§ Clause 21 (Weight of locomotives and contruction of wheels).
§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, he wished to move an Amendment, not on the Paper, of which he had given his right hon. Friend private Notice. He proposed, in page 9, line 19, to leave out the words "shall not be lawful to," and insert the words "be lawful for any highway authority to." His object was to give power to the local authorities to make these regulations optional if they chose—that was to say, to adopt them or not. Subject to the damage for excessive weight, he believed the right policy was to remove all these restrictions, and he wished to empower any and every county to be able to do so. Hon. Members generally had, he believed, no desire to prohibit or to unduly restrict the use of locomotives, but rather to encourage it, subject to public damage and public danger, and nuisance. It seemed to him that if they limited the width of wheel and the weight of the locomotive, they put a bar in the way of improvements, which might do far more harm than would now be done by leaving the use of locomotives free from any of these restrictions, except damage and danger. The principle laid down by Sir George Grey, in the first of these Locomotive Acts, was that the use of these engines should not be encumbered by too many restrictions. That principle had always been adhered to by the House in subsequent legislation; and he thought they might safely give power to the local authorities to dispense with these restrictions in the district under their jurisdiction, if they chose.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, this part of the Bill was intended as an Amendment of the general law with respect to locomotives. It was not intended that the different county authorities should have power to make different regulations, for it would be intolerable that a locomotive could not pass from one county, or, perhaps, even from one parish to another, without being subject to different and varying rules and penalties. In his opinion, this was not a fit subject for regulation by the local authorities. The general Locomotive 1085 Acts of 1861 and 1865 regulated the use of these engines, and it was now proposed to improve those Acts in certain respects which experience had shown to be necessary. For the last two years he had been in communication, off and on, with gentlemen who were interested in the manufacture and use of locomotives, and the provisions and alterations now made had been carefully settled, with the view of making such reasonable amendment of the law as was thought necessary. On the other hand, these gentlemen had cheerfully submitted to certain restrictions to which by law they were not now subject. He thought these proposals were now very just and fair, and if they were to attempt to vary them they might do more harm than they were aware of.
COLONEL BEAUMONTsaid, this Amendment would introduce optional legislation, and its inconvenience would be apparent to the hon. Baronet if he would remember the number of different bodies these locomotive people would have to deal with. They could not have legislation that was at once optional and final; while if these regulations were left to the local authorities to settle, there would be an interminable number of difficulties introduced. The final appeal ought, in his opinion, to rest with the Board of Trade; and besides, they should have certain broad rules laid down and insisted upon, as was done in this clause. In proportion, also, as they enforced stringent legislation, they took the responsibility from the shoulders of the owners of the engines, and, in his opinion, that was undesirable.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON moved, in page 9, line 25, to leave out "three," and insert the word "six." He did not understand how three inches could be sufficient width of tire in every case.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the first of these sections applied to locomotives not drawing carriages, and he thought three inches was enough in that case.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ COLONEL CHAPLIN moved, in page 9, lines 29 and 30, to leave out "two inches," and insert "one-and-a-half inch." He quite agreed with the principle of having the width of the wheel 1086 regulated by the weight of the locomotive; but he thought the experience of the last 10 or 15 years had shown that 2 inches was too much, and that 1½ inch would be enough. There were numbers of engines in use in this country with wheels of that width, and it had been found quite sufficient.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was not aware that there was any complaint as to the limit of 2 inches; but if his hon. and gallant Friend would withdraw the Amendment, he would inquire into the matter, and make a change in the clause on the Report, if he were satisfied it was necessary.
COLONEL BEAUMONTsaid, the width of the wheel was really a very important matter; for a very narrow wheel cut up the road a great deal, while a wide one became a road roller, and if they only chose to widen it sufficiently, the passage of the locomotive really became a benefit. He had considered the matter a good deal, and had made some inquiries. As a result, he was bound to say that he thought 1½ inch narrower than was necessary, while 2 inches was too wide. He should think 1¾ inch would be best.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH moved, in line 30, after the words "not less than two inches in depth," to add "and sixty inches in diameter." At the end of the sub-section he should propose, subsequently, to add some words, enacting that if the diameter of the wheel was increased a corresponding decrease in the width of the tire should be allowed. He believed this Amendment would be satisfactory to locomotive manufacturers, and he had no reason to doubt that it was a reasonable one.
§ MR. STANSFELDsaid, if the weight of the locomotive was three tons, was the diameter of the wheel to be three times 60 inches?
§ MR. BRISTOWEsaid, the wording of this last Amendment would have to be altered, for, as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, it would read as if the tires were to be not less than 60 inches in diameter; whereas, of course, the wheels were meant.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, this Amendment was given to him in manuscript, and though he did not doubt the correctness of the source from which it 1087 came, he would prefer to withdraw it now, and let it stand over till the Report.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, the principle of the Amendment was certainly a good one—that the width of the wheel should be regulated by the diameter of the wheel. Of course, with a very large wheel the weight was distributed over a greater space; and, therefore, there was less pressure upon the road than with a smaller wheel.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ COLONEL CHAPLIN moved, in line 34, after the word "The," to insert the word "driving." The driving wheel was the one on which the great weight fell, and the steering wheels were by no means so important. If this were accepted, these latter wheels would not cut up the road so much.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. SEVERNE moved, in page 9, lines 34 and 35, to leave out all the words after the word "smooth-rolled," to the end of the clause. He was sure the cross-bars on the wheels did great harm to the roads, disintegrating the surface, and breaking it up. Very often the cross-bars extended the full width, or nearly the full width, of the wheel, and they cut into the road to their full depth of ¾ of an inch. Formerly, there was a wide edge to the wheel left smooth; but that was now done away with to a great extent, and, consequently, a great deal more damage was done to the roads than formerly.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid it was quite impossible to accept this Amendment. It would upset the whole of the clause. If such a restriction were agreed to, it would prevent the use of locomotives altogether.
§ MR. WHITWELLentirely agreed with the hon. Baronet. He had often seen traction-engines run up steep hills, which they would never have been able to mount but for the cross-bars.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHwas sorry he could not accept the Amendment. It would not be reasonable to put in such a restriction as this.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ COLONEL CHAPLIN moved, in line 35, after the word "inch" to insert the word "diagonal." If the cross-bars were diagonal, instead of being at right 1088 angles to the tire as hitherto, they would not cut up the road nearly so much.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. GREGORY moved, in line 37, after the word "thickness," to insert the words "extend to the full breadth of the tire." At present, part of the wheel was sometimes left smooth, and, as a consequence, the cross-bars cut in much more than they would have done if they had extended the whole breadth of the wheel.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, he had placed on the Paper two subsections, the first of which was intended to secure that the weight of a locomotive should be legibly written upon it. The second gave power to a local authority to construct a weighing machine at some convenient point for the purpose of ascertaining the weight of locomotives. He trusted that the hon. and gallant Member for South Durham (Colonel Beaumont), who took an interest in this matter, might not see any reason to object to this proposal, and that his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board might see his way to adopting it. He begged to move, in page 9, line 38, after sub-section (4), to insert—
(5.) The exact and true weight of a locomotive, including necessary water and coals, shall be legibly written in letters of not less than one inch in length, and affixed to some conspicuous part of the locomotive. (6.) For the purpose of ascertaining the true weight of a locomotive, any highway district or highway parish authority may, with, the consent of the county authority, construct and erect a weighing machine, with necessary approaches, in any convenient place on the road-side; and every locomotive passing along such road shall, once every six months, if required by the surveyor, go upon the said weighing machine, with coal and water supply complete, and be weighed thereon in the presence of the surveyor, whose certificate shall be true and sufficient evidence of such weight.
§ MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, that while he did not object to the principle involved in the Amendment, he thought it would be imposing a very unnecessary expense upon parochial authorities to require that a weighing machine should be erected in every district throughout the country. He would point out that there was scarcely any place in England where there was not a weighing machine within a convenient distance. Every railway, for example was provided with one.
§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONexplained, that what he proposed was not a compulsory, but a permissive power to erect a weighing machine with the consent of the county authority.
§ MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he was quite aware of that fact. Yet, surely, it was indicating that it was more or less the duty of every district where a locomotive was used to have one of these weighing machines?
§ MR. KNIGHTobjected to the Amendment, that it would entail an addition to the rates. Everything was to be put upon the rates. It would seem that no Act of Parliament could be brought in without something more being put upon the rates. The Amendment would place an obligation almost on the County Boards to erect weighing machines, though there was one to be found at every railway station. He hoped it would not be pressed.
§ MR. WHITWELLthought the hon. Baronet hardly contemplated what he proposed to enact. It was, that every highway authority might at some point of a road within their district erect a weighing machine, and that the locomotive should be weighed at that place. But the locomotive might not pass along that road at all. The Amendment said that it was only when passing the weighing machine, that the locomotive should be weighed.
COLONEL BEAUMONTpointed out that the local authorities had already power to cause any traction engine to be weighed. The fact was, however, that it was generally known perfectly well what an engine did weigh, and what amount of coal was required for the purpose of working it, and though he did not think much harm would arise from the passing of the Amendment, he believed it to be unnecessary.
MR. BEAUMONTsaid, he rather agreed that sub-section 6 appeared to impose an obligation upon the local authorities, and he would, therefore, ask the hon. Baronet to withdraw that portion of his Amendment.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDthought the last suggestion was a very good one. To the first part of the Amendment there was no objection; but as regarded the second part, while it might do harm it could not possibly do any good, and there was no use, therefore, in overburdening the Bill with clauses which 1090 would serve no good purpose. There were many ways by which the weight of an engine might be easily ascertained, and he would, therefore, join in the appeal made to the hon. Baronet to omit the latter part of his Amendment.
§ MR. W. STANHOPEremarked, that if the latter sub-section were withdrawn, he still thought that power should be given to local authorities to erect weighing machines where they thought it necessary for the general purposes of the Act.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHwas aware that his hon. Friend (Mr. Stanhope) held that view, and he did not pretend to say that it was an unreasonable one to hold. Perhaps, on the Report, some words might be inserted to enable a local authority to erect a weighing machine if they thought it necessary. He hoped his hon. Friend (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) would be prepared to withdraw the second part of his Amendment.
§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONI accede to that request.
§ Sub-section 6 withdrawn.
§ Question proposed, "That sub-section 5 be inserted."
§ MR. KNIGHTremarked, that at the present time steam ploughs were in use all over the country, and he should like to know what the owners of them were to do, if this Amendment were agreed to? Were they to wait upon or write to the persons who made them in order to ascertain the exact weight of the engine? It was generally known whether an engine was a 10-ton or a 15-ton engine; but the requirement as to the exact weight would, it seemed to him, give rise to great difficulty and a very troublesome operation. In fact, nobody would be able to use his engine at all. How on earth was one to ascertain the exact weight of locomotives?
§ MR. CLARE READpointed out that the engines sent out with steam ploughs invariably had the weight written upon them. All the engines in his district were so marked. There was no hardship in the matter.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDagreed that there was no hardship whatever in regard to the question of weight. He believed that the owners of locomotives were perfectly willing to agree to what 1091 was proposed, and it was not worth the while of the Committee to discuss it.
§ MR. MARLINGsuggested that the words "exact and true" should be omitted. It would be quite sufficient to say weight.
§ MR. SCLATER- BOOTHsaid, he would take care that these words were struck out on the Report.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, the object of the Amendment which he had placed on the Paper was to give some further notice of the approach of locomotives at night than that already provided for. He also thought that some light should be carried at the rear of the locomotive. He begged, therefore, to move, after line 38, to insert—
(4.) In addition to the lights already required, a locomotive shall at night carry a red light in front, and also a light at the rear or end of the same.
§ MR. HERMON moved to amend the proposed Amendment, by striking out the words "at night," in order to insert "after dusk and in foggy weather."
COLONEL BEAUMONThoped that the Committee would not agree to the Amendment. If they did, the locomotives, as far as he could see, would have a very bad time of it. If, in addition to the glare from the fires, locomotives had to carry a red light in front, which everybody knew was the signal of danger, and a red light behind, they would become such formidable objects that they might be driven off the road altogether. He was perfectly certain that a provision such as that proposed would have the effect of creating a danger which did not exist at present.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDremarked, that there was another objection to the Amendment. Already, under the Locomotives Act, every engine had to carry two lights in front. The hon. Member (Mr. Gregory) now proposed to stick another light in front, and a light behind. Admitting that it might be desirable to have a light behind, still the Amendment, in its present shape, could not be accepted, because, as he had stated, the two lights in front already provided for by Act of Parliament were quite sufficient. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman, would not agree to the 1092 Amendment in the form in which it was proposed.
§ MR. HANBURYsaid, there was a further objection to what was now proposed. It was already provided that a man must walk before every locomotive. ["No, no!"] He begged pardon; in the day, a man carrying a red flag, had to walk in front of every locomotive. It might be necessary to have a light behind; he thought, himself, such a light would be very useful; but all other lights were already sufficiently provided for. He had never seen any engine—and he had seen a great many of them—which was not provided with lights.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHmust say that, personally, he would have a great objection to a red light being carried in front. He thought a light behind would be a reasonable requirement; but they need hardly insert a provision to that effect in this Bill.
§ Amendments negatived.
§ On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
§ MR. CLARE READsaid, his right hon. Friend had stated that he had been in communication with the proprietors of these locomotives. Might he ask him whether they had complained to him of the hardship which they now endured by being made to consume their own smoke, because that was really a very serious impediment to the use of steam on roads? There was no locomotive engine made which could consume its own smoke.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH rose to Order. If his hon. Friend would wait till the Committee came to Clause 23, he would find that that question arose, and he might then be able to give him a satisfactory answer.
§ MR. PELLsaid, he wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. They had now got an Amendment inserted in this clause which required that "the exact and true weight of a locomotive, including necessary water and coals," should be written on the engine. The first sub-section of the clause stated that—
a locomotive not drawing any carriage, and not exceeding in weight three tons, shall have the tires of the wheels thereof not less than three inches in width, with an additional inch for every ton, or fraction of a ton, above the first three tons,1093 Was that meant to include the water, or coals, or both? It was a point that should be made quite clear.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHreplied, that he had promised to strike out the words "exact and true" on the Report, and to see that the Amendment that had been inserted would otherwise square with the other provisions of the clause.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 22 (Amendment of Section 3 of Locomotive Act, 1865).
§ COLONEL BEAUMONT moved, in page 10, line 10, to leave out "the paragraph numbered," and insert "the paragraphs numbered firstly and." He explained that the law, as it stood at present, provided that three men should be attached to every locomotive while in motion. Two of these were the engine-driver and stoker, and the third was the celebrated man who with the red flag walked in front, and whose duty appeared to be to frighten the horses first and render assistance afterwards. He was not by any means disposed or anxious to do anything which should interfere with the safety of the public on the roads; but, on the other hand, he was extremely anxious that no unnecessary cost should be thrown on the people who employed these road locomotives. Now, the Bill, which he certainly thought dealt on the whole both liberally and wisely with the question of locomotive power on roads, provided that the red flag should be done away with. The difference really was that whereas before the third man carried his red flag in front of the train, now the flag was dispensed with and he walked by the side. Under certain circumstances, he could quite understand that a third man was necessary; but in five cases out of six, especially in cases where locomotives were employed on country roads, where they were perfectly well known on the road from their travelling backwards and forwards, and where the people by the roadside hardly took the trouble to look as the engine went by, it certainly was little more than a solemn farce that a man should be employed to walk by the side of that engine. In all probability, he would be riding either on the engine or on one of the cars. He admitted that there were cases where it was extremely desirable that a third man 1094 should accompany the train; and he intended, if this Amendment were agreed to, to propose another whereby the local authorities could, when they saw fit, order a third man to be in attendance. He really did not see why the Amendment should not be accepted by the Committee. He did not believe that either the safety or the convenience of the public would be in any way endangered by its acceptance.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was about to appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and to his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey), who had an Amendment of a somewhat similar nature on the Paper, to withdraw both their Amendments, and be content with the Bill as it stood. They were all agreed as to getting rid of the red flag, which did more harm than good; and what he proposed was that the original requirement of three persons to each locomotive should continue, and that one of them should render assistance to carriages passing the same. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Beaumont) wanted to reduce the number to two, which would not be an unreasonable thing if he had proposed some provision to meet exceptional circumstances; but it was almost impossible to say when a third or fourth man would be required. There was no local authority for the purposes of the Act except the county authority, who could not be expected to provide for these cases. His hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey) wanted to add to the number of the persons accompanying a locomotive, and to have four persons, instead of three. He would put it to the hon. Gentlemen whether they ought not to withdraw their respective Amendments, and allow the clause to remain as it stood—namely, that there should be three persons with each locomotive, one of whom should, if need be, assist passing carriages?
§ MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, that the object which he had in view would be entirely met by the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for South Durham. All he desired was, that it should be the duty of some person to look out for carriages approaching, so as to give notice to the driver of a locomotive that they were desirous of passing.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHThe words in the clause are "shall in case of need assist horses and carriages drawn by horses passing the same."
§ SIR. JULIAN GOLDSMIDagreed that it was desirable that there should be some person to assist carriages passing, and the words of the clause entirely met that view.
COLONEL BEAUMONTwished to explain how he proposed to deal with the matter. Where assistance was required the engine would be stopped, and there being two men upon it, one would be at liberty to jump off and render any assistance which might be requisite. His contention was, that the third man was simply useless.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH moved, in line 41, to leave out "Commissioners of Sewers," and to insert "Mayor, aldermen, and commoners."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ On Question, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
§ MR. GREGORY moved the omission of the clause. At present, the law provided that a man should go 60 yards in front of an engine, and give warning to approaching carriages. It was now proposed to dispense with such warning, the result of which might be that a carriage might come immediately upon the engine itself, and even at the turning out of a narrow road be brought face to face with it. He ventured to think, that unless some such notice as was now provided for was given to parties approaching these engines, most serious accidents would arise. Therefore, it would be most unfair to deprive the public of that protection which they at present possessed. As far as he knew there was no ground for it, except that it might result in some saving of expense to the proprietors of these locomotives; but in a case in which the public safety was concerned, he did not think that such a consideration should weigh with the Committee.
§ SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEcould not agree with the hon. Member for East Sussex in this matter. He thought that a third man stationed so far ahead of an engine was more likely to create panic than to afford protection. He was of 1096 opinion that it was far better to have the thing remain as at present, the third man looking out and giving assistance when an emergency really arose.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKconsidered the third man a most useful attendant, in his part of the country at all events, where some portions of the road were so formed that, with these locomotives in the way, it was physically impossible for carriages and horses to pass along, unless this third man went on some distance before the engine and gave the necessary warning. There was not so much difficulty, of course, where the road was wide, and there was plenty of room to pass.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, the hon. Baronet (Sir Andrew Lusk) was under a misapprehension. The third man was not to be dispensed with; he was only to be differently employed. His duty, at present, was to go on some distance in front of the locomotive and display a red flag—or, in other words, to frighten every horse that came near him. In future, his duty would be to go close to the engine, and be ready to assist passing carriages and horses. That arrangement was much more sensible than the existing one.
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, it seemed to him that the advocates of this clause were treating the Committee as one would frighten a disagreeable bull, with a piece of red rag. But after all, the red rag was not an essential part of the question—which was, whether the man should go ahead of the engine, or walk beside it? Looking at the matter from that point of view, and leaving out of consideration the question of "flag or no flag," he certainly thought it a far more sensible expedient that the man should be ahead, in order to prevent a carriage from getting into a hobble, than that he should wait until the carriage got into a hobble, and then try to extricate it. In a crooked, and especially a narrow lane, a carriage might come suddenly upon one of these engines, and what would happen? The horse would begin to plunge, and, if so, the man should be there to hold its head, and carry out the negotiation between the two vehicles, and cause the engine to stop, before any accident occurred. But, if he remained at the side of the locomotive, he would be a little too late to stop the impending disaster. For his part, 1097 he advised that the clause should be withdrawn till the Report, and then the Government, who had dealt with more difficult questions before, might turn their attention to this question of "flag or no flag;" but, at least, let them have their protecting angel walking on in front.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 185; Noes 76: Majority 109.—(Div. List, No. 201.)
§ Clause 23 (Steam locomotives to be constructed so as to consume their own smoke).
§ MR. CLARE READ moved, after the word "smoke" in line 21, to insert "as far as practicable." It was quite impossible, the hon. Member said, for an engine entirely to consume its own smoke. There must be some kind of bituminous coal used in order to get up steam; and everybody who had any knowledge of these matters must be aware that it was impossible, as engines were constructed, that they could consume the whole of their smoke. He believed that locomotives on railroads were bound to consume their own smoke; but he was not aware that they did so. They were also required to use nothing but coke, but he believed they did not comply with that requirement at any time. Therefore, he thought the Amendment he proposed was not out of place, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept it.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, his hon. Friend who moved this Amendment did not quite comprehend the effect of the clause as it then stood. It did not provide that a locomotive should be compelled to consume its own smoke. That was what the existing law did, and great hardship had arisen, and unjust prosecutions instituted in consequence. An Amendment, of which another hon. Friend had given Notice, was perfectly intelligible—namely, that a locomotive should be constructed on a principle by which it might consume its own smoke. That proposal would not be open to the objection to which this was liable.
§ MR. CLARE READremarked, that the principle was one which could not be carried out in practice, as no locomotive yet invented could consume its own smoke.
§ MR. BELLsaid, it was a mere delusion to suppose that, with certain kinds of coal, an engine could completely do so, although the evil was often unnecessarily increased by the carelessness of the firemen.
MR. PAGETwas of opinion that the introduction of words to the effect that an engine should be so constructed as to consume its own smoke, as far as possible, would not meet the difficulty of the whole case. What was wanted was a provision that not only should it be so constructed, but that it should be so used as—as far as possible—to consume its own smoke.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDthought it was much better to leave the clause as it stood. It would otherwise lead to all kinds of litigation, and that would be, by no means, a satisfactory result. The words in the clause were found in other Acts of Parliament, and he believed they were the right words to use on the present occasion.
§ MR. KNOWLESsaid, if the clause were intended to be operative, it ought to stand unaltered, leaving it to these engines to consume their own smoke, if it should be found possible. If there were any real difficulty in the matter, the insertion of the words "as far as practicable," would meet it; because his contention was, that it would be simply impossible, in all cases, to consume the smoke. He deprecated going into too much detail in a Bill of this kind, as imposing great hardship upon tenant-farmers, for he believed the time was not far distant when they would have to adopt considerably more steam-power in their operations than they used at present. He was afraid they would find that this legislation, instead of protecting them, would place them in more difficulties than any other trade experienced. He thought that, if the Amendment were adopted, it would make the clause, at all events, more complete. If it were agreed to, he would suggest that the sum of 5s. a-day should be substituted for £5.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHassured the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), that the meaning of the clause would not be altered by the insertion of this Amendment.
§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONbelieved engines might be reasonably expected to consume the smoke if they used Welsh 1099 coal, which was not much more expensive than other kinds.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONthen moved, in page 10, line 21, after "smoke," to insert the words "and shall consume the same as far as practicable." The hon. Member expressed his belief that the Amendment would meet the difficulty which had been complained of in the discussion on the preceding proposal.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 24 (Power to local authorities to make orders as to hours during which locomotives may pass over roads).
§
MR. GREGORY moved, in page 10, line 35, after the word "twenty-four," the addition of the following words:—
For regulating the use of locomotives upon any highway, or preventing or regulating such use across any bridge where such authority is satisfied that such use will be attended with danger to the public from the narrowness, inclination, or imperfect construction of such highway or bridge respectively.
The hon. Member reminded the Committee that he had proposed a similar Amendment, though not exactly in the same words, upon Clause 20, and that there appeared to be a disposition to accept the proposal, the only question being where the Amendment ought to come in. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) thought it would more properly find a place at this part of the Bill. The wording of the Amendment, as first proposed, had now been altered, in order to embrace the suggestions which had been made on the subject in the course of the previous discussion. The Amendment would have the effect of enabling the county authorities to regulate the traffic as regarded bridges and the passing of locomotives over them. Where danger to the public was threatened, they would have power to prohibit these engines from going over bridges. It was obvious that there might be cases, where the bridge was so comparatively weak, as not to bear the weight of one of these locomotives; and, of course, in such cases, it was only right that the authorities should be empowered to interfere in order to
1100
prevent accident. As the law stood, nothing could be done by them until the locomotive had actually broken down the bridge, the consequence of which was that, without a bridge, the public was put to considerable inconvenience, probably for months. The Amendment was also intended to give the authorities power to regulate the use of locomotives, with regard to the narrowness, or imperfect construction of highways. He hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment in its present form.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, the Amendment, as proposed, did not entirely carry out what was intended. Thrashing machines, for instance, were used in the narrowest of roads; because, necessarily, they had to be removed from one part of a farm to another part. Consequently, it would be requisite to omit the words "such highway," which appeared in the latter part of the Amendment.
THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the object which the hon. Member had in view would be gained by leaving out the words "highway or."
§ MR. GREGORYexpressed his willingness to adopt the alteration just proposed, provided the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) was prepared to accept the Amendment he had moved. He thought that the alteration proposed by the hon. Baronet (Sir Julian Goldsmid) would have the effect of giving the local authorities unlimited power of regulating the use of locomotives on highways, which, probably, was not his intention; whereas, the objection of his Amendment was to give them power only in certain circumstances—as narrowness, inclination, or imperfect construction.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), and consider the whole matter before the Report with the view of bringing in, if possible, a clause that should carry out the spirit of the proposal.
MR. PAGETthought it was very necessary that the Committee should have a definition of the term "regulations," so that their nature and extent might be clearly understood. It was also desirable that it should be stated whether the Amendment proposed to vest in the authorities powers of imposing regulations 1101 other than those provided by Statute.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHreplied, that the regulations would be of the nature of bye-laws.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, the clause was one that should be very carefully drawn. He had not the Amendment of the hon. Member before him, and could therefore only catch the words as they were read. He would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) should not insert the clause at that time, but confer with the hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Gregory) and bring it up on Report. It was a great mistake to insert words without knowing their application, leaving them to be amended afterwards.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he would undertake to review the whole subject very carefully between that time and the Report, and make the clause fit in with the general sense of the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 25 (Power of county authority to license locomotives).
§ MR. SEVERNEsaid, it was only fair that the fees chargeable for licensing locomotives should be paid to the highway districts where they accrued. By this means, he believed that some appreciable compensation would be made for the damage done to roads of particular districts; whereas, if the fees were given to the whole county, it would be impossible to apportion the amount of fees earned in each highway district. He therefore moved, in page 10, line 40, to leave out the words "their county," and insert the words "each district." The two other Amendments having reference to the same part of the clause, and standing in his name, he did not propose to move.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHhoped the hon. Member would not insist on his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. SEVERNE, in moving, in page 10, line 40, to leave out the word "ten," and insert the word "twenty," said, that when the damage done by each locomotive throughout the country was considered, the amount of £10 to be 1102 charged as fees on locomotives was too small, and he was satisfied that the sum of £20 would not be excessive. He ventured to give the Committee an idea of the increase in the cost of maintaining some roads in the districts with which he was connected, since the introduction of locomotives. The cost of one road, which was formerly £15 per mile, had been raised to £60. In another district the cost, which previously stood at £30 per mile, now amounted to £240, with the prospect of a very large rise. In the Oswestry district, the previous cost was £26 per mile, and it had now reached £500. On the other hand, what was the amount contributed by those mines and places from which the traction engines ran? In the first district, absolutely nothing was contributed; in the second, the rating was paid on £270 only; in the third district, nothing was paid; and in the Oswestry district, the rate was 15s. The contributions under the toll system were very different indeed. In the Oswestry district, for instance, the tolls formerly payable on locomotives under that system amounted to £87 a-year; but the tolls having been done away with, the engines now ran without paying anything. He trusted that some consideration would be shown to the highway districts by increasing the fees on locomotives, and that if the sum of £20 mentioned by him was not considered sufficient, a larger sum would be named.
§ SIR. JULIAN GOLDSMIDthought the sum of £10 fixed by the Bill sufficient for the purpose of fees.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was not prepared to go further than the limit of £10. It would be imposing too heavy a burden, to increase the fine upon locomotives that were already subject to all the various restrictions and regulations of the Bill with the object of preventing abuse of the roads.
§ MR. KNIGHThoped that every engine drawing a thrashing machine would not be subject to a fee of £10, and that the right hon. Gentleman would draw up two Schedules—one for the constant, and the other for the occasional, traffic.
§ MR. CLARE READsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had promised to distinguish between "extraordinary traffic" and "temporary traffic." The traffic 1103 then being considered was of a constant character, and he trusted it would be dealt with when the new clause was brought up.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKthought it desirable that the amount of fee should be increased to £20.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 26 (Duration of Part II. of Act), agreed to.