Main Roads. (Hansard, 28 June 1878)

§ SIR GEORGE JENKINSON
thought 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. BEACH
said, 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 CAVENDISH
also considered that the term for the retrospective operation of the Bill had been fixed with very good reason.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, 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. GREGORY
said, 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. PAGET
said, 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 JOHNSTONE
said, 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. STANSFELD
thought 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.

§ MR. GREGORY
said, 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."

§ MR. HIBBERT
said, 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. DILKE
said, 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 CHAIRMAN
said the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was quite right. He would call upon the hon. Member for Middlesex to move his Amendment.

§ MR. COOPE
begged 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-BOOTH
stated, 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 CHAIRMAN
inquired what course the hon. Member for Oldham intended to pursue with regard to his Amendment?

§ MR. HIBBERT
I withdraw it.

§ MR. COOPE
said, 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. STANSFELD
observed, 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. DILKE
said, 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-BOOTH
said, 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. DILKE
hoped the right hon. Gentleman would state what he proposed to do.

§ MR. COOPE
proposed 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. STANSFELD
observed, that the Amendment would protect the Metropolis, but not the Quarter Session boroughs.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, that the intention of the Bill was that the county rate should be levied in the ordinary way.

§ MR. WHITWELL
was proceeding to make some observations with respect to Quarter Session boroughs, when——

THE CHAIRMAN
said, 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. COOPE
said, that was his intention.

§ MR. GREGORY
wished 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 CHAIRMAN
inquired whether the hon. Member proposed to move an Amendment?

§ MR. GREGORY
was not prepared to move any Amendment.

§ MR. COOPE
again 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. GREGORY
observed, 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. HIBBERT
said, 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 CAVENDISH
referred 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. PAGET
would 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-BOOTH
said, 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. STANSFELD
thought 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. WHITWELL
said, 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-BOOTH
moved to report Progress.