HIGHWAYS (DISTRICT SURVEYORS) BILL. (Hansard, 11 May 1854)

§ MR. FREWEN,
in moving the second reading of this Bill, said it was very similar to one which he had introduced in 1849, which had been read a second time without a division, but which had not been proceeded with in consequence of the prorogation of Parliament. By the existing Highways Act, the 5 & 6 Will. 1V c. 50, parishes were empowered to unite themselves into districts to which surveyors might be appointed; but very few parishes had taken advantage of that Act. A measure of this nature was loudly called for, for in the county he had the honour to represent, the roads in many parts were very indifferent. He proposed that district surveyors should be appointed, in any district in which the roads were in a bad condition, by the magistrates, with the consent of the commissioner of taxes for the district. The salaries of the surveyors would be limited to 13s. 4d. per mile of road, which would give an average of 60l. a year for each district, towards which each parish would contribute about 4l. The Act would only remain in force until next Session, and if it worked well it might be continued from year to year. He was convinced that the plan he proposed would effect a saving in many districts of as much as 50 per cent, and he therefore hoped the Government would allow the Bill to be read a second time, in order that it might then be referred to a Select Committee.

MR. MILES
said, he must oppose the Bill, as he considered it of a very oligarchical character. The hon. Gentleman did not propose to adopt the Welsh or Irish systems, but to form an extraordinary kind of board, consisting of the magistrates and the land tax commissioner of a district, whose powers it would be very difficult to define, but who were to appoint the surveyor, and to determine the amount of his salary, without even asking the opinion of the majority of the ratepayers. He should move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

MR. FITZROY
said, he quite agreed in the opinion of the hon. Member who had spoken last with regard to the Bill. The subject of the general management of highways was a very large one, and they were all aware of the necessity of dealing with it by some general measure; but the attempts at legislation which had hitherto been made had not been very successful, and very few Members of the House were capable of undertaking such a task as that of amending the present highway rates. Every year, as a greater number of turnpike trusts became extinct, there was a greater necessity for legislation, and he hoped that the hon. Member for Petersfield (Sir W. Jolliffe), who had turned his attention to the subject and bad prepared a measure upon it, would bring that measure before the House. He thought the machinery of the Bill was exceedingly cumbrous and quite novel in principle, and that it would render the expenses of the surveyors much greater than they were under the present system. He, therefore, could not support the Bill, even if he approved its principle, and he considered it so objectionable in its present shape that, if it were not withdrawn, he should vote for the Amendment.

§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE
said, he was of opinion that if the Bill was adopted it would give anything but satisfaction to those persons generally who were now charged with the highway expenditure throughout the country, amounting to about 2,000,000l. annually. The most objectionable part of the measure was, that in carrying it into operation the ratepayers were in no way whatever represented. Be had devoted some time and consideration to this subject; and when he was in office he prepared a Bill in reference to it, but he thought that Bill was rather the property of the department to which he then belonged than his own. He felt that a measure of this kind could not be carried through the House unless with the full concurrence of the Government of the day.

§ SIR JOHN TROLLOPE
said, that the subject was very complex and difficult in its character; and he feared that it would be impossible to work the Bill of his hon. 176 Friend in its present shape. The question, however, was as important as it was difficult, and he thought that the Government should themselves undertake to introduce a Bill upon the subject.

MR. VERNON SMITH
said, he had been surprised to hear his hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Fitzroy) express a hope that some private Member of the House would undertake to prepare a Bill upon that subject; for, in his own opinion, that was a duty which peculiarly belonged to the hon. Gentleman himself in his capacity of Under Secretary for the Home Department. He believed it was extremely desirable that some measure should be adopted for the purpose of making the appointment of district surveyors compulsory, and for the purpose of ensuring an effective audit of the highway funds. He did not know a greater grievance in many of our rural districts than the wretched state of their highways. In the county of Northampton many of the roads were hardly passable during a great portion of the winter. He was afraid, however, that the present Bill was too complicated in its machinery to effect what was desired.

§ MR. RICE
said, although he did not approve of this Bill, he thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Frewen) had done good service in bringing the subject before the House, inasmuch as it had elicited from every preceding speaker an admission of the abuses incident to the existing system, and of the necessity for legislation; and he trusted, between the hon. Baronet the Member for Petersfield (Sir W. Jolliffe) and the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Home Department, the country would eventually obtain a good Bill for the regulation of highways.

§ MR. MASTERS SMITH
said, that he had received representations from every part of his county with regard to the necessity of some such measure as that before the House, and for that reason he had placed his name on the back of the present Bill. He should not wish to press it, however, if the Government would give some assurance that the matter should be considered and undertaken by them.

§ SIR GEORGE STRICKLAND
said, he hoped the Government would not be so incautious as to give any assurance that they would undertake to deal with this question. They had a sample of such an attempt a few years ago, when Mr. Cornewall Lewis, with great ability and perse- 177 verance, sought to deal with it, but totally failed. If the Government attempted the same thing again, he was sure they would equally fail. The hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Frewen) need not have told the House that the roads in the county he represented were bad; they were notoriously bad; but that was no reason why the whole country was to be saddled with an offensive Bill like this. So far from being a popular Act, he believed it would be most offensive to the country at large.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, he could bear testimony to the perseverance and zeal with which his hon. Friend who had just sat down had resisted every attempt to improve the Highways Act. He thought, however, that it would be most desirable if they could pass a good Highways Bill, believing that great economy would in the end be the result, although every attempt had hitherto failed, from what he must call a "mistaken" apprehension of the expense that would be thrown upon parishes by such an amendment of the law. He thought that the appointment of district surveyors would be a great and essential improvement, and he only regretted that the machinery of the present Bill was not such that he could support it.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he concurred in what had been said generally in reference to this Bill. They would be all glad to get a good Highways Bill, but unfortunately they could not agree as to what constituted a good Highways Bill. Unless a Bill on this subject could be introduced which had the general assent of those practically conversant with the management of highways throughout the country, he did not think it would work well. He believed the Bill before the House would be generally unpalatable, and he hoped his hon. Friend would not put the House to the trouble of dividing upon it.

§ SIR JOHN TYRELL
said, a few years ago, acting on the suggestion of Sir James Macadam, he was instrumental in introducing a Bill for the management of the highways in that part of the county of Essex with which he was connected, which had the honour of meeting the approval of Mr. Speaker; and he thought that any general measure on this subject, which contained the elements of that Bill, would have some claim upon the attention of the House.

§ MR. FREWEN
said, that, in conse- 178 quence of the opposition he had met with, he would not put the House to the trouble of a division, but would withdraw his Bill.