COUNTY COUNCILS.

HC Deb 29 June 1888 vol 327 cc1730-92

Powers of County Council.

Clause 15 (Entire maintenance of main roads by County Council).

Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 7, after "shall," to insert "after the first day of April, one thousand eight hundred and ninety."—(Sir John Dorington.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR JOHN DORINGTON (Gloucester, Tewkesbury)

said, he last night mentioned the object of this Amendment, and the President and the Secretary of the Local Government Board expressed their opinion that the view which he took was an exaggerated one. He had reflected over the remarks they made, and he could not help thinking that he was correct in the view he took, and that the time between the period when the County Councils came into effective working, and that when they would have to take over the maintenance of the roads, was far too short for a satisfactory arrangement to be made for carrying out the new work. He, therefore, hoped the Government would assist those who would have the carrying out of this work by granting a longer extension of time than the period to the 1st of April. He did not insist in any way upon the 1st of April, 1890; he only mentioned that date because he thought it would be a convenient date. It was the date on which the present Highway Authorities would cease to exist, and the new District Councils would come into force; it was also the commencement of the financial year. These were the only arguments he had to advance in favour of that particular date; on the other hand, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman it would be a putting off of the work of the County Councils for a very long time. Therefore, he should be satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman were to name some earlier date—say, three months after the setting up of the County Council, or certainly six months would be better. The business to be undertaken would be very great in his county, and he could speak better for that than for any other county; they had between 800 and 900 miles of main roads, costing about £40,000 a-year. The setting up of a new organization to manage these roads would certainly tax the capabilities of the County Councils to a very great degree, and would be a very large tax upon their time at the commencement of their existence. It was suggested that they should hand over the management to the present authorities, that they should contract with those authorities to do the work. To a very great extent that would be a satisfactory arrangement, but to a certain extent it would not be a satisfactory arrangement. Take the case of counties where there were no Highway Boards at all, and where the County Councils would have to negotiate with an indefinite number of parishes with regard to the management of the roads. His own county, for instance, was about equally divided between Highway Boards and independent parishes. Some Highway Boards were extremely good, others were quite as defective in management as the others were excellently managed, and if he had anything to do in the matter he certainly would not recommend entering into contracts with some of those Bodies in regard to the main roads. It would take a considerable time to make these arrangements, and he certainly hoped that the proposal he had made, simply with a view of facilitating the working of the Act, would meet with the approval of the Government, or else that the Go- vernment would make some suggestion to meet him half way.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

said, he felt the force of many of the remarks of his hon. Friend, but the difficulty he had was in departing from the date laid down in the Bill. His objection to the date fixed by his hon. Friend was that the new system of finance would come into operation at the beginning of April. He could easily understand that it would entail great complication of accounts if they were to say that for three months, which was suggested as a compromise by his hon. Friend, things should remain as they were. There did not seem really any tangible resting ground between the proposal in the Bill and the proposal of his hon. Friend, which would delay the operation of the Bill, so far as main roads were concerned, for 12 months. His hon. Friend had pointed out that they proposed to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), which would enable the County Councils to arrange with the District Councils to maintain the roads for three months, or six months, or 12 months; or for any period they thought necessary before they got their own organization into effective use. Although the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Sussex only dealt with a delegation to District Councils, the Government proposed towards the close of the Bill in dealing with District Councils to provide that District Councils should include any existing authorities. That Amendment would enable the County Councils to say to the Highway Boards—"We will delegate to you for whatever time we think fit the care of the main roads under certain conditions." In view of the fact that the elections for these Councils would take place in the early part of January, and that the County Councils would not take over the care of the main roads until the beginning of April, he could not but think there would be time for making the necessary arrangements. He, therefore, hoped that his hon. Friend would be content with the power which was given to the County Councils to make arrangements with the existing authorities. That power he thought would be amply sufficient to meet all difficulties the hon. Gentleman had foreshadowed.

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

said, he did not quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman meant by existing authorities. By Clause 3 all the powers of the Quarter Sessions had with regard to main roads and highways been handed over to the County Councils. That naturally included all contracts and arrangements now in existence. Speaking for his own county, and he had been a member of every county committee for the last 20 years, he was persuaded that this would upset everything during the first three months. At the present moment the roads were managed and repaired by the overseers of the parishes, and these overseers received the money due to them on the certificate of the county surveyor. In some cases the Quarter Sessions made arrangements with the Highway Board, and in that case they contracted for the maintenance of the roads for one year, and sometimes for three years, and even longer. Therefore, under Clause 3 the County Councils would take over all the contracts, liabilities, and arrangements of the county magistrates. But what was done by the sub-sections of Clause 15 which they were now discussing? They provided that the roads should be well maintained and repaired by the County Councils. It was quite true that the President of the Local Government Board proposed to accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) which provided that the County Councils should, if they chose, delegate their powers to the District Councils, or to anybody else who could do the work better than they could; but the District Councils would not be in operation when the County Councils were first elected, and the real question was whether there would not be utter chaos and confusion during the first three months. He was afraid that under the arrangement which was being made the overseers of the highways during the last three months of the present financial year would scheme to do as little to the roads as possible; they would put very little material on them, and spend as little as possible in repairs; the proverbial stitch in time would not be taken, and the roads would be handed over in such a state that it would take at least three times the amount of money to put them right that would have been necessary to keep them in a state of repair. Of course, the Amendment before the Committee could not be accepted for financial reasons, though he did not think that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Long) gave any good reasons why it should not be accepted. Possibly, the hon. Gentleman had spoken from his knowledge of Wiltshire; but the authority of the hon. Gentleman (Sir John Dorington), who had the reputation of being one of the ablest Chairmen of Quarter Sessions in England, was in direct conflict with that of the hon. Gentleman. What was wanted was a modus vivendi; they wanted it to be clearly understand that under Clause 3 all the liabilities and contracts would be taken over, and that Clause 15 would not come into force until such time as the District Councils came into existence.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he did not quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman meant by a modus vivendi. He understood the right hon. Gentleman advanced arguments against the proposal, and that one of his arguments was that there were contracts now existing. If there were contracts existing there would be no difficulty, the roads would be repaired. The right hon. Gentleman also said that, during the last three months of the present financial year nothing would be done. But that argument would hold good what-ever year was fixed. The argument was not a good one, because the County Authority at present only paid upon the certificate of the county surveyor one-half, and the Government paid one-quarter, so that if the present authorities did not repair the roads properly the county surveyor would withhold his certificate and the Government would not pay their quarter. Therefore, it seemed to him that the contingency which the right hon. Gentleman feared was not one which was likely to arise; but if it was, it was still as likely to arise 12 months hence.

MR. HENEAGE

said, he did not object to the clause in the future, and did not wish that the operation of this provision should be suspended for 12 months. What he wished was that it should be clear on the face of the clause that the County Councils should take over the contracts as they stood, and should administer the roads in the same way as they were now administered, until the County Councils were able to delegate their powers. The County Councils would not have a staff at their command to manage, to maintain, and repair roads scattered over the whole county. He had spoken to several Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, and they seemed to be of his opinion.

MR. ALLISON (Cumberland, Eskdale)

said, he hoped that the hon. Member (Sir John Dorington) would withdraw his Amendment. If the County Councils had to take over the whole management of the roads, he could well conceive that some longer period than was allowed might have been required; but he understood the Government intended to provide that the County Councils might delegate their duties to the District Councils. Under the superintendence of the county surveyor, there would therefore be very much the same system which was now working so well in most counties. He thought that it was simply wasting the time of the Committee to further press this Amendment.

MR. WHARTON (York, W.R., Ripon)

said, that all that was asked was that the present authorities should continue to have charge of the roads until the County Councils were able to undertake the duties. Personally, he believed that unless some such arrangement was made, the roads of the county would get into a lamentable state of repair.

THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG) (Wilts, Devizes)

said, it was as well that he should point out that under Clause 124 it was provided that all contracts, deeds, bonds, agreements, and other instruments existing at the present moment should be as binding in every way upon the new authority as upon the existing authority. He, therefore, failed to see how the contingency which his hon. Friend suggested could possibly arise. He could hardly credit that the county surveyor would allow the roads to be improperly repaired. He was convinced that in his own county, as in many others, the surveyor would take every precaution before he granted his certificate. No doubt, some difficulty in connection with financial arrangements might arise as matters now stood; but he thought that if by this Amendment they got rid of one difficulty, the probability was that they would be landed in others much greater.

SIR RICHARD PAGET (Somerset, Wells)

said, he objected to the word "delegation." There was no power whatever in the Bill to delegate this duty; and even if the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) did not imply delegation. He, however, thought that, on the clear understanding that the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet be accepted, his hon. Friend (Sir John Dorington) would do well not to press his Amendment.

SIR. JOHN DORINGTON

said, that on that understanding he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WOODALL (Hanley),

in moving, in line 7, after the word "shall," to insert "save as to any part thereof situate in a borough," said, that the effect of the Amendment was to provide that those portions of main roads which were situated in boroughs should be exempt from the general obligation of being maintained by County Councils. The Committee would be aware that they were many complications in reference to the maintenance of main roads. The obligation to maintain them had been thrown upon the counties since 1807, but there were, in many places, important thoroughfares which were only distinguished from main roads by a technical difference. In regard, however, to the equity and convenience of the maintenance of main roads, the President of the Local Government Board must be aware that he had made a material difference in his scheme by the further concession to boroughs with a population of 50,000. By this scheme all such boroughs would be placed in the position of Quarter Session boroughs. There was hardly any subject upon which such a variety of considerations prevailed. There were many municipal boroughs in which there was not one yard of main road, while in others main roads were an important feature. He candidly confessed that of all the proposals that had been made for dealing with the question, that of the Government was least satis- factory of all. What was felt, and what he asked the Committee to consider, was that on the whole it would be better to treat all municipal boroughs exactly as they were proposing to treat county boroughs, and in the same way as they had heretofore treated Quarter Sessions boroughs. He wished the President of the Local Government Board to explain precisely how the concession would operate, especially in boroughs where there was a considerable amount of main roads, costing large sums of money to maintain. It would be obviously unjust to draw a revenue from municipal boroughs of large rate-able value for the maintenence of external roads, and to leave to them the burden of maintaining all the other thoroughfares which were hardly distinguishable from main roads. The right hon. Gentleman had placed a number of Amendments on the Paper, from which it would appear that he was desirous of meeting the difficulty and arriving at some amicable arrangement between the Municipal Authorities and the County Councils; but he was not prepared to say that those Amendments satisfactorily met the case of main roads. He, therefore, confidently pressed his own proposal, believing that it was a proper solution of the difficulty, and it simply involved the carrying out of a practice which had hitherto worked well, and which was the only arrangement up to 1878.

Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 7, after shall," insert "save as to any part thereof situate in a borough."—(Mr. Woodall.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. RITCHIE

said, the proposal of the hon. Gentleman was rather a wide one. He wished, first of all, that the boroughs which remained in the county should maintain their own roads, and draw their own revenues for the maintenance of them. That would mean, although the hon. Gentleman did not say how much, a portion of the duties collected within the municipal area. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman meant the whole of it. At any rate, his proposal went in that direction. Under the provisions of the Bill, boroughs not included within the districts of the County Councils would be able to maintain their own roads in their own districts in their own way, and they would receive a certain sum in aid derived from local taxation. Not only would the County Councils have the power of devolution, so far as boroughs and urban districts were concerned, but they would be obliged to devolve the power to any borough that applied for it. The County Councils would have no authority whatever to refuse the application of a borough to maintain its own roads. Therefore, as far as that matter was concerned, the hon. Gentleman might be sure that the boroughs and urban districts would have a perfect right to maintain their own roads within their own area. The hon. Member said that it would be very unfair to make such boroughs contribute anything towards the maintenance of roads outside their own districts. There he disagreed with the hon. Gentleman, and he was sure the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, would see that that was hardly a fair ground to take up, because the fact was that roads outside the borough district were very largely used for borough purposes, and the heaviest part of the traffic upon them came from the boroughs. In such circumstances it would have been extremely unfair to the farmers of the county, upon whom highway rates fell heavily, to make and maintain such roads at their sole expense. The Government recognized the importance of the question so much that they said, even in respect of the boroughs outside the counties that were to be formed into county boroughs, that they ought to contribute to the small tax proposed to be imposed on vehicles, even when they were taken out of the county for all other purposes. That being the case, he did not think the proposal of the hon. Gentleman was one which would commend itself to the fairness of the Committee. He did not know whether the hon. Member had Quarter Sessions boroughs in his mind. By the Amendment which would be placed on the Paper by the Government, Quarter Sessions boroughs would be entitled to appeal to the Local Government Board to have their main roads maintained by the County Councils, while their main road rate would be very small, and thus they would be placed in an infinitely better position than that which they at present occupied in respect of the maintenance of their roads. The position of Quarter Sessions boroughs at present was that they were not liable to contribute to the county rate for main roads. They maintained three-fourths of the cost of their main roads and received a contribution from the Government. They had never given anything to the county, nor had they received anything from the county. As the Government were now about to impose upon them the liability to contribute, it would be clearly unjust if the main roads were not to be maintained by the county. Therefore it was proposed by the Amendment he had placed upon the Paper that Quarter Sessions boroughs should have the right to have their main thoroughfares declared main roads maintainable by the counties. Under this Amendment he thought the boroughs would be in an infinitely better position than they were now. The County Councils would obtain a vote of money sufficient to enable them to maintain the main roads in the county. The whole cost of maintaining main roads throughout the country was £1,000,000 sterling. Hitherto £250,000 had been contributed by the country. That contribution would cease after the passing of the Bill, but in lieu of it a considerable amount of duties would be handed over to the County Authorities by means of the Horse and Wheel Tax, so that9–10ths or 7–8ths of the cost of main roads would be provided for. The position of Quarter Sessions boroughs would be this, that if they had their main roads declared and maintained by the county, in return they would be liable to pay a rate. Quarter Sessions boroughs would be in a much better position than they were now, and, on the whole, the arrangements made in the Bill would be advantageous rather than otherwise.

MR. WOODALL

said, he would point out that in all cases boroughs with a population of 50,000 would be entitled to become county boroughs; but there might be another municipal borough with precisely the same roads intersecting it which would be left out, according to the proposals of the Government. Did he understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that, having carefully considered the circumstances of such boroughs, the new arrangements would be equally and equitably applied to all?

MR. RITCHIE

said, it was impossible for him to say that he had considered the relative circumstances of individual boroughs, but his opinion was that the boroughs outside would not be placed in a disadvantageous position. They would have to maintain their own roads, but would receive a portion of the new licence duties levied in the county, and they would receive a certain contribution from the Wheel Tax.

MR. LLEWELLYN (Somerset, N.)

said, he objected to the Amendment on the ground that every proposal of the kind would largely increase the expense, and would multiply the authorities who would have to deal with the roads. Some hon. Members were under the impression that certificates in reference to roads were given by competent road surveyors, but in many parts of England they were given by the magistrates themselves, and were not worth the paper they were written on.

MR. WOODALL

said, that in most cases Boroughs possessed competent and efficient surveyors, steam rollers and other appliances, and he assumed that whatever arrangements were made under the Bill the roads would be under the superintendence of the competent staff, which in boroughs had now to deal with them.

MR. HENEAGE

said, he should like to know why municipal boroughs should not have the privilege of maintaining their own roads as well as Quarter Sessions boroughs?

MR. RITCHIE

said, the right would be given not only to municipal boroughs but to urban districts.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Lancashire, N.E., Darwen)

said, the question was one of great importance to the county he had the honour to represent. He understood that under the arrangement proposed by the Government a portion of the licensed duties were to be assigned to the maintenence of county roads even within the boroughs. There were several boroughs in Lancashire which were not Quarter Sessions boroughs, and which contributed in the ordinary way to the county main roads. He wished to know what was to be their contribution in future towards the maintenance of main roads in all parts of the county?

MR. RITCHIE

said, his noble Friend must remember that hitherto the Quarter Sessions boroughs had never contri- buted to the county at all, but, in future, not only would the boroughs which were not Quarter Sessions boroughs, and which were to be made county boroughs, but the county boroughs, inclusive of the Quarter Sessions boroughs, would contribute to the county roads a certain proportion of the Van and Wheel Tax. In return for the contribution to the county by such boroughs, which were not Quarter Sessions boroughs, the county had hitherto contributed one-half of the cost of the roads, but the contribution would now cease.

SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH (Lancashire, Clitheroe)

wished to have a clear explanation from the right hon. Gentleman upon this matter. The right hon. Gentleman said that all boroughs would contribute in future, by means of the Wheel and Van Tax, to the maintenance of main roads. That was not at all clear. The right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, had an Amendment to Clause 30 on the Paper which it was rather difficult to refer to now, but which appeared on page 32 of the Amendments now before the House, and was as follows:— In the case of the duties collected by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in respect of the licences for trade carts, locomotives, horses, mules, and horse dealers under any Act of the present session, those Commissioners shall certify the amount collected in each county in like manner as if the county included each county borough specified in the fourth schedule to this Act as situate in that county, and the amount as so ascertained shall be divided between the said boroughs and the residue of the said county in proportion to rateable value. In Lancashire, for example, if the tax were treated as a tax upon the county at large, and distributed according to rateable value, about one-half would go to the county outside the boroughs and one-half to the boroughs. That would only be giving to the county what fairly belonged to the county itself, and would not be a contribution from the boroughs to the main roads. It would only be a payment by the wheels in the boroughs which were out the county roads towards the cost of those roads. He must point out that it was necessary for the Committee to consider the fact that in the Bill as it stood, or as it would be amended by the Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman himself, the expense of main roads for the county would be very heavy unless the Van and Wheel Tax brought in such a large amount in diminution of the county rate as would really leave only a tenth of the expense to be paid out of the county rate. According to the best calculations they in Lancashire had been able to make, they were convinced that nothing of the kind would happen. They could not make out that they would be receiving much more in aid of the county rates for main roads than they were receiving from the Parliamentary grant. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee some more information on the point. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to make a great change in the law with respect to main roads. At present all the Quarter Sessions boroughs were exempt from all payment towards the expense of main roads. The Bill destroyed that exemption, and said that in future all Quarter Sessions boroughs should contribute to main roads. He thought that was a perfectly fair proposal; but instead of being content with this the right hon. Gentleman turned a large number of Quarter Sessions boroughs into county boroughs and again exempted them. Then his hon. Friend who had proposed the Amendment went far beyond the legislation of 1878, applying the exemption to all the boroughs mentioned in the Amendment. This proposal was really a little too strong, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would stand firm in resisting the demand.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry)

said, he thought that some of the Quarter Sessions boroughs would be rather hardly treated by this Bill. At present they did not contribute at all to the main roads of the county, but repaired their own main roads. It was now proposed to make them contribute by means of the Wheel and Van Tax and the Licence Duties, and also to make the rateable property in the boroughs liable to a main road rate. This was hardly equitable. If the right hon. Gentleman proposed that the high street of a large town should be considered a main road, in that case the entire position of matters would be altered. But this, he believed, it was not his intention to do. He did not think the rateable value of the Quarter Sessions boroughs ought to be placed under contribution to the roads of the county in addition to the Licence Duties and the Van and Wheel Tax.

MR. MOWBRAY (Lancashire, Prestwich)

said, he hoped that the Committee would not regard this as a question between town and county, and he trusted that the President of the Local Government Board would stand firm in his opposition to the Amendment. In his constituency there were main roads for four or six miles between different boroughs which ought to be kept up for the purpose of the traffic which mainly passed from one borough to another.

MR. TOLLEMACHE (Cheshire, Eddisbury)

asked whether the President of the Local Government Board had read a speech in The Times that day, made by Mr. Hibbert, in which it was said that in this Bill practically half the rateable value of Lancashire would be taken away from the rural part of the county. He wished to know whether the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to appoint a Commission on the subject referred to other counties as well as to Lancashire.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that it did not refer to the county of Lancaster particularly, but it would affect all the counties of England and Wales. He had not had time to read the speech of Mr. Hibbert to which reference had been made, but he had had the opportunity and advantage of hearing Mr. Hibbert speak at the Local Government Board. He had pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that there were two questions raised. In the first place, there was the question whether it was the case or not that the Quarter Sessions boroughs in Lancashire did not at present pay a sufficient amount towards the maintenance of the main roads. The deputation thought not, and that to deal with the question on the present basis would be unfair on account of that exemption. As to that point he was bound to say that he could not hold out any hope that the Government would be prepared to make any alteration. In this Bill they had been compelled to take the law as it stood, and where they found that exemptions existed they could not attempt to inquire whether such exemptions were right or wrong, but were obliged to take them as they found them. That being so, his hon. Friend would recognize the fact that, as a large number of the boroughs in Lancashire were Quarter Sessions boroughs and had never contributed towards the main roads, Lancashire was not being deprived of anything she had previously received as far as the boroughs were concerned. That was one point in connection with Lancashire. In the second place, he had pointed out that care must be taken that a fair and equitable adjustment was made as between the boroughs that were taken out of the county and the remaining portion of the county. On that point he had said that those concerned had good ground for making representations to the Local Government Board, and he had promised that he would consider the matter. The result of the consideration was that he had put down an Amendment on Clause 30, which, however, it would not be right or proper, nor would it be in Order, to discuss now. The idea of the Government was this, that as far as the existing application was concerned, they could not undertake to inquire whether the basis of assessment was right or wrong; but they ought to make provision that the county should not in any way be financially injured by the boroughs being taken out of them. As far as he understood the Representatives of the boroughs, prior to the decision which was arrived at which took certain boroughs out of the county, there was not a single borough Member who did not express entire concurrence with him that whatever provision was made care should be taken to secure that the contribution of the boroughs should continue to be paid. It was said, that it was not so much a question of finance, or whether they would gain or lose, but that they should be left to their own independent action. It was on that distinct understanding that he had enlarged, to so great an extent, the fourth Schedule, and he had no reason to believe that there was any strong feeling adverse to a fair adjustment of the financial relations between the counties and boroughs.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

said, the right hon. Gentleman had stated with perfect accuracy and fairness the position taken by the large municipal boroughs in reference to the question, and he did not think there was the most remote desire on the part of the boroughs to depart from the original arrangement. The right hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth), however, had attempted to depart from it in another direction, and to put a burden upon the boroughs which at present they did not bear. He could assure his right hon. Friend that that proposition would be resisted to the utmost. He could quite understand that Lancashire was an exceptional county. For his own part he could understand that there was a difficulty; but, if necessary, it must be dealt with exceptionally by the House. But they should not have injustice done throughout the length and breadth of England simply on account of what was being done in Lancashire. He would recall the attention of the Committee to what the position of these main roads was. Prior to the passing of the Main Roads Act the expense of maintaining the roads was paid by the turnpikes. When the roads were disturnpiked, the counties had imposed upon them by the Act of 1878 the liability of contributing one-half, the other half being paid by the Local Authorities. The Quarter Session boroughs were exempt from that arrangement; but had to maintain the roads within their own area without receiving any contribution from the county. He quite admitted that with regard to small Quarter Sessions boroughs the arrangement would be perfectly fair; but the present legislation was intended to meet the case of the large boroughs. He would give, as an illustration, the case of a main road in Wolverhampton. That road was originally constructed out of the Consolidated Fund, and it formed the main road to Dublin by way of Holyhead. The Act imposed upon the borough of Wolverhampton the entire expense of maintaining that road at a cost of something like £200 a-mile. The borough of Wolverhampton did not ask for any exemption, they would still have to bear that burden, but the roads they had to maintain within the boroughs represented a rate of 1s. Therefore, in any re-adjustment of the burden of keeping the main roads in repair, they maintained that the county ought to make some contribution, which, at present, they did not.

MR. STANSFELD (Halifax)

said, he could not say that his view was entirely that of his right hon. Friend on that occasion. He had always desired that a Local Government Bill which created County Councils should make much of the county, and he wanted, as far as possible, that the boroughs should be part of the county, and that certain representative functions might be devolved upon them. But hon. Members on that side had incurred considerable disappointment owing to so many boroughs having applied, not unsuccessfully, to be taken out of the counties in which they were situate. He thought that these financial questions should be deferred until they had dealt with the constructive part of the Bill, and that they should then be approached with a view to setting them on a fair and equitable basis. He thought they could not advisedly carry further this discussion, so far as finance was concerned. He reminded the Committee that the Amendment on which they were engaged had for its object that the County Councils should have nothing to do with the repair and maintenance of main roads within boroughs. For his part, he was ready to make his acknowledgments to his hon. Friend, who had stated the case of the boroughs very fairly; but to say any borough, however small, should maintain its own main roads and not contribute to the county, would, in his opinion, be unadvisable, and if his hon. Friend were to press his Amendment to a Division, he should be compelled to vote against it.

MR. WOODALL

said, there were many boroughs whose position in this matter of main roads was much more strikingly inequitable than anything he had been able to instance. He confessed that he found himself between two cross fires, and, being ready to meet the views of his right hon. Friend on every occasion, as far as he could properly do so, as well as to further the progress of the Bill, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. He must, however, reserve to himself the right to raise this proposal again at a later stage when the right hon. Gentleman's scheme wasmore clearly understood.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

BARON DIMSDALE (Herts, Hitchin)

said, the Amendment in his name had for its object to transfer the maintenance and repair of roads from the County Council, as proposed in the Bill, to the District Council, and the proposal, he thought, would probably receive some favour at the hands of the Committee, not only upon its own merits, but because he saw similar Amendments on the Paper in the name of other hon. Members. He ought, perhaps, to explain that the series of Amendments in his name were unanimously adopted by the Court of Quarter Sessions in his own county, and as it was his duty to bring them forward, he would state the case for them as briefly as possible. It was pointed out that the County Council was too large a Body to undertake the maintenance and repair of main roads, and that it would be better that this should be entrusted to smaller Bodies, which should take charge of the roads over smaller areas. In his own county there would be a Council of 68 members, who would meet at one convenient place; but there would be no less than 28 District Councils formed in the county, and it appeared to him that the maintenance of the main roads would be entrusted to them with greater advantage than to the County Councils. His Amendment, then, would provide that the administration and management should reside in the District Council, and the County Council should exercise a supervising power. At the present time, the Quarter Sessions had, by their Committees, undertaken the work, and the system had been found to answer very well, and he ventured to believe that, by the adoption of his proposal, a more efficient and economical administration of main roads would result than from the proposal of the Government.

Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 8, after "county," insert "district."—(Baron Dimsdale.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'district' be there inserted."

MR. LONG

said, he thought his hon. Friend could hardly expect the Government to accept this Amendment, because it would destroy what they believed to be one of the most useful provisions of the Bill—namely, that the County Councils should be directly responsible for the maintenance of main roads. His hon. Friend had stated that the existing arrangement worked extremely well. He did not deny that there had been a great improvement in the condition of main roads in his own county, but he thought that anyone who had taken part in the administration of road work in Quarter Sessions must realize that the existing powers of the Quarter Sessions were not adequate for the purpose in view. Although it was true that the certificate was not issued unless they were satisfied, at the same time it was frequently the case that the surveyor was prevented by his present position either from making any recommendations or from seeing that they were carried out. The Government believed, therefore, that the proposal in this clause was an improvement on the existing system, and for that reason did not find it possible to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

said, that as he had an Amendment on the Paper exactly identical with that of the hon. Member opposite, he wished to say a few words in support of the proposal to confine the administration of main roads to the District Council. He regretted the answer of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board, because in his own neighbourhood there was a very strong consensus of opinion in favour of the principle embodied in the Amendment. The only difference of opinion was as to whether there should be something in the nature of a permissive system of contract between the County and District Councils such as he understood to be proposed by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). From what he had heard on this subject in the county which he represented, it was obvious to him that a great saving of expenditure would result from the administration of main roads being concentrated in the District Council. There was an opinion in favour of something like an improvement on the 13th clause of the Highways Act, in order to ensure adequate supervision and management of highways. So far as he understood, there was an objection to the Highway Boards on the ground that they were not sufficiently numerous. Their administration was generally approved, and the transfer of their duties to the County Councils would, in his opinion, be satisfactory. He should willingly support the Amendment of the hon. Member, and he hoped there would be an expression on the part of other county Members on both sides of the House in favour of the principle for which he contended—namely, that the highway administration should be concentrated in the District Councils. If the Government could not accept the Amendment, he hoped they would adopt that of the hon. Member for Ashburton (Mr. Seale-Hayne), which would give the same power to the Rural District Councils as the clause gave to Urban Authorities.

VISCOUNT WOLMER (Hants,) Petersfield

said, he did not know what his hon. Friend meant by concentration of administration; but the meaning appeared to be that the main roads of the county should be parcelled out to the District Councils; which, to his mind, was as unsatisfactory and uneconomical a method of maintaining the roads as could be conceived. The roads in question were the main arteries of circulation through the counties from end to end, and they were now told that they were to be left to Boards of Guardians, every one of which had its own idea of road maintenance, some of them very unscientific, as well as their own peculiar views on the question of using local stone. He was of opinion that this matter must be dealt with as a whole by the County Council. Road-making, to be scientifically conducted, must be done with the best stone that could be procured, and he thought it stood to reason that the County Council would be better able to command the best stone than the District Council. For these reasons, he hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Baron Dimsdale)

VISCOUNT EBRINGTON (Devon, Tavistock)

said, he agreed that the Highway Board system was an improvement on the old parish system; but the qualifications thought necessary for surveyors were not always high. He had known a case where the principal recommendation offered on behalf of a candidate was that his brother had held the post before him. He thought that the proposal of the Government, modified by the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), was much more likely to produce good road-making than that now before the Committee.

MR. A. J. WILLIAMS (Glamorgan, S.)

said, he thought that, in framing this new Local Government Bill, it would be wise to borrow from the experience of South Wales, and place the whole of the main roads under the County Councils.

MR. A. H. DYKE ACLAND (York, W.R., Rotherham)

said, that the proposal of the Government meant the establishment of a new staff different from that at present working in the counties. He did not know whether it was implied that the County Councils might maintain the roads in an efficient state by means of contracts with the District Councils; but, if so, he had nothing to say against the proposal.

MR. LONG

said, the Government did not propose to entail on the County Council the providing of the machinery for the maintenance of the roads. But power was given them to maintain the roads, and if they believed they could do that more economically and better through their own surveyor they would have the right to do so. On the other hand, if they believed they could do the work more economically and better by contract with the District Councils and the present authorities, they had power to do so; and there would be no necessity for the new machinery to which the hon. Gentleman had referred.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in line 8, page 12, after "situate," insert "and no tolls, commonly called turnpike tolls, shall be collected in South Wales."—(Mr. A. Thomas.)

MR. RITCHIE

said, he might spare the hon. Gentleman some trouble by pointing out that, under the new condition of things, Wales would in future be in the same position as any other part of the country as regarded main roads. The counties would collect their own Licence Duties, and it would, therefore, seem unjust that the toll system should be continued. It was, he believed, the unanimous opinion of the people that the tolls should be abolished, and the Government were prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. But he would ask him not to press for the insertion of the words here, because they would come in rather awkwardly, but be satisfied with his assurance that he would be prepared hereafter to carry out his wishes either by Amendment or by means of a new clause.

MR. DILLWYN (Swansea, Town)

said, he agreed to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and pointed out that the main roads in South Wales having, with regard to turnpikes, been dealt with in a special manner, it was the desire of the inhabitants that they should now be placed in the same position as the rest of the Kingdom.

SIR JOSEPH BAILEY (Hereford)

said, he might point out that funds for the roads were provided not only by tolls, but by a county road rate of a special character; that was to say, its incidence is not the same as the ordinary county rate; and the tenant could recover it from the landlord. He rose to express a hope that when the clause of the right hon. Gentleman was brought in, he would see that the county road rate was also abolished.

MR. A. J. WILLIAMS

said, that Clause 15, which provided that the cost of maintaining the main roads appeared to him a more appropriate place for introducing the Amendment. At any rate, Clause 46 was not the proper place.

MR. RITCHIE

said, the subject was one which must be dealt with rather comprehensively. It could not be dealt with in a line or two, and his own opinion was that it was a fit subject for a new clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT (Sussex, N.W.)

said, the law with regard to foot-paths was not very clear. An hon. Friend had told him of a case in point; it appeared that the Authorities, owing to the uncertain state of the law, were keeping in repair a path out of Cheltenham rather than run the risk of not repairing it. That was not his view of the case, although he was bound to say that he had spoken with one or two professional men in his Division of Sussex, who said that if they were to take over the main roads in towns they might be liable for the repair of the pavements at the side as well as of the road itself. He believed the Committee would think it unjust that the County Councils should be compelled to pay for these pavements. Again, he might point out that some of the towns might think it right to have wood or stone pavements in the roads, and it would be manifestly unfair that the County Councils should have to pay for that. The right and proper course was to repair the road as it had hitherto been repaired, and maintain it in a condition fit for the conveyance of the through traffic. He believed his right hon. Friend was prepared to accept the Amendment he had placed on the Paper with a certain modification, which, if it met with the approval of the Committee, he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was willing to accept; but he would like to hear his right hon. Friend's views on this question, which was of undoubted importance. Some of the foot-paths he had referred to were made for the benefit of a particular parish, or for some special purpose, such as making and raising a path so as to get dry to church, and did not form part of the main road; and it would be very unwise to allow the repair of these to be taken over by the County Councils. For these reasons he begged to move the Amendment he had placed on the Paper.

Amendment proposed, In page 12, line 9, leave out "and," and insert "but such main road shall not be deemed to include any footpath or pavement by the side of such road, nor shall the county council be required to maintain or repair a road further or otherwise than is necessary for maintaining the same in a condition fit for the conveyance of the through traffic."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. RITCHIE

said, his hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment divided itself into two parts, one of which related to the question of foot-paths, the other to the condition in which main roads should be maintained. His hon. and gallant Friend said truly that the law was not as distinct on this matter as was desirable; but certainly so far as the question of the pavements was concerned he did not think there could be much doubt that no liability rested with the county to maintain those at the side of the main roads in boroughs. With regard, however, to footpaths in the rural part of districts he thought the practice was different, and that the rule had been that the county should contribute towards the maintenance of such foot-paths. He believed the words of the Turnpikes Act were pretty clear—namely, that the turnpike trustees were authorized to make and repair causeways for the use of passengers at the side of turnpike roads; but the following section provided that they were not to make or repair any footpath in a village or town. He should wish his hon. and gallant Friend, therefore, to accept an alteration of the first portion of his Amendment, which would show clearly that no obligation should lie on the County Council to maintain any paved footpath—that he should leave out the words "footpath or pavement," and insert "any paved or pitched causeway or pavement." That he thought would carry out the desire of his hon. and gallant Friend in that respect. With regard to the other portion of the Amendment dealing with the repair of roads, he might point out that the proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend amounted to the division of the repair of the roads into two parts—the first related to the part which had to do with local traffic, and the second to that required in the county for through traffic. If the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet were inserted in its present form, he could easily imagine that a conflict of opposition might arise between the District and the County Councils as to the interpretation of local as distinguished from through traffic. It would be extremely undesirable that any such conflict of opinion should arise, and it seemed to him to be a plain duty to maintain the roads in a proper state of repair, no matter whether it was out of repair on account of local or through traffic. But his hon. and gallant Friend said that the Town Authorities might take it into their heads to put down wooden or stone pavement. He would, however, point out to him that by this Bill a Town Council, if it desired to maintain its own roads, would only be able to call on the County Council for a contribution on the same basis as that on which the contribution was now made, so that it did not seem that the case which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had suggested was at all likely to arise; and, further, he believed it would be seen that if the road through a town or urban district wore pitched or paved in any way it might cost considerably less to repair—although the original cost might have been great—than would be the ease if the ordinary pavement had to be used, Therefore, he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would not think it necessary to press the latter part of his Amendment, but adopt his suggestion with regard to the first part, in which modified form the Government were, as he had said, willing to accept it.

MR. MALLOCK (Devon, Torquay)

said, he hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend, who seemed to think that the footpaths at the side of main roads were not maintainable by the Main Road Authorities. He knew, however, that in the county of Devon the cost of maintaining footpaths, which existed during the time when the main roads were turnpike roads, had always been allowed. It seemed to him that the paths must be kept up by someone; and, therefore, if it were not done by the County Council it must be done by the District Council, and then there would be two surveyors side by side engaged upon the same road. There were many cases of main roads in rural districts running between two large towns, for the sake of which towns only the footpaths were kept up, and it would, therefore, be unfair to throw the cost of their maintenance upon the rural districts. He also reminded the Committee that many roads were declared main roads because they led to railway stations situated outside the urban districts which used them; those roads had paved footpaths—he knew of an instance—and, therefore, the whole cost of them would be thrown upon the rural districts.

MR. HALLEY STEWART (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

asked if the right hon. Gentleman meant footpaths wholly pitched and paved, or did he mean to include those which had a curb at the side?

MR LLEWELLYN

asked with whom the maintenance of the footpaths, which were of importance in the localities in which they existed, was to rest?

MR. RITCHIE

said, he had not proposed that footpaths should be excluded from the Bill. The Amendment he suggested would only exclude pitched or paved causeways or pavements.

MR. LLEWELLYN

said, he took exception to that. Someone must take charge of the footpath, whether paved or otherwise, and the proper authority to do that was the one which had charge of the roads.

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY (Lancashire, N., Blackpool)

said, they were now engaged in transferring certain powers from Quarter Sessions to the County Councils, and he submitted that it would be more convenient not to discuss upon this clause the question of amending the Highways Act of 1878. The only way in which they ought to discuss the District Council was in its relation to the County Councils and their power to discharge the powers of Quarter Sessions. He suggested that his hon. and gallant Friend should withdraw his Amendment.

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN (Kent, Faversham)

said, he considered that this was the most important Amendment that had been considered by the Committee. He might point out that a large portion of the footpaths in county towns were continued a considereble distance beyond the latter. They were often constructed of cement and asphalte, and it seemed to him that they were made for the convenience of the parish people, and, consequently, that it would be a great injustice if the cost of maintenance were thrown upon the County Council. He hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would persevere with his Amendment.

MR. W. H. JAMES (Gateshead)

said, that as the law at present stood no person had a right to make enclosure within 15 feet of the centre of the road; and if the footpaths were left in the condition they would be in under the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet, they would, to a great extent, become of the nature of common land, and adjacent owners would have an inducement to make illegal encroachments upon them. There would then be fences instead of the pleasant strips which now border many roads on either side. He thought that would be the effect of the Amendment, and, therefore, hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not press it.

VISCOUNT EBRINGTON

said, he thought the Committee would do well not to attempt to amend the Highway Act. He thought the hon. Member who last spoke had exposed one of the objects of the Amendment.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he thought his hon. and gallant Friend would see that the opinion of the Committee was largely in favour of his Amendment not being passed. He sympathized with every attempt to amend the law, but their labours would be considerably increased if they were to attempt to make all the alterations suggested. He thought it was the opinion of the Committee that the law at present provided security for the County Council never being called upon to do more than was necessary in respect of the roads, and he trusted, therefore, that his hon. and gallant Friend would not press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, the Amendment he was about to propose, whilst enabling the County Council to hand over to District Councils the repair of main roads, yet retained in the County Council those powers which he thought it absolutely necessary that they should possess in order to insure that the main roads should be kept in a good and efficient state. The noble Lord the Member for the Petersfield Division (Viscount Wolmer) had said that it would be better if the County Councils could maintain and keep the roads in repair; but he thought the noble Lord would consider that the proposal he made was one which would work well, and be far more economical in its results than a system under which two surveyors would be working side by side. In the interests, therefore, of economy and efficiency he begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.

Amendment proposed, In page 12, at end of line 17, insert—"(4.) The county council and any district council may from time to time contract for the undertaking by the district council of the maintenance, repair, improvement, and enlargement of, and other dealing with any main road, and, if the county council so require, the district council shall undertake the same, and such undertaking shall be in consideration of such annual payment by the county council for the costs of the undertaking as may from time to time be agreed upon, or, in case of difference, be determined by arbitration, in manner provided by this Act. (5.) Provided, that in no case shall a county council make any payment to a district council towards the costs of such undertaking as respects any road, or towards the costs of the maintenance or repair of any road by an urban authority, until the county council are satisfied by the report of their surveyor, or such other person as the county council may appoint for the purpose, that the road has been properly maintained or repaired, or that the improvement or enlargement of or other dealing with the road, as the case may be, has been properly executed."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added,"

MR. SEALE-HAYNE (Devon, Ashburton)

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper to the same effect as that of the hon. and gallant Baronet, and would, therefore, say a few words in support of the principle involved. He thought there was a very strong desire in the counties that the District Authorities should have power to retain the control of their own roads. The Rural Authorities desired to be vested with the same power as was proposed to be given to the Urban Authorities, and he was at a loss to understand why they should not have it. He believed it would be productive of greater economy that this should be done, because the District Authorities would have their own staff for the maintenance of the roads; he was perfectly confident that they would repair more efficiently and economically the portions of the main roads which passed through their districts than would be the case under the system proposed in the Bill. Moreover, he believed, the inhabitants of the districts would be the best people to keep watch upon the roads, and to compel the District Authorities to keep them in order; and the public at large would, of course, be protected, because the County Inspector would see that the District Authorities maintained the main roads in proper condition. Under these circumstances, he sincerely hoped that the Government would accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet.

MR. M'LAREN (Cheshire, Crewe)

said, he hoped that if the Amendment were accepted, the word "annual" would be struck out. It was well known that at times it was much more economical to pave old roads than to go on repairing them. It was desirable that the payment for this should not be made by annual payments, but in one lump sum.

MR. LONG

said, the Government were prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman as it stood. The Government, however, could not accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Ashburton (Mr. Seale-Hayne) that the same power should be conferred upon the Rural Authorities as upon the Urban Authorities, because it would not fall in with their proposal that the maintenance of the roads should fall on the County Council. With reference to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, he did not think it necessary to take out the word "annual," because whether the money was spent in one year or three, the authorities must expend what was necessary to keep the roads in a proper state of repair.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he could hardly understand the necessity for the Amendment.

MR. RITCHIE

pointed out that the proposed arrangement would be useful in the case of where a strip of road belonging to a rural area came between two Urban Authorities, the maintenance of which it would be too costly for the County Council to keep in their own hands.

MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

said, he thoroughly approved the Amendment, which was a step in the direction of economy, a principle too often lost sight of in the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. M'LAREN

said, the object of the Amendment which he rose to propose was to do away with a hardship only recently discovered by Local Authorities. By a decision of the Court of Appeal this year an Urban Authority had had to pay out of its own pocket the cost of paving a road with paving blocks, as it was held that that did not come under the head of maintenance. A great injustice had been inflicted, because in this case the work, which cost £80, would have lasted for 10 years, while the cost of macadamizing the road would have come to £10 annually during that time. In this latter case the Urban Authority would get three-fourths of the cost returned to them, and so would really only have had to pay £25 spread over 10 years. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment he was about to move.

Amendment proposed, In page 12, line 24, after the word "same," insert the words, "and for the purpose of the maintenance, repair, improvement, and enlargement, and other dealings with such road, shall have the same powers, and be subject to the same duties as a highway board."—(Mr. Laren.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. LONG

said, that the Government were prepared to accept the first Amendment of the hon. Gentleman because it appeared that this section of the clause did not confer on the Urban Authorities quite sufficient powers; that was to say, not quite the same powers that the preceding sub-section of the clause conferred on the County Councils. He did not know whether he would be in Order in referring to the second Amendment which the hon. Gentleman regarded as consequential, but which could not be accepted by the Government as a consequential Amendment. If the Government were to accept the hon. Gentleman's second Amendment the result would be that the County Councils would be liable to be called upon to repay to the District Councils the expenses incurred not merely in repairing the roads, but in the improvement and enlargement of them, and of course the enlargement and improvement would include the widening of streets or the buying up of property. It must be evident to the Committee that it would be impossible to lay on any County Authority any such burden. Of course, the Government recognized that there was some grievance in a case such as that cited by the hon. Gentleman; but it was impossible to render the County Councils liable to the very heavy expenses in question. The Government would accept the first Amendment, which dealt with the powers of the Urban Authority, but they could not accept the second Amendment, which, as he said, threw on the County Councils liability which they could not reasonably be expected to bear.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. M'LAREN

said, he now begged to move to insert "improvement or enlargement" after "repair" in line 26. This Amendment raised a very important principle indeed, and it was one he really hoped the Government would see their way to accept. Of course, he did not wish to insist upon the insertion of the particular words he proposed. He was entirely at one with the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Long) in saying it would be absurd to expect the County Councils to pay for the making of streets or the buying up of property. He had no idea that the words he proposed would bear such a construction, and therefore he was willing to accept any proposal the Government might make to obviate such a rendering. The point he had in view was quite clear and distinct. He had in mind, as he had said, one case—it was one of a great many instances—in which the Leek Improvement Commissioners spent £80 in paving a short piece of road. By that they effected a great economy, they saved an annual outlay of £10 a-year for 10 years. If, instead of doing that, they had gone on expending £10 a-year for 10 years, they would have spent £100 in all. They would have got £75 back again into their own local coffers, and therefore they would have only laid a burden of £25 upon the Leek people extending over 10 years. Instead of that they spent £80, and when they had done so, they had to bear the whole burden themselves. No one knew that was the state of the law until this year. If it was an old and well-established law he would not press this point so very much; but a decision in the matter had only been given so late as the 7th of May. All that was asked was that this defect should be remedied. He would accept any words which would remedy it, and he earnestly appealed to the Government to consider the matter favourably.

Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 26, after the word "repair," insert the words "improvement or enlargement."—(Mr. M'Laren.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. HARRY T. DAVENPORT (Staffordshire, Leek)

said, that Leek was in the Division of Staffordshire, which he had the honour to represent, and he could confirm what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. M'Laren) had said as to the Leek case. When the street had been paved with blocks the Quarter Sessions, in the exercise of that economy which was one of their greatest characteristics, refused to make their contribution; the case thereupon came before the Courts, with the result mentioned. He hoped that some interpretation of the word "maintenance" or "improvement" would be inserted, which would meet such a case as this. He understood that the hon. Gentleman was prepared to vary his Amendment in any way which the Government might desire, and he trusted that the Government would be able to see their way to meet the views of the hon. Gentleman.

MR. M'LAREN

said, he thought that if they left out the word "enlargement," and agreed to the words "improvement with regard to paving," the difficulty would be met.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he thought that his Amendment would cover the matter, because it said that the County Councils might do so-and-so, and he thought that that was all that was necessary.

MR. BRUNNER

said, that the hon. and gallant Baronet's (Sir Walter B. Barttelot's) Amendment did not quite cover what might be an exceptional or temporary provision such as was required in the Leek case. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that provision might be made for an agreement between the County Council and the District Council which would meet such a case as the one in point.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that that was exactly what his hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment which had been added to the Bill did, because it said— The county council, and any district council may from time to time contract for the undertaking by the district council of the maintenance, repair, improvement, and enlargement of, and other dealings with any main road, and, if the county council so require, the district council shall undertake the same.

MR. STANSFELD

said, that, as he understood the position, they were now dealing with the case of an Urban Authority having elected to take charge of the main roads within its own limits; they were not dealing with the case where the District Council and the County Council had come to an agreement. His hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. M'Laren) had brought to the notice of the Committee a legal decision which, as he understood it, was this—that where the Local Body, instead of repairing a main road in the old style, had repaired it in an improved style, it had been held not to be repaired, but to be a re-making of the road, and that thereupon it had been held that the Local Body must bear the whole cost of such remaking. What had been done might prove an economy in the long run; but still the Local Body had no claim at all for a contribution. He was sure that everyone in the House wished the County Council to contribute a fair proportion in respect to what was necessary for the maintenance of the main roads within the limits of a smaller district. It might be that, where there was a great deal of traffic, paving would, in the long run, be more economical; but whether it was more economical or not, the County Council, according to the legal decision, would get off without any contribution whatever. It was not always easy to find a way, on the spur of the moment, of getting out of a difficulty; but it occurred to him that a remedy might be found by inserting, after the word "repair," in line 26, the words "or reasonable improvement."

MR. FULLER (Wilts, Westbury)

said, that the difficulty might be met if they were to put in the Bill a definition of what was" maintenance." There were may other things besides paving which might come under the heading of "maintenance;" and, therefore, it was as well that there should be a definition of the word.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he understood that the point was that there should be some provision by which a district should have some kind of claim for reasonable improvements made in their roads; and clearly, of course, it would be to the interest of the County Councils, who had to pay for the maintenance of the roads, that reasonable improvements should be made, because in that case the cost of maintenance would be less. If the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. M'Laren) agreed, the Government would accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) subject to future consideration, in case it did not quite meet what was wanted.

MR. M'LAREN

said, he was quite prepared to accept the Amendment suggested by his right hon. Friend, and therefore asked leave to withdraw his original proposal, and he would then move the words suggested—namely, "or reasonable improvement."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 26, after the word "repair," to insert the words "or reasonable improvement."—(Mr. Laren.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he had now to I propose to leave out the words— In like manner and on the like conditions as the contribution towards such costs is directed by the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878, to be paid. The reason ho proposed to omit these words was that he found, from a great many communications he had had, that they were likely to be misunderstood. The Bill only provided for the payment by the county of one-half the cost, and a great many of his correspondents outside the House and inside the House seemed to think that the retention of these words would imply, at any rate, that the contributions of the county should only be the same as were specified. The words were not at all necessary, and he proposed to omit them.

Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 26, to leave out the words from the word "road" to end of line 28.—(Mr. Ritchie.)

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

MR. BRUNNER,

in moving an Amendment which stood in his name, said, he supposed he would hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether the omission of words they had agreed to would affect the Amendment?

Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 26, after the word "road," to insert the words "to the extent of three-fourths of such cost, but otherwise."—(Mr. Brunner.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. RITCHIE

said, it was quite evident that the insertion of these words would be a total departure from the principle of the Bill. They had provided the County Councils with what was considered adequate funds; they called upon the Councils to maintain the whole cost of the roads, and the hon. Gentleman nom proposed to relieve them of one-fourth of that cost.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. RITCHIE,

in proposing to leave out from "sum," in page 12, line 30, the words— Based on the average expenditure on the road during the three years next before the passing of this Act, or the date of the road becoming a main road (as the case may be), said, it would be seen that in the Bill they proposed to say that the annual sum should be paid on the average expenditure during the three years before the passing of the Act. He had found, from a great number of communications he had received, that this basis was a basis which most of those who were interested desired to alter. Some correspondents suggested that the term should be three years, some five, and some seven. The Government, however, thought, on the whole, that it would be desirable not to lay down any absolute basis at all; and he, therefore, bogged to move the omission of the words.

Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 30, to leave out from the word "sum" to the second "as" in line 32.—(Mr. Ritchie.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'based on the average expenditure,' stand part of the Clause."

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, he thought there was a little misconception in using the word "contribution." He could quite see why the right hon. Gentleman had left out the last three lines of the preceding sub-section. If those lines had remained in the clause, all that the County Council would have been called upon to contribute would have been one-half of the cost of the main roads. "Contribution," which was the word used in this sub-section, was rather like "subscription;" the payment might be a large one or be a small one. He certainly thought that some other word should be substituted for "contribution."

MR. RITCHIE

Payment.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

The alteration could be made on Report.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. FULLER,

in moving the insertion of the words "from time to time" after "as may be," in line 32, said, unless those words were put in, the fixed annual sum would not be alterable from time to time, as the circumstances altered in the different rural districts. The wear and tear on the roads might be increased or decreased in certain circumstances, and the contributions should, therefore, be varied from time to time.

Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 32, after "as may be," insert "from time to time."—(Mr. Fuller.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. BRUNNER,

in moving in the same page to leave out the word "arbitration," in line 33, and insert "the Local Government Board, after inquiry," said, he moved that Amendment at the request of the Association of Local Boards and other Sanitary Authorities, a very important Body which represented such authorities over a very large proportion of the country. They desired him to say they were so thoroughly satisfied with the action of the Local Government Board in these local inquiries that they would very much prefer being left in the hands of the Local Government Board. A good many of them had experience of arbitration, and it was not at all a pleasant experience. When the Local Government Board did its work well, and the authorities over whom it ruled were perfectly satisfied with it, he regretted to find—it might be through an excess of modesty on their part, but whatever it was he regretted very much to find it—that the Local Government Board was disposed to part with this work. He recommended this Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman, and trusted sincerely that he would accept it.

Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 33, to leave out the word "arbitration," and insert the words "the Local Government Board, after inquiry."—(Mr. Brunner.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'arbitration' stand part of the Clause."

MR. LONG

said, he thought the Amendment was unnecessary, because if the parties did not agree upon an arbitrator the Local Government Board would be empowered to interfere.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, he hardly thought that met the case. Arbitration was really a most expensive proceeding. He was not one of those who advocated denuding the Local Government Board of its powers. He thought that the Board exercised its powers most efficiently and economically, and he thought matters of this kind could certainly be settled in an hour or two by the Board, and at very little or no cost. In the interest of economy he asked the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment.

MR. RITCHIE

said, they must be very careful in this matter. The Local Government Board were perfectly willing to undertake any duties the House of Commons desired to place on the shoulders of the Board; but if questions of this kind were to be left for settlement by the Board, the House of Commons must be prepared for an increase in the Local Government Board Estimate. There was no Department of the Government whose officers were more hard worked than those of the Local Government Board at present. If the Committee thought it was desirable that this duty should be undertaken by the Local Government Board, it would not shrink from it; but the Board could not be expected to do the work without an increase of its staff.

MR. WOODALL (Hanley)

said, he hoped the Government would accept the proposal.

MR. HENEAGE

said, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, that the other night they were discussing what powers should be transferred from the Local Government Board, and even from the Home Office, to the new County Councils. Now, it appeared, hon. Gentlemen wished to transfer back powers to the Local Government Board. [Cries of"No, no!"] At any rate, they wished to cast fresh duties upon the Local Government Board, which by this Bill they intended to get rid of. The counties were particularly anxious that decentralization should take place; and, if that was so, surely hon. Members did not wish to hand over to the Local Government Board that authority which they thought, in the interests of the country, they should be relieved of. He trusted the Government would not accept the Amendment.

MR. HENEAGE

said, he would remind the Committee that this Amendment referred to disputes between the District and the County Councils, and the only question was whether those disputes should be settled by the costly method of arbitration or by the Local Government Board? What they were discussing the other night was the transference of the administrative functions of the Local Government Board, which they thought would be discharged better by the County Councils.

MR. RITCHIE

said, it was his intention, if the Committee accepted this proposal with reference to arbitrations, to propose the insertion of words later on by which the cost of these arbitrations would be very greatly reduced. What he intended to propose was the appointment by the Local Government Board of an arbitrator, under rules and regulations fixed by the Local Government Board. It would not be necessary they should have their own Inspector to do the work, but they might make rules which would prevent the great expense which undoubtedly did attend many of these arbitrations.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, he begged to point out to the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) that the arbitration was to take place in cases of disputes between the District and County Councils; and, therefore, it was clear that the County Councils could not adjudicate in their own case. With reference to the appointment of an arbitrator by the Local Government Board, he imagined that the right hon. Gentleman did not suggest that the arbitrator should be under the Board's control. The right hon. Gentleman would merely appoint a professional man, and he would charge very highly indeed for his arbitration work. He (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) did not wish to see the Local Government Board's Estimate increased, yet he would sooner vote for the addition of one or two Inspectors rather than that the County Councils should be called upon to defray the costs of arbitrations.

MR. RITCHIE

said, the Government would accept the Amendment.

COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E.R., Holderness)

said, he hoped the Committee would not induce the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment. He thought it would be very much to be regretted if the Local Government Board was going to have its finger in the pie more than it already had under the provisions of the Bill.

Question put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT,

in moving the insertion of the three sub- section which stood in his name, said, the first sub-section was very important, because, as he understood, his right hon. Friend was anxious that the County Councils should have more power than the Court of Quarter Sessions now possessed with regard to main roads; that they should be more liberal, if he might use the term, in accepting and taking over more main roads than had as yet been taken over as main roads. In many parts of the country there were certain parishes and certain districts which had no main roads at all, and yet they were called upon at the present moment to contribute largely to the maintenance of main roads in other districts. As he read the Bill, it was the intention of the Government that if the County Councils thought there was a road which ought to be made a main road, they should have the power to make it a main road. That being the case, he thought everyone would agree that the road should not be taken over and repaired by the County Council, or by the District Council, if the County Council delegated its powers to the District Council, until the road had been put in a proper state of repair. There might be one road in excellent repair and another road which had been absolutely neglected, and certainly the district in which the road was situated ought to be made to put the road in repair before it was taken over by the County Council. The next two sub-sections were to enable the County Council, in the event of the District Council failing to do its work, to compel the District Council to do the work, or to do the work themselves, and charge the District Council with the cost of doing it. He thought these sub-sections were absolutely necessary in the Bill; and, therefore, he begged to move their insertion.

Amendment proposed, in page 12, after line 33, to insert— (6.) Where a county authority order a road to become a main road, such order shall not take effect until the road has been placed in proper repair and condition to the satisfaction of the county council. (7.) If at any time the county council are satisfied, on the report of their surveyor or other person appointed by them for the purpose, that any portion of a main road, the maintenance and repair of which are undertaken by any district council, is not in proper repair and condition, the county council may cause notice to be given to such district council, requiring them to place the road in proper repair and condition; and, if such notice is not complied with within a reasonable time, the county council may do everything that seems to them necessary to place the road in proper repair and condition, and the expenses of so doing shall be a debt of the said district council to the county council. (8.) If any difference arises under this section between a county council and a district council as to what is necessary for the maintenance of a road in a condition fit for the conveyance of the through traffic, or as to the refusal of the county council to make a payment under this section to the district council in respect of any undertaking or road, or as to any notice given to the district council by the county council to place a road in proper repair and condition, such difference shall, if either council so require, be referred to arbitration, in manner provided by this Act."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. RITCHIE

said, he was inclined to think that this was a very desirable Amendment. It was quite clear that if the county were to pay for the maintenance and repair, and had power to contract with the Local Authority for the repair and maintenance of roads, there ought to be some power by which they could see that the money they paid was properly laid out in maintaining the roads in a proper state of repair. He did not suppose anyone was prepared to take any exception to the proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend, which merely provided security that the roads should be kept in a proper state of repair.

MR. HENEAGE

said, he would be glad to support the Amendment so far as the provisions of Sub-sections 6 and 7 were concerned; but he did not think they ought to have Sub-section 8. The County Council surely ought to be the judge of whether the roads were in such a state that they were prepared to take them over as main roads. It would be for the District Council to apply to have the roads taken over, and they must put them in a proper state before they were taken over. If they accepted Sub-section 8 arbitration would be again necessitated.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that if the Committee were disposed to accept the principle of the Amendment, he had one or two small Amendments to suggest. In the first place, "County Authority" should be altered to "County Council;" and, in the second place, he would ask the Committee to strike out the words— As to what is necessary for the maintenance of a road in a condition fit for the conveyance of through traffic, or as to the refusal of the county council to make a payment under this section to the district council in respect of any undertaking or road, or as to any notice given to the district council by the county council to place a road in proper repair and condition, as the Committee had declined to accept an Amendment in the same sense.

An hon. MEMBER: And leave out "arbitration?"

MR. RITCHIE

And "arbitration."

MR. WOODALL

asked, whether there were any means by which the District Councils or boroughs could be compelled to make certain thoroughfares main roads? Under the Act of 1878 there was an implied obligation that certain roads such as those leading to railway stations and directly communicating between two places should be constituted main roads. Did the right hon. Gentleman contemplate that there should be any sort of power given to enforce that obligation upon the Local Authorities?

MR. RITCHIE

said, the matter was one which hardly came under the clause. So far as Quarter Sessions boroughs were concerned, in which the County Authority had no power of declaring thoroughfares to be main roads, a provision would be inserted, in the Bill by which the County Authority would be called upon to make such declaration. But the Government had not made provision in the Bill by which the District Councils would be able to compel the County Councils to declare a road to be a main road. It would be within the power of the County Councils to do that, and he should think they would be prepared to do it.

MR. WOODALL

said, it was obviously in the interest of the County Authority to avoid increasing its liabilities by constituting main roads; but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would give the matter his consideration, seeing that he was taking such great care that the County Authorities should not make the main roads, except under the conditions which the right hon. Gentleman had set forth.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

asked, whether it would not be well to follow this precedent in boroughs where streets were declared highways? There was no arbitration or dispute in the matter; but the Local Authority had to decide whether the street was made to its satisfaction before it took it over. He thought that before the County Authority was called upon to take over a main road, such authority should be satisfied that the road was in a proper condition. The County Authority itself, it seemed to him, should be the judge in the matter.

MR. RITCHIE

The right hon. Gentleman means that that should be so, so far as Sub-section 8 is concerned?

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

Yes; I would take that sub-section away altogether.

MR. BRUNNER

said, the same rule obtained in the rural districts under the Rural Sanitary Authorities at the present time. The Rural Sanitary Authorities were not bound to accept a road, unless it was put in proper order before being handed over to them.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

said, that in Sub-section 6 it was provided that the County Council should be the authority over the roads, and that the roads should be made to their satisfaction; whereas Sub-section 8, as proposed by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), made provision for disputes arising between the County Councils and the District Councils as to what might be necessary for the maintenance of a road in a condition fit for the conveyance of the through traffic, or as to the refusal of the County Council to make a payment under the section to the District Council in respect of any undertaking or road, and the sub-section provided for the reference of such difficulty to arbitration. But this might be held to apply to what the County Council might have a right to require to be done before taking over a road, and therefore he thought it would be better to leave out Sub-section 8 altogether. He would, therefore, move its omission.

Amendment proposed, to the proposed Amendment, to leave out Sub-section 8.—(Sir Richard Webster.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section 8 stand part of the proposed Amendment."

MR. STANSFELD

said, that the substance of Sub-section 8 was practically contained in Sub-section 6, which was governed by Sub-section 7. Under Sub-section 6, the County Authority would determine whether it should order a road to be a main road; and, having satisfied itself upon the point and taken the road over, it would be bound to fulfil its obligations under the Highways and Locomotives Amendment Act of 1878.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said, it was because he considered that ambiguity would arise in interpreting Subsection 8 that he moved its rejection. The County Council might say to the District Council or other authority—"We will not take over a certain road until you do something which we consider necessary for its maintenance in the future;" and under Sub-section 8 this might be supposed to amount to a dispute to be settled by arbitration.

MR. STANSFELD

said, that in the event of any difficulty arising between a County Council and a District Council on a road becoming a main road, there would be a sufficient power already in the law to enable a settlement to be arrived at.

Question put, and negatived.

VISCOUNT EBRINGTON (Devon, Tavistock)

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would consider the advisability of giving the District Councils a locus standi on the question of getting thoroughfares made into main roads? It was necessary to make roads leading to railway stations main roads, and yet in some cases the County Councils might refuse to take them over.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he had already stated that this question would be considered at a future stage.

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY

said, there were new powers given under Sub-section 2 of this clause now before the Committee. The County Council, for instance, was to have power to turn a highway into a main road, and to contribute to the repair of a main road within the jurisdiction of a District Council without taking the entire management of such road upon itself. Well, those powers were liable to abuse, and he should like to have some explanation as to why County Councils were to have conferred upon them power not hitherto exercised by Quarter Sessions—power to contribute towards the maintenance of some highway in the county, while they did not take it over as a main road.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that it had been reported to the Local Government Board that there were cases in which roads, though they were not main roads, were to some extent in the category of main roads, and in regard to which it would be advisable to give a County Authority power to make some contribution. He did not think the County Councils would be likely to abuse that power. There might be some cases where County Councils would hesitate to take over the whole responsibility for the maintenance of a road, and yet where they thought they might fairly contribute something towards their maintenance.

MR. BRUNNER

said, he thought the County Councils might be trusted to do what was right in the matter. The next Amendment on the Paper was in his name—namely, in line 36 of the clause, after "highway," to insert the words "including any public footpath by the side of such highway." He had the authority of his hon. Friend the Member for the Radcliffe Division of Lancashire (Mr. Leake) to move the Amendment standing in his name—namely, after "highway," to insert "or public foot-path. He would move that Amendment, therefore, in preference to his own. He begged to point out that this was a permissive right to the County Council, and that, therefore, the objection would not apply which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had urged with regard to the Amendment relating to public foot-paths already brought under his notice. It seemed to him a very great hardship that everywhere all over the country, that part of the road which belonged to foot-passengers should have been allowed to become not only less and less in area, but less and less fit for their use every year. He desired, in moving the Amendment, to obtain from the Committee an acknowledgment of the principle that the County Council, no less than the District Council, owed a duty to foot passengers as well as to those who were wealthy enough to travel on wheels.

Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 36, after the word "highway," to insert the words "or public foot-path."—(Mr. Brunner.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. RITCHIE

said, that he saw a similar Amendment to this down in the name of several hon. Members, and having given this power in connection with roads that were not main roads, he did not see why they should not also give it in connection with main roads.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. HENEAGE

said, he now desired to move the Amendment standing in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse)—namely, in page 13, after line 8, to insert the following sub-section— Notwithstanding anything in the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878, contained, county councils may at any time declare that any road now being or hereafter to become a main road has ceased to be a main road and has become an ordinary highway, and section sixteen of the said Act shall apply to such road accordingly.

MR. RITCHIE

We have already provided a discretion to the County Council.

MR. HENEAGE

said, he was aware of that; but he wanted to do something more than they had yet decided upon. After the Act of 1878 became law, owing to a great deal of through traffic which used to pass on certain roads being diverted by railways, many old turnpikes were made main roads that ought never to have been made so. This had been done very often by the Local Government Board against the wish of the County Authorities, and in such cases as those he desired to give the County Councils authority—he wished them to be able to declare that certain roads should no longer be main roads. When the Highways Amendment Act came into operation in Lincolnshire, they appointed a very strong Committee indeed to examine into all the roads, and they sent in a carefully prepared scheme to the Local Government Board, saying which roads ought to be main roads and which ought not to be main roads. They only recommended that six miles of disturnpiked roads should be made main roads, with the exception of some small pieces of thoroughfares near railway stations, but they agreed that many miles of other roads should be made main roads; but what was done by the Local Government Board? They sent down an Order, declaring that all disturnpiked roads should be made main roads, and did not take the slightest notice of any of the recommendations of the County Authority. The consequence was that in Lincolnshire they had 30 or 40 miles of main roads which had no right at all to be main roads, and that they had other roads which should have been made main roads but were not. He thought that by accepting the Amendment it would be found that they could decrease the main roads in Lincolnshire by one-half.

Amendment proposed, In page 13, after line 8, to insert the following sub-section—"Notwithstanding anything in 'The Highways Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878,' contained, county councils may at any time declare that any road now being or hereafter to become a main road has ceased to be a main road and has become an ordinary highway, and section sixteen of the said Act shall apply to such road accordingly."—(Mr. Heneage.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

said, the right hon. Gentleman probably had not seen that which had been brought to the notice of the hon. and learned Gentleman who was to have moved the Amendment. He referred to the decision in the Court of Queen's Bench, in which it was laid down that the power of deciding the point in question was clearly by Statute vested in the Local Government Board. Where Local Authorities desired to get rid of existing main roads they must apply to the Local Government Board.

MR. HENEAGE

said, he was aware of that decision, and if he had known that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse) had not intended to move the Amendment, he (Mr. Heneage) should have himself put down a modified proposal on the Paper. This Amendment had been agreed to by the Lincolnshire Quarter Sessions, who desired that the County Councils should have the power to act in these matters without appealing to the Local Government Board. The Quarter Sessions thought the County Councils, who would be in possession of better information than the Government Department, would be the best judges of what should be done in the matter of deciding that certain roads should cease to be main roads.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)

said, in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth), he begged to move the Amendment standing in that hon. and learned Member's name—to add to line 11, on page 13, "the provisions of this clause should not apply to the county of London." He did not know that the Amendment was absolutely necessary; but it was clear, for many reasons into which he would not enter, that the provisions should not apply to London, and therefore there could be no harm in putting the matter beyond dispute by specific words.

Amendment proposed, in page 13, line 11, add the words "the provisions of this clause shall not apply to the county of London."—(Mr. Lawson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. RITCHIE

said, he would point out that it would be much more convenient to discuss the point with regard to London when they came to the London Clauses.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

COLONEL GUNTER (York, W.R., Barkston Ash)

said, the next Amendment, which stood in his name, he moved in accordance with the resolution passed by the Quarter Sessions, having jurisdiction over the district to which he belonged. The Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878, gave certain powers in regard to local divisions in Lancashire called "hundreds." Well, in Yorkshire similar local divisions existed, but they were called "wapentakes," and as the Act only dealt specifically with "hundreds" it did not apply in the case of Yorkshire. They had therefore the anomaly that in one part of the country one system prevailed, while in a district immediately adjoining and only separated by the county line, through the absence of one word in the section of an Act of Parliament, a different system prevailed. Considerable inconvenience was necessarily the result. They asked in Yorkshire to be put on the same footing as the adjoining county of Lancaster, and as he wished to have the same law applied to other counties where this anomaly existed, he had used the words "all counties," and the words "in any other district."

Amendment proposed, In page 13, at end of sub-section (7) add—"Provided that, in construing that section, it shall be deemed to apply to all counties, and that 'hundred' shall include wapentake;' and any hundred or wapentake charged with the expense of the maintenance and repair of all the main roads situate therein shall be relieved from the cost of contributing to the maintenance and repair of any main road, or part thereof, situate in any other hundred, or in any other such district."—(Colonel Gunter.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said, he thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman would scarcely press the Amendment. He was not sure, in fact, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman knew what the effect of it would be. So far as he (Sir Richard Webster) understood it, the effect would be to break up the counties into small divisions, and give local jurisdiction to those small divisions of the county which really should be dealt with by the County Councils as a whole, a policy which would be adverse to the principle on which the Bill had been framed. He could not see any practical reason for picking out wapentakes and hundreds, and making them subject to a special provision apart from the county at large. Considerable trouble would arise if the latter part of the Amendment were put in force, whereby particular districts, in consideration of their maintaining and repairing their own main roads, should be relieved from the cost of contributing to the maintenance and repair of main roads in other districts.

SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH

said, that in Lancashire the county was broken up into hundreds, and the care of the main roads was vested in the authorities of each district. In the West Riding of Yorkshire the same system entirely prevailed, but the word "wapentake" was used in place of "hundred," and in consequence of that the Local Authorities there were unable to exercise the powers which the authorities of districts abutting upon their own were able to exercise. It would, perhaps, meet the hon. and gallant Gentleman's point, if an Amendment were inserted declaring that the word "hundred" should include "wapentake."

COLONEL GUNTER

said, he would withdraw his Amendment in the hope that that Amendment would be inserted later on.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16 (Power to County Councils to enforce provisions of Rivers Pollution Act, 1876).

MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

said, he would congratulate the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) on the progress he was making with the Bill; but it was a certain disadvantage to him (Mr. Brunner), as hon. Members who had a fuller knowledge of the subject with regard to which he was about to move an Amendment than he had himself were not in their places, presumably not having expected the Amendment to be reached. His first duty was to make it clear what his Amendment was. The first Amendment standing in his name was in line 15, to leave out the words "so much." The second and third Amendments were consequential. His desire was this—that instead of making it the duty of each County Council to protect against pollution so much of a river as bordered on or ran through the territory over which it had jurisdiction, to provide that each river in the country should be under the protection of a joint committee, consisting of or elected by all the County Councils of the districts through which that river ran. This matter of the pollution of rivers was a very important one. It was a matter upon which the prosperity of the country, and in a large measure the food of the people of the country, depended, as well as the amenities of life throughout the rural districts. Now, this matter of the protection of rivers from pollution ought to be in the hands of a powerful body. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would, he be- lieved, acknowledge that the Act passed a few years ago with the very best intentions had remained practically a dead letter, and he was convinced that it was a dead letter mainly on account of incompetency of the Bodies in whose hands the working of the Act was left. It was no disgrace to any Local Authority to be inefficient in this matter, for the protection of a river from pollution, if it were to be dealt with wisely and well, required a very high degree of scientific knowledge, and it was absolutely impossible that the Local Authorities in a county should be able to employ men of the requisite scientific attainments. His proposal would provide not only for a Body large enough and important enough to secure for themselves the necessary scientific advice, but it would provide for the reconciling of all the interests which were concerned in each river. It was a very frequent thing that a river would go through a mining district to begin with, it would then run through a manufacturing district, and then again run into an agricultural district. Now, if they left the protection of the river—say, the upper portion—in the hands of the County Council, the probability was that there would be on that Council a majority of men interested in mining, and such a Council would be especially careful of the interests of mining, rather than of those of the river. Then, if they went to the district where the County Council represented the manufacturing interest, they would have a majority rather concerned in the protection of manufactures than in the protection of the river; and if they went further, they would find the river in the hands of a Council entirely of one opinion—that was to say, all interested in the preservation of the purity of the river, because the pollution of a river never did good, but always considerable harm, to agriculturists. What he proposed was that the men representing the mining interest, the manufacturing interest, and the agricultural interest should meet together and should act in such a way as not to destroy each other's interest. He wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, that such a Body as this would never act except reasonably, and when it did act it would act with great power. He himself, though a manufacturer, was happily not a pollutor of rivers, and he was desirous that the Rivers Pollution Act of 1876 should no longer remain a dead letter. He was anxious that the rivers should be protected, but he was no less anxious that rivers should be protected without doing injury to the important industries of the country. What was the ordinary course of affairs under the present Act? The rule was that the Sanitary Authorities cared nothing for the pollution of a river until the nuisance became intolerable. When a nuisance became intolerable it was a very frequent thing for the Local Authority to attack a manufacturer, close his works, and ruin his business, and in cases where they had taken such a course, if one went to the river again a few years afterwards, one would find, as a rule, that not one pennyworth of good had been done by this violent action. Now, rather than an immense amount of money should be spent from time to time in legal proceedings, and that great injury should be done to a manufacturer and to the country through the destruction of industries now and then, he thought it would be well to have the management of the whole of each river in the hands of a joint Body, such as he had described, who would always agree to act reasonably, but with the necessary amount of force. He trusted he should carry the Committee with him in this matter. He did not wish to take up any more time than was necessary, and he would therefore content himself with pointing out to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board this one further advantage of the adoption of the Amendment he proposed—namely, that when once they were accustomed to look upon a river as an entity from one end to the other, they would begin to take care of it, not only in the matter of the prevention of pollution, but also in the prevention of floods. He felt convinced that if the Amendment were adopted and the Body he proposed had been in operation a very few months, whenever a flood took place the fact that it was coming would be announced from the upper reaches to the manufacturing and other districts 12 hours beforehand, so that the farmers would be able to get their hay out of the way, the cottagers might block their doorways, and the manufacturers might make their factories secure. By the adoption of his Amendment they would find that the rivers would be cared for in every particular, and that the country would be enormously the gainer, He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 13, line 15, to leave out the words, "so much."—(Mr. Brunner.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

said, he was not at all sure that the Amendment the hon. Member had moved would meet the idea he had put forward; on the contrary, he was inclined to think that it would do something to make matters still worse. His (Mr. Brad-laugh's) objection—which, perhaps, he might raise on that Amendment—was to the clause itself as it stood. They had clear evidence before them that the Rivers Pollution Act of 1876 up to the present time had utterly failed, and that it had failed because in many cases the persons who were the offenders were at the same time the persons who had to administer punishment; it was their duty to punish themselves for their own offences, and naturally they did not do so. Well, he did not see how the Amendment of his hon. Friend was going to meet the difficulty. He did not know whether he should trouble the House with evidence on this point; but there was, at any rate, plenty of evidence very briefly stated and explained in the admirable Report of Mr. Fletcher on River Pollution. Mr. Fletcher gave a number of cases, and his view was clear in his Report to the effect that the power ought to betaken from the Local Bodies and put into the hands of the Local Government Board, through its special Inspectors—namely, the power to enforce against these people that which they would not enforce of themselves. It might be said that they were going to have a higher sense of morality upon the new Local Bodies; but to his mind the question was one of extreme difficulty. There would be a clashing of interests between the different Local Authorities, which clashing of interests had already been found to exist, as Mr. Fletcher stated in his Report. The Act had entirely failed on account of this clashing of interests, and the river pollution question was becoming of more and more importance every day. They had now in our large centres of population a menace of evil which was constantly growing, because of the want of care of the water supply, which was necessary for the people to drink. He thought it desirable to say that on the present clause. He did not know whether the Government would say that under the new authorities to be constituted by the Bill something more would be done to deal with this matter than had been done in the past. He (Mr. Bradlaugh), at any rate, could not support the Amendment, as it seemed to him that it would only aggravate the existing evil.

SIR LYON PLAYFAIR (Leeds, S.)

said, if the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had considered what would be the effect of the Amendment if passed, he would have supported it rather than have opposed it. It was quite right to say that the Rivers Pollution Act had failed on account of local interests, and on account of small areas; but the object the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Brunner) had in view in proposing this Amendment was to enlarge the administration of the river into a drainage area, and thereby to overcome the local interests that defeated the present Act. The larger they could make their drainage area, and make a combination of interests through a joint committee, the better would they be able to prevent river pollution. They had successfully combated with the fouling of air in various districts, by entrusting the Local Government Board with power to put a stop to the pollution of air by emanations from factories. Well, the principle of this Bill was to take away certain powers from the Local Government Board, and give them to the Local Authorities; but the more they cut up the drainage area and gave jurisdiction to different authorities through which rivers passed, the more completely would they prevent the efficient action of the Rivers Pollution Act. He, therefore, quite sympathized with the hon. Member who proposed the Amendment to get a committee of all the interests in the drainage area to act, because he believed that in that way they would have a much better chance of preventing the pollution of rivers. It was nothing short of a disgrace to the country that we should be so far behind in preventing river pollution. As he had said, we had grappled with the pollution of air, and we ought now to grapple with the pollution of water. Very long ago, ages ago, long before the history of this country commenced, some countries were in the habit of taking measures for the prevention of the pollution of rivers, seeing the importance of such action much more clearly than we seemed to do. In Egypt the Nile was thus protected in ancient times, and he had always felt that Moses made a mistake in not carrying away with him one of the Commandments of the Egyptians, that they should not pollute rivers. Unfortunately, Moses did not add that to the Ten Commandments, and the result was that all rivers had ever since been polluted. This question was of great importance to the agricultural community, and he thought that if the power of preventing the pollution of rivers were taken away from the Central Authority, the more urgent it was to combine Local Authorities throughout a drainage area, which might include several counties, and to make them responsible for the prrity of the common streams.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle Of Wight)

said, he hoped the Committee would not adopt the Amendment. He wished to point out to the hon. Member who had moved it that the excellent object he had in view, and to further which he would establish joint committees, could already be attained by the provisions of the Bill as it stood. There was nothing to present one or two, or, in fact, any number of counties, coming together and forming a joint committee. He was acquainted with the Report of Mr. Fletcher, which stated that the Rivers Pollution Act had failed in many respects; but still there were other cases in which that Act had been of considerable use, and he thought it was desirable that they should avail themselves of any steps which could be taken to prevent the pollution of rivers. He agreed that when they were dealing with this question of drainage, floods, or with the river as a whole, it might not only be desirable, but necessary, that the matter should be taken in hand by a joint committee of the County Councils, who would deal with the whole drainage area. But they had also to deal with large and substantial local pollutions. There had been many cases where there had been very serious local pollutions, and it seemed to him that it would weaken the power of the County Council if, in the case of a sudden and serious pollution in their portion of the river, they should possess no power of dealing with it until they had assembled together a committee from the other portions of the river who had no interest in the matter. The County Councils would not be able to act by means of a joint committee. By all means let the hon. Member (Mr. Brunner) put down an Amendment, if he chose, to enable large joint Bodies to deal with pollutions which required the interference of all districts through which the river ran; but he (Sir Richard Webster) could not see why a particular County Council should not have power to prevent pollution in that portion of the river which ran through its own jurisdiction. When the Committee remembered that the clause said that— A county council should have power, in addition to any other authority, to enforce the provisions of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, (subject to the restrictions in that Act contained) in relation to so much of any stream as is situated within, or passes through or by, any part of their county, and for that purpose they shall have the same powers and duties as if they were a sanitary authority within the meaning of that Act, they would be at a loss to see what reason there was for preventing a County Council which might be anxious to do this work from taking it in hand. He quite agreed with the observation—he had already said so—that something should be done to see that the provisions of the Rivers Pollution Act were better observed; but it would not, in his opinion, be a step in that direction to try to prevent the County Councils from discharging this function over that part of the river over which they had jurisdiction. Though he believed that something should be done to prevent the pollution of the water supply, he did not think it would be desirable to accept this Amendment.

MR. BRUNNER

begged to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Local Authorities were very frequently not to blame if they did not interfere with the pollution of a river, and for this reason—that when a pol- lution took place within their jurisdiction it very frequently did no harm there, and nobody grumbled. The pollution did harm, and was felt as a very severe loss, not in the district where it occurred, but far below. It was just for the reason that, where the pollution was caused, it was not felt as a nuisance, and that it was caused by people who would have a majority on the County Council, within whose jurisdiction the mischief was caused; it was just for that reason that he wanted the County Councils to join together for the purpose of protecting each river from source to sea. He was a manufacturer himself, and had been amongst manufacturers all his life, and had had this question before his eyes for a great many years. He knew exactly where the shoe pinched, and he could assure the Committee, from experience, that it would do right to follow him, and not the hon. and learned Gentleman.

MR. AMBROSE (Middlesex, Harrow)

said, he would point out that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had misapprehended the effect of the Amendment. Instead of weakening the hands of the County Council, he took it that the effect of striking out these words would be to enlarge the power of County Councils generally, although it would restrict the power of each County Council individually in the matter of the prevention of river pollution in its own district. He held that if any pollution took place in a portion of the river passing through a district under the jurisdiction of the County Council, that that County Council should have the same power of taking action as that possessed by the riparian owner. The riparian owner was able to take action against anyone fouling the stream, though that fouling took place above his land. If they struck out these words, then a County Council suffering from the fouling of the river in another county would be able to take action under this particular clause; therefore, it seemed to him that instead of narrowing it would enlarge the power of those Councils.

SIR LYON PLAYFAIR

said, the hon. Member (Mr. Brunner) had in his Amendment an important provision which would remove the objection of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General look at the further Amendment of the hon. Member on the following page—namely, to insert at the end of line 21 the following words:— And in every case where a stream passes through or by more than one county, the Local Government Board shall direct the council of every county through or by which such stream passes, to join in appointing out of their respective bodies a joint committee, which shall, in relation to the whole of such stream, have, all the powers and duties by this section granted to a county council. That Amendment described the way in which the proposal would work, and did not take away the power of the County Council, but only added to it. He would ask the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to what would happen now. They were taking out of the counties a considerable number of large boroughs through which a river passed. The County Councils would not be able to go into these large boroughs and say—"This stream has been fouled within your jurisdiction, and we must take action upon it, to prevent a continuance of the evil," because the borough would have become a county in itself. Therefore, if the Committee wished to make the measure when it became an Act of Parliament an efficient one for the prevention of river pollution, they must form an authority larger than a single County Council, and including, in fact, the drainage area, which would enable them to go into the boroughs and the counties, and to have all the interests combined in order to put a river into a state of purity.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT (Sussex, N.W.)

said, he merely wished to say one word as to this question, because this was really as important a clause as they could have in the Bill. It was notorious that all over England our rivers and streams were polluted, and that this river pollution might be prevented if proper means were taken. He held that the Bill was the measure on which these means might be taken; but he ventured to think that these means were not at present contained in the clause. He did not see how, under the clause, one County Council would have power to deal with another County Council which refused to do its duty in regard to that portion of the river passing through their district; and what he was anxious to see was that some power should be given by which the pollution of a river could be prevented from its source to its outfall. Unless they had some better means of action than that which was proposed by the clause, they would never be able to put an end to river pollution. He knew how much the health of the country depended upon a good water supply; therefore, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would do well if he strengthened this clause in the manner suggested on Report. With the legal advice his right hon. Friend was able to get, he, no doubt, would be able to put words in the Bill to effect all they desired.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

said, the Government desired by means of the clause to provide a remedy for some of the evils which were admitted to exist with regard to river pollution. It had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) that the offender at present was the very authority for putting the Act in force, and that, naturally, on the part of this authority there was a pardonable reluctance to do so. That being so, the Government were desirous of taking advantage of the larger area and authority they were setting up in the Bill to provide a means by which a remedy might be found in places where the fault lay with the Sanitary Authority itself. Under the power which would be conferred by the Bill, the boroughs would be still charged with the duty of preventing the pollution of rivers; but if they did not perform their duties, the Bill would enable the County Councils to intervene. It was also provided that where a stream was in more than one county a joint committee should be formed for the purpose of taking any action. The only difference between the Government and the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment was this—the Government thought they could fairly rely upon the authority drawn from so large an area as a county to do its duty under this provision; and, on the other hand, hon. Gentlemen who supported the Amendment thought they could not rely upon the County Council, though it were returned from a large area, and though it might be charged with many very important duties, and though they were in hopes of being able to secure an authority powerful enough to put in force the Acts of Parliament with the administration of which these Councils were to be charged. The Government were still of opinion that the County Authority would do its duty in this respect. It seemed to him (Mr. Ritchie) that by adopting the Amendment, and the other Amendments on the Paper by the hon. Member, it would be made impossible, or practically impossible, for one County Authority to act with regard to streams which did not come wholly within its own area—that if a stream passed through three or four counties, it would be impossible for any one county to act by itself for the purpose of preventing pollution within its own area. He understood that was not the view of the hon. Gentleman, and it might be that he (Mr. Ritchie) was mistaken; but, at any rate, it seemed to him that the discussion which had taken place indicated that a much larger provision than that advocated by the Government should be adopted. He would, therefore, recommend the Committee to adopt the suggestion which had been thrown out—namely, that they should let the clause stand as it was, with the view of enabling the Government, with the light which had been thrown upon the whole matter, to consider whether they could insert some words which would make the clause a more effective one.

SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH (Lancashire, Clitheroe)

said, he rose to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board the point mentioned just now by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair), which the right hon. Gentleman had not noticed. He (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth) did not wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman to enlarge the Bill beyond what its original drafting would have accomplished; but he wanted to impress upon him the condition of that part of Lancashire with which he (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth) was best acquainted—namely, that part drained by the Ribble and its tributaries. That river was polluted by about five districts. As the Bill originally stood, those districts would have been dealt with by the County Council; but the Amendment making Burnley and Blackburn into counties of boroughs had removed two of those districts. The County Councils of Burnley and Blackburn would be supreme in their own districts, and there would be no power for the County Council having jurisdiction over the other three districts to come in and deal with the tributaries of the Ribble as they passed through Blackburn and Burnley. In that way the County Council might find itself powerless to prevent pollutions originating in the districts of Blackburn and Burnley, and injuring the important districts of the county below those towns. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would given some attention to the matter, in order to prevent any difficulty arising in this respect.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had pointed out that the Government did not desire to cut down the powers of the County Councils, but that what was desired was to supplement their powers by a more powerful and more representative Body. If the hon. Member (Mr. Brunner) would withdraw his Amendment, the Government would undertake to bring forward an Amendment to carry out the hon. Gentleman's views in line 21. It would be necessary to alter the clause that dealt with rivers passing not only through one county into another, but through a borough and a part of a county. The subject having now been debated at some length, and fairly well understood, it would be well for the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment, for, either now or on the Report stage, the Government would add to the clause words to enable a joint authority to be constituted consisting of representatives of the Local Authorities, which would best enable the points last referred to to be dealt with.

MR. STANSFELD (Halifax)

said, he thought that to carry out the object of the hon. Member for the Northwich Division of Cheshire (Mr. Brunner) a little more would obviously be necessary than the Amendment proposed; therefore he trusted the hon. Member would accept the suggestion of the Government, and withdraw his Amendment.

MR. BAUMANN (Camberwell, Peckham)

said, that neither the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board nor the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General seemed to have remembered that by the clause, as it stood, the River Thames outside the Metropolis would be absolutely unaffected, and would remain, as now, under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Thames Conservancy Board. The clause, as it now stood, was subject to the regulations of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, in which there was a clause saving the powers of the Thames Conservancy Board. Now, the Thames Conservancy Board was a very bad authority indeed for the protection of the Thames—

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

wished to point out to the hon. Member that the saving powers to the Thames Conservancy Board did not prevent the operation of the Rivers Pollution Act. It was necessary to insert the saving clause, in order that the Conservancy Board might retain the powers they already possessed; but these powers did not override the powers of the Act.

MR. BAUMANN

said, that the Thames Conservancy Board was the authority for carrying out the provisions of the Act. He knew that that was the case in connection with the complaints made not long ago as to the pollution of the river by house boats, and the difficulties created by steam launches. It seemed to him that the powers in the case of the Thames should be in the hands of the County Councils of the districts through which the river passed, and should be taken out of the hands of the Conservancy Board. He trusted that the Government, after they had considered this point, if they thought he was right, would on the Report stage introduce such words as would carry out his suggestion.

MR. BRADLAUGH

said, that if it was understood that the Government intended to give to the County Councils full control of the streams so far as they exercised jurisdiction over the districts through which they passed, and in addition to create another authority, as anticipated by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, then he thought it would be well to leave the matter over till the Report stage, because he thought it would be impossible to agree to the form of words to be adopted now. He was of opinion that the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman would deprive the County Council of the necessary authority for dealing with this subject, rather than the reverse.

MR. RITCHIE

said, the hon. Gentleman had stated correctly what the Government proposed to do. Their proposal was that they should be allowed to take the clause as it stood, in order to amend it at a later stage.

MR. PICTON (Leicester)

said, he would ask whether the words in the clause "in addition to any other authority" preserved the authority of the County Council? Did the proposal mean that the authority should be exercised under the clause in addition to that exercised by the Sanitary Authority as it already existed? Supposing the Amendment of the hon. Member wore inserted, several County Councils, "in addition to any other authority," would have power to enforce the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act in case of emergency.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member withdraw his Amendment?

MR. BRUNNER

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry)

said, there was likely to be a conflict of opinion between the authorities constituted under the Bill, and the existing Town Councils or Local Boards. There were towns which had Sanitary Authorities, through which rivers passed; and as the County Council would have jurisdiction over such rivers, some Amendment, he thought, should be inserted, in order to prevent the conflicts certain to arise when two authorities exercised similar jurisdictions within the same area.

MR. BRUNNER

said, the Chairman had been a little too quick for him—as, indeed, he was too quick for most people. He just wished to ask this question, whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was to be taken as assuring him that the County Councils would include the Councils of boroughs?

MR. RITCHIE

We will take care that that is so.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17 (Power of county council to make bye-laws).

MR. HENEAGE

Will the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board have the clauses already passed reprinted as amended?

MR. RITCHIE

They have been reprinted.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday 3rd July, at Two of the clock.