FEES ON TURNPIKE BILLS. (Hansard, 21 April 1828)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer
rose to oppose the resolution. The object of it was to declare, that henceforth no fees should be paid on the renewal of turnpike 1621 bills. The fees now derived from that source, were paid into the treasury, and if those fees were taken away, the public must be burthened to the same amount. The fees were, it appeared, not greater at present on this class of bills than they were a hundred and thirty years ago; and if the hon. member's motion was acceded to, the alteration this must produce in the funds applicable to the payment of certain officers in that House would cost the public at least 10,000l. yearly. These considerations must prevent his acquiescence in that motion; but he was disposed to meet in part the wishes of the hon. member, and to propose an amendment, which would have the effect of modifying the proposition now made, whilst it acquiesced in its spirit, as far as he considered that acquiescence was safe and judicious. Where such bills were merely a renewal of preceding bills, he would admit that they ought not to be subject to the fees usual upon the original turnpike bills; in other words, where the trustees, by their application to parliament, did not attempt to obtain an advantage to the trust at the expense of the public, or did not require that the property of private individuals in the line of road should be sacrificed or disturbed, to carry their object into execution, then bills of this nature should be exempt from fees. The right hon. gentleman then moved as an amendment, "that in all cases of bills intended to continue turnpike bills, about to expire during the then session of parliament, the fees incidental to such bills payable to officers of that House shall be disbursed by the public, provided that no such bill shall compel any alteration or surrender of private property, nor propose to take or collect any new toll, or increase the toll taken under the existing acts of Parliament."

§ Mr. Littleton
said, he could not accede to the amendment, because it could never produce the effect contemplated by the original proposition. There was scarcely an instance of a bill being introduced to renew another, without possessing a clause which suggested or provided for the improvement of the line of road; and yet, if the House adopted the amendment, any such provisions would render the bill liable to the payment, of fees, although every one must admit that these were improvements in which the public at large were as much interested as the trustees of the road,

Mr. Davies Gilbert
admitted that it would be extremely improper to check the progress of improvement by rendering bills of this nature liable to the payment of fees.

Mr. Cripps
said, there existed a necessity for a denned table of fees, payable on bills introduced to renew turnpike acts, in order to prevent the recurrence of instances of enormous expense.

§ Sir J. Mackintosh
agreed, that bills for the renewal or the regulation of Turnpike bills, if they effected no material alteration in the nature of their enactment, ought not to be liable to the payment of fees. Turnpike bills were a great public benefit, and distinguishable in their nature from private property. It was therefore no violent proposal that they should be included in those regulations which the House was in the habit of extending to public measures. The resolution of his hon. friend would be a great improvement, and could be attended with no inconvenience.

Mr. R. Gordon
thought it would be a great advantage if turnpike road bills were considered as public bills. The roads were not for the accommodation of those through whose estates they were made, but for that of the public in general. He thought the process of engrossing might be dispensed with, in cases of simple renewal; which would be a saying of 20l. upon each application.

Mr. Secretary Peel
was willing to admit, that if, upon investigation, it should appear that the amount of fees taken on turnpike bills was unreasonable, a reduction should take place. But the House should pause when they came to consider whether the expense should be defrayed as a local burthen or transferred to the public. For his own part, he was disposed to think, that it would be better to continue them on the present plan; for, if transferred to the public, there was reason to apprehend that there would be less vigilance exercised in watching their progress, and scrutinizing their necessity, than if conducted upon the principle of local charges. Nothing could be more a public benefit than the prosecution of offenders, and yet the expenses incurred under this head fell upon the local districts in which they took place. Far these reasons he would vote against the resolution.

§ Mr. Wynn
considered turnpike bilk not as private but as public benefits, and consequently unfit subjects for taxation.

Mr. Bankes
concurred in the opinion, that the fees on the renewal of such trusts should be considerably reduced; but the great expense of such bills did not arise in that House, but consisted in the charges of solicitors and agents. He was willing that the fees should be regulated, but not that the charge should be transferred to the public.

§ Sir T. Acland
said, that the real question was not whether these bills should be exempted from the same charges as other bills, but whether they should not be put on an equality with other private bills. In other bills the tax was paid once, and for all; but Turnpike bills were obliged to be renewed every twenty-one years, when the same charges must be paid as on their first introduction.