HC Deb 13 April 1863 vol 170 cc117-9

Bill, as amended, considered.

Clauses added.

Amendments made.

Clause 19.

MR. HENLEY

said, that under the nineteenth clause of the Bill a man would be obliged to apply to a justice if be wanted to have a telegraph wire passing over his house raised fur the purpose of enabling him to increase the height of the building. That was a hardship. It ought to be sufficient for the proprietor of a house, who wished to exercise his common law right of improving his property, to serve notice on the company to which the wire belonged.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, that he had no intention to debar persons over whose houses a telegraph wire had been placed from raising their houses if they so pleased; but as the Bill was a sort of ex post facto legislation, by which they were lessening the powers already granted to telegraph companies, they were bound to protect them against harassing notices from persons who had no real intention to raise their houses. He thought that all objection would be removed by inserting the words "and in case of difference with the companies," before the words "shall satisfy the justices that he intends so to raise his house."

MR. HENLEY

said, the alteration would improve the clause.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

asked how the householder was to convince the magistrate of the sincerity of his intention to alter his house?

MR. ROEBUCK

said, that he thought the Amendment sufficiently explicit, and he saw no difficulty in the matter. If there was no difference of opinion as to the bonâ fide intention of the proprietor to raise his house, the parties would not go before the magistrate; and if there was a doubt on the part of the company, what could be easier than for the householder to say, "I do intend to raise my house, and here are the builders whom I have employed to do it"?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire was in error if be supposed that there would be no obligation on the companies to raise their wire until the building was commenced. They would have to do it within fourteen days of the notice, unless they believed that there was no real intention on the part of the householder, and in that case they would have to go before a magistrate. An affidavit would satisfy the justice in an ordinary case, though, if there were reason, the justice might require further proof.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

said, he wished to ask whether the householder would be subject to indictment if, after swearing to an affidavit of a bonâ fide intention, he happened to change his mind.

MR. HUMBERSTON

suggested that power should lie given to enable the companies to recover the costs of raising and lowering the wires to their former position if the house was not raised.

Clause amended, and agreed to.

LORD ALFRED CHURCHILL

said, he objected to an Amendment which had been made in the 23rd clause on a previous stage, on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley). As the Bill originally stood, the owners or occupiers of houses of the annual value of £20 and upwards had power to object to posts being placed within a certain distance of their houses, and in Committee that limitation was struck out, leaving to every householder the same power of objection. If unnecessary restrictions were imposed on the companies they would defeat the object intended — namely, that of giving cheap telegrams to the public. If the words were not reinserted, no company would be able to work except such as obtained the sanction of railway and canal companies to lay down wires on their property. He should move to re-insert the words struck out.

Another Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 22, after the words "dwelling-house," to insert the words "of the annual value of twenty pounds or upwards."

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. HENLEY

said, that having originally objected to the words in the Bill, he should oppose their re-insertion. The House ought to take more care of those poorer classes who had no power to help themselves; and, if once they adopted such a principle, the House would find itself committed to a system of legislating in one manner for the poor and a different manner for the rich.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, that the words had been originally inserted in the clause in consequence of their having been adopted in the Act of last year, but he found it difficult to withstand the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman opposite when the matter was discussed in Committee, and he had therefore consented to their being struck out. He would advise the noble Lord not to persist in his Motion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Other Amendments made.

Bill to be read 3° on Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 78.]