HC Deb 09 July 1878 vol 241 cc1078-83

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Bye-laws by County Authority.

Clause 20 (Power of county authority to make bye-laws).

SIR GEORGE JENKINSON moved, in page 9, line 9, after "highways" to add the words— (5.) For regulating the felling of any hedgerow, timber, or trees upon or across any highway to the danger of the public using such highway. He said that cases had come under his own knowledge of accidents being caused by trees laying across the highways.

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID

said, that the other day it had been shown that it was perfectly unnecessary to lay down any of those regulations. For his own part, he was not aware of any case of the kind in which danger to the public had arisen, and he thought that if they had to provide by bye-laws against every possible accident that might occur, they would have enough to do. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was better advised when he did not press any such regulations as these. The matter might safely be left to the Common Law, and he hoped that hon. Gentlemen would join with him in opposing the Amendment.

SIR GEORGE JENKINSON

said, he knew of a case in which a tree had been lying immediately in front of an approaching vehicle, which had run into it before the driver had time to stop. In some cases, the occupants of a vehicle had the option of being despatched by a tree or drowned in a pond. Such a case had occurred within a few yards from his own house.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he rose to oppose the whole of the propositions of the hon. Baronet. It might happen that the bye-laws might be passed in one county and not in another, so that a man going from one county to another would not know under what bye-laws he existed. He was under the impression that the system of making different bye-laws for different localities had been carried to an extreme, and that they really must allow some matters to be determined by the common sense and judgment of people who were engaged in the management of districts. With regard to the evil of trees, he could not say that he had passed over as many country roads as the hon. Baronet; but, in his whole experience, he had never met with the slightest inconvenience in the way indicated.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

thought the hon. Baronet ought to get some credit for his attempt to make things a little better than they were. He could speak from experience in the matter, seeing as he did from time to time similar cases occurring down in Hertfordshire. He did not know whether the Common Law would prevent it or not, but they did want some better regulations than they already had in reference to their roads. They also wanted some authority to clean out ditches by the side of roads.

THE CHAIRMAN

said that a discussion on this point was beyond the limit afforded by the Amendment.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

said, that he wanted to support the hon. Baronet, because he had seen frequent cases of accident occurring from people not noticing trees that were lying across roads.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

hoped the hon. Baronet would not press the words he had proposed, or any of the Amendments he had to follow them. He should be very willing to establish a general power of making bye-laws similar to that which existed under the General Turnpike Act. The trustees under those Acts had the power of preventing certain nuisances upon roads, such as the opening of gates outwards into roads; and he thought that under some general words they might give such powers as would make it certain that all that was reasonable would be provided for. If the hon. Member would favour him by withdrawing his Amendment, and the other Gentlemen who had similar Amendments would do the same, he would substitute such an Amendment as the following:— For prohibiting or regulating all or any of such matters or things as may be prohibited or regulated under the General Turnpike Act.

MR. CLARE READ

said, he hoped the power included the lopping and trimming of timber which overhung roads which in some districts rendered them almost impassable for loads of hay and straw. But with regard to bicycles, they were almost a new machine, and if the hon. Baronet moved his Amendment affecting them he should be ready to support him, because he thought that without some regulation they were really a danger and a nuisance.

MR.GOLDNEY

asked, whether power would be included to control the dragging of threshing machines along the roads?

MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON

said, the object of his Amendment was to give powers to the highway authorities which the turnpike trustees did not possess at the present time.

SIR GEORGE JENKINSON

said, he should be very glad to leave the whole subject in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, and if he would deal with all the matters contained in the following Amendments he would withdraw those also.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he could not conscientiously say that his Amendment would include the management of bicycles; but if the hon. Baronet desired to deal with them now was the time to do so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR GEORGE JENKINSON

then moved the insertion of the following words:— (6.) For prohibiting the use of any bicycle on any highway, unless the rider of such bicycle shall be provided with, and shall use, a loud bell and whistle, as well as a clear light after dark, or other effectual means of giving at all times audible notice of his approach on meeting or passing any vehicle or any person on horseback.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

agreed to accept the first part of the Amendment in the following form:—"For regulating the use of any bicycle on any road."

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he had received a communication from the bicyclists of London, which led him to think that they would be perfectly content with the Amendment as altered. They had no objection to the prohibition of bicycling on footpaths, but they certainly objected very strongly to being compelled to use whistles.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH moved, in the same clause, page 9, line 9, to insert, after the words already inserted, the words— And for prohibiting or regulating all, or any, of such things as may be prohibited or regulated, respectively, under the provisions of the General Turnpike Act.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON moved, in the same clause, to insert the words, after those inserted already— (9.) For prohibiting the driving or riding furiously, or racing, against time or otherwise, in or upon any vehicle, including bicycles, so as to endanger the lives and limbs of passengers riding on the highway.''

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he thought the present Highways Acts would meet the case suggested by the Amendment of his hon. Friend; and if they did not, he would undertake, if possible, to amend them.

MR. PEASE

suggested that the Amendment should end with the word "otherwise," leaving out the words "in or upon any vehicle," as those words narrowed the operation of the clause to those in or upon a carriage, and prevented horsemen being dealt with.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, that any provision in the general Highways Acts would be applicable to roads which had been disturnpiked.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GREGORY

proposed, in page 9, line 9, to insert the words— (5.) For prohibiting or regulating the use of locomotives upon any highway, or across any bridge, where such authority is satisfied that such use would be attended with danger to the public from the narrowness, inclination, or imperfect construction of such highway or bridge respectively. The Amendment, he thought, spoke for itself. It must be in the knowledge of many hon. Members that there were in country districts many roads along which locomotives ought only to be allowed to pass on stringent conditions, and many bridges over which they ought not to be allowed to pass at all. He saw no reason why the local authorities might not be fairly intrusted with a power of this kind.

MR. KNIGHT

objected to the proposal, on the ground that it would enable local authorities to prevent the use of steam ploughs all over England, because they would not have permission to travel over the roads. He had known cases in which, under the existing law, farmers who wished to use steam power in the cultivation of their land had been unable to do so. It was, in his opinion, unjust to regard as being engaged in "regular traffic," a steam engine which was simply used for the purpose of working a steam plough or a threshing-machine, and had only to be moved from farm to farm as its services were required. It would be easy to put in the Bill provisions which would insure payment, by the persons causing it, for damage done to roads or culverts by the passing of locomotive engines over public roads; but he thought it would be a monstrous abuse of the powers of Parliament, to make a law which could possibly have the effect of preventing the use of steam power in agriculture.

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID

said, it seemed to him absurd to give to any local authority power to stop the passage over roads, and so to prohibit the use, of any machines which were of great practical use in the conduct of farming operations. As far as he understood the proposals of the Government, they would, in a later clause, include such Amendments as would meet any reason able demand on the part of those who objected to the use of steam engines on public roads.

MR. CLARE READ

said, he thought it would be wise to make a distinction between locomotives which were proposed to be run frequently and regularly along public roads, and those which were only to be employed on the roads occasionally, in going from farm to farm, in connection with the operations of ploughing or threshing. The objection to locomotives, on the score that it would not be easy to pass them in certain circumstances, would apply with equal weight to a brewer's dray or a furniture van. If two of these vehicles met in a road too narrow for them to pass, one would have to back, and the same observation applied to locomotives. He perfectly agreed that there should be applied to bridges a special protective provision; because, at present, there was no law to prevent engines of any kind passing over bridges, and there was no law to compel persons damaging bridges to pay for such damage, unless they actually broke down the bridge.

MR. W. S. STANHOPE

thought some distinction should be made between locomotives which were intended to be constantly employed on public roads, and those which it was proposed to move about from farm to farm for agricultural purposes. He knew some roads off which the public were practically driven, by the fact that they were regularly traversed by locomotives. Although a road might be sufficiently wide for a vehicle to pass a locomotive, it could not be done; because the locomotive, owing to its weight, could only travel in the centre of a roadway.

MR. PEASE

said, he thought no one would object to the use of locomotives on turnpike roads in connection with the operations of agriculture; but he thought there could be some difference of opinion on the subject of allowing their use for ordinary roads, involving, as it would, the possible destruction of many bridges and the certain injury of a large number of roads and the culverts which ran beneath them, unless the roads had been previously made ready for such extra weight, a thing that ought to be attended to.

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID

thought it would be better to deal with this question on Clause 24, than to attempt to deal with it here.

MR. GREGORY

said, the clause now proposed referred to the bye-laws to be made by county authorities; and when they were regulating bye-laws, it seemed to him that this Amendment should be inserted. As, however, his right hon. Friend wished to have the alteration made somewhere else, he had no objection. With respect to bridges, the proprietors of locomotives were already liable by the Locomotive Acts, for the repair of any bridges they broke down; but the Acts at present did not stop them from going over weak bridges. As a result, if a bridge was too weak it broke, and parties using the road were for months unable to go that way because the bridge was under repair. The proprietors of the locomotives might be finally liable; but he wanted to prevent them from straining the bridge in the first instance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Forward to