NEW-CROSS ROADS BILL.—(By Order.) (Hansard, 21 February 1865)

§ MR. ANGERSTEIN
said, on the ground that the promoters of this measure were not quite ready with all their facts, he would beg to move that the second reading of this Bill, which stood on the Orders, be postponed for a fortnight.

§ MR. LOCKE
said, he thought the postponement had better be for six months, at the end of which Parliament would not be sitting. He should, therefore, move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The question involved was not one of those which it was necessary to send to a Select Committee. Every hon. Member understood it. It was whether they liked turnpikes? The opinion of the House had been fully expressed; and one of the results was that all the turnpikes in the northern portion of the metropolitan district had already been abolished. There could be no doubt that a like act of justice ought to be done with regard to the turnpikes on the south side. This turnpike trust would expire this year. Its original period expired in 1846; but it had since been kept alive by the Annual General Turnpike Acts. The trust extended a long distance into the country, but the "sinews of war" were raised in the metropolitan district. The gate was well known to those who went to Greenwich by the old road. The first gate on it was that at the Green Man, which was either in the parish of St. George the Martyr or Camber well, each of which parishes repaired its own roads. This Bill proposed to do away with the Green Man Gate. The trustees could not have the face to keep up a gate in a parish which paid for its own roads, so they moved the gate a short distance farther to New Cross. This was a perfectly preposterous proceeding. The Surrey and Sussex Road Trust did not care to ask for a renewal. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Angerstein) appeared on behalf of Deptford. But why was Deptford to have its roads kept up by parishes in its vicinity? He could see no reason why the principle which had been adopted on the north part of the metropolitan district should not be extended to the south.

§ MR. ANGERSTEIN
said, it was patent to the House why the hon. Member opposed the Bill. He was a Member for Southwark. The roads in the trust in question were thirty-seven miles and a quarter in length. Originally there were eighteen parishes in the trust. Two of these—Camberwell and St. George the Martyr—had expressed a desire to he eliminated. Of the other sixteen parishes nine were in favour of the Bill and four against it, the remainder being neutral. What would be the effect if this Bill were not passed; Deptford would be taxed to the extent of £1,700 a year; Greenwich, 3,000 a year; Lewisham, £3,700 a year. When the House considered that a large district would be punished in that way if the Bill were not allowed to pass, he thought they would not agree to the Amendment, but that their feelings of justice would prompt them to permit the Bill to go into Committee, there to be discussed and decided upon on its merits.

§ MR. LAYARD
said, he thought if any argument were required to reject the Bill, it was the argument of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, that the parishes he had mentioned would then have to pay for their own roads. He did not see why the large populations of Bermondsey, Southwark, and Camber well should be called upon to pay for the roads of Deptford and Greenwich.

MR. T. G. BARING
said, it was agreed on all hands that turnpikes within the metropolitan district were exceedingly inconvenient, and ought to be abolished as soon as possible. That was the course taken on the northern side, and the Government this year had selected three trusts—the Surrey and Sussex, the Bermondsey and Rotherhithe, and the New Cross trusts, all unaffected by incumbrances, as those with regard to which a similar policy should be pursued. If the House approved of the principle that turnpike trusts ought to be abolished when the trusts themselves were free from debt, they would reject this Bill.