COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 23 March 1863)

§ MR. BLACKBURN
moved an Amendment, the effect of which was to limit the power of telegraph companies to take up any road without the consent of the authorities in trust of that road.

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON
said, the Committee should remember that they were not now conferring powers; they were merely regulating the exercise of powers already conferred. This Bill was analogous to those Acts which contained general clauses to be embodied hereafter into special Acts. If the assent of every public body having power over the roads was to be necessary before those roads could be touched, there would be no need to come to Parliament at all. The object of coming to Parliament was to obtain special powers to execute certain works without the assent of the parties interested. Parliament had already granted these powers, and the Committee were now asked to apply to the exercise of those powers such regulations as they thought desirable. It would not be expedient that it should rest with some small board in the country to determine whether a line of telegraphs should be laid down between, say, London and Liverpool; what was desired was that care should be taken that all interests should be properly protected in laying down wires.

MR. HENLEY
wanted to know why the same regulations that applied to works above ground should not apply also to works under ground. He did not think that small corporate towns, or trustees of turnpike roads more than thirty miles long, should have a right to stop impor- 1789 tant lines of telegraph. He thought, therefore, that there ought to be an appeal to the Board of Trade.

§ LORD ALFRED CHURCHILL
said, the different telegraph companies were all subject to stringent restrictions of one kind or another. Unless it could be shown that they had greatly abused their powers, it was unjust to add further limitations.

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON
said, if Parliament were to impose arbitrary conditions of a nature not at present known to the law upon companies hereafter to be formed, the effect would be to give a practical monopoly to telegraph companies already in existence. It was not impossible that in the present instance, as sometimes happened before Railway Committees, vested interests might be seeking to protect themselves by affecting zeal for the public welfare.

§ MR. BLACKBURN
said, he neither held a share in a telegraph company himself, nor did any friend or relation of his hold a share; but he thought the proposed clause did extend to existing companies. As far as the clause itself was concerned, it either went too far or not far enough. Either the companies should have power to go where they pleased, or the rights of the road trustees should not be limited in any part of the country.

MR. HENLEY
could not understand why, if this were a Bill to remedy inconveniences admittedly felt under the present system, the right hon. Gentleman should shrink from endeavouring to guard against evils of a practical character.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
complained of the roving commission apparently enjoyed by the telegraph companies. In the town of Preston, where he had some property, persons purchasing and intending to build upon land found the company's workmen putting up poles exactly in front of their drawing room windows. No notice whatever had been given of their proceedings. If Parliament had given improper powers to the companies, those powers ought to be properly regulated; if they had been surreptitiously obtained, they ought to be restrained. As the existing powers were so obnoxious and unfair, he trusted they would not be extended to new companies.

§ LORD ALFRED CHURCHILL
said, it was not the fact that the powers which had been conferred upon the telegraph companies last year had been surreptitiously obtained.

§ LORD HOTHAM
said, there was no 1790 doubt that some of the powers conferred upon the companies were excessive and unwarranted. It was obvious that with the forty-eight hours' notice now permitted by Parliament, it was only necessary for the promoters of the telegraph to watch a man away from his home on a visit, and when he came back he might find the posts stuck up in front of his house. Some years ago he had the honour of being chairman of a Telegraph Committee. The Committee granted the line, which was at that time opposed. Another Committee sat in the following year, and the powers then granted were greatly enlarged. A year or two passed, and a friend of his asked how the Committee over which he presided could have given such powers; and it turned out that the succeeding Committee had granted these powers on the understanding that they had been sanctioned by his (Lord Hotham's) Committee. Upon investigation, however, it turned out that this was a total mistake. The very reverse was the fact. He (Lord Hotham) represented the circumstances to the then Vice President of the Board of Trade; but the matter could not be remedied. After that he felt justified in saying he should not be very delicate in dealing with the powers of these companies.

MR. REMINGTON MILLS
said, that nothing was further from the fact than that the powers granted by the Bill which was approved by the Committee of which he was a Member had been unfairly obtained.

§ MR. DALGLISH
moved the insertion in the 13th line of the word "twenty-eight" for the word "fourteen," his object being that the former instead of the latter number of days should constitute the term of the notice to be given to trustees and public bodies generally when it was proposed that a telegraphic wire should be run through the properties under their control at a particular level.

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON
said, he thought fourteen days' notice would be 1791 amply sufficient, inasmuch as the question whether a telegraphic wire under ground should run one inch above or one below a certain level was one of so little importance that it would, in the majority of cases, be decided by the surveyors of public bodies without there being any necessity of assembling the bodies themselves to pronounce a judgment upon it. He had acted on the best information which he could obtain; but if hon. Gentlemen thought that fourteen days' notice was too short, he would accept the Amendment.

MR. HENLEY
asked how it was proposed that the expenses of references to the Board of Trade were to be paid. Were the parties to come to London, or was a Special Commissioner to be sent to the spot? Both would be very expensive processes, and the Committee ought to understand from what funds the cost would be defrayed.

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON
referred the right hon. Gentleman to the 24th and 25th clauses.

MR. HENLEY
saw plenty of provision for the payment of the officials of the Board of Trade, but was there any provision for the payment of innocent parties who might be put to a great deal of trouble?

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON
said, that if the right hon. Gentleman would allow the question to stand over, he would consider it.