§ [BILL 214.]
§ (Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Salt.)
§ COMMITTEE. [Progress 9th July.]
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHmoved, after Clause 20, to insert the following Clause:—
(Application of 7 and 8 Geo. IV. c. 24, s. 18, with respect to minerals to disturnpiked roads and to highways.)Notwithstanding anything contained in section sixty-eight of 'The Public Health Act, 1848,' or in section one hundred and forty-nine of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' all mines and minerals under any disturnpiked road or highway which has or shall become vested in an urban sanitary authority by virtue of the said sections, or either of them, shall belong to the person who would be entitled thereto in case such road or highway had not become so vested, and the person entitled to any such mine or minerals shall have the same powers of working and of getting and carrying away the same respectively as if the road or highway had not become vested in the urban sanitary authority, but so nevertheless that in such working, getting, and carrying away no damage shall be done to the road or highway.This section shall extend to the Isle of Wight and to South Wales, as defined by the said Act of the twenty-third and twenty-fourth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter sixty-eight, intituled 'An Act for the better management and control of the Highways in South Wales.'
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked what was to become of the roads if they were found to be of no use to the parish or district, or county, and were given up? Were they to revert to the owners of the soil on each side? Who were to be the persons who were to have an absolute right to such roads? In dealing with a question of this kind, he thought the whole of the circumstances ought to be taken into account; whereas the right hon. Gentleman only proposed in the clause to deal with the minerals under disturnpiked roads and highways. He thought the Committee would be glad to have a little more explanation from the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the clause dealt exclusively with those roads which were now vested in local boards, and with no others; and it was rendered 1338 necessary in consequence of some uneasiness which had prevailed owing to a decision of the Lord Chief Justice in regard to the definition of a road as contained in the Acts of 1848 and 1875. The clause proposed to deal with the matter so as to prevent, in future, needless appeals, and to clear up all ambiguity. He thought that in another year, when the Highway Acts generally were brought under consideration, it would be desirable to see what alterations were required in the Highway Acts. The question was a complicated and difficult one; but the present clause applied to the main roads only, and the question would remain precisely as it had remained before the decision to which he had referred.
§ MR. WHITWELLwas inclined to think that this was a question which ought to have been reserved for another Bill, as it appeared to involve various matters of difficulty. He hoped the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Marten), who proposed to deal with the question of turnpike roads with a view of settling any rights which such turnpike roads might have acquired, or which might have lapsed, would be drawn to the subject. He (Mr. Whitwell) was inclined to think that the clause, as it stood, would alter the law as to turnpikes; because it proposed that all mines or minerals under any disturnpiked road or highway should become the property of the highway authority, who should see that in working the minerals the road was not injured or endangered. But how could anybody know in such a case whether harm would be done to the highway until it was actually done? There were instances in the mining districts of this country where the coal laid as closely under the public roads as it did under houses in certain parts of Cumberland, Staffordshire, and elsewhere. In the case of railways, he believed that no one could make a railway under a road without giving notice. In the same way, in taking away minerals from under a highway, notice should be given to the highway authority before the works were commenced, so that they might look after their own interests. It would be an extraordinary thing to say to the persons who were engaged in getting coal out from beds beneath the highways, that there were no means of meet- 1339 ing the difficulty; and that when the highway authority sought to recover the coat of repairing a road which had been damaged by taking minerals from under it, he should be told that he was powerless to obtain it. If there was to be this change and reversal of the judgment of the Court, he thought there should be some provision requiring notice to be given to the highway authority when minerals were about to be taken, as well as a provision giving away the property in the minerals themselves.
§ MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, he was acquainted with the regulations with regard to the working of minerals in Lancashire; and, as he understood the clause, it did not make the slightest alteration in the law as it stood at present. The origin of the clause was, as his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board had said, that there had been a decision of the Lord Chief Justice, which appeared to vest the soil in the roads in the local authorities of the district. The effect of that decision would have been to vest, not only the soil, but the right to the minerals beneath, in the local boards. The consequence of that would have been that every mining lease in Lancashire would have been disturbed; and as a large number of persons in Lancashire were interested in mineral property, it was very desirable that the state of the law upon this point should be cleared up. He thought the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) might rest quite easy that the clause now proposed would not alter the state of the law in regard to these highways from that which existed previous to the decision of the Lord Chief Justice. He did not think it would be necessary to enforce upon the owners of minerals any condition that in working such minerals they were not to damage or disturb a road above. As the law now stood, if a highway sank, or the surface of a road was disturbed, the owner of the minerals beneath was bound to repair the damage done. That this was so was within his own knowledge, as he had himself been required to spend £200 or £300 upon a road which had fallen in to the extent of some three or four feet. He believed there was no doubt at all as to the liability of those who worked the minerals underneath a public road to 1340 keep the road in proper repair if it was injured by their action. If the decision remained unaltered, it would be almost impossible to draw a coal lease in Lancashire or anywhere else properly. This clause was therefore a very necessary one, and would not do any injury whatever, or make any alteration in the law as it stood previous to the decision of the Lord Chief Justice.
§ MR. BRISTOWEhoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would maintain the clause as it stood. It appeared to him (Mr. Bristowe) to be quite in the right direction, and he should be sorry to see it amended in the way that had been suggested. There was no doubt that, according to the law as it stood before the decision which had been referred to, the owners of the soil adjacent were supposed to be the owners of the property beneath the highways, so far as the getting of minerals was concerned, and the presumption was that they, or their ancestors, had given a right of way over the land in the first instance. The owners, however, were bound not to interfere with the rights of the users of the highway; and if, in working and getting minerals, they in any way interfered with the public use of a road, they would be liable for any damage that was done. It appeared to him that the clause, as it was submitted by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, was quite correct.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he proposed to strike out the word "respectively" in line 8 of the clause, and to substitute the words "or other minerals."
§ MR. W. BEAUMONTexpressed his approval of the proposed Amendment.
§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ MR. PEASEproposed to insert at the end of the first paragraph of the clause, after the word "highway," in line 11, the words "without repairing such damage." The clause as it stood read—
but so, nevertheless, that in such working, getting, and carrying away, no damage shall be done to the road or highway.The hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) had referred to the case of coal mines in Cumberland and Northumberland, where it was the custom to work out the minerals and pay the high- 1341 way authority for any damage done to the highways. This clause, however, in its present shape, would prohibit the owner of the minerals from working them out in any case where it was impossible to do so without technically damaging the roads above. He asked his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board to assent to this Amendment, which would only have the effect of leaving the law precisely as it stood at present.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he had no objection to the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. Member.
§ MR. BULWERsaid, it appeared to him that if the words proposed were inserted, the clause might be difficult to construe, and it would be better to bring them up on the Report, so that in the meantime they might receive fuller consideration. The clause should not contain an absolute prohibition against doing damage to the road by working the minerals, and, at the same time, give permission to do damage, provided it was paid for.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the object of the Amendment, of course, was that the owners of the minerals should be enabled to work them as they were now, and that if they committed any damage they should be liable to pay for it. If that was the law as it now stood, he would take care that it was made quite clear in the Bill.
§ MR. PEASEsaid, he should be perfectly content if the right hon. Gentleman would give an intimation that the clause would be altered on the Report, so as to make the matter clear. At the same time, he thought the meaning of the words which he (Mr. Pease) had himself suggested was quite obvious.
§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ MR. ESTCOURTmoved, in page 6, after Clause 17, to insert the following Clause:—
(Term "bridges" to include viaduct, &c.)The word 'bridges' in the twelfth section of the Act of the Session of the thirty-third and thirty-fourth of Queen Victoria, chapter seventy-three, shall be deemed to extend to and include viaducts and other structures of a similar nature previously repaired by the trustees of a turnpike road.He said he had undertaken to submit this clause on behalf of his hon. and gallant 1342 Friend the Member for West Gloucester-shire (Colonel Kingscote), who was unable to be present. He believed that such a clause would be necessary; because, in several instances where the county had taken over bridges, there had been a desire to split straws in the matter, and the county had only consented to adopt the one or two arches of a bridge beneath which the water actually flowed, contending that the remaining arches were viaducts, which they were not called upon to take over. It appeared to him that by the 12th section of the Act of the 33 & 34 Vict. c. 73, all the bridges handed over by the abolition of a trust became county bridges; and if a portion of them were more in the nature of viaducts than of bridges over streams of water actually flowing, they had been, nevertheless, built, repaired, and maintained by the turnpike trust, which had lately been done away with. He, therefore, thought that in transferring the liabilities of the trust there ought to be no question about these bridges becoming county bridges. A legal opinion had, however, been taken by the Court of Quarter Sessions of a neighbouring county in regard to certain bridges between the counties of Wilts and Somerset, and that opinion was to the effect that the county was liable to repair the whole of the viaduct, as well as those arches under which the water passed, and that it was the duty of the county, not only to repair an arch under which the water passed, but to repair all the arches forming part of the same structure. The counsel consulted ended his opinion by declaring that the whole of the viaduct was liable to be repaired by the county. There had, however, been a difficulty hitherto in inducing the county to take over a bridge in which there were arches under which no water flowed; and in order to remove any future difficulty, he would move the addition of a new clause, to provide that the term "bridges" should include viaducts and other structures of a similar nature previously repaired by the trustees of a turnpike road.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he did not think it was desirable that this should be an Act of Parliament to settle all disputed cases between the local authorities and the counties. His hon. Friend had read a legal opinion, which 1343 seemed to show that the counties were already liable. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) was very glad that that was so; and he hoped that hereafter the counties would take upon themselves the duty of repairing viaducts of the nature referred to. In the words proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Estcourt)—namely, "viaducts and other structures of a similar nature," there was some uncertainty. There was no question whatever as to the liability of the county to repair the bridges belonging to the county, which was handed over to them by the Turnpike Act of 1870. He did not think it would be desirable to insert the clause proposed by his hon. Friend; but he thought it would be generally understood that the work of repairing and maintaining would be done by the authorities of the county.
MR. PAGET, as representing the county which owned the structure referred to, wished to take exception to the principle laid down by the hon. Member for Wiltshire. He thought the authorities of a county were bound to act within the limits of the law, and that they had no right to accept as a county bridge anything that was not proved to them to be a county bridge. He doubted whether the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend would, if adopted, be sufficient to decide the question whether, in the particular case mentioned by his hon. Friend, the structure would be a bridge or not, unless he went a step further, and defined, what had never yet been defined—namely, what was a bridge, and what was not a bridge. He believed the county of Yorkshire had decided that they would not take over anything beyond 10 feet wide; but all these questions were of an arbitrary nature, which each county had to decide for itself. If there was a distinct decision, or a distinct definition was laid down as to what constituted a bridge, the authorities would have a guide in dealing with these turnpike roads. The proposed Amendment would, however, be altogether insufficient for that purpose, and would not deal with the matter as it ought to be dealt with. If his hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Estcourt) would bring up another Amendment on the Report, giving a clear definition of what was to constitute a bridge, he might do good service, especially if 1344 his clause was so drawn that everybody could understand it. With such a definition laid down, the county authorities would have no difficulty in deciding what was a bridge and what was not.
§ MR. ESTCOURTdid not know that he would be able to draw up a clause actually defining what a bridge was as well as his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Somerset (Mr. Paget); and he hoped his hon. Friend would give him his assistance in drawing up a clause of this nature, if it were considered to be necessary. He only wished to add to what he had already said, that the bridge of which he had been speaking was not a viaduct pure and simple. It did go over a stream of water; but, as it happened, only two of the arches, or, probably, only one, crossed over the water itself, the others being in the nature of a viaduct leading from the bridge to the land.
§ MR. ESTCOURTYes.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. SPENCER STANHOPEintimated that he did not intend to move the clauses which stood on the Paper in his name, for transferring liabilities respecting county bridges from the county to the borough authorities, and giving the county authority to purchase private toll bridges.
§ MR. DUNDASmoved, in page 8, after Clause 20, to insert the following Clause:—
§ (Bridge roads.)
§ "The liability of a county or hundred to repair any road leading to, passing over, or next adjoining to any bridge repairable by a county or hundred, shall cease and determine on the first day of April, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine, and every such road shall thenceforth be kept in repair by the highway authority of the highway area within which it is situate, and the expense of maintaining such road shall be charged on the fund or rate applicable to the repair of highways within such area, unless such road be a continuation of a main road, in which case the provisions of this Act relating to the maintenance of main roads shall to such road: Provided, nevertheless, That where at the commencement of this Act there is subsisting any contract for the repair of any road repairable by a county or hundred, this section shall commence to take effect with regard to such road upon the determination of the contract relating thereto."
§ He stated that the object of this clause 1345 was to relieve the counties from a responsibility to which, they were at present liable. Although they were no longer liable to defray the expense of repairing and maintaining bridge approaches on the disturnpiked roads, yet there remained a large number of roads, used as approaches to bridges, which they were called upon to maintain and repair. In the North Riding of Yorkshire—the locality with which he was best acquainted—the county had to repair some 17 or 18 miles of road, which consisted of small portions of road, not more than a few hundred feet in length, scattered all over the county. The expense was very great, whether the county employed its own officers in conducting the repairs, or whether it got the repairs executed by contract. In the case he had mentioned—namely, the North Riding of Yorkshire, the expense was about £990 a-year, or at the rate of about £56 a-mile; whereas the expense of maintaining the turnpike roads generally only amounted to about £28 per mile. What he proposed in this clause was that these roads which constituted the approaches to certain bridges should be treated exactly the same as the roads themselves. If they were main roads, half the expenses would be paid by the county; and if they were highways, and not main roads, they would be repaired as highways at the expense of the highway authority. The convenience would be very great, and there would be a considerable saving of expense. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would be willing to accept the clause on the part of the Government, and he was satisfied that it would introduce much greater simplicity into the law.
§ SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Mr. Dundas) was a most useful and practical Amendment, and, if adopted by the Committee, would lead to a considerable diminution of the expenses of the county surveyors. In most of these cases, at present, the county surveyor had to make an arrangement for the work being done with the surveyor who represented the highway authorities, and it appeared to him (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) that it would be much better to allow the highway authorities to do 1346 the work on their own accord, and also pay for it. They would not be damnified to any great extent, when it was borne in mind that they would be relieved from serious payments, which, although now falling upon the highway authorities, would, when this Bill passed, be defrayed out of the county rate. The matter was one to which his attention had already been called by the authorities of the North Riding of Yorkshire, and especially by the Chief Constable, who possessed a considerable knowledge of the district; and he was bound to say that he was of opinion that the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Dundas) would be a most economical and useful clause to adopt. It was a common opinion among the farmers of the district in which he happened to live that it was a most desirable change to bring about; and he thought that, taking the whole area of the county, there would really not be any case of hardship to individual ratepayers. In point of fact, it would come in the end to about the same thing, and it would certainly simplify very greatly the work of maintaining and repairing these approaches to the county bridges. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would not think it out of place to adopt the clause.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was sorry that he was compelled to oppose the Amendment; but he thought there was a serious objection to it, which he would lay before the Committee. He quite agreed that it was not a very large money question; but still, as far as it went, it introduced a principle which was contrary to that which was the policy of the Bill, because it proposed to remove a charge from a larger area for the purpose of placing it upon a smaller area. He had no doubt that in Yorkshire the district boards had competent surveyors, who would do the work well, and not care very much about the difference in the cost; but in other parts of the country, where the charge would fall, not upon the highway district, but upon the parish authorities, it might become a very serious charge indeed, if, in addition to the highway rates of the parish, which they were accustomed to pay now, they were saddled with the expense of maintaining and repairing roads, many hundreds of 1347 yards in length, for which the county was now chargeable. There was, however, the objection of principle, quite apart from the question of throwing an additional burden upon the highway authorities for the repair and maintenance of these approaches to the bridges. Then, again, unless the repairs were well looked after, and if the approaches were not good, the bridges themselves might undergo serious deterioration. Therefore, he thought that the repairs to the approaches should remain in the same hands as those who were charged with the maintenance and repair of the bridges themselves. On these two grounds, he certainly considered the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Dundas) an Amendment that ought not to be inserted in the Bill. He had no doubt that, as time went on, there would be some arrangement by which the districts would be empowered to contract with the counties for the repair of these roads, in connection with other duties; but at present it did not seem to him that this was an alteration which was without objection in itself, and it was certainly a transfer of charge in an opposite direction to that upon which the Bill proceeded. Upon these grounds, he could not consent to accept the clause.
§ MR. FLOYERsaid, he did not think that the argument of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, in regard to the principle of the Bill, was quite satisfactory; because the principle of the Bill was to adopt a larger area of management, and to place under the control of the county that which would best come under its authority, so far as management was concerned. Nobody could suppose, however, that the county authority would supply the best mode of managing little petty bits of road all over the county. The county surveyor would be required to make continual journeys to distant parts of the county, in order to ascertain whether it was necessary for him to do anything or not, and he would have to enter into little contracts with the local surveyors. He (Mr. Floyer) certainly looked upon this as a costly and extravagant mode of doing business, and the duty of maintaining and repairing these approaches would be done by the local authorities at one-half or one-fourth of the expense. Wherever there were 1348 highway districts, the surveyor of the highway district was the proper person, to look after the matter, and in the case of a parish, the surveyor of the parish should attend to it. There would be no more difficulty in repairing a road that was used as an approach to a bridge than there would be in repairing one anywhere else. The only doubtful point in the proposition of the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Dundas) was, perhaps, that the hon. Member ought to have included the bridges also. The whole thing ought to come under one management, and it was a moot point whether the best course would not be to place the bridges under the Highway District Boards. Personally, he was entirely in favour of local management and local supervision. If they had county management, the county authorities might live in a distant part of a large county, probably 30, 40, 50, or 60 miles off. What would they know about the way in which the roads in the distant parts of the county were managed? It could not be expected that members of the County Boards would go about the county travelling for great distances, in order to ascertain the state in which the roads were kept, and the result would be that the work would fall into the hands of one county surveyor, with nobody to control him. He did not think that this large area in other respects was a very good thing; and, as regarded these little bits of road, scattered all over the county, it would, he thought, be better to place them in the hands of the local authority. If the hon. Member for Richmond would press his Motion to a division, he (Mr. Floyer) would have great pleasure in supporting him.
MR. PAGETsaid, that his objection to the clause was that it did not go far enough; but he would remind the House that this was professedly not a Bill to deal comprehensively with the whole question of highways, but only with a certain portion of the laws regarding them, and that only temporarily. They were promised in the future a larger measure to alter and consolidate the Highway Acts, and that, he thought, would be the time to introduce the principle proposed by the hon. Member; and he would, therefore, advise him not to attempt to deal with it fragmentarily at present.
§ MR. WHITWELLagreed that it would be unwise to make the alteration in the Bill. They all knew that the county surveyor had great difficulty in managing bridge roads, and had to give much more attention to those small tracts than he would to larger roads; but the great objection was that if they took away from the county surveyor the control of the approaches to bridges, they ran a great risk of damaging the approaches.
§ MR. DUNDASsaid, that he was not convinced by the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. He thought, however, there was some force in the objection that a new charge would be thrown on the parish in counties where the Highway Acts had not been adopted. He hoped he might augur from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman that the promised Bill would make the enlarged areas universal, and with this hope he would be quite content to let the matter rest, and to withdraw his clause.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREmoved the insertion of the following Clause:—
(As to encroachment of roadside wastes.)From and after the passing of this Act if any person encroaches by making or causing to he made any building, or pit, or hedge, ditch, or other fence, on the open side or sides of any highway being a carriage way, or by removing any soil or turf from the open side or sides of any highway being a carriage way, except for the purpose of improving the road, and by order of the highway board, or, where there is no highway board, of the surveyor, he shall be subject on conviction for every such offence to any sum not exceeding forty shillings; and it shall be lawful for the justices assembled at petty sessions, upon proof to them made upon oath, to levy the expenses of taking down such building, hedge, or fence, or filling up such ditch or pit, or restoring the injury caused by the removal of such soil or turf, upon the person offending: provided, That—The clause, he said, proposed to deal with a very important and intricate question—namely, the right of the public to the roadside wastes. He need hardly point out that the charm of the country to a very great extent depended upon roadside wastes, and if those wastes were to be cut down, so as to leave the road with a minimum width of 15 feet on each side of the centre, country scenery would lose a great portion of its charm. Of late years there had been a great tendency on the part of owners of adjoining lands to encroach upon the roads, and the tendency had been shown to a much greater extent in the outskirts of towns than in the open country. Now, those encroachments were for the most part committed from an entirely mistaken view of the law. It was generally believed that a landowner was entitled to encroach upon a roadside waste up to a distance of 15 feet from the centre, because the Highways Act only gave a remedy for encroachment within that limit, and that gave landowners the idea that they were entitled to inclose the waste up to that extent. There was no doubt that that was an entirely erroneous view of the law. He had consulted numerous lawyers upon the subject, and ho had examined all the authorities very carefully himself, and there could be no question whatever that, although the owner of adjoining land had a right to the soil of a roadside waste, yet the public had also a right to go across it; and, although the fences on either side might be 50 or 60 feet apart, yet the public had a right of way over the whole of the space between the fences, and were not limited to the 30 feet defined by the Highways Act. He would venture to call attention to a case where this was laid down by the Courts. The road in question was one of 60 feet in width, and, in 1832, the owner of the adjoining land inclosed the roadside waste. Lord Tenterden, before whom the case was tried, said that he was strongly of opinion that the public were entitled to the use of the whole space of 50 or 60 feet through which the road passed. That case had been followed by numerous others. There was the 1351 well-known case of the Electric Telegraph Company, which had failed to obtain an Act to enable it to put up its poles on roadside wastes, and which then obtained the consent of the owners of adjoining land to do so. In that case a rival Company indicted it for interfering with the right of way of the public over the roadside waste. Baron Martin laid down in the clearest possible manner that the public had the full right of the space between the two fences, and that the Company had not the right even with the consent of the adjoining landowners to erect its poles upon the waste. Therefore, he said that, in point of law, where the road passed through a continuous space of 50 or 60 feet, the public were entitled to a right of way over the whole of the space between the fences. The only way now of enforcing the right was by indictment, which was a very costly process, and which most people did not like to undertake; and he believed he was right in saying that even if one could succeed in recovering the space in such an action, he could not succeed in recovering costs. It was a very expensive process, and practically, therefore, there was no real remedy for these encroachments. The right, however, had been tried over and over again. In his own neighbourhood a case arose, and a committee of gentlemen was formed, who entered an action against persons who had been encroaching on the roadside waste. They proceeded by way of indictment, and were successful, the other parties not coming into Court; but even then it was a very expensive process, and cost about £300. There was another case, he believed, in which the late Lord Salisbury had inclosed roadside waste for a considerable portion of the land adjoining his estate. In that case Lord Cowper sent a large force of labouring men to pull down the fences that had been erected, and they were accordingly pulled down; and it was stated that the present Lord Cairns advised Lord Salisbury to take no proceedings in the matter. What he purposed to do by his clause was to give the public a more summary remedy, and to extend that clause of the Highways Act which now only gave protection to 15 feet from the centre of the road, so as to make it 30 feet either way from the centre. He merely extended the summary remedy given under the Highways Act 15 feet further. He, of 1352 course, should be happy to make any reservations in the clause that might be thought necessary. As at present drawn, the clause was only in the right of the public, and merely extended the summary clause of the Highways Act with the view of enabling the public to exercise that right which undoubtedly existed at present over all the space between fences. It appeared to him to be quite within the principle of the Bill, and he should be glad to have it discussed. The Bill was called a Highways Bill, and this question was of quite as much importance as many of the others dealt with by the measure.
- (1.) For the purposes of this section the open side of a highway shall mean the space intervening between the highway and any fence on the side of the highway;
- (2.) This section shall not apply where a highway passes along a common or other uninclosed space;
- (3.) This section shall apply only to a space not exceeding a space of thirty feet measured on each side of the centre line of a highway, and the centre line of a highway for the purposes of this section at any point means a line equi-distant from the fence on either side;
1350 - (4.) This section shall be deemed to be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other provision relating to encroachments contained in any Act relating to highways."
§ MR. RODWELLtrusted that the President of the Local Government Board would have some better reason given than had already been adduced by the hon. Member for Reading, before he consented to the introduction of that clause; because he thought there were many rural districts where it would be very inconvenient, and cause a great deal of mischief without any benefit. He did not suppose that anyone would dispute the law which the hon. Member had laid down; but it did not appear to him that it applied to the particular case raised by the Amendment. What the public at present had was a right of way for the convenience of passage to and fro, and what the hon. Member proposed to do was to extend the limit laid down in the 51st clause of the Highways Act by 30 feet—that was, to double it. The law as to public rights of the road would remain the same. The hon. Member proposed that in no case should a farmer take away any soil or turf from a road—a proposition which he considered to be most unreasonable. He thought that the hon. Member himself was guilty of a little encroachment upon the rights of landowners. He submitted to the House that the hon. Member had at present shown no ground for accepting the clause. No doubt, his well-known love for open spaces for the people had induced him to put it on the Bill; but he thought it was a little unfair and quite unnecessary, and, therefore, he should oppose it.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that everybody must admire the gallantry and tenacity with which his hon. Friend opposite seized opportunities for advocating the cause of open spaces; but he must say he considered it rather hard on the pro- 1353 moters of the Bill that they should have a clause proposed which would lead to the most knotty and contentious points of law that could be raised—namely, the extent of ownership in lands adjoining roads, in some cases carrying with them manorial rights, and in others, rights of property. But he did not at all wish to argue the case against his hon. Friend. He might have a strong case to set up for extending open spaces by law; but he would point out that the clause of his hon. Friend was practically an Amendment to the whole Highway Law. Now, unless he was misinformed, a turnpike road could not be encroached upon by the proprietor of adjoining land. No doubt, it might be very advantageous to lay down something more clear and definite as to the rights which existed upon roadsides; and, no doubt, they would have plenty of debates upon it when they should get time to discuss that very interesting subject. But he would put it to his hon. Friend whether it was desirable to persist in a clause which would import contentious matter into the Bill?
§ LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHsaid, he was not sure that the case was not in a great measure provided for by a clause in one of the Turnpike Continuance Acts. But everything showed that this was a detail which ought to be postponed for a future occasion. Personally, he should be glad to see such a clause passed, for in the neighbourhood where he lived most lawless proceedings had taken place with regard to the roadsides. With regard to the question of the right of the landlord to take away turf, he pointed out that it would be undesirable to have that right exercised in certain cases where the turf formed an admirable gallop for horses. He knew of a capital gallop near Buxton, about seven or eight miles long, and he considered that it would be very disadvantageous to the people of Buxton to have that roadside done away with. All these questions, however, he considered to be matters of detail, and had better not be discussed at present.
§ COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEasked whether it was a fact that the highway authority had absolute jurisdiction only over 30 feet of roadway? He could only say, as a member of a Highway Board, that they had laid it down most clearly that no encroachment upon roads was to 1354 be made under any circumstances whatever, without special permission from the Highway Board. He certainly thought that the public had a right to much more than 15 feet from the centre of the road, and he could not see why those who rode on horseback should not have the enjoyment of the turf at roadsides. He was rather surprised to hear what the state of the law was, for he had never understood it to be so. At any rate, if the Motion of the hon. Member opposite did no other good, it had produced some information as to the power which highway authorities had over roadside wastes when they extended beyond 15 feet from the centre of the road. At present, he believed their jurisdiction was to a very much wider extent.
§ MR. BRISTOWEsaid, he was very sorry they had not had the support of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell), because the clause was really not a stringent one, and was calculated to be extremely useful. There was no doubt that the law as laid down by the hon. Member for Reading was not to be disputed. No one could dispute that the public had a right of use over the whole space from fence to fence. It was absurd to say that the riparian proprietors setting to work to clear away the turf would not be a serious interference with the enjoyment of the public passing and re-passing along the road. He remembered a case where a proprietor inclosed a portion of road extending for about two-thirds of a mile. Nothing was done, because to have proceeded against him would have been a very costly business. But as he understood his hon. Friend's Motion, it was only intended to supply a summary remedy, and to effect by a cheap and easy method what at present could only be done by a costly and difficult process. He did not mean to say that any very numerous cases of owners taking up a great deal of roadside space occurred; but, at the same time, cases did occur here and there, and if that were a matter which could be put down by indictment, he was at a loss to understand why a summary proceeding should not be equally applicable. It seemed to him that that was a cheap and convenient method of dealing with the evil, and that it was altogether a very reasonable proposition.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he must point out that the hon. Member's clause did not agree at all with the propositions he had laid down. It might be that the public had certain rights; but, if so, they were really limited by his clause, because it only gave them a right to 60 feet. He entirely agreed that for Highway Boards a summary remedy might usefully be substituted for proceedings by indictment. When the proper time arrived he should be most happy to enter upon that subject; but he did most earnestly deprecate the settlement, in an off-hand way, by the introduction of a clause at the end of a Bill, of the question of to what extent the rights of the public went and how they were to be enforced.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that after the promise that had made by his right hon. Friend opposite, he should not divide the House upon the clause. He had listened very carefully to the debate, and he had heard no objection made to his version of the law as it stood. As to the point that was made with reference to removal of soil, he was perfectly ready to meet that objection by leaving out the words relating to it. His noble Friend the Member for Derbyshire was perfectly right in his supposition as to the case of disturnpiked roads. There was a clause in the Turnpike Act which gave a summary remedy to the highway authorities in the case of encroachments on roads which had formerly been turnpike roads to the extent of 60 feet. His clause, however, applied to all highways. However, all that he had proposed was to substitute a summary remedy for the expensive one of proceeding by indictment; but he did not wish to raise any question as to what the rights of the public might be beyond the distance of 30 feet from the centre. He would, however, withdraw his Motion upon the assurance of his right hon. Friend that he would deal with the subject on a future occasion.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. W. BEAUMONTmoved the insertion of the following Clause:—
(Cases in which existing bridges may be accepted by county authority.)Any bridge heretofore erected in any county without such superintendence as is provided in section five of the statute of the forty-third year of King George the Third, chapter fifty-nine, 1356 but which shall have been maintained for thirty years and upwards, shall, if the county authority see fit so to order, become and be deemed to be a bridge which the inhabitants of the county shall be liable to maintain and repair: Provided always, That the county surveyor or other person appointed in that behalf by the county authority shall certify the same to be substantial and commodious, and to be in good repair and condition.He said, the object of the clause was to enable the county authorities to take over any bridge before erected in any county which should have been maintained for 30 years and upwards. A very curious incident had occurred some years ago in his county, where, in order to comply with the technical terms of the Act, they had had to pull down and rebuild a bridge. He understood there was no objection to the clause.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHbelieved that this was a very useful clause. It did away with a restriction which acted very improperly, and which prevented county authorities from taking over bridges which they would be glad to take over if the county surveyor duly certified them.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ MR. W. BEAUMONTmoved the insertion of the following Clause:—
(Contributions out of county rates towards erecting county bridges.)The county authority may make such contribution as it sees fit out of the county rates towards the cost of any bridge to be hereafter erected after the same has been certified in accordance with the provisions of section five of the statute of the forty-third year of King-George the Third, chapter fifty-nine, as a proper bridge to be maintained by the inhabitants of the county; so always that such contribution shall not exceed one-half of the cost of erecting such bridge.said, there were many poor districts where it would be impossible to raise the money for building bridges by county subscriptions, and this clause was to enable the county authorities, if they should be willing, to assist these districts in complying with the law.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ MR. M. SCOTT (for Mr. HARCOURT), moved, in page 10, after Clause 22, to insert the following Clause:—
(Locomotives used for agricultural purposes.)In case of locomotives used for agricultural or other purposes, and working within fifty yards of any highway, a man or boy with a flag shall be stationed on such highway to give notice 1357 to passers by, and, in case of need, to assist horses and carriages drawn by horses passing along the same.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he had no objection to the clause, if the words "with a flag" were omitted and 30 yards substituted for 50.
§ MR. PEASEthought it was hardly wise to impose such restrictions as that on the use of machinery. In many cases the regulation would be no safety at all, and he doubted very much whether the right hon. Gentleman was right in assenting to the clause.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, it appeared to him that they might just as well say that if a railway passed within 30 yards of a wall, a man with a flag must be placed on a road to warn passers-by.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKthought there was very considerable utility in a clause of that kind; because everyone knew that in going along a country road with a pair of young horses, there was very great difficulty in passing a field where one of these machines was working. If there were a man or a boy in the road who could cause the machine to be stopped until the carriage got past, it would be a very great advantage. If there were nobody there, those in charge of the engine would know nothing about the carriage passing.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDconsidered that this was a most unreasonable proposition. He had a horse that would pass these machines without fear, but had a great objection to Taylor's furniture vans. He might just as well say that if one of these vans were loading at a villa near a road, a boy should be stationed in the road to warn him of its presence. He was afraid that if they commenced the principle of protecting the general public by Act of Parliament or by bye-law, against every imaginable risk, they would have enough to do, and therefore he should oppose the clause.
§ MR. RODWELLthought, that with the use of the word "locomotive" there might be very considerable difficulty in applying the clause. Everybody knew that a great variety of improvements in agricultural machinery were being introduced, and the clause in its present form would lead to great confusion and difficulty.
§ MR. W. BEAUMONTthought they had killed their friend with the flag 1358 altogether, and he hoped that before the President of the Local Government Board accepted the clause it would be considerably modified.
§ MR. BULWERsaid, he must point out that, in his judgment, the clause as worded did not meet the difficulty. He did not think that people passing along a road required any notice that a machine was at work in an adjoining field; but rather that the persons working the machine required notice of the approach of passengers, so that they might stop the machine and not frighten the horses going by. In the case of the hon. Member for Rochester, it was not he who needed warning, but the man in charge of Taylor's van.
§ MR. WHITWELLsaid, he did not think the hon. Member for East Sussex was quite aware of what he was proposing by his clause.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOThoped that his hon. Friend would withdraw his clause. It was rather a curious thing that after the House had only the other day, by a large majority, endorsed the opinion that steam might be used on tramways, that they should now be going to hamper the use of it on agricultural machinery in fields.
§ MR. M. SCOTTbegged to assure the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) that the clause was not his; but that, in the absence of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, he had moved it. Ho would ask leave to withdraw it.
§ MR. MUNTZsaid, there could be no doubt that very sad accidents had occurred from horses suddenly coming upon engines working in a field.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, it would be found, on reference to the Locomotives Act of 1865, that there was sufficient provision made for such contingency.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. PAGETsaid, he desired to move a new clause which had not been printed. It was entitled "Highway District Rating not to apply unless ordered by the county authority." He ventured to think that the clause was entirely in harmony with the general principle of the Bill and with the general principles of the Highway Acts. The Highway Acts did not make it compulsory anywhere that there should be 1359 highway districts. The formation of those districts was optional. It existed in some parts of the country, and in others they declined to avail themselves of it. In the county of Somerset they had had the Highway District Act in force for 15 years. It had worked well, and they desired to be let alone. They did not desire to have, and in fact he believed there was a very strong feeling against, the introduction of district rating. What he wanted was that they should be left free to do as they were doing. Their roads were good, their surveyors were efficient, the system was working well; and no one, so far as he knew, desired to introduce district rating. The principle he wished to adopt was that they should be allowed to introduce district rating if they considered it desirable; but that if they wished to be left alone, they should be left alone. He thought they might ask for that as a matter of right. In their county they were amongst the first to adopt the principle of highway districts. Others who were not so quick in doing so were to be left alone. The Bill did not deal with them. It entirely left those alone who had not acted under the Highway Act; but it came to those who had and said to them, with or without their consent, the principle of district rating must be introduced. He thought there was no such reason for that as had existed under the Union system. They had now every inducement to manage their roads at a moderate rate of expenditure. The waywarden sent in every year a statement showing the probable amount that would have to be expended on the roads in labour and material, and that expenditure was watched carefully from year to year. The Bill would introduce a change in the system; but he ventured to think that it was entirely in harmony with existing highway legislation, and also with the principle of the present Bill that where a system was at work and worked well, and against which there was nothing to be said, it at any rate should be left optional to decide whether or not the county authorities should adopt the principle of district rating. It might be that the words he had drawn up did not meet the case in the best way; but he would, at all events, move the clause he had placed in the Chairman's hands.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDthought the hon. Member for Mid-Somerset was treating the House very hardly. He had had plenty of opportunities of putting his clause upon the Paper. They had been three days in Committee on the Bill, and they had had a fortnight wherein to prepare new clauses. He, therefore, would appeal to the hon. Member to put the clause down for the Report, so that the House might have an opportunity of examining it and seeing whether they liked it or not.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHhoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his Motion. It was, in fact, an Amendment which had been moved in Committee, had been thoroughly thrashed out there, and rejected. It was now brought forward as a new clause.
MR. PAGETsaid, that it was a matter of considerable importance, and he would, therefore, bring the subject up again on the Report.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. SPENCER STANHOPEmoved, after Clause 20, to insert the following Clause:—
(Transfer of liabilities respecting county bridges from the county authorities to borough authorities.)It shall be lawful for the county authority, and the local authority or highway authority of any borough, local board district, or place within which is situate any bridge or bridge approach maintainable by the inhabitants of the county or county division wherein it is situate, to enter into agreements with respect to the reconstruction, widening, alteration, or other improvement, and the future maintenance of such county bridge and its approaches; and the county authority may contribute out of the rates, in the nature of county rates leviable by them, such sum of money as they deem proper towards the expenses of the works agreed upon, or in consideration of being relieved from the future maintenance of any such bridge and the approaches thereto, and on payment of such contribution the common law liability of the inhabitants of such county or county division to rebuild, maintain, and repair such bridge and approaches shall cease, and shall thereafter attach to and be borne by the inhabitants of the borough, local board district, or place wherein the same respectively are situate, in like manner as the liability for the maintenance and repair of highways within that area or district respectively is borne. Any such agreement as hereinbefore authorized, which has been already entered into, may be renewed or confirmed by the respective parties hereto after the passing of this Act, and shall have effect as if made under this Act.He said, that his clause was intended to 1361 meet a case where a large town had grown beyond a county bridge, and the bridge, being insufficient to accommodate the ordinary traffic of the road, now that it became part of a street, was dangerous. The borough authorities would then apply to Quarter Sessions to have the bridge made over to them; but the Quarter Sessions had no power to do so. In Yorkshire, the borough authorities had gone to the Quarter Sessions and said—"Here is a bridge of yours which is dangerous and insufficient, and which costs, for instance, £100 a-year in repairs. If you will capitalize this sum, and give us £2,500, we will take the bridge over and keep it in repair." The county authorities would be willing to accept the terms, but they had no statutory power to divest themselves of their liability; and the way it had hitherto been met was that they had had to come to Parliament for powers to enable them to do so. This had been done with respect to the bridge which crossed the Aire at Leeds; it had been done in two cases at Huddersfield, and in two at Sheffield. He thought it desirable that this should be done by giving power to the Courts of Quarter Sessions and the borough authorities to agree between each other as to the liability for the bridges. The clause which he wished to move had been drawn by the town clerk of Huddersfield and the solicitor to the West Riding Court of Quarter Sessions, and might not, perhaps, be in the most desirable form. He should be quite content to accept any other form of words, if the spirit of his clause were accepted by the Government.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he saw no objection to the principle of the clause which his hon. Friend had proposed, and which might transfer the liability for the maintenance of a bridge from one authority to another. Ho did not think, however, that the clause as drawn would effect the purpose in the best possible way, and he would ask that it be withdrawn, in order that it might be re-introduced at a later stage in different terms.
§ MR. STANSFELDthought the power proposed to be given in the clause ought to be coupled with certain restrictions which could be discussed and settled hereafter.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
1362MR. SPENCER STANHOPEnext proposed the insertion of the following new Clause:—
(County authority to have power to purchase private toll bridges.)Where portions of any main roads are connected by a private bridge upon which a toll is taken the county authority may, if it think fit, purchase such bridge for a sum to be approved by the Local Government Board and every bridge so purchased shall in future become a county bridge and the cost of such purchase shall be defrayed out of the county rate.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHobjected to the clause, on the ground that it would give no security against the making of improvident bargains.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. GREGORYmoved the insertion of the following Clause:—
(Contribution of boroughs having separate courts of quarter sessions to maintenance of their roads.)A borough having a separate court of quarter sessions shall pay to the county authority of the county within which such borough shall be situate, as a contribution to the expenses of maintenance of the main roads in such county under this Act, such a sum not exceeding the amount of the county rate, or contribution to the same which might otherwise be required from such borough, as the county authority and the council of such borough shall agree upon, or, in case they shall not agree, such a sum as may be determined by an arbitrator to be nominated and appointed, and the requisition of such county authority or of the council of such borough, by the Local Government Board. And such arbitrator, in determining the amount of contribution by any such borough, shall have regard to the extent of main roads thrown upon and maintained in such borough since the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy, and to the annual expenses incurred by such borough in the repair of such main roads.The hon. Member said, it was originally suggested that the main roads would, under the Bill, fall upon all the boroughs within the county, whether they were or were not possessed of separate Courts of Quarter Sessions, and this he thought to be a correct reading of the existing law. It appeared that this was, in point of fact, the effect of the Bill, as it was originally introduced, and an Amendment had been inserted subsequently by the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill, to put boroughs having separate Courts of Quarter Sessions on a different footing. At his (Mr. Gregory's) instance, some words had been introduced into this Amendment, in order to show that the ques- 1363 tion was still unsettled; and he had therefore, moved his clause in order that some equitable mode of settling the contribution might be arrived at. No better mode of arriving at this conclusion, as it seemed to him, could be arranged than by the appointment of an arbitrator nominated by the Local Government Board in default of agreement between the county and borough authorities. If hon. Gentlemen representing Quarter Sessions boroughs had a more equitable solution of the difficulty to suggest than that which was contained in his clause, he should be glad to accept it.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was sorry he could not accept the clause, although he admitted that it contained ingeniously constructed elements of what might be a plan to settle a very difficult question. The main difficulty was that municipal boroughs were subject to county rates, while Quarter Sessions boroughs were not. He had foreseen this, and it was therefore provided that the boroughs should have an abatement on account of the main roads which they had themselves to maintain. The question was a difficult and complicated, but, at the same time, an important one; and he should be quite willing to consider whether it would not be possible to frame a clause which would adapt the proposal of his hon. Friend to municipal boroughs generally. As the proposal of his hon. Friend now stood, it would settle nothing, and would introduce an element of contention into what was already a difficult question.
§ MR. ARTHUR PEELsaid, he was in hopes that this particular question had been settled at an earlier stage of the Bill, and he regretted that it had been raised again. His own view was that arterial roads in counties should be maintained by the counties, that the district roads should be under the control of highway districts, and that the boroughs should maintain their own roads, which their proposal would create The difficulty was one of considerable magnitude. For instance, in the borough which he represented, the authorities had recently had placed upon them the responsibility attaching to the maintenance of five miles of "disturnpiked" roads, in addition to many more for which, in previous years, they had be- 1364 come chargeable. The question which had been raised by his hon. Friend was one of such complication that a local arbitrator could settle it; while, if the project should be carried into effect, it would operate with extreme injustice upon many boroughs which would, under the operation of an unequal bargain, give much and yet but little in return.
§ MR. FRESHFIELDsaid, he objected to the clause on two grounds—first, that it laid down the principle that boroughs should contribute to the maintenance of county roads; and second, that if they were so to contribute, the tribunal which was to settle the contribution was not a satisfactory one.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINhad heard with gladness the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that he could not accept the clause which had been proposed, and with sorrow his subsequent expression of opinion that it contained elements of a future satisfactory settlement. The proposed clause was one-sided as far as Quarter Sessions boroughs were concerned, because it limited the extent to which counties should contribute to the boroughs, and also limited the claims of the boroughs to roads which had been disturnpiked since the year 1870. Most of the larger boroughs disturnpiked their roads long before 1870; and, if the clause of the hon. and learned Member were agreed to, would be mulcted in consequence of, and in proportion to, their liberality. Furthermore, he asked the Committee to consider the enormous expense which would be involved by the tribunal the hon. Gentleman proposed to create. He had had some experience of arbitrations, and knew of no more expensive luxury. Only recently he had been engaged in one which was calculated to have cost not less than four guineas per minute, owing to the heavy fees paid to counsel and professional witnesses, and the cost attendant upon the adjournments from time to time and place to place to suit the same counsel and witnesses. He thought, on the whole, it would be better to leave Quarter Sessions boroughs in their present position, with the prescriptive immunity which they had so long enjoyed; for he did not think that if the question was gone into the counties would gain. In the borough 1365 which he represented the county would have, in the event of the clause being adopted, to contribute about two-thirds of the cost of certain main roads; and the borough, on the other hand, would have to pay a comparatively small sum in aid of the county roads. As far as his borough was concerned, therefore, it did not want to be mixed up with the management of the county affairs for the sake of a small pecuniary advantage.
§ MR. BULWERsaid, that the borough of Ipswich, which he represented, comprised some 8,500 acres within a circumference of about 19 miles, and within that area were 75 miles of streets or roads, and of these about 30 miles were county roads, for the repair of which the borough was exclusively responsible, though the county traffic upon them was very considerable both to the town and to the railway station. What this clause proposed was that, in addition to the exclusive maintenance of these 30 miles, the borough should also contribute to the maintenance of county roads outside the borough; while the county was not to contribute one farthing to the maintenance of the roads within the borough. For this he could see no reason. If boroughs maintained their own roads at their own cost, why should they be called upon to pay a part of the cost of the county roads, and get nothing in return from the county rates?
§ MR. LEEMANsaid, the city of York, which he represented, happened to be in the midst of three distinct county jurisdictions; and he took it that it would require a very skilful arbitrator to fix the proportion which each of these jurisdictions would have to pay towards the maintenance of the roads within the city, if the clause proposed by the hon. Gentleman was agreed to by the Committee and incorporated with the other clauses in the Bill. They were perfectly content with things as they stood, and objected, in common with the whole of the Quarter Sessions, cities, and boroughs in the Kingdom, against the principle proposed to be introduced into the Bill.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, he had proposed the clause, believing that it was based upon equitable principles. He regretted that it had not found more favour with the Committee; and he could only hope that the subject would soon be dealt with in some other manner 1366 which would prove satisfactory alike to the House and to the country. With the permission of the Committee, he would withdraw the new clause which he had ventured to propose.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. HIBBERTmoved the following Clause:—
(Road rate on hundred or county.)In the case of any county in which certain of the bridges within the county are repairable by the county at large, and others are repairable by the several hundreds within the county in which they are situate, it shall be lawful for the county authority from time to time to declare any road or part of a road to be a main road, repairable by the county at large, or repairable by the hundred in which such road or part is situate, as they think fit; and where a road or part thereof is declared to be a main road, repairable by a hundred, the expense of repairing the same shall, to the extent to which but for this section the expense or any contribution towards the expense of repairing the same would be payable out of the county rate, be payable out of a separate rate which shall be raised and charged in the like manner, and be, expended by the like persons as the expenses of repairing the hundred bridges in the same hundred would have been raised, charged, and expended.This clause was intended to meet the case of Lancashire. The adoption of the system which it proposed had been recommended by the magistrates of that county, and he hoped that his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board would be prepared to accept the clause.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he regarded the clause as fair and reasonable, and he would, therefore, accept it.
§ SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEthought that the same option should be given in Yorkshire as would be given in Lancashire. He did not see why the latter county should enjoy an exceptional privilege of this description.
§ Clause read a second time, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Preamble agreed to.
§ MR. WHITWELLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the Bill would be re-printed, with Amendments?
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he would undertake to have the measure re-printed.
§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 261.]