THIRD READING. (Hansard, 17 April 1863)

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON
moved that the Bill be read a third time.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he rose to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to have the Bill re-committed for the purpose of re-considering some of the Amendments agreed to after the Easter recess in a House much less full than when the Bill passed through Committee, because he doubted whether they carried out the views which were then expressed. He understood that the main object of the Bill was to protect persons against wires being carried over their lands without their consent. Certain telegraph companies had obtained private Acts by which, without notice, they derived powers contrary to every principle of right and justice; but he maintained that they took these Acts at their own peril, and that upon the oversight being discovered the House had a right to reverse the decision. He complained of the 31st and 32nd sections as erroneous in principle, and not carrying out the views expressed when the House was full and the Bill was in Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman did not assent to the re-commitment, he should not enter into contention with him; but he hoped when the Bill reached the other House, that it would not he said that the House of Commons had assented to the Bill as it stood. In that case the Bill would go to the other House in an erroneous condition and at variance with the opinions expressed in Committee. For the purpose of appealing to the right hon. Gentleman, he would move that the Bill be re-committed for the purpose of considering the objectionable clauses.

§ MR. HUMBERSTON
said, he should be reluctant to offer any opposition to the Bill, which he thought was a useful one. He wished to ask, however, if the interpretation clause would give a retrospective effect to the 16th clause, and whether that clause had any reference to the Telegraph Acts already in existence.

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON
, in reply, said, that the powers of the 16th clause would only be retrospective with respect to the future exercise of powers already possessed by companies under their special Acts. In regard to the observations of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets he thought the hon. Member was labouring under a misapprehension as to the clauses referred to not carrying out what was understood to be the sense of the House. He adopted the one clause word for word as it was proposed. It dealt exclusively with works constructed before the passing of this Act, and he thought that when they dealt with works constructed under powers obtained by Act of Parliament they ought to deal with the parties fairly and even tenderly In the other clause they gave powers to parties who wanted to use their land for purposes not contemplated when the telegraph works were constructed. In such cases he felt that it was desirable that there should be some third party to decide how far an injury was inflicted, and how far powers legally conferred ought to be interfered with. The wording of the clause was not his, but it had been drawn, by an able draughtsman, and, as he understood at the time, carried out the wishes of all parties.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
said, he thought that the Bill would be very useful with regard to future companies, but the difficulty was with regard to the powers which companies had already obtained, and by which, in many cases great injustice had been done. The Magnetic Telegraph Company, for instance, in the exercise of their existing powers, had prevented building on his land near Preston. Certain parties had agreed to erect a house on that land, but they discovered afterwards that the company had used their powers to erect posts and put up wires directly opposite what would be the drawing room windows 373 of the new building. He strongly objected to the appeal being given to the Board of Trade, and thought that alleged injuries should be determined by the local magistracy. The Bill was better than none at all, but he, trusted it would be thoroughly sifted in the other House.

MR. LYGON
said, that many cases of injury had been inflicted by wires passing before the windows of villas. The powers given under Clause 31 would not be sufficient to prevent annoyance, because there were cases of annoyances which no pecuniary compensation could meet. It was a great hardship that persons so annoyed should be put to all the expense of coming rip to the Board of Trade. Whenever there was a serious interference with the rights of property, an appeal should be allowed to a local authority to determine whether there was bona fides in the complaint. He should support the Motion for re-commitment, in order that Clause 31 might be re-considered.

§ MR. LOCKE
said, the interests of the public were not sufficiently protected in the Bill. Telegraph companies would still, he understood, have power to come on private property without notice. He also objected to the provision for referring disputed cases to the Board of Trade. In his opinion persons injured should be permitted to revert to their common law rights, and go before the magistrates.

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON
said, he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Bill provided that in the case of future works due notice must be given to the parties interested, who could then object, or who, even if they did not object at that time, could on some future occasion come forward and apply for the removal of the posts or wires.

§ MR. LOCKE
said, that was not intelligibly stated in the Bill.