PART III. (Hansard, 9 July 1878)

§ MR. SEVERNE
hoped that the Amendment standing in his name would be accepted. He thought, at all events, that the fines recoverable under the bye-laws should go to the district fund, and with that view he would move, in page 12, lines 12 and 13, to leave out the words "county rate," and insert the words "funds of the district where the offence was committed."

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, he had no objection to the Amendment.

§ MR. BRISTOWE
said, as it was very undesirable that notices of appeal should be given verbally, he would move, in page 12, line 27, after the word "thereof," to insert the words— Such notice of appeal shall be in writing, signed by the person or persons giving the same, or by his, her, or their solicitor on his, her, or their behalf.

§ MR. RYLANDS
, in moving, in page 13, lines 11 and 12, to leave out from the words "county authority," to the end of the sentence, and insert the words— The county authority for the purposes of this Act shall, until Parliament otherwise provide, be a body constituted as follows: The court of quarter sessions shall from time to time appoint a committee of not less than five, nor more than nine, justices of the peace for the purposes of this Act, and such committee shall not be affected by the termination of the session at which they are appointed. With such committee there shall be associated, with equal powers, rights, and duties, the chairman of every highway district board having jurisdiction over any road or roads within the county, and the mayor of every municipal borough within the county. The clerk of the peace of the county shall act as clerk of the county authority for the purposes of this Act. The expenses of the county authority shall be paid out of the county rate, said, the principle contained in his Amendment was one which he hoped would secure the support of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. He had followed to a great extent the exact words used by the right hon. Gentleman in the Amendment accepted by him on the Valuation Bill. He (Mr. Rylands) was quite aware that it might be said that he was in some respects proposing a County Government Bill, but he was doing nothing of the kind. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth would, in a future Session, be able to bring forward a County Government Bill that would meet the necessities of the case, and ensure to the ratepayers of counties that voice in the management of county affairs, and in the levying of county rates, to which they were fairly entitled. They were, under the Bill, about to give to county authorities very extensive powers of a three-fold character. In the first place, the authorities might, if they thought fit, determine that a road, which had been an ordinary highway and as such entirely maintained by the locality through which it passed, should become a main road, and be taken from the charge of the local authorities, and that half the expense should be borne by the county. That was a very important power, and its effect would be that a number of roads, having a great traffic, and which had been maintained by separate localities, might become a charge upon the counties. He maintained 1105 that they had no right to give to irresponsible and non-representative authorities the power to impose that additional burden upon the county at large. The next very important power to be entrusted to the county authorities was that of turning a main road into a highway; which meant that they would have the power of converting into an ordinary highway a main road passing through several districts, and which road, under the present Bill, might be maintained, half at the cost of the county, and half at the cost of the districts through which it passed. In that case, the whole charge would fall upon the county districts. This was an important power which should not be exercised by county justices. Again, these authorities were also entrusted with the power of making bye-laws. It was very important that the County Board should be able to make bye-laws, and he had no objection to their exercising such power, within certain limits; but, clearly, that Board should be representative. It was only fair that the ratepayers should be represented; and there, again, they came upon the fact that the members of the Board, as provided for by the Bill, did not hold their position because they represented the opinions of the ratepayers, but simply because they were considered fit persons to occupy such positions, being selected solely by the Lord Lieutenant. He entirely objected to placing powers of the nature he had described in the hands of gentlemen who were in no way the representatives of the ratepayers. Without discussing the principle of the Scotch Roads and Bridges Bill, he might refer to it for the purpose of showing that it made provision for the representation of ratepayers. He could not understand why the Government should bring in two Bills to run at the same time, and having in view the same object, which separately embodied the opposite principles of giving representative Boards to Scotland and refusing them to the ratepayers in England. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth), moreover, proposed to tax boroughs for the maintenance of county roads in a way they had never been taxed before for county road purposes; and the county authorities were to have the power to take a burden off country districts—at that time charged with the 1106 maintenance of roads—and cast it upon large towns. He, therefore, thought it not unreasonable that, when it was proposed to alter in this important manner the incidents of local taxation, those who were so much interested in the arrangement should have a voice in the matter. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman, who had two or three years ago introduced a Highway Bill, by which a representative element was admitted to the county authority, would accept the present Amendment. He could not see why there should be any hesitation whatever in assenting to the Amendment of which he had given Notice with the object of giving to ratepayers a fair and reasonable representation. It was admitted that the present measure was of a temporary character; but, at the same time, it was to be remembered that it called into existence new charges, and effected in counties a very considerable change in the incidence of taxation. The argument was, therefore, extremely strong, that if that change were made the Government should not object that the districts affected by the Bill should be represented in the management of the roads and in those arrangements which might be carried into effect. He was not concerned to adhere to the precise terms of his Amendment, but would be ready to accept any reasonable Amendment which would attain the object he had in view. He need hardly say this Amendment would be no impediment to the subsequent establishment of County Boards. It would merely operate as a temporary arrangement, and when County Boards were established, the powers over the highways now vested in the County Highway Board could be transferred to them. He would again say, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee would accept the Amendment.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
opposed the Amendment, as he did not think it could be disputed that the magistrates were a fit body to perform such ministerial acts as they were empowered to do by the Bill. It had been said that there was no representation of the boroughs, but it was equally true that there was none of the parishes in the highway district. The county magistrates might be as well trusted to represent the boroughs for the purposes of the Act as the parishes and the highway districts. Then, again, 1107 it might be urged that the administration of the Highway Acts of 1862 and 1864 being vested in the court of quarter sessions, the court had still, under those Acts, the power to alter and vary a highway district. No doubt, that was so; and it would be quite impossible, without reviewing those Acts, to make them workable in connection with such a special county authority as proposed in the Amendment. For these reasons, and for the fact that the Bill laid down with so much precision what was to be done by the county authorities—that they were to perform merely ministerial duties, he could not accept the Amendment. He freely admitted that much more might be left to a representative body than was permitted to the magistrates; but it must be remembered that this was only a temporary measure, and at a future time he hoped a representative body might be formed.

§ MR. CLARE READ
objected to so much power being placed in the hands of the magistrates. He consoled himself, however, with the belief that they would not exercise it to any great extent. This measure was admittedly a temporary one, and in his district, at least, he believed magistrates would think twice before they incurred the trouble of making a new class of highways. The Amendment was, however, so wide in its terms, that he felt compelled to oppose it. Moreover, he also thought that the mere fact of these matters being left in the hands of quarter sessions would expedite the formation of county boards.

§ MR. WHITWELL
understood the President of the Local Government Board to say that this was a temporary measure; there was no doubt if it were not, it was full of injustice. It was clear that corporations and boroughs would, under the Bill, stand in a totally different position from what they had hitherto done with regard to the administration of county matters when vested, as the Bill proposed, entirely in the county justices. He did not object to the county justices; on the contrary, he thought they took as much care of the money in their charge as any other body would do; but still there ought to be some representatives of the boroughs associated with them. There ought to be some better reason given for the 1108 non-representation of the large boroughs which contributed so much to the rates. It was said that the ratepayers of the county were not represented, but they were so, more or less, by the justices themselves, who were large owners of land. There was no such corresponding relationship betweeen the county justices and the owners of property in boroughs. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) aimed at what was reasonable, and before the Bill passed he hoped he would propose some mode by which a representative system could be given to boroughs. While supporting the Amendment, he should not, however, offer any impediment to the progress of the Bill, but would trust to the Government for adopting the principle involved in the Amendment.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, he was quite aware that there were districts where no highway authority existed. The Bill required a Provisional Order to enable the county authority to throw upon a district the expense of a road previously a main road; but there was no Provisional Order required to authorize the expenses of a main road being taken off a district. That was another reason why an elected representative authority should be insisted upon. He did not think that the Government had offered any sufficient reason why the Bill should effect the injustice of imposing rates upon a locality without giving it representation in the matter.

§ MR. HIBBERT
agreed with the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylancls), that there should be some representation upon the County Boards, but thought that the mode in which he proposed to effect it would be quite unworkable in the large counties in England. His hon. Friend proposed that there should be a committee of not less than five or more than nine justices; taking the municipal boroughs in Lancashire, there would be a body of something like 30 borough representatives against the nine county justices. As a similar state of things would exist in other large counties, he considered the proposal unworkable.