HC Deb 09 July 1878 vol 241 cc1153-62

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

MR. KNOWLES moved, in page 4, after Clause 10, to insert the following Clauses:— So much of section one hundred and forty-nine of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' as enacts that all streets being or which at any time may become highways repairable by the inhabitants at large within any urban district shall vest in and he under the control of the urban authority shall be and the same is hereby repealed; and, in lieu of being so vested, the urban authority shall have and be entitled to an easement only over such streets, and, in virtue of such easement, such streets, and the pavements, stones, and other materials thereof, and all buildings, implements, and other things provided for the purposes thereof shall be under the control and management of the urban authority, with full power for such urban authority from time to time to cause all such streets to be levelled, paved, metalled, flagged, channelled, altered, and repaired as occasion shall require, and to cause the soil of such street to be raised, lowered, or altered as they may think fit, and to place and keep in repair fences and posts for the safety of foot passengers, and to protect such streets against trespass or damage. The soil and freehold of such streets, and the mines of coal, iron, stone, slate, and other minerals thereunder, shall be and remain the property of the person who would have been entitled thereto if the said Public Health Act 1875, had not been passed, with all such powers of working, getting, and carrying away the same, and the produce thereof, as he would have had if such Act had not been passed.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

admitted the importance of the question raised by the clause which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Knowles). A recent decision in the Courts of Law had caused some anxiety among the mine-owners on the subject to which the clause referred. So far as he had been able to get advice on the question, that decision was not one on which he could ask the House entirely to rely. If it were altogether a reliable decision, it would undoubtedly have been his duty to propose an Amendment of the Public Health Act. His hon. Friend's clause was, in point of fact, an Amendment of that Act. Its object was to make the law clear on this point, that the vesting of roads in the hands of the urban sanitary authority should be a vesting for certain purposes—namely, for the repair and management of the streets, and for securing to the rightful owners the soil and freehold underneath such streets, and especially providing that the soil should carry with it the right of minerals beneath the surface, besides other purposes. For his own part, he could not see his way to a clear view of the subject; and, therefore, was not prepared to accept the clause. If his hon. Friend would consent to withdraw it, he would promise either to introduce an Amendment into the Bill on Report, or bring in a measure to amend the Public Health Act, so as to protect the rights of minerals in urban districts. This law as to the soil of roads had been in force since 1848, and until the recent decision to which his hon. Friend had referred, did not appear to require amendment.

MR. KNOWLES

said, he would willingly withdraw the clause, after the explanation which had been given by his right hon. Friend. The recent decision had, he believed, been obtained on the Public Health Act of 1875; but, in his opinion, that Act never contemplated the confiscation of minerals from the present owners, though there seemed to be some doubt upon the point. He hoped, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to frame such words as would meet the case. He, accordingly, withdrew the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. J. R. YORKE

, in moving the following Clause:— Any county authority may, for the purpose of providing a county road fund, apply to the Local Government Board for a Provisional Order empowering them to levy tolls on any main road within their jurisdiction; and the Local Government Board shall thereupon cause a local nquiry to be made by one of their inspectors, who shall report to the said Board, and the said Board may issue such Order, prescribing therein the amount of tolls to be levied, the situation of the toll-gates, and generally the terms and conditions under which such tolls are to be levied and collected, said, in previous Bills on this subject, there had always been inserted clauses similar to the one he now submitted to the consideration of the Committee. There was a power given in the Bill of 1876, with reference to turnpikes actually in existence. In the County Boards Bill, introduced in the present Session, there had been no power of retaining tolls inserted in any of its provisions; but there had been the power of re-imposition in certain cases; but so jealously was it guarded by all kinds of restrictions, notably by one requiring the county authorities to satisfy themselves that the traffic of the towns would not be prejudicially affected by the tolls, that it was obviously impossible to pass such a provision. In proposing this clause, he could not found himself on anything better than the Report of the Turnpike Committee of last year, which was very strongly in favour of some exceptional provision for cases of this kind. There was, in East Gloucestershire, a case in point. On one side of the parish was a road-using business, and on the other a railway station; and, as the road-using business was conducted through the highway of the parish, the farmers would have to bear the whole cost of the wear and tear of the road when the turnpike had been taken away. This was a grievance which the Government ought to redress, before it became a very heavy burden. He recommended the insertion of the clause, because he hoped that, in the future, there would be two categories of roads—first, the "main roads," and their definition should be such roads as he had described, which were used simply, and almost entirely, for through traffic. On such roads he hoped there would be turnpikes exceptionally introduced, in order to meet the hardships inflicted on the ratepayers in the district where the exceptional circumstances prevailed. The second class would be those roads now called main roads; but which, after the removal of the turnpikes from them, and if there was no through traffic, would be reduced to the lower category of highways. These definitions asserted an intelligible principle, and as a step in that direction he moved the introduction of this clause. The Turnpike Acts Continuance Committee of last year showed how they felt the grievance of which he now complained, as appeared from the following passage in their Report:— No greater cases of prospective hardship on parishes came before your Committee than where the line of road, with a very heavy mineral and trading traffic between large towns, or to and from railway stations, passed for a considerable distance through agricultural parishes. And whatever may be the provisions of a general measure as regards other parts of the country, it seems to your Committee that some special provision will have to be made to meet these cases. Your Committee are still of opinion that the compulsory formation of Highway Districts will not alone suffice. It is clear that in some cases a larger area of management is required, and, in many instances, the local authorities should have power to meet exceptional cases by exceptional measures.

Clause (Mr. Reginald Yorke,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. WHITWELL

hoped the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would not accept the clause, because it would alter the character of the Bill. This measure was a rating Bill, and the insertion of the proposed clause would convert it into a Turnpike Bill. Although the erection of a toll-bar under the clause would require the sanction of the Local Government Board, that was no security against the county authority, which was not representative of a borough, erecting a toll-bar close upon the outskirts of a populous town. The proposal was so exceptional, that he trusted the Committee would not approve of it.

MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON

thought his hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) had somewhat misunderstood the Report of the Turnpike Committee of last year, which was founded on circumstances altogether different from those which his hon. Friend had stated. No doubt there was great hardship under the existing law. If certain parishes outside some manufacturing towns in Lancashire, Yorkshire and other counties were to remain as they were, without adopting the Highway Acts, no doubt it would be necessary to keep up turnpikes; but the Committee had this year made a recommendation that disturnpiked roads should be supported partly out of a county rate. Therefore, they had entered upon an entirely different principle from that which had been adopted before. They could not have two different principles operating at the same time. The turnpike system was, no doubt, very good, so long as the large boroughs were not brought under its operation; but directly they brought in the large boroughs into the county rate—and he hoped all boroughs would be brought in—then they did away with the necessity for the turnpike system. He should like to see the county rate spread over all the boroughs, or else the boroughs, with quarter sessions, should contribute for the use of the road outside their boundary. He looked upon the turnpike system as a necessary evil; it ought not to be perpetuated in new legislation, unless it were really necessary. It had been said that this Bill was not intended to be a permanent measure. In that case, the whole question would, doubtless, have to be re-considered. It would be far better not to encumber this Bill with a principle totally different from that which the Turnpike Committee this year had recommended, and which constituted the backbone of the Bill.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

expressed a hope that the Committee would be guided by the useful observations of his hon. Friend (Mr. W. Egerton), and would not be inclined to insert this clause in the Bill. It certainly would not be a proper thing that the county authority under the Bill—namely, the county magistrates—should have it in their power to recommend, or that the Local Government Board, on their recommendation, should establish turnpike toll-gates on county roads. The Committee would, therefore, do well to leave the matter open for future consideration. He was satisfied that the institution of tolls, under such a clause as this, would not be acceptable to the country generally; at all events, it required a much stronger and more representative body to deal with the question than that which was proposed.

MR. J. R. YORKE

said, that the Government could not be expected to give any satisfaction to the country unless they took advantage of every facility which they might properly use, to effect a permanent arrangement with regard to this question. So far from being settled, there would hereafter be a renewal of the difficulty. In the district which he represented, there was very little interest felt in the Eastern Question compared with this; for, whereas one person appeared concerned about the Eastern Question, ten persons inquired respecting the question of highways.

SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON

believed, if this or some such clause were not adopted, the Bill would not be regarded as a settlement of the question. There were cases which could not be met, except by an arrangement similar to that for Glasgow, which had been introduced in the Scotch Roads and Bridges Bill.

MR. PELL,

who regretted the lateness of the hour at which so important a question as this was being discussed, urged the Committee not to forget the very large reduction which would take place, from the abolition of tolls, in the amount of revenue applied to the maintenance of the roads of the Kingdom. He knew of no substitute being provided to meet the deficiency of income. The principle of charging for the maintenance of roads, as laid down in this clause, he considered a sound one—namely, that the people who used them should contribute towards their support. It would be difficult to substitute a better principle than that. The word "toll" had an objectionable sound, and he could well understand the Government hesitating to impose any provision in the shape of toll; but still there was nothing in the Bill to remedy the evil arising from a serious diminution of the revenue obtainable from tolls on highways. A new and increasing charge levied upon the body of ratepayers generally did not supply the necessary remedy. He could not understand why this clause should not be accepted, when the system adopted in South Wales had given so much satisfaction. He could not conceive that any fairer principle could be adopted than placing the tolls on a road in such a way as to catch the general traffic; and, therefore, if his hon. Friend (Mr. J. R. Yorke) went to a division, he would have the greatest satisfaction in voting with him.

MR. CLARE READ

hoped the hon. Member (Mr. J. R. Yorke) would go to a division, if for no other purpose than to see what amount of support he got from Members on that side. He disagreed with the hon. Member for Mid-Cheshire (Mr. W. Egerton) as to the meaning he attached to the Report of the Turnpikes Discontinuance Committee, last year; because he thought it did refer to tolls. The noble Lord (Lord George Cavendish), the Chairman of the Committee—who, it was believed, framed the clause of the Report in question—knew very well what was in his own mind at the time. Certainly, when he (Mr. Clare Read) read the clause, he thought it indicated tolls. To take the county money, and to say that they were going to subsidise a certain road, did not mean that they were going to make the people, who used the road, pay for doing so. There was a main thoroughfare between two great towns, neither of which contributed to a county rate. The only course to adopt in such a case was to make a toll-gate on the road.

LORD GEORGE CAVENDISH

agreed with an hon. Member opposite (Mr. W. Egerton) in the remark that the Turnpikes Committee had never contemplated keeping up the toll system; but they thought some compensation might be made, in regard to two large towns, between which a main road ran. The Turnpikes Committee was appointed some 10 years ago for the purpose of getting rid of toll; but the effect had been, in some instances, to suggest a plan like that to which he had just alluded. Great injustice existed under the toll system, when a miller who lived on one side of the gate altogether escaped from payment, while another living on the opposite side had to pay toll every time he passed along the road. His own feeling about this Bill was that, when it got into operation, a great many matters would require to be remedied in order to make the measure work well. The Government would then have to introduce an amending Bill, for adjusting inequalities and redressing grievances. He took that opportunity of saying that since giving Notice of a Clause to make the Highways Act compulsory, he had consulted several gentlemen on the subject; and, acting on their advice, he had come to the conclusion that it was not desirable to proceed with the proposition at that late period of the Session. He, therefore, preferred to see first how the Bill would work. He feared it would be very difficult to work in those innumerable small townships, where the county authority would have to look after so many small affairs. He hoped the clause now under the consideration of the Committee would not be pressed.

MR. J. R. YORKE

declared his determination to go to a division. He assured the Committee that the clause was not intended to be compulsory; and its object was to enable a county authority, after there had been due inquiry, and with the sanction of the Local Government Board, to put up tolls in exceptional cases. That was different from re-introducing objectionable turnpikes, with all the irregularities of the old system. He was assuming that the county authority was endowed with an average amount of common sense, and would be guided by the exceptional character of the localities under their control. The state of things in South Wales might be fairly taken as a guide for legislation on this subject. It had given considerable satisfaction for the last 40 years, and the plan was similar to the one proposed in this clause. The chief difference was that in Wales they began with turnpikes, and then, where the tolls were insufficient, supplemented them with contributions from the county rate. His plan would be virtually the same, only the order would be reversed. It began with the county rate, and where it was inadequate, it would be aided by tolls. Therefore, he thought this arrangement was one which might safely be placed in the hands of the county authority, more especially as he thought an amending Bill would have to be brought in next Session.

MR. DILLWYN,

in reference to the remarks which had been made on turnpikes in South Wales, said, that if the Committee adopted the clause, they would revert to the old system, and not the present one. The old system was an attempt to catch exceptional traffic in certain places. Under the new one, there was no turnpike within six miles of another. The system was a uniform one, and there was no power under it for catching special traffic. The clause seemed to him to be going back to a very vicious system.

MR. PELL

pointed out that the hon. Member who had just sat down had overlooked a very important part of the clause—namely, that the whole thing was to be done after due inquiry instituted by the intelligent and, he might say, the beneficent members of the Local Government Board, who had charge of the administration of the Poor Laws. Could the Committee suppose for a moment that the Head of that Department would wish to put a toll-gate in the wrong place? The clause would not have any harassing effect.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 70: Majority 41.—(Div. List, No. 203.)

MR. DILLWYN moved that the Chairman be ordered to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. This Bill had been under the consideration of the Committee at the Morning Sitting, and the almost unprecedented course had been adopted of bringing it on again in the evening. It was now a quarter to 2 o'clock, and he protested against their going on with another debate. They had already been engaged in an important discussion that evening. He never remembered a Bill having been pressed forward with so much pertinacity, when there were serious Amendments to be considered. It was hardly reasonable for the Committee to go on any longer; and, therefore, he moved to report Progress.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)

MR. SOLATER-BOOTH

repudiated the assertion of the hon. Member who had just spoken, that the Government had pressed the Bill with pertinacity. With regard to the Motion for Progress, he hoped the Committee would consent to sit for another half-hour, in which time the Bill might be completed.

MR. DILLWYN

disclaimed any intention of making any charge against the Government; but simply wished to imply that it was sharp practice, at the best, to push the Bill on in this way. [Withdraw!]

MAJOR O'GORMAN

hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Dillwyn) would not withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress. If the hon. Gentleman did withdraw, he would move to report Progress himself.

THE CHAIRMAN

inquired whether the hon. Member for Swansea wished to withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress?

MR. DILLWYN

replied that he did not.

Motion agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday, at Two of the clock.