not?" Lord Airlie recovered his composure for the second day of the hearing, and was followed by technical experts, including Thomas Lawrie, who spoke in place of MacColl, and J Guthrie Brown, who spoke eloquently on every aspect of the civil engineering works. The objectors had their say from the end of day six onwards, and predicted that the amenities of the area would be destroyed by the scheme. It also became clear on day nine that a number of riparian owners had donated waterfalls to the National Trust for Scotland, to make the Board's job more difficult. The final report acknowledged the serious objections to the scheme, and examined them against the public interest. It stated that the scheme must stand or fall as a whole, and that despite some possible damage to amenities, the project should proceed. Following the decision of the tribunal, an order to confirm the scheme was placed before Parliament, but unlike previous schemes, there were attempts to annul the order. William Snadden, the member for Perth and Kinross lead the attack, claiming that "the beauty of the heart of Scotland will be forever broken." All of the issues that had been aired at the tribunal were raised again, and there were savage attacks on both the Board and on Lord Airlie. There were however supporters for the scheme, and Colonel Errol, the member for Althincham and Sale, was particularly lucid as he proclaimed that the Scottish Lowlands and England were going to pay for cheap power for the Highlands. He also wondered whether those who would no longer visit the River Tummel might be outnumbered by those who came to see the engineering works, and he reminded the house that everyone connected with the scheme was Scottish. When a vote was taken, annulment of the order was rejected by 248 votes to 63. Lord Kinnaird was persuaded not to introduce a similar motion to annul the order in the House of Lords, and so the Tummel–Garry scheme was authorised on 19 November 1945. However, Lord Kinnaird introduced a debate on the operation of the Hydro-Electric Development Act, at which Lord Airlie was able to put the case for the Tummel–Garry scheme and to explain the way in which the board operated. There were some who felt that there was no need for hydro-electric power at all, because it would soon be superseded by atomic