§ Highway Districts.
§ Clause 3 (Highway districts to be made so far as possible coincident with rural sanitary districts) agreed to.
§ Clause 4 (Power for rural sanitary authority of district coincident with highway district to become highway board).
§ MR. BEACH (for Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOT)moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 3, after the word "may," to insert—
With the consent of the vestries representing not less than two-thirds of the rateable value of such area.He thought the Amendment was a strictly reasonable one, that it only gave to the ratepayers of the county an opportunity of declaring whether they acknowledged the arrangements which made the rural sanitary authority of a district coincident with the Highway Board. He considered that, on the whole, such an arrangement was desirable; but, still, it was right that those who were interested in the question should have an opportunity of expressing their assent or dissent to the proposal.
§ MR. STANSFELDsaid, that it appeared to him that the addition to the clause had no reason whatever. The hon. Member could not have read Clause 4 with accuracy, and he could not see what the object of the Amendment was, except in making the application of the clause less likely to be made.
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, the question appeared to be whether the highways district did, or did not, fill up the whole of the rural sanitary district; and he should like to know whether the President of the Local Government Board would insert some words in the Bill on the Report to provide for such a case? They were perfectly ready to transfer the highway district authority into the hands of the local authority; and, therefore, he trusted that a due arrangement would be provided.
§ Mr. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he would consider the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Oldham, and would see what could be done upon the Report. As re- 467 garded the Amendment which had been moved, he quite remembered that he himself had placed a precisely similar Amendment on the Paper when the Highways Act was before Parliament—namely, that the assent of the vestries should be taken as well as that of the local authorities. But it had been very well pointed out at the time that a limitation of that sort would really place an obstacle in the way of a reform which Parliament desired to see effected. A second objection was, that the vestry did not represent the ratepayers of the district so satisfactorily as did the guardians, who were elected annually; and, therefore, he thought that the general rule of Parliament ought to prevail there—namely, that the elected representatives must be presumed, for the purpose of policy, to represent their constituents. He, accordingly, must object to the Amendment, as he thought it would limit the operation of what would be in many cases a useful provision. He did not wish it to be supposed that they wanted to bind down the Boards of Guardians to take up the highway business of their areas; but he was obliged to have regard to the various views, habits, and practices of the different Boards throughout the country. He knew that the proposal was entirely out of the question in some parts of England, whereas it was highly desirable in others; and he thought it might be safely left to the consideration of the guardians.
MR. PAGETthought that at first sight there was a good deal to be said in favour of the Amendment, for it was in the direction of allowing an ample opportunity of deciding whether the inhabitants of the locality who were chiefly interested in the matter desired the change or not. But, on further consideration, according to his view, that limitation, which at first sight was a very useful one, would not be necessary, and he hoped his hon. Friend would not press it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. SEVERNE,in moving to leave out the clause, said, he thought it was a permissive clause, and that as it stood at present it would tend to do away with the Board of Highway laws, and turn them over at once to the sanitary authorities—that was to say, the Board of 468 Guardians. The Boards of Guardians, as at present comprised, had quite enough on their hands without taking upon themselves that additional duty. He had been Chairman of a Board of Guardians which was principally composed of farmers, and he thought that the work would be more than a good many farmers would care to undertake; whereas there were a good many men on the Highways Board who would not serve on the Board of Guardians.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he should be very sorry to support the clause if it were of a tyrannical character; but everybody must see that the time was coming when it was desirable to give the rural sanitary authority urban powers over the roads. He was quite sure that that was a useful power for some districts; but it ought not to be imposed on other districts where the Highways Board was doing its work.
§ MR. HIBBERTdid not rise for the purpose of supporting the Amendment, but he did think that the latter part of the clause required some consideration. It proposed to do what was generally considered objectionable—namely, to allow a new authority to be set up over the boundaries of the county.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHthought the argument might be pressed both ways.
§ MR. J. R. YORKEconsidered the clause was one of the most valuable provisions of the Bill. What they had been looking forward to as the greatest advantage of these Bills was that they should have something like a symmetrical area; and he, was afraid that that important reform could not properly be brought into operation unless they had an intermediate authority.
MR. PAGETsaid, he was by no means so sanguine that the excellent results hoped for by the hon. Member would flow from that clause. He, however, was ready to support the clause, as it was not compulsory. He knew, as a fact, that in many cases the Board of Guardians had quite as much work as they could do in the administration of the Poor Law; and freely stated that if the highways work were to be thrown upon them as well, they did not know how they should perform it. He knew that there was a general feeling that it would be better to take rural sanitary business from the Unions and put it on the Highway Boards; but the Bill, how- 469 ever, left it open to any rural sanitary authority to continue to do its work as it did now, and, therefore, he was now ready to support the clause as it now stood.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 5 (Consequences of rural sanitary authority becoming Highway Board).
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHmoved, in page 2, line 31, to leave out "this Act," and insert "such order." Page 3, line 3, leave out "this Act," and insert "such order."
§ Amendments agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 6 (Highway Boards may combine to appoint a district surveyor) agreed to.
§ Clause 7 (Expenses of Highway Boards to be paid out of district fund).
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHmoved, in page 3, line 31, after "shall," to insert "notwithstanding anything in the Highway Acts."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. BEACHsaid, that, upon the whole, he thought the clause would be productive of benefit. It was a sequel to that alteration which was made some time ago—namely, that turnpike roads, instead of being parts of parishes, should be charged upon the district funds. That showed the great necessity there was of simplifying the accounts in the various areas, and in making an equitable charge throughout the whole district. Therefore, he thought that if the expenses of the various highways were charged upon a district, instead of being charged upon individual parishes, it would be of use and productive of benefit to the country.
MR. PAGETsaid, he had an Amendment to the clause which he would explain. The clause contained what was to his mind a very important limitation. That was the limitation of the principle that the whole expenses of Highways Boards should be paid out of the district funds. He thought that highway districts might very well have been left alone. They did not object to the existing 470 practice of parochial charge for parish highways—they were quite satisfied to leave the principle as it existed, and to leave each of their own parishes to pay for the roads. However, the principle was going to be altered by the clause. The Amendment was to the effect that any parish or parishes should have the right to appeal to the Highways Board for permission to continue, as at present, to pay for their parish highways; and that if such permission were not granted, they should have the right to appeal to the county authorities. The clause, as it at present stood, did not give the people most intimately concerned a right of appeal. They might find a highway district composed of a certain number of parishes, and having a certain number of them so situated, that it would be right and just that they should be formed into a district by themselves. He simply desired to give effect to the principle that there should be an appeal.
§ MR. STANSFELDsaid, that in the clause were words giving a discretionary power to the Highway Boards in the case of natural differences of locality. He should like to know exactly what those words meant? Natural differences of soil he could understand.
§ SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEthought that though the right hon. Gentleman took exception to the words, they conveyed to his mind a very accurate idea of what was intended to be enacted by the Bill. In his highway district there was a considerable difference in the soil and in the character of the land, which, at the present time, formed a substantial grievance as to the incidence of the rate; and he should prefer to retain the words.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHthought the words "soil" or "locality" hardly indicated sufficient reason for dividing a district into two parts; and, therefore, he should not be disinclined to adopt the words "soil or locality, or other exceptional circumstances," and he would take the opportunity of considering the question raised by his hon. Friend (Mr. Paget) before the Report. The right hon. Gentleman then moved to add the words above-mentioned as an Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
MR. PAGETmoved to add to the clause the worda— 471
Any parish in a highway district may apply to the Highway Board to be permitted to bear the expense of maintaining its own highways, and, in the event of such application not being entertained, may appeal to the county authority: Provided always, That previous to such application, the assent of the ratepayers representing not less than two-thirds of the rateable value of such parish shall be obtained.He put the words as to two-thirds in, as he did not wish an appeal to be made unless there was a strong feeling in its favour. He did not wish it to be done hastily; but, an application being refused, the ratepayers, if they were agreed to the extent of two-thirds, might appeal to the county authorities, and say—"Here is a case which the Bill has provided for. Our application was not entertained, because we were in a minority. We contend that it is, in the words of the Bill, 'just, by reason of the natural differences of our soil and locality,' that we should be permitted to bear the expense of maintaining our own highways, and we desire to be heard in support of our claim."
§ SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, that appeared to him to be a mixture of the permissive principle with the Imperium in Imperio. He did not think it would work at all well in the manner indicated by the hon. Member.
§ MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONdid not think it would be an advantageous custom to allow any parish to contract itself out of the highways management. He regretted that the Highway Acts had not been made compulsory.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHhoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment, as it would be quite contrary to the spirit and intention of the clause. When, a few years ago, Parliament decided that turnpike roads should be charged upon the parishes, they made no exception in favour of parishes which had no turnpike roads upon them.
MR. PAGETthought that the hon. Baronet (Sir Harcourt Johnstone), as an advocate of the Permissive Bill, would have had some sympathy with a permissive clause. The Bill, however, had been brought on rather earlier than he expected; and, of course, an Amendment of that kind was not readily understood or appreciated. He, therefore, would withdraw it for the present, proposing to bring the question forward at a later stage of the Bill.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
472§ MR. HIBBERTwished to draw the attention of the President of the Local Government Board to cases where the Highways Boards had borrowed money of parishes in their district. He did not think the Bill would sufficiently protect cases of that kind. He knew of several cases where money had been borrowed of parishes by the Highways Boards for the improvement of roads; and, therefore, he thought that, in the Report, when it came up, there should be some provision made for such a case.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that no doubt money had been borrowed in some cases, and he would take care that the question should be considered before the Report.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 8 (Audit of accounts of highway districts and parishes).
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHmoved, in page 4, at the end of the clause, to add—
Section thirty-six of 'The Highways Act, 1862,' is hereby repealed down to the words 'to be paid out of the district fund,' and the statement of receipt and expenditure by the said section directed to be furnished by every highway board within thirty days after the signature of the accounts by the chairman shall be furnished within thirty days after the completion of the audit under this section.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, with regard to the auditor, that he did not see why the expense of the auditor should be thrown upon the Highways Board, as the work done was done for the whole of the district.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 9 (Duration of office of way-warden).
§ MR. HIBBERTgave it as the result of his experience, that the expenses of guardians going to attend their Board meetings were often charged in the highway accounts. He desired to have some explanation with regard to the duration of the period of office, fixed by the clause, in the case of way wardens, as it appeared that by the proposed arrangement there would be two sets of officers at the same time.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, there was, no doubt, a good reason for fixing the 30th April in the year following the 473 appointment of waywardens, as the date for the appointment of their successors in office. He was not then able to reply more fully to the question raised by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), but would have it examined.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 10 (Repeal of part of Section 7 of Highway Act, 1862), agreed to.