Commons Sitting of 28 June 1878

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Select Committee—Report—Ecclesiastical Buildings (Fire Insurance) [No. 253].
Committee—Highways (re-comm) [214]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Metropolis Improvement Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bowman's Buildings, Marylebone, &c.) * [217].
Third Reading—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London) * [201], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

QUESTIONS.
  INDIA—THE SALT TAX.

    QUESTION.
    MR. A. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been directed to a letter of a correspondent in the "Daily News" of June the 26th, headed "The Salt Tax in India;" whether there is any foundation for the allegation that the Indian Government is secretly pressing the native states to level up the Salt Taxes to our standard; and, whether there is any foundation for the statement that the Indian Government is urging one large native state to give up or forbid the cultivation of opium in its territory?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: Yes, Sir, I read the letter in question; but we have no information whatever at the India Office as regards the statement about opium. As regards the salt tax, we are aware that the Government of India is negotiating with the Native States of Rajpootana and Central India for the abolition of the Customs Line. These negotiations, which are rapidly approaching completion, are described by Sir John Strachey as being intended to give to all the people throughout India, at the cheapest rate consistent with financial necessities and with the least possible inconvenience, as much salt as they can consume.

    PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT—HOUSE SEARCHES.—QUESTION.
    MAJOR NOLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If in Ballinasloe the houses of Mr. Matthew Harris, and of Mr. Michael O'Sullivan, were visited by police at 3 a.m. on the 14th June, and a search made for arms; whether at the time of this search Mr. Harris had a licence to keep and to carry arms in an adjoining district; whether at the same time a search was made for documents in the above houses; and, if so, whether instructions were given that private documents and business letters should be examined by an ordinary constable; if the persons who supplied the information on which the search warrants were issued by the Lords Justices had made known to the Lords Justices the facts that Mr. Harris was secretary to a tenant's association, and had lately in that capacity been summoned to give evidence before a Committee of this House now sitting on the land question; if the Lords Justices were not so informed, can he state if any explanation has been assigned why these facts, notorious in the district, were not brought under their notice when their signatures were obtained; and, whether the police were instructed to inspect on the warrant granted any strictly legal communications addressed to Mr. Harris in his capacity as secretary or as a witness before a Committee of this House on the land question?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, although the hon. and gallant Gentleman kindly gave me private Notice on Monday night of his intention to ask this Question yesterday, I am sorry to be unable as yet to give him an answer, and must ask him to be so good as to postpone it till a later day. As I was obliged to adopt a similar course with regard to a Question of a like kind put to me the other day by his hon. Colleague (Mr. Mitchell Henry), who appeared to be unaware of the necessity for what occurred, I wish to explain how matters stand with reference to such Questions. I forwarded the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Question to Dublin by Tuesday's post, and I yesterday received by return of post a reply, to the effect that it had been found necessary to call for a special Report from the local constabulary respecting some of the details inquired about; which, of

    449
    course, involves a delay of a few days, but I hope I shall receive it on Monday. I mention these facts, because hon. Members may not always realize that such a course is unavoidable in cases where a reference is called for to distant places for information which can only be supplied upon the spot.

  COLLECTION OF RATES (DUBLIN)— REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.

    QUESTIONS.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNE (for Mr. GRAY)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, On what date was the order given to the Government printer to print the Report and Evidence of the Collection of Rates, Dublin, Commission?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, I am sorry to be obliged to give a somewhat similar answer to this Question as I had to make to the one put to me just now. I received a telegram yesterday from the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray), kindly giving me Notice of the Question, and I forwarded his telegram by last night's post to Dublin, requesting a telegraphic answer to be sent to me, which, however, I have not yet received. The hon. Gentleman's Question is altogether upon a different footing from the one I was alluding to just now, as no inquiry outside Dublin apparently would be requisite; but I state the circumstances, so that it may be seen exactly how the case stands.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNE (for Mr. GRAY)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether any appointment to the collector generalship of rates, Dublin, will be made before the House has an opportunity of discussing the Collection of Rates Bill?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, ascertaining that serious public inconvenience was likely to arise from delay in taking action upon the question of the Collector Generalship of Rates, I addressed a communication, under date of June 17, to Mr. Moylan, requesting him to tender his resignation. The choice of a successor has since occupied the attention of the Government, and as soon as the usual formalities have been complied with, the new Collector General will enter upon his duties. As considerable interest is taken by some hon. Members in the matter, I may mention that the gentleman selected for the appointment is Mr. John Byrne.

  NAVY—TRAINING SHIPS (IRELAND).

    QUESTION.
    MAJOR O'GORMANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to establish in Ireland ships for training Irish lads and boys for the use of Her Majesty's Navy; and, whether the Flag-ship in Cork Harbour could not advantageously be used for the purpose named?
    MR. A. F. EGERTON: Sir, at present the supply of boys for the Navy is greater than the demand. By the existing regulations the sons of men serving in the Coastguard, district ships, other vessels on the Irish coasts and in the Irish constabulary, also the sons of naval, military, or civil pensioners in Ireland may be entered; but it is not considered necessary at present to establish training ships in Ireland.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—LOCAL COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL.—QUESTION.
    MR. MELDONasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, When he intends to bring on his Motion for the Second Reading of the Local Courts of Bankruptcy (Ireland) Bill; and, if he cannot fix any date, whether he will fix a date before which he will not seek to proceed with the measure?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): Sir, having regard to the present position of Public Business, I am unable to fix the precise date when I expect to take the second reading of this Bill. I will take it on the first opportunity; but I may add, for the convenience of hon. Members who are interested in the subject, that I do not expect it will come on during the coming week, and, therefore, I shall not attempt to take it before Monday, the 8th July.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
    HIGHWAYS (re-committed) BILL.
    (Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Salt.)

    [BILL 214.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
    MR. J. R. YORKE,in rising to move, as an Amendment—
    "That this House regrets to find in the Highways Bill, as now proposed to be re-committed, no adequate provision for obtaining from those classes whose traffic most conduces to the wear and tear of the main roads in England and Wales, some proportionate contribution towards the maintenance of such roads; and that, in the opinion of this House, no settlement of this question can be final or complete which does not include such provision,"
    said, that the history of the Highways Bill of this Session had been a very peculiar one. At the beginning of the Session a Bill was introduced which was described by the President of the Local Government Board as an omnibus Bill, and which practically contained no principle except that of union chargeability for Highway Boards. If that Bill had followed the usual course, there would have been no necessity for considering it at any length either in Committee or afterwards. But in the course of the Session the whole policy of the Government had undergone re-consideration. On coming down to the House one day, he found that there had been a general transmigration of clauses from the County Boards Bill into this measure, the County Boards Bill was not to be proceeded with this Session, and the Highways Bill, as amended, was to be pressed on the House. Under these circumstances, the matter had assumed a different aspect, and it now became necessary to consider seriously what would be the effect of the Bill so amended. One might as well expect the restoration of the Heptarchy as of turnpike tolls; but there was at least this to be said in their favour, that they made the people who used the roads pay for them. The old system of turnpikes was, he maintained, good in principle, because it involved a direct payment for the benefit of the general community; but, on the other hand, it was bad in practice, because it involved a good deal of annoyance to the public. But to abolish turnpike tolls without directly taxing in some other way those who now paid them, would be to grant a great relief to some classes at the expense of the general community, and a mere re-adjustment of machinery for such purposes could not be considered as a satisfactory settlement of the question. In 1876 his right hon. Friend brought in a Bill to deal with the ques-
    452
    tion, and he very much preferred that Bill to the one which had been introduced this year. The Bill of 1876 dealt more fairly with the average traveller than any other measure that had been proposed, while it afforded a certain amount of alleviation of the grievances the ratepayers would otherwise suffer from. He understood that his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board relied principally upon the extraordinary traffic clause in the Bill to mitigate the undoubted grievance under which the ratepayers would suffer after the abolition of turnpikes. He might say that the Scotch Members were satisfied with that clause in their Roads and Bridges Bill. He (Mr. J. R. Yorke) admitted that generally the Scotch made pretty good terms for themselves in that House as elsewhere; but they must remember that the Scotch occupier was in a very much better position than the English occupier. The former only paid half the rate, and under the Roads and Bridges Bill the assessment for debts on roads and the payment of interest would fall upon the owner. There were several ways in which the inequalities which would come in operation if turnpikes were abolished might be mitigated. If the Government had passed the County Boards Bill, and established a proper authority to administer any funds paid over to them from the Imperial Exchequer, they would be in a much better position to deal with the question. The system of graduated rental which prevailed in Scotland might, for instance, be adopted. So well had that system worked that the Scotch Poor Law Amendment Act of 1866 proposed to make it compulsory. That Act contained an exceedingly stringent clause, giving the sheriff powers to assess exceptional businesses which carried on exceptional traffic. The principle embodied in that was not entirely new, for the germ of it was to be found in English legislation. All the less difficulty, therefore, would be experienced in adopting, or, rather, adapting it. Some people would not be satisfied with less than one-half the amount of the expense of the rates being paid out of the Consolidated Fund. He was not prepared to go so far as that. He did not wish to see the principle of grants in aid from the Consolidated Fund extended

    453
    any further, because it had a tendency to centralization and to weaken local authority. It had been suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire that local licences should be granted for local purposes. He did not see why we should not have a graduated scale of licences according to the damage likely to be done to the roads. A gentleman of great experience, who for 20 years had been the principal manager of the South Wales turnpike roads, in which six counties were combined, had given evidence to the effect that those who kept horses and carriages should not be placed on the same footing as those who did not. He therefore suggested that the licences for those who kept horses and carriages should be increased 20 per cent, or to such other amount as might be thought necessary; and he added that to abolish tolls, unless the parties who now paid them were taxed directly in some way or other, was granting a great relief to a small section at the expense of the general public. That was his whole case. He thought the best settlement would be that the main roads should be laid entirely on the county fund, that the Quarter Sessions should be added as a contributory area, and that the rates should be supplemented by increased local licences for carriages. His fear was that we should have a sham settlement on the plea that something must be done. There was a widespread idea in the county to which he belonged that the Government had no really comprehensive scheme for adjusting the contributions which ought to be made by the different classes of the community. Unless that was done no measure would be complete. He begged to move his Amendment.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON,in seconding the Amendment, said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept it. He could not believe that the Government, which had already relieved the burdens of the local ratepayers, would be deaf to the representations which had now been made to them. The point to be borne in mind was, that it was proposed by the Bill to throw on the rural ratepayers, only a fraction of the community, charges which ought in fairness to be borne by a larger area. The amount of taxation that fell on the rural taxpayer was excessive. He ventured to say that the rural tax-
    454
    payer paid something like 30 per cent more than any other taxpayer, while most of the money was applied to general, and not local, purposes. There was tithe and rates equal to about 5s. in the pound; then there was land tax and education tax, equal to another 1s. in the pound. Hon. Members were accustomed to consider tithes as an immemorial rent-charge; but that was a mistake. It was paid partly and chiefly as poor rate. It was a trust with a distinct purpose and object. The trust had been broken, and the money, to a great extent, alienated from its purpose; but the object remained. He did not suggest any present alteration—at least, not until the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich came down there to propose that the time had come to disestablish the Church of England. Whenever that time arrived, there might, perhaps, be something to be said. Now, as regarded these turnpike roads, it would not be correct to suppose that they were merely local highways. They were used frequently for heavy through traffic. As to the practical solution of the question, his hon. Friend had suggested one or two solutions. He talked of a Government grant; and this might be the simplest way. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were present, no doubt, he would say, "No, no," to this proposal; but the amount that would be required would not be very much. A quarter or half-a-million would be all that would be required. It would be quite possible to raise this sum out of the assessed taxes, or it would not come to half a farthing of income tax; but there were hon. Members who were quite willing to propose some contribution to this object who would not be disposed to throw it on these funds. The hon. Member for East Gloucestershire rather pointed to local licences; and this, perhaps, would be the most practical mode of meeting the question. He thought some of the smaller licences, the dog tax, and the gun tax, might be handed over to local bodies. He believed those taxes would be better looked after by the local authorities than by officers representing central authorities. They had heard yesterday of 17,000 prosecutions for dog licences. If the tax were handed over to the local authorities, they would be considerably reduced. Reference had been made to

    455
    the inclusion of boroughs in the county areas, but he did not think that arrangement would amount to any adequate relief. He might refer to the case of South Wales, where of a total of £78,000 £75,000 was raised by tolls and £3,000 only raised by rates. The cases of Scot land and Ireland did not bear on the subject; but in neither case was the expense thrown on the highway district. In Ireland the barony or the county had to pay, and in Scotland the expense also fell upon the county, and not upon the smaller districts, or what were called highway districts; and there was the precedent of Glasgow for charging a portion of this burden upon other property. He hoped the Government would take this question into consideration, and that his hon. Friend would then consent to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House regrets to find in the Highways Bill, as now proposed to be re-committed, no adequate provision for obtaining from those classes whose traffic most conduces to the wear and tear of the main roads in England and Wales, some proportionate contribution towards the maintenance of such roads; and that, in the opinion of this House, no settlement of this question can he final or complete which does not include such provision,"—(Mr. Reginald Yorke,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, they had just listened to a speech on local taxation of a much too wide and general character to be applicable to a Highway Bill. His hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) said that, in the opinion of the House, on settlement could be final or complete which did not include the provision he desired, but it might be added, that, even if the Bill did include this provision, it could not be regarded either as final or complete. Of all the questions which were brought before that House, the one that varied most, according to the circumstances of the day, was that which was connected with our local life. He considered that the Bill was a very useful one, its main principle being the simplification of
    456
    highway management; and it also settled other points on which simplification was very much desired, and for which it was right the President of the Local Government Board should legislate. The Amendment related only to one clause, and could be better discussed in Committee. He hoped that the Amendment would not be pressed, and that the House would go into Committee on the Bill without further delay.
    MR. SEVERNEsupported the Motion. In former times, when the main roads were turnpike roads, the cost of their maintenance was borne by those who used them, and he, for one, should not be sorry to see the old system reverted to; but, in the absence of that, he thought the ratepayers in the country districts were entitled to receive some assistance from the Consolidated Fund. This would be only fair; it would be no particular hardship upon any class, and would, he believed, meet the views and wishes of the country ratepayers. But, beyond that, there was still the question of the enlargement of the area over which the rating for the purposes of the Bill should be taken. That was a question well worthy of the attention of the Government, and he hoped it would be duly considered. There should be also, in his opinion, a tax on carriages or wheels, so as to compel, to a greater extent than was at present the case, those who used the roads to pay for them. He thought the Amendment expressed the feeling of the country, and he believed that any act dealing with the highways would not have the slightest chance of going on for a moderately long time unless something were done to assist those people who, only sharing n the value of the roads, yet had the whole burden of their maintenance thrown upon their shoulders.
    COLONEL KINGSCOTEagreed with the Amendment, and contended that the Bill did not grapple with the main question. He thought it was hard upon the inhabitants of small parishes to compel them to maintain entirely at their own cost roads which were really of little or no use to them as individuals. As a matter of fact, the Bill in the form in which it was before the House was a mere piece of patchwork. Let the measure be thoroughly thought out, and let it cover the whole area of the question. He did not think the country districts

    457
    wanted any help from the Consolidated Fund; but they could have local licences, like a wheel licence, and he did not think his friends, the farmers, would quarrel with a wheel licence. What the farmer did not like was that a number of people should use the roads to a great extent and not pay for them. In his part of the country there were two or three timber merchants, one employing 20 or 22 horses, and another employing 15, always working on the roads. Neither of these men were rated at more than £70 a-year, while many of the farmers might be rated at £700 or £800 a-year, and the farmers did not use the roads one-tenth part of these timber merchants. Now, that was not right. Why not grapple with the whole question in another Session, and let the country have a comprehensive measure?
    MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, there was also a township in Yorkshire through which a heavy stone traffic passed, cutting up the roads. The township received little or no benefit for that traffic, and he wished to know if Clause 18, or any other clause in the Bill, would prevent the whole expense of maintaining the roads from falling upon that township alone?
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that, so far from agreeing with the arguments of the hon. Member who had proposed this Amendment, he thought, on the contrary, that boroughs ought to be relieved of a great deal of the taxes which at present pressed upon them, and for which no good reason could be shown. There were three classes of boroughs—first, those which were under urban sanitary authorities, who had no Quarter Sessions of their own, and with respect to these it appeared to him that the proposals of the Bill were fair, because it acknowledged a reciprocal obligation. Second, there was a class of boroughs which, having Quarter Sessions of their own, were not required to contribute to the county rate, and in their case also he considered there was no objection to the proposals of the Bill. But there was, third, a class of boroughs such as Birmingham, which, although they had Quarter Sessions of their own, were obliged to contribute to the county rate. They were asked to pay one-half towards the maintenance of the county roads without obtaining from the county any return in the shape of a contribution to
    458
    the repair and maintenance of its roads and streets, which were used much more by the inhabitants of the county than the county roads were by the people of Birmingham. He could not support the Amendment of the hon. Member. When the Bill came into Committee, he himself would propose certain Amendments to prevent such a borough as Birmingham from making any contribution to such roads.
    LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHwas sorry that the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had raised an invidious distinction between counties and boroughs in reference to this matter of keeping up the roads. Boroughs had quite as much interest in keeping up good roads in the country as the country itself. If the boroughs kept up their streets, the county districts had to keep up their highways. He had been waiting so many years for a Highway Bill, that he was only too glad to jump at any measure that was brought forward. This was not such a very small Bill after all, and he was sincerely obliged to the Government for having listened to the recent Report of the Turnpike Roads Committee, of which he was a Member. He hoped that the Bill would be passed this Session, and, if necessary, it could be amended another year. So anxious was he that this Bill should pass, that he had almost resolved not to speak on the subject nor to move any Amendment. There was, however, one Amendment which he should bring forward at the proper time, to the effect that the Bill should be made compulsory throughout England and Wales.
    MR. STARKIEsaid, he could hardly support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire, because the time had passed away when they could lay an embargo upon either wheels or horses for the maintenance of roads. There was no wish to receive money from the boroughs towards the maintenance of the roads in the county districts without adequate remuneration. It should be borne in mind that, owing to the enormous increase of traffic, the provision originally made for keeping the roads in repair was now quite inadequate, and a measure dealing with the question was greatly required. He suggested that the repairs of the roads should be thrown on the hundreds of the various counties. Although he

    459
    had to thank the President of the Local Government Board for introducing this measure, yet he thought it must be made compulsory, if it were to do any good. He should be ready in Committee to assist in making the Bill useful and beneficial to the country generally.
    MR. BENETT-STANFORDsaid, that as he lived in a district which was largely composed of stone quarries, he was most thankful to the President of the Local Government Board for the "extraordinary traffic clause," as it was called. A feeling prevailed that it was unjust to endeavour to make those who did not use the roads in their own neighbourhoods repair them. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire would consider together whether a supplementary clause could not be inserted, for the purpose of giving special licences to men in a large way of business, particularly stone-quarry owners, with a view to the rectification of some of the grievances complained of.
    MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENthought it a pity that so much time should have been taken up in discussing what he could not help regarding as an obstructive Amendment, because the points which had been raised could have been more satisfactorily dealt with in Committee on the Bill. The Bill did not go so far in many respects as he could have wished. It was a mistake on the part of the Government in attempting to deal with so many separate measures having a bearing on the same subject this Session. The highways of the country should be dealt with in a more comprehensive measure. What he wished to see constituted was a central authority which should deal with the roads, and the roads themselves divided into different classes—one to be maintained out of the general rates of the counties, and the other to be looked after by district highway authorities, and a third and smaller class, which might possibly have a claim to contribution from Imperial taxation. The Bill appeared, with two or three exceptions, to be a practical measure, likely to do some service, and he expressed a hope that the House would be allowed to go into Committee on the Bill.
    MR. BEACHsaid, he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that time was wasted in discussing the Amendment. Since the withdrawal of the
    460
    County Board Bill, the Highways Bill had been, practically, re-modelled; and it was right, therefore, to take the present opportunity of discussing it before going into Committee, and such discussion would be most useful, because it would simplify their proceedings in Committee. As a Member of the Turnpikes Continuance Act Committee, he agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Derbyshire (Lord George Cavendish), that they were all most anxious for a comprehensive measure on this subject; but he did not agree with him in saying that he was anxious to see a measure passed under any circumstances. It would be a mistake to pass a Bill now which would have to be amended next year. Their object ought to be to pass a good measure, which would deal effectually with the evils which were generally acknowledged, and would not require speedy amendment. In his opinion, no highway legislation would prove effectual and useful unless there was a uniform system of road management for the whole country. Tolls were not liked, but a system of licences for locomotives, and other vehicles, to use the various roads, should be issued, and thus contributions could be had in aid of the main roads of the country. If some provision of this kind were introduced, it would render the measure more equitable; but without it there would be little to compensate for the expenses which the additional machinery of the Bill would involve. At the present time, when the taxation of the country was so heavy, they could not expect aid from the Exchequer for carrying out the objects of the Bill; but he hoped it would be given at some future day, when the House might pass a Highway Bill which would be beneficial to the country.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he had heard with great regret a statement of the noble Lord (Lord George Cavendish), whose position in the House rendered him so great an authority on the subject they were considering, that he was so anxious for a Highway Bill that he would accept anything the Government chose to offer. That was hardly the spirit in which they should address themselves to a question which was of permanent importance. They were asked by the Government to deal with a number of subjects this Session, all of which were intimately connected with the pro-

    461
    gress and well-being of the country, and they were asked to deal with, them in a very slip-shod manner by means of measures which did not even pretend to be permanent. If turnpikes were done away with, an equitable arrangement should be made for the maintenance of the roads. A certain portion of the charge of the roads which ceased to be turnpikes should be thrown upon the county funds. That was a fair and reasonable proposition, although he did not believe that they could meet every possible case. They were asked to do one thing which, he thought, very objectionable, to give the county authority power to levy more taxation upon the boroughs, when these boroughs had not the slightest voice in the composition of the county authority. The Bill would fail in the object of securing compulsory highway districts; and as regarded providing a county authority fairly representative of the ratepayers at large, that authority would consist of gentlemen who found themselves in the position, not in virtue of any election, but because they had been selected by one gentleman—the Lord Lieutenant of the county.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he gathered from the tone of the discussion that the feeling of the House was in favour of the Bill being proceeded with, and that its details should be considered in Committee without delay. With reference to a remark which had fallen from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Rylands), he agreed that the county authorities would have an opportunity of taking up other roads and placing them on the same footing as main roads; but their inclinations and their prejudices would be all the other way. The hon. Mover of the Amendment had complained that the Government had not provided any really new proposal in the Bill. The Government lay under no charge of injustice on the score of not providing a mode of taxation towards which the general public might contribute to the maintenance of roads, because it was the common law of England that the roads should be supported by the rates of the districts through which they ran. It was unjust to say that the general public should pay for roads which only a particular class used to any extent for general wear and tear. It was mainly in consequence of repeated
    462
    suggestions by the Turnpike Committee that the Government thought it necessary to revert to the proposals of the Bill of 1876, which would at once enable the county authority to begin by setting apart certain roads in a way that could not be objected to. There were many parts where there was no feeling in favour of the turnpike toll system, and where, on the whole, the ratepayers were well satisfied with the present arrangement, and thought the expenses were best charged on the rateable property of the county. Several of the suggestions that had been made had been carefully considered by the Government before the introduction of the Bill, and among these was the suggestion that a tax should be imposed on the wheels of carriages. But such a tax must be levied on the whole community, and, if it were, the annoyance and irritation it would cause would be out of all proportion to the revenue it would yield. Ratepayers generally would be better satisfied that the charge should be imposed on rental than it should be imposed on the means of locomotion. If a charge were imposed upon brewers, for instance, it would simply be distributed among their customers, and so be paid by the general body of consumers. The Bill, nevertheless, did set up for the first time in the English counties a fund irrespective of rates, and this was the beginning of a system which could be developed into substantial aid in the repair of roads. With regard to the extraordinary traffic clause, the object of its introduction was to raise the question whether, by any means, some extra contributions could be obtained by taxing heavy traffic that caused excessive damage to roads. The Scotch Bill had adopted a similar clause. He was sorry to have to apologize for the form of the Bill, and to answer the charge of putting the cart before the horse; but last year the Government were obliged to withdraw a Bill, the only objection to which was that it involved the re-enactment of old laws. When comprehensive measures were met with such objections, there was no encouragement to introduce them. With reference to the Resolution, there could be no quarrel about the substance of it. The Bill was intended to be preliminary to a general measure of consolidation of the highway law, and to another general measure affecting loco-

    463
    motives on roads. Such a measure had been passed in relation to the public health, and such was contemplated with regard to the Poor Laws by the measures of amendment which had been carried through Parliament. This was the justification of the Government for bringing forward the Bill in its present shape, and making the main roads a charge on the county rate. With regard to the case of Birmingham, he believed the present law was, that in the towns which were under the Municipal Corporations Act, and where a separate court of Quarter Sessions had been established, no fresh levy of county rates would be made, except in respect of charges to which they were previously liable. He asked the House to be content with such measures of reform as the Government had the opportunity of submitting to Parliament—reforms which would facilitate the passing of more comprehensive measures. He hoped the House would now permit the Speaker to leave the Chair.
    COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEalso hoped the House would go into Committee, although the Bill was a half-hearted measure, and did not carry out the good old principle, that those who used the roads ought to pay for them. The old turnpike system had been very much objected to; but public opinion was rapidly coming round to the view that, except in some special circumstances, that system was the only one of dealing with the difficulties of the subject. The highway district over which he presided would derive no advantage from the Bill, but would have to contribute £200 or £300 a-year to the county rate, in addition to bearing the establishment charges, which it had been the object of the Board to keep down for the last 10 or 15 years. Highway districts were not always found to work so satisfactorily as seemed to be supposed. He had seen as much extravagance and jobbery under highway districts as he had seen under the old system; but there was one in which they never failed, and that was to increase the rates. He hoped the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire would not press his Amendment, but would allow them to go into Committee upon the Bill.
    SIR GEORGE JENKINSONasked the President of the Local Government Board, whether, in the event of the House going into Committee on the Bill,
    464
    it was his intention to proceed with it at once?
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHreplied, that he should be in the hands of the Committee, and would not insist on going on with it if the general feeling of the Committee were opposed to that course.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, that the exact interpretation to put upon the words "county rate" was a question of great importance, and there seemed to be some difference on the point. For his own part, he thought it was fair and reasonable that Quarter Sessions boroughs should be made to contribute to the roads.
    MR. PELLsaid, the Amendment might be taken as a protest against the way in which the Government had arranged their Business with respect to three or four important subjects. The Valuation Bill would have been quite enough to have occupied their attention; but suddenly the Highways Bill, without any adequate discussion, was pushed forward. There was no doubt what the object of the Government was. They wanted to get the Speaker out of the Chair, and after that the Bill would be laid aside until the closing days of the Session, when the Government would have its provisions absolutely at their disposal. He thought that they should have some assurance when the Bill was to be proceeded with, and whether it was to be taken before or after the Valuation Bill, or whether the two were to run interlaced with one another. The present Bill offered a very poor alternative for the County Government Boards which would have been constituted under the Bill which the Government had abandoned. He should, therefore, in the event of a division, vote in support of the Amendment, and hoped that they would now be allowed to proceed first with the Valuation Bill or the County Government Bill.
    SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEthought that, on the whole, the Bill was likely to meet most of the difficulties which had been experienced in regard to this question. In the part of the country with which he was connected, they would infinitely prefer to have the highways settled very much on the lines indicated in the Government measure, rather than have the County Government Bill pressed on this Session. There were some points to be considered in

    465
    Committee, but he hoped they would be allowed to proceed with, the Bill.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 256; Noes 47: Majority 209.—(Div. List, No. 189.)
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Preamble postponed.

    Preliminary.
    Clause 1 (Short title).
    MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, he really must appeal to the President of the Local Government Board, and ask him whether it was right to go on with the Bill at the present time? The Movers of the two first Amendments were not present, and it certainly had been understood that morning that all that would be done would be the passage of the Bill into Committee without any subsequent proceedings.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his objection to the Bill going on upon the grounds he had mentioned. There was no doubt that there had been an expectation that the Roads and Bridges Bill would be taken that morning, and that the Highways Bill would simply be discussed on the Question that the Speaker do leave the Chair. There would, however, be some inconvenience owing to the change in the order of Business whichever Bill was proceeded with, and he hoped the hon. Member would not object to going on with that Bill.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that, under the circumstances, and after the debate that had taken place, it would be more convenient for the Committee to proceed with the Highways Bill. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), who was not then present, might just as well raise the question involved in his Amendment on the Report, should he desire to do so. It was not of importance at the present stage of the Bill, and he did not think the hon. and gallant Member would regret not having been there.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Application of Act) agreed to.

  PART I.

    AMENDMENT OF HIGHWAY LAW.
    Highway Districts.
    Clause 3 (Highway districts to be made so far as possible coincident with rural sanitary districts) agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Power for rural sanitary authority of district coincident with highway district to become highway board).
    MR. BEACH (for Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOT)moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 3, after the word "may," to insert—
    "With the consent of the vestries representing not less than two-thirds of the rateable value of such area."
    He thought the Amendment was a strictly reasonable one, that it only gave to the ratepayers of the county an opportunity of declaring whether they acknowledged the arrangements which made the rural sanitary authority of a district coincident with the Highway Board. He considered that, on the whole, such an arrangement was desirable; but, still, it was right that those who were interested in the question should have an opportunity of expressing their assent or dissent to the proposal.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, that it appeared to him that the addition to the clause had no reason whatever. The hon. Member could not have read Clause 4 with accuracy, and he could not see what the object of the Amendment was, except in making the application of the clause less likely to be made.
    DR. LUSHobjected to the Amendment.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, the question appeared to be whether the highways district did, or did not, fill up the whole of the rural sanitary district; and he should like to know whether the President of the Local Government Board would insert some words in the Bill on the Report to provide for such a case? They were perfectly ready to transfer the highway district authority into the hands of the local authority; and, therefore, he trusted that a due arrangement would be provided.
    Mr. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he would consider the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Oldham, and would see what could be done upon the Report. As re-

    467
    garded the Amendment which had been moved, he quite remembered that he himself had placed a precisely similar Amendment on the Paper when the Highways Act was before Parliament—namely, that the assent of the vestries should be taken as well as that of the local authorities. But it had been very well pointed out at the time that a limitation of that sort would really place an obstacle in the way of a reform which Parliament desired to see effected. A second objection was, that the vestry did not represent the ratepayers of the district so satisfactorily as did the guardians, who were elected annually; and, therefore, he thought that the general rule of Parliament ought to prevail there—namely, that the elected representatives must be presumed, for the purpose of policy, to represent their constituents. He, accordingly, must object to the Amendment, as he thought it would limit the operation of what would be in many cases a useful provision. He did not wish it to be supposed that they wanted to bind down the Boards of Guardians to take up the highway business of their areas; but he was obliged to have regard to the various views, habits, and practices of the different Boards throughout the country. He knew that the proposal was entirely out of the question in some parts of England, whereas it was highly desirable in others; and he thought it might be safely left to the consideration of the guardians.
    MR. PAGETthought that at first sight there was a good deal to be said in favour of the Amendment, for it was in the direction of allowing an ample opportunity of deciding whether the inhabitants of the locality who were chiefly interested in the matter desired the change or not. But, on further consideration, according to his view, that limitation, which at first sight was a very useful one, would not be necessary, and he hoped his hon. Friend would not press it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SEVERNE,in moving to leave out the clause, said, he thought it was a permissive clause, and that as it stood at present it would tend to do away with the Board of Highway laws, and turn them over at once to the sanitary authorities—that was to say, the Board of
    468
    Guardians. The Boards of Guardians, as at present comprised, had quite enough on their hands without taking upon themselves that additional duty. He had been Chairman of a Board of Guardians which was principally composed of farmers, and he thought that the work would be more than a good many farmers would care to undertake; whereas there were a good many men on the Highways Board who would not serve on the Board of Guardians.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he should be very sorry to support the clause if it were of a tyrannical character; but everybody must see that the time was coming when it was desirable to give the rural sanitary authority urban powers over the roads. He was quite sure that that was a useful power for some districts; but it ought not to be imposed on other districts where the Highways Board was doing its work.
    MR. HIBBERTdid not rise for the purpose of supporting the Amendment, but he did think that the latter part of the clause required some consideration. It proposed to do what was generally considered objectionable—namely, to allow a new authority to be set up over the boundaries of the county.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHthought the argument might be pressed both ways.
    MR. J. R. YORKEconsidered the clause was one of the most valuable provisions of the Bill. What they had been looking forward to as the greatest advantage of these Bills was that they should have something like a symmetrical area; and he, was afraid that that important reform could not properly be brought into operation unless they had an intermediate authority.
    MR. PAGETsaid, he was by no means so sanguine that the excellent results hoped for by the hon. Member would flow from that clause. He, however, was ready to support the clause, as it was not compulsory. He knew, as a fact, that in many cases the Board of Guardians had quite as much work as they could do in the administration of the Poor Law; and freely stated that if the highways work were to be thrown upon them as well, they did not know how they should perform it. He knew that there was a general feeling that it would be better to take rural sanitary business from the Unions and put it on the Highway Boards; but the Bill, how-

    469
    ever, left it open to any rural sanitary authority to continue to do its work as it did now, and, therefore, he was now ready to support the clause as it now stood.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Consequences of rural sanitary authority becoming Highway Board).
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHmoved, in page 2, line 31, to leave out "this Act," and insert "such order." Page 3, line 3, leave out "this Act," and insert "such order."
    Amendments agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 6 (Highway Boards may combine to appoint a district surveyor) agreed to.
    Clause 7 (Expenses of Highway Boards to be paid out of district fund).
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHmoved, in page 3, line 31, after "shall," to insert "notwithstanding anything in the Highway Acts."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. BEACHsaid, that, upon the whole, he thought the clause would be productive of benefit. It was a sequel to that alteration which was made some time ago—namely, that turnpike roads, instead of being parts of parishes, should be charged upon the district funds. That showed the great necessity there was of simplifying the accounts in the various areas, and in making an equitable charge throughout the whole district. Therefore, he thought that if the expenses of the various highways were charged upon a district, instead of being charged upon individual parishes, it would be of use and productive of benefit to the country.
    MR. PAGETsaid, he had an Amendment to the clause which he would explain. The clause contained what was to his mind a very important limitation. That was the limitation of the principle that the whole expenses of Highways Boards should be paid out of the district funds. He thought that highway districts might very well have been left alone. They did not object to the existing
    470
    practice of parochial charge for parish highways—they were quite satisfied to leave the principle as it existed, and to leave each of their own parishes to pay for the roads. However, the principle was going to be altered by the clause. The Amendment was to the effect that any parish or parishes should have the right to appeal to the Highways Board for permission to continue, as at present, to pay for their parish highways; and that if such permission were not granted, they should have the right to appeal to the county authorities. The clause, as it at present stood, did not give the people most intimately concerned a right of appeal. They might find a highway district composed of a certain number of parishes, and having a certain number of them so situated, that it would be right and just that they should be formed into a district by themselves. He simply desired to give effect to the principle that there should be an appeal.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, that in the clause were words giving a discretionary power to the Highway Boards in the case of natural differences of locality. He should like to know exactly what those words meant? Natural differences of soil he could understand.
    SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEthought that though the right hon. Gentleman took exception to the words, they conveyed to his mind a very accurate idea of what was intended to be enacted by the Bill. In his highway district there was a considerable difference in the soil and in the character of the land, which, at the present time, formed a substantial grievance as to the incidence of the rate; and he should prefer to retain the words.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHthought the words "soil" or "locality" hardly indicated sufficient reason for dividing a district into two parts; and, therefore, he should not be disinclined to adopt the words "soil or locality, or other exceptional circumstances," and he would take the opportunity of considering the question raised by his hon. Friend (Mr. Paget) before the Report. The right hon. Gentleman then moved to add the words above-mentioned as an Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. PAGETmoved to add to the clause the worda—

    471
    "Any parish in a highway district may apply to the Highway Board to be permitted to bear the expense of maintaining its own highways, and, in the event of such application not being entertained, may appeal to the county authority: Provided always, That previous to such application, the assent of the ratepayers representing not less than two-thirds of the rateable value of such parish shall be obtained."
    He put the words as to two-thirds in, as he did not wish an appeal to be made unless there was a strong feeling in its favour. He did not wish it to be done hastily; but, an application being refused, the ratepayers, if they were agreed to the extent of two-thirds, might appeal to the county authorities, and say—"Here is a case which the Bill has provided for. Our application was not entertained, because we were in a minority. We contend that it is, in the words of the Bill, 'just, by reason of the natural differences of our soil and locality,' that we should be permitted to bear the expense of maintaining our own highways, and we desire to be heard in support of our claim."
    SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, that appeared to him to be a mixture of the permissive principle with the Imperium in Imperio. He did not think it would work at all well in the manner indicated by the hon. Member.
    MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONdid not think it would be an advantageous custom to allow any parish to contract itself out of the highways management. He regretted that the Highway Acts had not been made compulsory.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHhoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment, as it would be quite contrary to the spirit and intention of the clause. When, a few years ago, Parliament decided that turnpike roads should be charged upon the parishes, they made no exception in favour of parishes which had no turnpike roads upon them.
    MR. PAGETthought that the hon. Baronet (Sir Harcourt Johnstone), as an advocate of the Permissive Bill, would have had some sympathy with a permissive clause. The Bill, however, had been brought on rather earlier than he expected; and, of course, an Amendment of that kind was not readily understood or appreciated. He, therefore, would withdraw it for the present, proposing to bring the question forward at a later stage of the Bill.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. HIBBERTwished to draw the attention of the President of the Local Government Board to cases where the Highways Boards had borrowed money of parishes in their district. He did not think the Bill would sufficiently protect cases of that kind. He knew of several cases where money had been borrowed of parishes by the Highways Boards for the improvement of roads; and, therefore, he thought that, in the Report, when it came up, there should be some provision made for such a case.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that no doubt money had been borrowed in some cases, and he would take care that the question should be considered before the Report.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 8 (Audit of accounts of highway districts and parishes).
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHmoved, in page 4, at the end of the clause, to add—
    "Section thirty-six of 'The Highways Act, 1862,' is hereby repealed down to the words 'to be paid out of the district fund,' and the statement of receipt and expenditure by the said section directed to be furnished by every highway board within thirty days after the signature of the accounts by the chairman shall be furnished within thirty days after the completion of the audit under this section."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, with regard to the auditor, that he did not see why the expense of the auditor should be thrown upon the Highways Board, as the work done was done for the whole of the district.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 9 (Duration of office of way-warden).
    MR. HIBBERTgave it as the result of his experience, that the expenses of guardians going to attend their Board meetings were often charged in the highway accounts. He desired to have some explanation with regard to the duration of the period of office, fixed by the clause, in the case of way wardens, as it appeared that by the proposed arrangement there would be two sets of officers at the same time.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, there was, no doubt, a good reason for fixing the 30th April in the year following the

    473
    appointment of waywardens, as the date for the appointment of their successors in office. He was not then able to reply more fully to the question raised by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), but would have it examined.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 10 (Repeal of part of Section 7 of Highway Act, 1862), agreed to.

    Main Roads.
    Clause 11 (Disturnpiked roads to become main roads, and half the expense of maintenance to be contributed out of county rate).
    SIR GEORGE JENKINSONthought the operation of the clause, if it remained unaltered, would be extremely unfair to the district with which he was connected, inasmuch as, although Gloucestershire was one of the counties that first adopted the Highway Act now in force there, it would have no claim on the county rate, and would have to bear the whole cost of maintaining its roads. He, therefore, wished to move to leave out the word "seventy," in page 4, line 36, of the clause, and to insert the word "sixty-five."
    MR. BEACHsaid, that 1870 was the first year in which the work of the Turnpike Continuance Committee took effect, and trusts were largely extinguished; but that the Bill gave ample opportunities for converting highways into main roads, as well as the power to county authorities of reducing main roads to the status of ordinary highways. In his opinion, therefore, the date fixed by the Bill was a very convenient one.
    LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHalso considered that the term for the retrospective operation of the Bill had been fixed with very good reason.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, his reply to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir George Jenkinson) had been anticipated by the hon. Member for North Hants (Mr. Beach) and the noble Lord who had just sat down. The date fixed by the clause 1870—which was also decided upon by the Turnpikes Committee, would be very convenient; while that proposed by the Amendment would involve the difficulties of dealing with special and perplexing cases. He hoped
    474
    the Amendment would not be pressed to a division.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he had received representations as to the unfairness of the date fixed by the clause; and from circumstances within his own recollection, it appeared to him somewhat unjust to exclude from the beneficial operation of the clause those districts in which the roads had been disturnpiked as far back as 1865.
    MR. PAGETsaid, no injustice of the kind indicated would result from the operation of the Bill; because, on application, of the highway authority, the county authority had power, under Clause 13, to declare ordinary highways to be main roads. There would, for that reason, be no difficulty whatever with regard to the Gloucestershire roads, which could be declared main roads, if they made out a good case for the consideration of the county authorities. He hoped the hon. Baronet would not persist with his Amendment.
    SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, the Committee had nothing before it to show how many roads would come upon the county rate by taking the years 1870 and 1865 respectively. He hoped that his hon. Friend would give the Committee some idea of the effect of substituting one of these limits for the other. Notwithstanding the contention of the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. Paget), the greatest injustice would be done by this clause of the Bill.
    MR. STANSFELDthought that the words of Clause 13 would not enable the highway authority to discuss the question fully; and that, when the clause was reached, some explanation would be found to be necessary.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, as it might cause some trouble, and prejudice the view which he took of the question, he did not wish to press the Amendment standing in his name, for the omission from the clause, in page 5, line 1, of the words "out of the county rate."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he had a strong opinion that in Lancashire it would be quite impossible to give effect to the clause unless they had power to meet the expense out of the hundred rate,

    475
    He therefore begged leave to insert, in line 1, page 5, after the word "rate," the words "or hundred rate as such county authority may decide."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he rose to Order. The hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Cope) had an Amendment on the Paper relating to the same portion of the clause. As due Notice had been given of this Amendment, it should, as a matter of Order, be taken first.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was quite right. He would call upon the hon. Member for Middlesex to move his Amendment.
    MR. COOPEbegged leave to move, in page 5, line 1, after the word "rate," to insert the words—
    "But no part of such expenses shall be charged in the Metropolis as defined by the Metropolis Local Management Act."
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHstated, with regard to the addition to the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Old-ham (Mr. Hibbert), that he had no objection to the county of Lancashire using the hundred rate for the payment of main road expenses; but that arrangement should be determined by a separate clause. If the hon. Member would consult with him, the clause should be considered before the Report. He objected to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Middlesex. The Bill was a step in the system of road management, and he hoped that no change would be made without consideration. The Government did not intend to carry the county rate for this purpose into Quarter Sessions boroughs or into the Metropolis.
    THE CHAIRMANinquired what course the hon. Member for Oldham intended to pursue with regard to his Amendment?
    MR. HIBBERT: I withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. COOPEsaid, he still thought an Amendment would be desirable, inasmuch as it would remove the ambiguity which would necessarily follow if the words were not inserted. He understood his right hon. Friend to say that the clause would not be applicable to the Metropolis. There was, therefore, no reason why the words he now suggested—
    476
    "But no part of such expenses shall be charged in the Metropolis as defined by the Metropolis Local Management Act,"
    should not be inserted in the clause.
    MR. STANSFELDobserved, that as the Government had placed the cases of the Metropolis and of boroughs with Quarter Sessions upon the same ground, he should like to say a few words with regard to the latter. So far as he could understand the Report which the right hon. Gentleman had himself laid upon the Table, municipal boroughs having Quarter Sessions did not contribute to the county rate, and were not liable in those boroughs for the repair of the main roads. No doubt the matter was involved in considerable obscurity; but to take the case of Birmingham, to which attention had been called by the hon. Member for that borough, he found it stated that there were Sessions Courts there for county purposes, but having separate Courts of Quarter Sessions, it was exempted from contributing to the county rates. So much he gathered from the statement, that otherwise Birmingham would have to contribute to the county rates. If he took Clause 5 as a basis of calculation in the Bill, he found it was a matter of adjustment between town and county on the basis of population. He might refer, also, to Manchester, Liverpool, and Leeds, as similar instances. Perhaps the President of the Local Government Board would inform the Committee whether the position of Quarter Session boroughs not at present contributing towards the rates was intended to be changed?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that if the Bill passed in its present state, London would have to contribute. As he understood the explanation now given by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, it was proposed to make the changes effected by the Bill perfectly clear. If some fresh clause were to be introduced, it ought to be placed in the hands of Members.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the question was not altogether free from difficulty; but he might say that, in his opinion, it would be highly inconsistent for Parliament to authorize county rates to be levied in Quarter Session boroughs. He believed that in old boroughs sums in respect of some county matters had remained charged upon those boroughs.

    477
    That would account for the position of affairs in Manchester, Birmingham, and Liverpool. Very difficult questions were raised which he did not then wish to approach. But he would state that the Government did not propose to extend these charges either on the Metropolis or on Quarter Session boroughs, because they had no representation on the County Board. But some contribution might justly be expected from them in certain cases, and he hoped to be able to devise some plan for effecting this object which would be satisfactory. He felt, however, that this Bill was not a convenient mode of carrying out what would be an important change in county assessment.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEhoped the right hon. Gentleman would state what he proposed to do.
    MR. COOPEproposed to insert, at the end of the clause, the words—
    "A separate estimate shall be made by the county authorities of the counties of Middlesex, Kent, and Surrey of all sums required by them for the purposes of this section, and no part of such sums shall be included in any precept or warrant for the levying or calculation of the county rate within the Metropolis."
    That Amendment would answer the purpose of freeing the Metropolis from extra charge.
    MR. STANSFELDobserved, that the Amendment would protect the Metropolis, but not the Quarter Session boroughs.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the intention of the Bill was that the county rate should be levied in the ordinary way.
    MR. WHITWELLwas proceeding to make some observations with respect to Quarter Session boroughs, when——
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member was not in Order. The Amendment before the Committee was with regard to the Metropolis. Did the hon. Member for Middlesex propose to withdraw it?
    MR. COOPEsaid, that was his intention.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. GREGORYwished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board admitted the propriety of the boroughs making some contribution to the county rates?
    THE CHAIRMANinquired whether the hon. Member proposed to move an Amendment?
    MR. GREGORYwas not prepared to move any Amendment.
    MR. COOPEagain moved the insertion, at the end of the clause, of the words—
    "A separate estimate shall be made by the county authorities of the counties of Middlesex, Kent, and Surrey of all sums required by them for the purposes of this section, and no part of such sums shall be included in any precepts or warrants for the levying or calculation of the county rates within the Metropolis."
    MR. GREGORYobserved, that, of course, some proposition would have to be made with regard to these boroughs, and there would then arise an opportunity of discussing the subject. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that there ought to be some contribution from these boroughs, and it was right that they should pay some reasonable sum commensurate with the benefit which they received.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, that boroughs having Quarter Sessions were now rated for some county purposes. He did not see why, if they were rated in respect of bridges all over the county they should not also be rated for the roads. The case seemed to him made out for making them contribute to the roads.
    LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHreferred to the cases of county roads being almost exclusively used by the inhabitants of neighbouring towns. The road from Brighton to Rottingdean was an example of a road where some portion of the cost of repair ought to fall on the town.
    MR. PAGETwould like to ask whether there were any main roads subject to Clause 11 existing within the Metropolis or not; and, further, if there were any such roads, whether the Metropolis would not be entirely absolved from maintaining them?
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that some parts of the Metropolis certainly contained roads such as were alluded to. He did not think anything would be gained by including any part of the Metropolis in the area for the calculation of the county rate. The subject was a difficult one; but when they could find time they would deal with it.
    MR. STANSFELDthought it would be better to deal with these questions

    479
    before passing from this clause. He was not quite satisfied with respect to Quarter Session boroughs; they should be liable equally with other parts of the country. At all events, the subject was one well worthy of discussion.
    MR. WHITWELLsaid, it was clear this matter could not be settled that evening. It would be well if the right hon. Gentleman placed his proposed Amendment on the Paper before the time arrived for its consideration.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHmoved to report Progress.
    Motion agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next, at Two of the clock.
    The Sitting was suspended at ten minutes to Seven of the clock.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

    SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at five minutes after Nine o'clock till Monday next.