[BILL NO. 66.] COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 26 May 1862)

§ MR. BARROW
observed, that there were a number of provisions in the Bill of which he could not approve. He would not, however, oppose the Motion, although he thought that the measure had not received the amount of discussion which its importance to the ratepayers required.

LORD HENLEY
observed, that there were several points in the measure which ought to be considered before they went into Committee, and dealt with it in detail. He hoped he should be able to suggest some amendments in its provisions, which, if adopted, would render it much more 2197 palatable to the ratepayers of the country. The Bill proposed to place the management of the roads exactly under the same system as that of the Poor Law. Now, though it must be generally admitted that the Poor Law of this country was administered in an admirable manner, he thought it was exceedingly doubtful that the application of the same administration to the public roads would be equally advantageous. In the first place, the expense of such an administration would be exceedingly great, and out of all proportion to the amount of the funds absolutely necessary for the repair of the roads. The sum expended on the roads was not one-third as much as was required under the Poor Law. He would take for example the county of Northampton, which was rather a small one. He did not think it was possible to put the system proposed by the Bill in operation in that county, under an extra expense of £3,000 a year. The present outlay on the roads was £32,000 a year; so that the expense of management would be nearly 10 per cent on the whole sum required for the roads. There would be at least as many districts for road as for Poor Law purposes. As there were seventeen Unions in Northamptonshire, there would therefore require to be seventeen districts of roads, each of which would include, on the average, about 200 miles of roads. There would, of course, have to be a surveyor for each district, and, on the lowest estimate, his salary would be £80 a year, and £40 for the keep of a horse. For surveyors alone there would therefore be an annual charge of £2,040. A number of clerks, a treasurer, a place of meeting, &c, would also be necessary, and would cost £50 a year for each district, or £850 for the whole. The total expenditure on account of the working of the measure would ! therefore be £2,890 a year; and yet it was very doubtful whether the roads would be better managed under the new system than at present. Farmers were interested in taking care of the poor, who were their labourers, but they cared little about the public roads. If farmers, as individuals, cared little about the roads, why should it be supposed that farmers, when constituted a body for the management of roads, should take much care about them? He was glad to perceive that a wise alteration had been made in the Bill—namely, that which declared 2198 that the local magistrates should ex officio be entitled to seats at those boards. He, however, protested against the power of voting those expenses being lodged in the Court of Quarter Sessions without the ratepayers having the least power over them one way or another. The Court of Quarter Sessions was aristocratically constituted; it did not contain a single representative of the taxpayers. To avoid that objection he should move an Amendment in one of the early clauses of the Bill, providing that no district should be formed until the consent of a majority of the boards of guardians had been signified in writing. He admitted that the guardians as guardians of the poor had not much to do with the roads; but, as they were the only representative bodies which existed in the counties, he thought that in them might properly be reposed the power of preventing the formation of these districts. At the same time, he should not, if it was thought more desirable, object to repose that power in the vestries. In conclusion, he doubted whether the Bill would produce any results adequate to the expense which it would entail upon counties, and he should much prefer a Bill which would make it necessary for each county to appoint one or two surveyors, whoso duties should be to inspect the roads, not to repair them, and to make their complaints of the acting overseers, as complaints are now made, to the justices in petty sessions. The salaries of these surveyors would not amount to more than a tenth of the expenses which would be caused by the system contained in the Bill now before the House.

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, he agreed with the hon. Member for South Nottingham-shire (Mr. Barrow), that the Bill had been allowed to arrive at its present stage with but a small amount of discussion, considering the large interests involved. He was bound to say that he had heard from that part of the country to which he belonged opinions expressed of a diametrically opposite character regarding the merits of this Bill. In many cases the measure was viewed as a positive evil, whilst other persons declared that it was one which was much required. Now, that fact alone showed the difficulty of dealing with the subject. His two objections to the Bill were these: he thought that it had too much of a centralizing character, and that it trenched too much upon the control ex- 2199 ercised by the ratepayers. It appeared to him that those were two important points, which ought to be closely considered. No opportunity, however, had been given to the House of dealing with them in a regular debate. There were, however, on the paper certain amendments bearing upon the subject, which he trusted would meet with the approbation of the House.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, as there was a general wish that the Bill should pass, he did not wish to oppose any obstacles; but if it were to be a permissive Bill, he should prefer to the Amendment of which the noble Lord had given notice one which he had himself placed upon the paper, providing that the final order for the formation of a district should not be made if within forty days after the issuing of the provisional order, the vestries of a majority of the parishes proposed to be formed into such district should object to its formation.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he had received a great many communications from his constituents, which showed that their objections to the Bill were strong, he believed almost universal, and entertained by persons of political opinions as various as those represented by the noble Lord the Member for Northampton (Lord Henley). The House would, perhaps, permit him, in his character of a representative, to lay before them the feeling of the county of Warwick in reference to this measure, so far as he was informed of them. His constituents felt that there was little need of any interference in the matter of highways. Nevertheless, if the House were of opinion that some legislative interference should take place, and that in some parts of the country the public roads were neglected, it was their conviction that all that was needed was the appointment of some officer who should have power to enforce the duty of repairing the roads incumbent on the parish. The law provided amply for the process by indictment. It further provided the means by which a combination of parishes in a particular district were enabled to improve the roads. The existing law, therefore, provided the requisite machinery for the improvement of the public highways. All that was needed was an additional motive power. Now, whether they considered the state of the roads or any nuisances which needed remedy in towns or districts, what did they find? Why, they found universally existing shyness on the part of individuals 2200 to put the law in force. That was the origin of the whole machinery of the quondam Board of Health. There was a law regarding nuisances, which, if put in operation, would have been quite sufficient, but individuals were not found willing to take the initiative in such matters. Consequently, the law became almost a dead letter. So with the question of roads. It was his firm conviction that all that was needed was some such provision as this—that the magistrates in Quarter Sessions, or some other recognised authority in each county, should appoint a surveyor of roads, and that that officer should have a sufficient number of subordinates to take a general survey of the roads; that he should be the recipient of all complaints; that on receipt of such complaints the state of the particular road or roads in question should be investigated; and if the complaints were found correct, it should be the duty of the officer to institute an indictment. By that means they would not disturb the existing parochial organization. The Bill made the magistrates accusers and judges of the matter, then administrators, and then judges again. That was a highly objectionable feature of the measure. By adopting his suggestion such a confusion of authority would be altogether avoided. Entertaining a strong opinion upon the matter, and finding himself supported by his constituents, he felt it to be his duty to urge that opinion upon the consideration of the House. His constituents thought the law was quite sufficient regarding the repair of the roads. They desired that it be left to the parishes themselves to find out what was the best course to take to effect that object; by the appointment of the officer he alluded to they would ensure the work being done effectually. He confessed he viewed with great alarm the centralizing system that would be established by the Bill. He believed it was the general feeling of the country, that if it were possible to avoid interference by the Secretary of State in matters of local government, it would be better to do so. It had been said that the Secretary of State would only interfere as a mediator. He believed that such interference was rendered necessary only by the confusion which the Bill itself produced; for what other reason for such interference could there be than to prevent the representative bodies quarrelling with the magistracy, or the magistracy quarrelling with the representative bodies? He believed that every- 2201 thing connected with the improvement of the roads could be accomplished by simply appointing an officer to put the present law in force, which law, when so enforced, would be amply sufficient to ensure all due facilities of transit.

§ MR. DODSON
said, if the hon. Gentleman looked to the 36th clause he would see that no magistrate was to act on a bench with regard to any matters in which he might have been concerned as a member of a highway board. The judicial and administrative functions were not conjoined; but, on the contrary, they were carefully kept distinct. Again, so far from the Bill promoting centralization, it appeared to him to be rather a Bill for increasing the powers of local self-government. At present the roads in a particular district were under the management of a surveyor, who was simply a ministerial officer, and the control over him was vested in the magistrates; while under the Bill the control was to be given to a board elected by the ratepayers of the district. In fact, it was a Bill to constitute, so far as roads were concerned, a local parliament; it gave increased powers to local bodies. The hon. Gentleman also said the law was quite perfect, and all that was wanted was to put it in force. Well, that was just the point where the present law broke down. Nobody did put it in force. As in other cases, what was everybody's business was nobody's. Doubtless, any patriotic individual might put the law into operation; but what would he have to do? He must summon the surveyor of highways. First of all he would have to go to the magistrates to get the summons; next he must go to their clerk; next he would have to appear on the day when the summons was made returnable; then the magistrates would go and view the road, or appoint some one to view it for them. Meanwhile the surveyor might have taken some steps to put the road into decent order; and then the complaining party, having given his time, would, perhaps, lose the costs also. As to indicting the parish, that was a most expensive business. Doubtless there existed a remedy, but the machinery for putting it in force was most difficult. What the Bill proposed was the substitution of machinery of a simple kind, by forming a board consisting of representatives elected by the ratepayers of different parishes, and giving each parish an 2202 interest in making the surveyor do his duty. So far, then, from the Bill being one to do away with local government or add to the existing expense, its purport was to effect the object by an easier and a cheaper method.

§ MR. ALCOCK
said, he rose to thank the Government for having introduced the Bill, as he could state several instances which had come under his personal observation to show that the present system was very inadequate and most unsatisfactory. Although justices had power to unite parishes when invited to do so, it rarely happened that such invitations were addressed to them. In a particular area, with which he was familiar, there were six separate vestries, surveyors, and ratings, and the cost of maintaining twenty-eight miles of road exceeded £36 a mile. In another parish quite close to it, of about equal extent, there was one united administration, and the roads were kept in as good, if not better, order for £12 a mile.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
said, that his chief objection to the Bill was the additional districts it would create, which would necessitate a separate staff and additional machinery. No doubt an enlarged area was required, because the conflicting jurisdiction of small parishes prevented a uniform system of roads. He thought the administration of the high ways might be advantageously intrusted to boards of guardians, whose duties in many cases were very light. The main object to be secured was not great lines of road running parallel to the railways, but good serviceable roads leading from railway stations to the great centres of population. He did not see why the expense of maintaining the road should not come out of the poor rates.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, he had not understood the hon. Member for Nottingham to conclude with any Motion; he believed the debate, as far as it had proceeded, was intended merely as a preliminary discussion. In answer to the hon. Member for Norfolk, he felt bound to remind the House that, after full consideration, the principle of the Bill had been affirmed by a large majority, that the substance of the measure had been more than once before the House and before Select Committees, and that really very little that was novel could now be said either for or against the Bill. The objection to it on the ground of centralization was revived, and its machinery had been 2203 compared to that of the Poor Law. But although District Boards were to be elected on the same principle as boards of guardians, there was this distinction between them, that under the Poor Law system there was a general Board meeting in London, and exercising supervision over all the others. As regarded highways, there would be no such central Board. The intervention of the Secretary of State had been referred to, but it was only to be exercised by way of ultimate appeal, and for the sake of greater security against the effects of hasty decisions which the magistrates might adopt. The Home Office, moreover, was the ordinary channel through which accounts were obtained and furnished to Parliament, but there would be no interference by the Secretary of State of his own motion, and the local management would be left untouched, except that it would cease to be parochial. His hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. A. Smith) had remarked upon the great change which railways had brought about, and upon the necessity of keeping in repair the country roads which formed the communication between railway stations. Now, surely that was not a matter to leave to parishes. In the North of England a parish might consist of many townships, each of which for the purpose of road repairing constituted a parish in itself. Some science and skill were necessary in constructing and repairing roads, and these were not generally possessed by the parish surveyors. An hon. Member had observed that opinions in reference to this Bill were conflicting; that from some parts of the country he received statements that it was necessary, and from others statements that it was not required. Well, in places where the former opinion was entertained no doubt the magistrates would bring the provisions of the measure into operation, and in places where a contrary impression prevailed that impression could be acted on. The Bill was not a compulsory one. At first it was his opinion that it ought to be a compulsory measure; but he had yielded in order to meet some of the objections urged against the scheme. With regard to the question of expense, he apprehended that in the end the Bill would tend to diminish greatly the cost of maintaining roads As the principle of the Bill had been affirmed repeatedly in that House, he hoped any further discussion on its provisions would be taken in Committee.

§ SIR MATTHEW RIDLEY
said, there was so much conflict of opinion on the subject, that he did not believe the Government or the House of Commons would succeed in passing any Highway Bill which would be satisfactory to the counties. Though not an ardent admirer of the Bill, there were many parts of it which met his approval; and he trusted "it would go through Committee and then be submitted to the country, where its merits and defects would have fair trial at the hands alike of the magistrates and the ratepayers.

§ MAJOR WINDSOR PARKER
said, the hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Dodson) had stated that the roads were generally bad, and yet that no one could be found to complain of them; but, surely, if the roads were in such a wretched condition throughout the kingdom as to jeopardize people's necks, the community would rise to a man to take advantage of the existing law, which, it was said, provided an ample remedy. He held it to be unreasonable and unjust to require any class of people to pay others for performing a duty which they themselves were able and willing to perform. Look to the position of the farmers. They had teams and servants; many of them had conveniently situated stone-pits or gravel-pits; and they were ready and willing to perform the repairs which the roads in their localities required. Under the Bill, however, they would be called on to appear at the board sitting in a remote town, where those local advantages would be lost sight of. Again, in villages there would always be found poor men who, although not able-bodied, might be advantageously employed in breaking stones, repairing the roads, and generally keeping them in order. The Bill would have the effect of depriving them of that employment. Again, the village bricklayer and carpenter were occasionally employed in doing slight repairs to bridges, or in repairing or erecting posts and rails. That occasional employment they would lose under the operation of the Bill; and if they were thus broken up for want of sufficient employment, what would persons in the country do for the intelligent bricklayer and carpenter who repaired their dwellings, their barns and stables, and their farming implements? He should go into the lobby with the hon. Member for South Nottinghamshire if he divided the House.

§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNY
said, he had 2205 no wish to prejudge the Bill; but he thought the argument of the right hon. Baronet, that the measure did not tend to centralization, a somewhat extraordinary one. He thought that something in the nature of a Poor Law authority would be desirable in a measure of this kind. Magistrates, being land-owners, were too much disposed to shut up footpaths and bridle-roads. He should not oppose the Committee, but hoped that the Bill would be considerably modified.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Do I understand that the hon. Member for South Nottingham-shire intended to make a Motion?

§ MR. BARROW
No, Sir.

LORD HENLEY
said, he would propose an Amendment, the object of which was to introduce the principle of representation before taxation, and providing that the consent of the majority of the boards of guardians of the said county should be first signified in writing.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
pointed out that it would be very inconvenient to require the consent of the boards of guardians of the whole county, whereas these applications might be made in respect of particular portions of the county only.

§ MR. BARROW
remarked that the clause gave power to the magistrates at Quarter Sessions and no power to the ratepayers. It would deprive parishes of any sort of representation, and would be a compulsory Bill so far as the landowners and ratepayers were concerned. He did not think the state of the roads required any such interference.

§ MR. DEEDES
said, the observation of his hon. Friend commended the Bill to his approval, for he objected to permissive legislation altogether. He hoped the Committee would steer of mixing up boards of guardians with districts. Boards of guardians had enough to do in carrying on the business intrusted to them, and ought not to have fresh administrations placed in their hands. How his hon. Friend could stand up and intimate that the roads in his part of the country did not require supervision and improvement was surprising. He had recently an opportunity of seeing some of those roads, and never had he met with any carried on in a manner so utterly subversive of all principle of effecting good, and confirming every notion that could be enter- 2206 tained of money thrown away. Some of the materials used were neither stone nor metal, but simply broken drain tiles, which were so placed that neither man nor horse could get on without suffering.

§ MR. BARROW
said, he believed the roads in his district to be as good as the roads in any part of England. There was not one over which a light four-wheeled carriage could not be driven without danger. In Newark, and some by-lanes in Lincolnshire, perhaps, there might be some such roads as his hon. Friend had described; but he (Mr. Barrow) had never seen any roads made of broken tiles.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
said, in his district of Sussex the board of guardians had very little to do. That representation and taxation should go together they were all agreed; and if it was not advisable to mix up the boards of guardians, the power of assenting to the formation of districts might be given to the majority of the parish vestries. He believed the Bill, as at present framed, would not work. It might be necessary in the north of England, but in other parts of the country the law was sufficient as it stood.

MR. HENLEY
said, he could not support the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Northampton. Some of the guardians of a Poor Law union might belong to another county, and might in that case he called on to deal with a matter in which they had no concern. To the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hampshire (Mr. S. Booth) he was prepared to assent. The parishes concerned ought to have a voice in the question. If the majority of parishes objected to the formation of a district, the process ought to stop, though one parish ought not to stop the formation of a district. He should be best contented to have no Bill at all. The roads of the country were gradually improving under the present law. The efficiency of the Bill would all depend on whether they got good or bad surveyors.

LORD HENLEY
said, he would withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that the principle for which he contended would be carried out by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hampshire.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, he would then move the following addition to the clause:— Provided always that no such final order shall be made, and all powers of the justices in that behalf shall cease and determine in cases where a 2207 majority of the parishes proposed, under any provisional order, to be united in any Highway district, shall, by their vestries specially summoned for that purpose, object thereto, and signify such objection before the time for making such final order, by petition addressed to the Court of Quarter Sessions.

§ SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON
said, he thought, that if they allowed the parishes to have much voice in. the matter, there would be hardly any use in passing the Bill. Seeing how wisely the Poor Law Commissioners had exercised the powers intrusted to them, there was no reason why the magistrates, who were usually the largest ratepayers, should not be intrusted with these powers as to the roads.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, he thought that the Amendment would very much impair the efficiency of the Bill. If there were ten parishes in the district, each parish would have an equal voice, but one parish might have a population of 20,000, and another a population of only 500—one parish might have twenty miles of road, and another not half a mile. Being unequal in extent, population, and length of roads, the minority in interest might overrule the wishes of the real majority, simply because they were more numerous.

§ MR. STANILAND
observed, that the parishes proposed to be included in a union must take action, and acreage gene rally bore a proportion to mileage. The Amendment appeared to be a valuable one, and he trusted the Committee would assent to it.

§ MR. W. E. DUNCOMBE
said, he cordially approved the Amendment. It did not require the consent of a majority of parishes to be asked. It only gave power to a majority of parishes to object.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, there was an argument from precedent which seemed to him material. Under the existing law, six counties in South Wales were subject to a system very similar to that which it was now proposed to introduce into the rest of the country. They were divided into districts for highway purposes. The districts were formed of parishes or townships. The county road boards were called upon to divide each county into districts, and there was no option, and no appeal to the vestries or inhabitants. Being an inhabitant of one of those counties, he could state that the Act had given general satisfaction, and had tended to improve the highways without increasing the expense. By the 3rd section of the Bill, "parish" meant any place maintain- 2208 ing its own roads, so that a district might be formed of one or two large parishes, and might also contain several townships. According to the Amendment, a majority might consist of small townships, and they would be able to overpower the larger, more populous, and more wealthy parishes which composed the numerical minority. He hoped the clause would be maintained, as it was his opinion that the Amendment would materially impair the efficiency of the Bill, if not altogether destroy it.

§ MR. HUNT
said, he wished to ask how the county road boards in Wales were elected.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, they were composed principally of magistrates. There were few elected members. He was not speaking, however, of the constitution of the county boards, but of the compulsory power to form districts without reference to the opinion of the vestries.

MR. HENLEY
said, the distinction was manifest. The Welsh Bill was a compulsory Bill, and the boards had simply to divide the counties into districts. The Bill before them was a permissive Bill, and the vestries ought to have a voice as to whether the discretion of the magistrates should be exercised.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, looking to the fact that many of these townships had no vestries, he thought the Amendment would work.

MR. HENLEY
said, the language of the Amendment could be easily altered, if necessary, when the Bill was reported; but it put in issue a great principle, whether the ratepayers should have a voice in the question of coming under the operation of the Bill, and he should cordially support it.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, that the parishes of England did not wish to be placed under martial law in regard to roads, like those in Wales.

§ MR. WALTER
said, that whether the principle for which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) contended was desirable or not, the Amendment did not assert it. So far from asserting it, it was calculated to mislead. In the part of the country in which he lived, a district would be composed of two or three large parishes and a considerable number of small parishes. His belief was, that the large parishes would 2209 generally agree to the new Bill, and the small parishes would object to it. It was in the small parishes that the roads were most neglected, and the surveyors most incompetent. According to the Amendment, the small parishes, with a population of only one-third or one-fourth that of the larger parishes, would overbear the opinion of the larger, wealthier, and more enterprising parishes, where the rate-payers desired to see the roads properly managed. He objected altogether to such a test of public opinion, and should there fore support the clause.

§ MR. DEEDES
said, he would advise the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to withdraw the Bill if the Amendment were agreed to, because the effect would be to make the measure inoperative.

§ MR. THOMPSON
said, he thought that the arguments against the Bill were futile. He had always found that the ratepayers, where the roads were exceedingly bad, were the least conscious of their defects.

§ MR. BARROW
said, there were certain townships in which endowments existed for the maintenance of the roads. It would be manifestly unjust that a town hip of that kind should be united with an adjacent one in which there was no such endowment. He should therefore move, that the last proviso of the clause be omitted.

§ SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON
supported the Amendment.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, the words proposed to be omitted formed no part of the original Bill, but had been adopted in the Select Committee to which the Bill had been referred, by nine to three. Though he had supported the proposition in the Select Committee, he thought great weight was due to the objection of the hon. Gentleman, and that the Bill would be better without the latter part of the proviso.

§ MR. BARROW
said, it was only fair 2210 that parishes of much greater extent and population should have a larger number of waywardens than other parishes. He begged therefore to move to insert the following words in the second paragraph:— "Regard being had in fixing the number to the amount of population and the acre age of such parish or district maintaining its own highways."

§ MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT
wished to ask, whether the hon. Gentleman meant that if one parish had 1,100 and another 1,000 acres, the former should have two waywardens and the latter only one?

§ MR. BARROW
said his object was, that the justices might see that the number of waywardens should be in some measure proportioned to the extent and population of the district.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, that the population and acreage of the parishes would, as a matter of course, be taken into account in appointing waywardens; but he thought the vagueness of the Amendment would be likely to perplex the justices in fixing the number to be appointed.

MR. HENLEY
said, he should oppose the Amendment, as he did not see what the population of a district had to do with the extent of its roads.

§ MR. BARROW
observed that it was the practice under the Poor Law to allow more guardians in populous districts than in parishes of less magnitude.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he would admit that under the Poor Law the number of guardians varied, but there were no words in the Poor Law Amendment Act making it imperative upon the Commissioners to be governed by the population or acreage. The hon. Gentleman did not mention property, which was a point that might well be considered by the magistrates. A proportion in accordance with population alone would be an injustice towards small parishes, which would obtain no real representation.

§ MR. BARROW
said, he was willing to add the word "property" to his Amendment.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, that even I then, if the proportion was strictly observed, the small parishes would scarcely get any representation at all. He thought that the Bill was quite sufficient as it stood to effect the object it contemplated.

§ MR. HUNT
observed, that the treasurer, clerk, and district surveyor were to be appointed for an indefinite period, subject to removal. The result would be that unless actual fraud were committed, no one would propose the removal of such officers. He thought some stimulus to active exertion should be given by making the appointments for a limited time, subject to re-election. He would move as an amendment that the officers be elected for three years, subject to removal.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he thought the experience of the Poor Law Board was against making officers removable after short periods. He doubted whether an insecure tenure of office would be found a stimulus for the proper discharge of its duties. So long as the Board had the power of removal for due cause he could see no harm in electing the officers for an unlimited period.

§ MR. ROGERS
said, he thought that when officers were removed a notice ought to be given of the intention to appoint fresh officers, in order to prevent even the appearance of a job. He would therefore propose, as an Amendment, that in every case of a fresh appointment a week's notice should be given by publication upon the church doors throughout the district.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, he agreed that there should be some interval between the removal and the new appointment. He would look into the practice in similar cases under the Poor Law, with a view to consider whether a similar provision could not be introduced into the Bill before the Committee, and would communicate with the hon. Gentleman.

§ MR. DODSON
said, he wished to move as an Amendment, the addition of the following words:— Provided that before the Treasurer enters upon the duties of his office, the Board shall take sufficient security from him for the due performance of the duties of his office.

§ MR. DEEDES
inquired whether in cases where banks were the treasurers, security would be required?

§ MR. DODSON
said, that under the Poor Law banks were sometimes treasurers, but the requirement of security was the rule.

§ MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT
suggested the insertion in the Amendment of 2212 the words "not being a banking firm" before the word "treasurer."

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, he thought the treasurers should give some security.

§ MR. THOMPSON
was of opinion that the words "not being a banking firm." should be inserted.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, that under the Poor Law Acts it was the practice that a member of a banking firm might be treasurer, but not the firm; and that it was the invariable practice to require good security, and not to give any salary.

§ MR. BRISCOE
said, he could not see the least reason why good security should not be given on behalf of the ratepayers.

§ MR. HUMBERSTON
said, he wished to simplify the proceedings in cases where roads were out of repair. He thought there should be only one summons instead of two, and that the justices should be allowed, if they chose, to hear and determine the case when it first came before them. He moved an Amendment to that effect.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, the clause as framed was carefully considered by the Committee, who were of opinion that every precaution should be taken against a hasty decision which would affect the liability of the parish.

§ MR. MITFORD
said, he would suggest that the average of the expenditure during the last three preceding years, instead of the last year only, should be the basis of the calculations as to the proportion which each parish should contribute to the district fund. He moved an Amendment accordingly.

§ MR. BARROW
complained that the clause contained a most extraordinary power over the occupiers of land. In point of fact the Bill gave the board of way-wardens power to tax the parish to the extent of 2s. 6d. in the pound, or about six times what the farmer paid for income tax, without the parish having a voice in 2213 the matter. In his part of the country, with very good roads, the average payment was 6d. in the pound. By the old Act the parish could not be taxed more than 10d. in the pound without the consent of the vestry. If, as he thought it should be, the tax were thrown in reality on the landlords and not on the tenants, it would render the Bill a little more just in its operation. He would suggest that wherever the rate exceeded 10d. in the pound the tenant should deduct it from the rent.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he considered that the point required grave discussion. A tenant took a farm on a calculation of the average rates, and he might, under the Bill, be assessed at three times the amount. The Bill, by suddenly defeating in that way the arrangements under which land had been taken, would inflict great injustice on tenants.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, the clause fixed the same maximum rate as was leviable under an existing Act. There was no reason to suppose that that maximum would be reached in practice. Indeed, he believed that economy would result from the measure, and that the rates would be lowered. No rate exceeding 10d. in the pound could be imposed without the consent of four-fifths of the ratepayers present at a parish meeting.

§ MR. BARROW
said, that the three rates of 10d. each made up the half-crown for the whole year; and he maintained, that if the roads of the country were anything like as bad as they had been described, the economy promised from the measure must prove wholly illusory.

MR. HENLEY
said, he rose to move the addition of a proviso to the clause to meet the case of certain districts in Oxfordshire, called the Beechwood districts, some of which were rated to the highway rates while others were not. By strict law none of them were liable to be so rated, a decision having been given to that effect last century; but in some districts advantage had been taken of the decision, and in others it had not. It would produce a great disturbance if the proprietors of that description of property were not left to go on as they had been accustomed to do; and therefore he had drawn up his proviso. Some of these proprietors said they used the roads and were willing to pay for them. He believed that Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire were the only counties in which the circumstances 2214 to which he had referred existed. The proviso he begged to move was as follows:— Provided that in any parish where, for a period of not less than seven years immediately preceding the passing of this Act, it has been the custom of the surveyor of highways for such parish to levy a highway rate in respect of property not subject by law to be assessed to poor rates, the monies payable in pursuance of the precept of the Highway Board shall not be paid by the overseers, but may be raised and paid by the waywarden of such parish out of a highway rate, to be assessed and levied in manner and in respect of the property in and in respect of which the same would have been assessed and levied if this Act had not passed.

§ MR. ROGERS
said, he should support the proviso, which would extend to his county (Cornwall), where there were copper and other mines, some of which were assessed to highway rate, while others enjoyed exemption.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, he thought the terms of the proviso would meet the necessities of the case, and he had no objection to its insertion.

§ MR. MITFORD
said, he would move to insert words providing that for the space of seven clear days immediately following the day to which they are made up, the accounts shall be open at the office of the clerk, or in some convenient place for the inspection of the ratepayers.

§ MAJOR WINDSOR PARKER
proposed the omission of paragraph 7, thinking it unreasonable to call on farmers to pay for the carting of materials, when they had teams and waggons of their own.

§ SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON
said, that great difficulty was found in inducing farmers to draw stone. It was necessary that the operation should be performed while the roads were dry, and at such times the farmers had work enough of their own for their teams to do.

§ MR. DEEDES
thought the omission of the clause would lead to much practical inconvenience.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
then brought up an additional clause, which he stated had already received the approval of the Committee, but by some mistake had not been printed with the others. The clause was one containing a provision "for the discontinuance of the maintenance of unnecessary highways."

§ MR. DODSON
said, that in the absence of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Egerton) he would move the insertion of a clause giving power to Highway Boards to borrow money. There was a general feeling among the ratepayers in favour of the clause.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, he must object to the clause, which had been rejected by the Select Committee.

§ MR. DEEDES
said, he thought the clause was necessary, but he would suggest that the Boards should not be empowered to borrow a sum exceeding the gross amount that might be levied in any parish for a period of three years.

§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE
said, the insertion of the clause would prevent the adoption of the Bill in many parishes.

MR. HENLEY
said, he was satisfied, that if the waywardens were empowered to borrow, there would be no end to their extravagance, and they would become very unpopular with the ratepayers.

§ MR. BASS
said, he wished to move the insertion of a clause prohibiting the cut ting of turf on the sides of highways.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, he had no objection to the clause, but it did not come within the scope of the Bill. It was not intended to increase the power of Highway Boards.

§ MR. DEEDES
said, that if the clause were agreed to, it ought to be made to go further, and prevent horses being turned out and eating the turf.

§ SIR BROOK BRIDGES
said, he doubted whether the turf belonged to the highways at all.