[BILL 149.] COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 16 April 1886)

§ MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that in the last Parliament an Act was passed giving the Highway Authorities in five Southern counties the right to lop the trees and hedges by the roadside at the expense of the ratepayers. Previous to the passing of that Act this work devolved upon the proprietors of the property. I desire that in all the rest of the country, at any rate, the liability of keeping the hedges by the roadside trimmed should remain with the owners, and not be put upon the public. I quite agree with my hon. Friend in charge of this Bill (Mr. Duckham) in the action he took in the last Parliament, because the lanes in the four Southern counties are very deep and narrow, very damp, and very difficult to keep in repair. But the roads of the rest of the country are different. They are high; the wind blows 1878 freely upon them. Mischief does not arise from high hedges; and we think that the owners of the property should be called upon to bear the expense of keeping the hedges in order. I beg to move that we go into Committee upon this day six months.

§ MR. DUCKHAM (Herefordshire, Leominster)
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Northwich (Mr. Brunner) has said that in the counties to which the Act of last Session was made applicable the roads are narrow and deep, but that the roads in other parts of the Kingdom are not so. I happen to be the Chairman of a Highway Board in my county, having jurisdiction over upwards of 300 miles of road. We have under our care a great many narrow and deep roads. The Bill does not make it compulsory upon the Highway Boards to keep the hedges in order, but only enables the representatives of the ratepayers to do what they feel to be proper I in the interests of their constituents for the free admission of the sun and air to dry the roads, and to prevent those who travel along them being subjected to the nuisance of briars and brambles extending, as they often do, a considerable distance over the roads. In the days of turnpikes the Turnpike Trusts Commissioners used to trim the hedges on the road side. Frequently the footways on the sides of the roads are overgrown by the hedges, and the public are precluded from using them. I trust this Bill will meet with the approval of the House.

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSFELD) (Halifax)
I hope the Committee will not pass this Motion. The Bill has come down from a Select Committee, and I intend to move an Amendment in the 2nd clause, which, I believe, will meet the objection of the hon. Member. The system has been found to work well in five of the Southern counties; and I understand that it is the law in Scotland at the present time.

§ MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)
After the statement of my right hon. Friend that he will move an Amendment in the 2nd clause, which will carry out my point, I will withdraw my Motion.

§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)
Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that the effect of the clause is to throw upon the ratepayers that which is now a burden upon each owner? I do not see why the private owner should be relieved in this matter; and I, for one, shall vote against the Bill. That is the reason why we have opposed this measure.

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. D. ACLAND) (Cornwall, Launceston)
May I say, with regard to this Bill, that some time ago I was asked by the surveyors of several Highway Boards in the West of England to introduce a Bill to give their Boards permission to carry out what they had been actually doing for years past? Therefore, I brought in a Bill on these lines for the West of England last year. It had been suddenly found that these practices, which had been carried on for years, were illegal, and I the way wardens were being surcharged for acting in a manner which had the full consent of the ratepayers.

§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID
I do not think that answers the question, because the hon. Member (Mr. Acland) tells us that he passed a Bill for his own district last year. That, however, is no reason why this general Act should be 1880 passed. Can he tell us of any demand for this Bill on the part of any other parts of England? If not, I shall certainly vote against it.

§ MR. C. T. D. ACLAND
This Bill is not asked for but by the ratepayers.

§ MR. BRUNNER
It may have been right to pass a Bill of Indemnity for these Highway Authorities, though it is amusing to recollect that the hon. Gentleman's father has recently been in conflict with the Highway Authorities in regard to this matter; but, although the Bill may be useful in the West of England, I do object to the additional burden it involves being placed upon the ratepayers of Cheshire.

§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)
I share the objection which my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. Brunner) has to this Bill, and I shall certainly vote against it.