on this question, but he had no wish to kill this Bill. He trusted, however, that the House would agree that he had made out a case for a fuller and more complete inquiry than that of Thursday last, and that this Bill should be recommitted.

Amendment proposed—

"To leave out the words after the word' be, to the end of the Question, and add the words. 're-committed to a Select Committee.' "—( Major Evans-Gordon. )

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

said he associated himself with the hon. Member for Stepney in this matter. It was not merely an educational question, but a question with which the great and important matter of rehousing the working classes was involved. They would not have agreed to the withdrawal of the motion last week except upon the understanding that the whole matter would be considered by a Select Committee. That condition had not been fulfilled. It was to be regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had taken the course he had without consulting those interested in the matter, which had had the result of making the inquiry which had taken place a perfect farce. There were no real inquiries into the alternative sites, and there was no possibility of such an inquiry as the House had intended. Without ealing with the merits of the case, he wished to say he thought they were sufficiently clear to arrant the most complete inquiry that could be made.

explained the action he had taken after the discussion on Monday last week. He agreed to the suggestion that the Stepney Borough Council should be heard by the Committee, and, to carry out that suggestion, moved the motion in the House on Tuesday. He also made every endeavour to acquaint members of the Committee and parties interested that the Council would be heard on Thursday.

We were not informed.

said he did not go down to Stepney himself, but he made every endeavour to inform them. On that day the Stepney Borough Council was heard by counsel before the Committee, and he was informed by an official of his Department who was present that the whole matter was carefully gone into. The Stepney Council was fully heard, and made no complaint that there had not been time to prepare its case. If there had been such representation it would have been open to the Committee to adjourn the hearing. The Stepney Council had no petition, and appeared on the order of the House. The course he had taken was prompted by the urgency of the case, the session drawing near its close. Not until the Committee had rejected the Stepney Council case and passed the Bill did he receive any remonstrance against the course which had been followed. He could assure the House that he had given every information upon public matters, and he did not know that he had ever withheld, and certainly never discourteously withheld, information from any member who had asked for it.

said that as chairman of the School Com- mittee of the school board he had had more to do with carrying this matter through all its stages than any other person. By way of rebutting the allegation that the London School Board had not shown every proper regard to the views of the new borough council, he recalled the proceedings of the school board in dealing with the deficiency of school accommodation in Stepney. He pointed out that these proceedings had extended over eighteen months, that notices of objection to the Blakesley Street site had been sent out, and that a local inquiry was held so long ago as March last, at which the Stepney Council were heard by counsel. He complained that the housing question had been unfairly raised, to the prejudice of the school board in this matter, the report of their own surveyor being that no other site than the Blakesley Street one was to be found in the prescribed area that would not involve the destruction of more buildings and the disturbance of more persons. In this matter he claimed that the school board were the friends of economy, of the voluntary schools, and of the cause of the housing of the people. In view of the advanced period of the session, the effect of carrying the motion would be to kill the Bill, and twenty-nine sites for schools would be gone by the board for twelve months, and the time and money spent would have to be incurred again de novo next session.

regarded this as a rather serious matter, and he thought that those who realised the importance of the housing of the working classes ought to support the motion of his hon. and gallant friend. He and his friends had asked for an inquiry into this scheme, and had been told it was to be referred to a Select Committee. After that understanding, his right hon. friend the Vice-President, without having said a word to anyone about it, took an absolutely unprecedented course, which caused the greatest possible inconvenience to the opponents of the scheme; and then his right hon. friend had the boldness to stand at the Table and say they had never complained of the course he had taken until it was done. When the Bill went up to the Committee they said they could not accept the position of the Education Department; and when they came to look into the housing question some very remarkable evidence was given with reference to alternative sites. An alderman of the borough of Stepney was examined, and gave evidence in respect to more than one site. He was asked—

"Have you, in the short time you have had at your command, been able to consider the Cable Street site?"

The House would observe that it was generally recognised that the time was much too short. The witness replied—

"During the last two or three days I have consulted local opinion, and it is almost unanimously in favour."

Then counsel asked—

"Cable Street is not a property that you would desire to retain?"

Witness replied—

"It is property which we suggest is in every possible respect undesirable property. Yule Court, which is an extremely narrow and tortuous court, is inhabited by undesirable characters, forms one portion."

Counsel asked—

"Could you upon that site carry out an efficient re-housing scheme for all the people that you displace and more?"

The reply was—

"In my opinion we could carry out an excellent scheme which would be a distinct improvement and boon to the borough."

Counsel next asked—

"In order to save this Blakesley Street site are you further willing to meet the school board if you have the opportunity and to consider the advisability of other sites?"

Witness replied—

"Yes, a great burning desire in Stepney Borough is to avoid dishousing of the people."

Further on counsel objected to the course of the examination. The witness was asked to give one or two instances of the condition of things in St. George's-in-the-East, and the Report proceeded—

"MR. LITTLER: Surely we cannot have that?

THE CHAIRMAN: No.

THE WITNESS: You may take it that the question of housing there is most acute.

THE CHAIRMAN: I may take it also that the property nearer Shadwell Station would be more valuable than the property farther away?

WITNESS: It is slum property very largely. I do not know that it will be more valuable than the property further away."

Then the Chairman made a very remarkable intervention. He said—

"Supposing that we are impressed by your argument in reference to this site, how are we going to decide it by declaring the preamble proved? What are we to do?"

Counsel suggested that the site should be struck out of the Bill—

"THE CHAIRMAN: How are we to make our decision in such a form that we bind both parties to this site?

MR. LITTLER: It is absolutely impossible.

THE CHAIRMAN: Put yourself in the best position that you can. Take it that you have a petition, and that you also present an alternative scheme. The alternative scheme has never been presented to the other side."

Then Mr. Courthope Munroe, counsel for the Stepney Borough Council, said that he only put forward the alternative scheme to show his bona fides , and that the reference to the Committee was "Yea" or "No" as to whether that was a proper site.

"THE CHAIRMAN: It is a little more than, that. We might find that it is a proper site, but that your proposed site is a proper site also. How are we going to decide it?

Therefore, it would be seen that the Committee did not go into the merits of the different sites at all. That was the result of sending the Bill to a Committee accustomed to work on the definite issues submitted to it. What they thought was that they were going to have a Committee of Inquiry which would really go into the merits at issue—the question of rehousing and the question of the block system of estimating accommodation. Why had not that been done? He made no imputation against his right hon. friend or the school board. He was not in a position to do so. A very striking fact was mentioned by his right hon. friend in the last discussion. He said that Mr. Brooks, a member of the school board, had publicly stated that the school board was in the habit of evading the rehousing question. In connection with that they had the report of the education inspector that the site was insufficient. The site just fell short of the right figure to bring it within the Housing Act. They asked for an inquiry, they were promised an inquiry, and were told that the Bill was to be recommitted. But his right hon. friend without saying a word to his hon. friend who was moving in the matter, although he might have done so very easily, took an absolutely unprecedented course, which caused the greatest possible inconvenience to the opponents of the scheme; and then his right hon. Friend had the boldness to complain at the Table to-day that they had never remonstrated with him while he was doing it. When those surreptitious proceedings were done, they could not be remonstrated against until they came to the light of day. They could not know what his right hon. friend was doing when he was acting in secrecy. When they did learn of it they sought an interview with him at once. He really thought that a breach of an understanding of that kind was a very grave matter. Everyone knew how important a feature of the House friendly understandings were. The other day they witnessed an understanding between the two Front Benches with reference to the Agricultural Rating Bill, and they would as soon have thought of imputing dishonesty to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs, or to his right hon. friend the Leader of the House, as to imagine that they would not carry out in the spirit and the letter every word they said at the Table. Some of them had criticised the parliamentary methods of the Irish Members, but in some respects they were most admirable. The hon. Member for Waterford would as soon cut off his right hand as treat them as they had been treated by his right hon. friend. He remembered when the Local Government Bill of 1898 was under discussion how the Irish Members kept an understanding which had been arrived at under circumstances of great temptation. Was there to be one quarter of the House, and one quarter alone, where understandings were not to be kept? Did the Vice-President stand in a category by himself? Were they, while imposing confidence in an understanding given in any other quarter of the House, to take what fell from him as not being of sovereign value? He was sure his right hon. friend did not intend that, and that what they had to complain of was due to some slip, some failure on the part of his right hon. friend to realise that the matter would be regarded so seriously; but it would be impossible to say that after the present discussion. They asked his right hon. friend to adhere to the bargain. He submitted, if understandings were to be regarded at all, that they were right in saying, having put down the very words which had been used in the understanding with his right hon. friend, that he should now assent to the motion. He thought that if they were not met on that point they would have the right to resist the Bill to the utmost of their power in its subsequent stages. He saw no reason why a Select Committee should not be appointed on Thursday, and sit on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of next week. Then the Bill could come back and be read a third time. There would be ample notice until next Monday, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would redeem the promise he had given.

The noble Lord in the commencement of his speech said that this motion raised a very serious question. I think it raises two very serious questions, and I should like to draw attention to them, totally irrespective of the merits of this particular scheme. The charge which the noble Lord had brought, although he had tried to explain it away, against the Government—for in a matter of this kind the Government are one and indivisible—of having committed a breach of faith with reference to the conduct of business is a very serious matter. I have been in the House longer than the noble Lord, and I do not recollect a parallel case being brought against the members of the Government with reference to an engagement made across the floor of the House. I quite agree that engagements made across the floor of the House are of the most solemn and binding character; and I think it is to the credit of all sections of the House that hitherto these engagements have been universally, honourably, and rigidly adhered to. The noble Lord asked with something more than indignation, "Was it only in one quarter of the House"—the quarter in which His Majesty's Government sits—" that these engagements are to be disregarded?" So far as that is concerned, that is the business of the Government, and I regret that the Leader of the House is not here— no doubt he is absent for some overpowering reason or other—to protect the honour of his colleagues and the honour of the House against a charge of this description. There is another question involved in which we as Members of the House are more vitally interested. That has reference to the conduct of private business. How is the House to carry on its enormous burden of legislation if incidents of this character are to be repeated? The House must at once give up the whole of its time to private business, and must declare that it has no confidence in its Committees. Are we to sit and listen, as we have had to listen this afternoon, to the noble Lord reading evidence, carefully selected no doubt, and making a speech as to the merits of a case on which I venture to say the House is absolutely incapable of forming an opinion? I do not know whether it has escaped the attention of the House that this matter could have been brought before the House of Lords. Why was not that course taken? The borough of Stepney had a chance of appearing before the House of Lords or the House of Commons, but did not do so.

said that at the time of the last debate they had no locus standi.

I am obliged to the noble Lord for reminding me. The Vice-President in the last debate stated that he would not resist locus standi being given, and the hon. Member for North Camberwell, representing the School Board, distinctly told the House he would not raise the question either.

My right hon. friend got up and made a promise that has not been kept.

I will leave the noble Lord to settle that with his right hon. friend. I distinctly heard the Vice-President say that he would not object to the borough of Stepney being given a locus standi. They had their chance, and they let it slip by. Ten days ago the House said, "Let the Bill go to a Committee." It went to a Committee, the chairman of which was the hon. Member for Kidderminster, who had great experience in the taking of evidence. Counsel on both sides addressed the Committee, whatever evidence that could be produced was produced, and the Committee came to a decision. Now we are asked, because the London School Board happens to be involved, to lower the dignity of the House with reference to its private Bill business, and to reverse the decision of that Committee. The grounds on which that decision was given had been inquired into by the inspector of the Local Government Board, by a Committee of the House, and by all the tribunals accessible, and had been proved to be a right decision. We are asked to reject this Bill, and to put a stop to the educational proceedings of the School Board, and I venture to submit that, even if the evidence were stronger than it is, we would make a fatal mistake and strike a blow at the system of private Bill procedure if we listened to the appeal of the noble Lord and adopted the motion.

I had no idea that the desire of the noble Lord and those who act with him was that this case should be heard before a Select Committee. Very well; let it be heard now; but there must be a distinct understanding that the proceedings before the Committee are not to be dilatory, and that they shall report next week in time for the Bill to become law.

Has it come to this, that the Government of the King meets such a charge as has been made against it in the speech of the noble Lord by such a speech as that we have just heard? The Government and the House of Commons have sunk to a low ebb indeed if that is the sort of tone with which charges of that kind are to be met by the responsible Minister. I have been a good many years in the House of Commons, and I have never known a Government descend so low, and I hope I shall never live to see it again. The appearance of the noble Lord on the scene tells the whole history of the opposition to this Bill. Of course, the noble Lord's opposition is perfectly well understood by everybody. He could not resist the temptation when he got hold of the Bill of the London School Board at the close of the session. There are twenty-nine sites in the Bill which are necessary for the education of the children of the people of this metropolis, and the noble Lord's object—I think he is too honest to deny it—is to slay the Bill.

As the right hon. Gentleman challenges me, I certainly deny it.

I only said the noble Lord could not deny it, because it is an axiom of common sense and of law that every man is supposed to intend the necessary consequences of his own action. If the noble Lord succeeds in his motion everybody in the House knows that the Bill is destroyed, and I shall vote with the full conviction that if this Bill is delayed by this motion, it has not the smallest chance of passing. To maintain otherwise exhibits an inexperience of the House of Commons with which I would not have thought of charging the noble Lord. That is the necessary consequence of this motion. I think that it would be most deplorable for the House of Commons to accept the motion, but I agree with my right hon. friend that, apart from this particular question, the mischief that is growing of challenging and overthrowing the decisions of Committees is ruining the business of the country and destroying the character of the House of Commons.

The right hon. Gentleman has stated that in the whole course of his experience he has never known a Government sink so low. I have been as long in the House as the right hon. Gentleman, and I think that if anyone has sunk low it is the ex-Leader of the House who gets up and makes a statement of that kind. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, that whenever an understanding is entered into it should be fulfilled. I heard my right hon. friend accept the proposal made some time back. It appears—I do not know whose fault it was—that that understanding, which was accepted by one party, had not been carried out. When that allegation was made, in perhaps too unqualified language, by my noble friend, my right hon. friend said that if there were such an impression in the minds of those who entered into the bargain, he would do his very best to remove it by adopting a procedure by which the matter could be settled, but on the understanding that there should not be any dilatory or obstructive proceedings. What is the point on which the ex-Leader of the House worked himself up into a passion? A Bill is brought in by the London School Board to provide twenty-nine sites; twenty-eight of those sites are not in dispute, and only one is questioned. Surely, from the point of view of common sense, the proper course to take is the course suggested by my right hon. friend, on the understanding, of course, that there should be no obstruction, and that the Bill should be sent back in time.

If anything fell from me which appeared to reflect on my right hon. friend's personal credit, I desire to say that we appreciate in the warmest manner the full and honourable way in which he has met it.

said he did not desire to enter into personalities, but he would ask hon. Members to consider what the Bill before them was. Enormous sums had already been spent in the preliminaries for the acquisition of twenty-nine sites for new schools in London, and if the proposal of the noble Lord were accepted, no matter what guarantee was given, those twenty-nine board schools would not be erected within the next eighteen months, and London would be short of 20,000 school places during the next two years. He appealed to the House not to starve London children to that extent. The noble Lord and his friends had had ample opportunity to discuss the Bill. The only question at issue between the hon. Member for Stepney and the London School Board was as to the appropriateness or otherwise of the Blakesley Street site as compared with the Cable Street site. But when they considered how close the Cable Street site was to the railway, how costly it would be, what a large number of people would be dishoused, he thought that the Blakesley Street site held the field, and to such an extent that he appealed to the House to pass the Bill. If the Cable Street site were acquired there would be a greater dishousing scheme, and that would benefit the rehousing of the poor in that locality. The effect of substituting Cable Street for Blakesley Street would be that the whole of the parishes of London would do Stepney's rehousing of what had been termed the undesirable poor, and Stepney would benefit at the cost of the other parishes. That was a burden which the House of Commons had no right to impose upon other parishes. The noble Lord had accused the Vice-President of the Council of a breach of a Parliamentary understanding, and had hinted that surreptitious dealings had taken place, and that things had been done in secret. He was glad that the noble Lord had apologised for that statement, and perhaps he would remember what took place in regard to the Cuthill Road board school at Camberwell. After that board school had passed through in the Bill the noble Lord prevailed upon the Vice-President of the Council to strike out the Cuthill Road site. He would remind the noble Lord when he talked of breaches of Parliamentary understanding that he had been instrumental in striking out the Cuthill Road site, greatly to the detriment of London's education. He associated himself with the criticisms which had been made in regard to the length of time which private business was taking, but he did not think it was being needlessly wasted in discussing a Bill like this, which he was sure would not conduce to a good understanding between educational reformers. He believed that the Board of Education had done everything in their power to satisfy the Stepney Borough Council. He also wished to associate himself with everything that the hon. Member for Camberwell had said in his clear, convincing, and positive speech. He appealed finally to the Vice-President of the Board of Education to remember that he had no guarantee from the noble Lord opposite that if this Bill was postponed it would be passed this year. On the contrary, there was every reason to suspect that if this Bill were postponed even for three days it would be lost altogether. The Stepney Borough Council had now gone for their holidays, and their parliamentary committee was probably at Margate, Eastbourne, or elsewhere. If the noble Lord wanted to wreck this Bill, and deprive London of twenty-nine board school sites, then his object would be secured by the suggestion of the Vice-President of the Council. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his suggestion, and thus enable the London School Board to go on with its excellent work of providing school places for the children of this great city, who would be scandalously neglected if the motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Stepney was persisted in. He appealed to the Vice-President to give the House some guarantee that this Bill would be passed before the session closed.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 144; Noes, 153. (Division List No. 411.)

Can the Select Committee be appointed to-morow?

I hope so. I am endeavouring to arrange with the authorities of the House to have the Select Committee appointed to-morrow, and I hope they will sit on Thursday.

asked whether the House could be assured that the Committee would be appointed to-morrow, or was it subject to the confirmation of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich?

It is subject to the Committee not being opposed in this House. Therefore, if the House will appoint it without opposition, it might be appointed to-morrow. I will do my best to get it appointed.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any sort of guarantee to the House that the Bill will be passed during the present session?

Yes.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give any guarantee to that effect?

I will guarantee it as far as I can. I have no doubt myself that the Committee on Thursday and Friday will be able to dispose of the question. If it is not disposed of on Friday it might be adjourned until Monday, and no doubt the Bill will be reported on Tuesday or Wednesday next week, and can be passed into law this session.

Will the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich be appointed chairman of the Committee?

[No answer was returned.]

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Bill recommitted to a Select Committee.

, who had on the Paper notice to move an Instruction to the Committee to leave out plan No. 22 from the Schedule to the Provisional Order (page 13, lines 1 to 35), said that if the moving of the Instruction standing in his name would imperil the passing of this Bill he should hesitate very much in moving it. After the understanding which had been arrived at with the gentleman who had charge of this matter, he asked the House to give him permission to withdraw his Instruction.

Mond Gas Bill

Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.

BRISTOL CORPORATION (DOCKS AND RAILWAYS, ETC.) BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

MANCHESTER AND LIVERPOOL ELECTRIC EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; an Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.

WESTON-SUPER-MARE GAS BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.

CITY AND BRIXTON RAILWAY BILL [Lords

Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

WATFORD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords]

Reported, without amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed

TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [Lords]

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed

Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow.