HC Deb 26 March 1863 vol 169 cc1970-80

(Progress 23rd March.)

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clauses 13, 14, and 15 were agreed to.

Clause 16 (For Works under or over Land Consent of Owner, &c., requisite).

MR. BLACKBURN

said, the clause provided that no company should place its works over or across any lands belonging to the Crown without the previous consent of the proprietor. He wished to propose a verbal Amendment, extending the same rule to lands belonging to private owners.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

explained that the clause stated that generally the company should not place posts "on, over, or along" any land except with the consent of the owner, lessee, or occupier. It was only in the saving part of the clause that the power arose of crossing property other than Crown property without the consent of the owner; but it had reference only to wires carried over houses, and not within six feet of them, in which case the consent of the street authorities was to be held sufficient. The proposed alteration would operate as a serious impediment to the extension of town telegraphy.

MR. C. TURNER

said, he wished to inquire how a man who lived in a two-story house, which he wished to raise to four stories, or who wished to build a mill on the spot, was to get rid of the wire.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, in the next clause there was a proviso which guarded the rights of the owner of the house in such a case.

LORD ALFRED CHURCHILL

said, there was no nuisance in having a wire passed six feet over a house. If the consent of every householder were to be obtained, the sixpenny telegraph system could never have been carried out in London.

MR. BLACKBURN

said, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman was well acquainted with his own Bill. The proviso to which he had referred was contained in the 26th clause.

MR. HENLEY

said, he wished to ask when the street authorities gave permission to have a telegraph erected, what was to prevent the wire being brought across a man's window?

MR. MILNER GIBSON

replied that the meaning of the clause was that no wire was to be taken in and no post was to be erected within ten yards of the front of a house without the consent of the owner or the occupier. But a wire might be carried six feet above the elevation of the level of the roof without the written consent of the owner or occupier. If, however, the wording was obscure, it should be made clear.

MR. BLACKBURN

said, he did not see why the same rule which applied to houses built upon Crown property should not also be applied to houses not so built.

MR. LOCKE

said, he wished to ask whether, if a house of two stories were to be raised to six stories, the wire was to go through it or be raised.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, the wire would be raised.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clause 18 (For Telegraphs above Ground, and Posts, within certain Distance of Dwelling Houses, Consent of Occupier, &c., requisite).

MR. HENLEY

inquired whether the rule which forbade that a wire should come within ten yards in front of a house of the value of £20, or within six feet of the roof, would apply to houses along turnpike roads.

MR. MILNER. GIBSON

said, it would apply to all dwelling-houses.

MR. HENLEY

said, he should move to strike out the words "of the annual value of £20 and upwards." He did not see why the humbler occupiers should not have the same protection against the wire and posts being placed in front of their houses without their consent as people living in dwellings of £20 and upwards.

LORD ALFRED CHURCHILL

said, a limit must be placed somewhere, and he thought £20 a fair one.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, that the objection taken by the right hon. Member was primâ facie a sound one. If, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would consent to allow the matter to stand over, he would see whether they could not provide in some way the protection he desired.

MR. HENLEY

said, the poor man ought not to have his doorway stopped up, any more than the rich man, by having a post put up to it.

LORD ALFRED CHURCHILL

denied that there was any practical nuisance in the case of the poor man.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he wished to ask if there was no practical nuisance, why they exempted £20 houses?

Amendment agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 19 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 23 (Powers of Board of Trade respecting the Objection).

MR. BLACKBURN

said, he would suggest the omission of the words "providing that compensation should be settled by the Board of Trade."

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, there would be no means of giving compensation at all if these words were omitted.

LORD ALFRED CHURCHILL

suggested that the omission of the words would force telegraph companies into courts of law, and the less they were found there the better.

Words retained.

Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 24.

Clause 25 (Costs).

MR. HENLEY

said, he doubted whether the terms of the clause were large enough to enable the Board of Trade to settle costs in cases of arbitration.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, he would put in words to carry out that object.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 26 (For Building or other Purposes, Owner, &c., may require Removal of Works though not originally objected to, but subject to Reference to Board of Trade).

MR. LOCKE

said, he wished to call attention to the injustice which the adoption of the clause would work. He would put the case of a person having a piece of land on which he wished to build a house, or a house on which he wanted to place an additional story. He might be prevented from doing either of those things because a telegraph company had carried their wires six feet above his house or his land. The remedy proposed by the Bill was, that he should state his grievance to the Board of Trade, who would pronounce what in their opinion was a just decision. But that was contrary to all law. The noble Lord complained that telegraph companies would be driven into a court of law on every occasion, and so they ought to be. The common law said they should not place a wire across a man's house without his consent. Cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum was the maxim of the common law, but it was to be no longer observed. The Board of Trade were to have power to say a man should not build his house higher: but if it did give leave, the landowner was to pay the expense of applying for permission. That was preposterous. A man should be left to the exercise of his common law rights.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

said, he also protested against the clause as interfering with the common law of the land. It was quite true that private Bills introduced into Parliament sought to do so also, but in the case of these compensation was provided. As the clause stood a man could not ride across his own land. It ought to be framed in such a manner as to leave him a right of action in case he suffered any injury from the wire running over the land.

MR. BUTT

said, the two hon. and learned Gentlemen who had preceded him appeared to have misapprehended the effects of the clause. A previous clause required that the company should do as little damage as possible, and should make compensation for any damage inflicted. If the wires ran over a man's house so as to interfere with his raising his house, of course the owner would be entitled to compensation. The provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act would also apply, and therefore this was a clause in relief of the landowner. It was only in cases where an Act of Parliament had been obtained authorizing the erection of the telegraph wires that the landowners would be put to the expense of applying to the Board of Trade.

MR. HENLEY

said, he must admit that the clauses which had been agreed to gave telegraph companies power to go over a man's house, at a height of six feet, without compensation; but if he wanted to raise the house, why should he be obliged to go to the Board of Trade for permission? That was an abomination. No one had a right to place an impediment in the way of a man getting nearer to heaven, which was what they all wanted to do in some way or another.

MR. DILLWYN

said, that no doubt the powers given by the Act were similar to the powers conferred by private Bills, but there was a difference between public and private Bills. In the case of a private Bill all parties had notice, and could make their complaints before a Select Committee, and then, as a last resort, they could fall back on the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. He thought these were dangerous powers to confer.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, he was at a loss to understand what amendment was required. The hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) seemed to think it was an advantage to compel a man to go to a court of law rather than to the Board of Trade. The clause was eminently protective of the rights of the owners of property, and it vindicated those rights in the cheapest and most summary manner. He therefore trusted that the Committee would pass the clause.

MR. HENLEY

said, that in order to bring the matter to an issue he would move to omit all the words after the word "notice," in line 42, page 10, to the word "expedient," in line 19, page 11. The Bill gave the companies power to take their wires over any man's house and across any man's land. [''No, no!"j He maintained that it did. If the company got the consent of the public authority, having control over the street, they could carry their wires without leave and without compensation. If a man wished to build a house on the land over which the company's wires ran, he did not see why he was to wait for the consent of the Board of Trade to enable him to do so.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, that he wished to know the effect of the proposed Amendment.

MR. HRNLEY

said, that the effect would be, that where a company had an easement over a house or land, on the owner giving them notice that he wanted to deal with his property, they must either remove or alter their wires, so as to give him an opportunity of making the alterations he required.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, that a man might capriciously and wilfully give the company notice, and it would be most unreasonable that the company should not be heard.

MR. J. C. EWART

said, he must agree that there ought to be some court to which both parties could appeal.

MR. ROLT

said, that the Bill dealt with the rights of property in a manner entirely novel ["No!"] Yes, it took away the rights of property without compensation, and that had never occurred before. The sixth clause of the Bill provided for compensation if damage were done to private property; but if the company, by the authority of the public body having charge of the road or street, carried their telegraph wires in the air six feet above the house or land, not doing any damage, then there was to be no compensation to the owner. The house over which the wires were carried might be a low one, and the owner might wish to raise it, but he must first sue to the Board of Trade for power to do so. Now, this was going too far. He thought it was a dangerous thing to allow interference with the rights of property at all without the consent of the owner, and without compensation; but if for objects of public utility such an interference were permitted, it should at least be guarded in every possible way, and the owner who contemplated an improvement in his property should not be forced to go to the Board of Trade in order to enjoy his rights. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentlemen was therefore quite necessary. The wires ought to be removed at a short notice on a simple assertion of the owner that he required to build.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, it might be quite right that the telegraph company should be forced to remove the wires, in order that the owner of the house or land might carry out any improvement; but having laid those wires lawfully and under the authority of Parliament, they ought, when required to remove them, to have the opportunity of stating any objections which might be raised against that removal. All the modern improvements— railways, canals, telegraphs—interfered with private rights, and he would not consent to leave the companies at the mercy of private caprice.

MR. AYRTON

said, there could be no doubt as to the correctness of the construction which had been put upon the clause by his hon. and learned Friend. In the case of railways and canals the owners of property were paid for the land that was taken from them; but the telegraph wires were to be laid without compensation to the owner, and perhaps against his will; and then, when he wished to execute improvements which interfered with the wires, he was not to be allowed to do so, but the Board of Trade was to decide whether or not he was at liberty to use his own property. Still, the Amendment went a little too far, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Milner Gibson) would reconsider the clause.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, he wished to point out that telegraph companies would have more power without the clause than with it, for the Bill interfered with such companies and not with owners of property. It was rather for the telegraph companies than for the householders lo claim compensation. He should, however, be happy to consider any Amendment that the clause was capable of.

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought that the Amendment which he had proposed would be sufficient to meet the object which he had in view. If a man desired to raise his house ten feet, it was clearly the duty of the telegraph companies, after receiving notice to that effect, to raise their wires ten feet to enable him to do so. There could be no doubt, that in the course of the last year or two, several Bills had slipped through Parliament conferring powers which ought never to have been granted. The clause, moreover, would not apply to any case where the landowner had given permission or received compensation.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

said, he could not understand what the Board of Trade would have to decide, or on what principles they would decide. Suppose he wished to build his house four stories high; it might be a caprice, but he had a right to indulge that caprice. The question was, whether a man was permitted to build his house as the common law permitted him. Then, what had the Board of Trade to decide? Every man should be left to his common law right to do as he pleased with his property. In the case of a man living in Northumberland, was he to come up to town to obtain the sanction of the Board of Trade, or to employ agents for that purpose?

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, he would again express his readiness, if the Amendment was withdrawn, to postpone the clause, with the object, in the mean time, of endeavouring to render its wording more generally acceptable.

MR. C. TURNER

said, that the analogy between telegraph and railway companies was imperfect. Railway companies could not act without notice. The power conferred by the Bill, on the other hand, was a more arbitrary infringement of private rights. He was advised by high legal Uthorities, that if the Bill became law, no man across whose land telegraph wires passed would be able, in future, to sell that property, without previously obtaining the consent of the Board of Trade. In many cases, where the offer was made conditionally upon immediate possession being given, the restriction would seriously damage the value of the land, if it did not prevent the owner from parting with it altogether. He hoped it would be made imperative on telegraph companies to remove their wires when required to do so.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, he believed one of the objects of the Bill was to protect certain existing companies which had received powers to erect their posts and wires surreptitiously. He himself was a sufferer from the existing system; and he therefore trusted that it would be made clear that the clause applied to them.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, that the hon. and learned Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. Rolt) had entirely misrepresented the Bill. The sixteenth clause provided that no company should place any works upon any land or building without the consent of the owner, occupier, or lessee, and therefore it was not correct to say that the measure authorized the taking of land or property without compensation. The only property with which it interfered was property in the air, in cases where the wires passed over houses in towns.

MR. ROLT

said, that was exactly what he objected to. That was the first time that Parliament had been asked to interfere with any right of property without providing for the compensation of the owner.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, that such powers were contained in existing Acts. The measure before the Committee was really one to restrict telegraph companies from doing that which they could do with im- punity if the Bill were never in existence. All that this clause did was to give the company a right of appeal to the arbitration of a. third party in case of any disputes arising between the company and the owners of property.

MR. BLACKBURN

said, that the right hon. Gentleman wished to give the Board of Trade power to restain companies, but that was a duty which Parliament itself ought to discharge.

MR. HENLEY

said, that in his reference to retrospective legislation, the right hon. Gentleman had not been quite candid. The last paragraph of the 18th clause provided that any landowner who wanted to re obtain possession of any laud over which wires had been carried, should give full compensation to the company. He hoped that that clause would be withdrawn.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining Clauses agreed to.

MR. DALGLISH

said, he would move after Clause 6 to insert a clause requiring a telegraph company to pay an annual rent for the use of streets or roads, at such a rate as might be fixed by the Board of Trade.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

opposed the clause. He did not see why these companies should be placed in a more disadvantageous position than gas or water companies.

Clause negatived.

MR. BUTT

said, he would move the insertion of the following clause after Clause 14: — Whenever in Ireland any street or public road shall be under the control of any grand jury of' a count;, then and in that ease the county surveyor shall, for the purposes of this Act, at all times when such grand jury shall not be assembled, exercise all the powers, rights, and duties in this Act declared to belong to the body having the control of such street or public road.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, he objected to the powers of the grand jury being delegated to the county surveyor, as proposed by the clause.

SIR EDWARD GROGAN

suggested that the notice might be given to the county surveyor or to the secretary of the grand juries, provided it was inoperative until the grand juries themselves met and decided whether they would object or consent to the proposed works.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, he would promise to confer with persons acquainted with Ireland and Irish law, and to take the notice into consideration.

Clause withdrawn.

MR. DILLWYN

said, he wished to move an additional clause, having for its object the removal of posts which had been already placed by any existing company on any part of a public road in positions which were, in the judgment of the body having the control of such road, dangerous to the public.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, he did not object to the principle of the clause, but he did not think the form of it would do. He would prepare a clause with the same object, and bring it up on the Report.

Clause withdrawn.

MR. LYGON

proposed a clause, providing that any proprietor whose property had been injuriously affected by the works of a telegraph company might apply to the Board of Trade, which Board, on being satisfied that the complaint was well founded, might require the company to repair the injury.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, that the clause only proposed to do what was meant to be done by the 26th clause; and he thought it ought to be considered in connection with the Amendment in that clause.

MR. BLACKBURN

observed that the 26th clause only applied to cases in which the work was carried on over the land of a proprietor. The clause of the hon. Member applied to those in which it was carried over roads in front of a man's property.

MR. ROLT

said, he also saw a distinction between the two clauses. He wished, however, to ask whether the Committee were to understand that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade acceded to the proposition now before them.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, he saw no objection to the clause; but was unable to perceive any difference between the two clauses, except that the 26th clause was rather more stringent than that now proposed.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he thought the Bill and the Amendments ought to be reprinted before the Committee proceeded further, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade could not see what appeared to him to be a plain distinction. The 26th clause only applied to cases in which property was directly interfered with. The clause now under consideration would reach cases in which it was injuriously affected.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, he was of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade should accept the clause, as he did not object to its principle.

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID

suggested that further time should be given to hon. Members to consider the clause before they were asked to decide on its adoption or rejection.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

suggested that the clause should be withdrawn for the present, and promised that he would give the subject his attention before the Report.

Clause withdrawn.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday 13th April, and to be printed. [Bill 75.]