Class II. (Hansard, 15 August 1911)

HC Deb 15 August 1911 vol 29 cc1765-824 1765

§ Resolution reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,744,191 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II. of the Estimates for Civil Services."

§ [For Services included in this class, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th August, 1911, col. 1677.]

§ Mr. CHARLES BATHURST
I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
4.0 P.M.
I move this reduction in order to call attention to the administration of the Road Improvements Fund by the Road Board constituted under the Act of 1909. During the last three weeks an official report has been presented to this House by the Development Commissioners, stating what is their general policy and what are the conditions and terms upon which grants are made by them or recommended by them to be made out of the Development Fund. That is provided for by Section 4 of the Development and Roads Improvements Fund Act. There is a similar sec- 1766 tion in the second part of the Act, namely, Section 14, which provides that an official report shall be presented by the Road Board in reference to matters coming under their cognisance. Section 14 is to this effect:—
"The Road Board shall make to the Treasury an annual report of their proceedings, and such report shall be laid annually before Parliament by the Treasury."
It is extremely difficult to discuss the administration of this new authority in the absence of the report for which Parliament has expressly made provision. It is only due to this House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the hon. Member for the Newmarket Division (Sir C. D. Rose), who, I understand, is able to speak in this House on behalf of the Road Board, should give some explanation why the considered policy of the Road Board is not brought before Parliament, as contemplated by the Act, and why no report has been presented to the House. In the absence of an Autumn Session, the Session in the ordinary course having come to an end by this time, we should not have received any report while Parliament was sitting until the beginning of another year. Surely that is dilatoriness on the part of this new authority, which is quite inexcusable when it is borne in mind that grants of very considerable sums are being made to various local authorities almost every day.
1767 I am bound in fairness to confess that, so far as I know what the policy of the Road Board is and the system they are adopting and recommending for the treatment of the main roads of the country, I for one have no complaint to make. I would emphasise particularly the very advantageous method which they are advising county councils and other road authorities to adopt, of spraying roads with tar, especially where those roads pass through villages. The villager has had great cause to complain during the last few years of the thoughtlessness of many drivers of motor cars. Not only have the roads been largely destroyed as to their surface by these new heavy road locomotives, but dust has been thrown up in all directions. This dust has done a great deal to spoil the cottage gardens, and some of it has passed through the windows of the cottages, causing great discomfort to the occupants. In addition to that there are the very objectionable noises, particularly at night, to which I am glad to see that the Press is at present drawing attention. As regards the spraying of tar upon roads which pass through villages, it is an undoubted benefit for which we have to thank the Road Board. The chief grievance that I and others have against the Road Board is the policy to which they appear to be committed of making no Grants for the purpose of improving great road arteries throughout the country, unless the grant is made subject to a contribution generally of a very considerable amount on the part of the local authority. These contributions appear to vary from about 50 per cent. to something like 25 per cent. of the total cost of the im-improvements. It is hardly necessary for me to remind the House that in that now well-known Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, published in 1901, there was not one of the many so-called national services which the Commission advised should be paid for entirely or mainly out of national funds, upon which greater stress was laid than the maintenance of the great main roads, which were being used even then for motor traffic, and which have been used for that purpose to a very great extent from that date. I want to refer to the repeated statements which have been made by the Government, especially by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the effect that this new Grant out of the Treasury for the maintenance of main roads would not inflict or be accompanied 1768 by any additional burden on the local rates. In order to emphasise that, I will refer to the Debate upon the Budget Resolutions on 20th May, 1909. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then said:— I think at the beginning of the Session certain figures were given with regard to the enormous increase in the highway rates, and it was generally agreed that part of the increased expenditure was attributable to motors. … The old road will not do now that motor traffic is developing. He went on to say:— There is no doubt that motoring has had the effect of very considerably increasing the highway rate throughout the country, and there is a general feeling that there ought to be a contribution from the motors of the country towards the road expenses. He said further:— I think the money ought to be devoted solely to the use of the highway authorities of the country. It is intended to be used for the purpose of improving the roads, and to make better motor roads. Naturally, no doubt that will have an effect on the local charges for the simple reason that a great many local authorities now spend huge sums of money in making roads fit for motors, and to that extent grants must reduce the rates in districts where considerable sums of money are spent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1909, Vol. V. cols. 685–686.] That was his first detailed announcement on the subject. On 9th June, 1909, during the Debate on the Second Reading of that now somewhat famous Finance Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, while endeavouring to point out the very great advantage that agricultural property and the rural ratepayers were going to derive as compared with other sections of the community from the provisions of the Budget, spoke as follows:— We are also raising money for the purpose of spending a large sum on highways. It is well known that the rates have gone up, especially in the rural districts. I remember the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for South Dublin (now the Member fur the Strand), gave a ease on this very point in the Debate on the Address last year, showing the enormous increase in the highway rate, and that is especially the case in the country district where the motors tear up the roads, causing the highway rate to go up. Then came these words:— We are raising £600,000 to improve the roads. All that involves great relief to agricultural land, and what is the amount of that relief? I have reckoned it up, and I am prepared to substantiate the figures. It is a moderate estimate to say that there will be a relief of at least 4d. in the £ on the rates on agricultural land."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th June, 1909, Vol. VI., col. 340.] What is the actual fact? So far from there being any alleviation of the local charges for the maintenance of roads in consequence of the provision of this new fund, there is already a prospect of an additional rate in various counties of anything from 1d. to 3d. in the £. If the contemplated scheme of the Road Board is carried out in its entirety, the contribution demanded by them from the local authorities, which is a due proportion of the 1769 whole, will not be a matter of from 1d. to 3d. in the £, but will amount in a few years to something much more considerable. Is this carrying out fairly and honourably the expressed intention of this fund at the time it was brought into existence? The Road Board and the Treasury have not acted fairly by the local authorities in this matter. I suppose we shall be given the usual reason in this case as in other cases where the administration of this service, although a national service, is in the hands of the local authority, why some charge should be thrown upon the local ratepayer. It will be said that the responsibility rests with the local authority, and therefore, in order to avoid extravagance, some charge must be thrown upon those who represent the ratepayers. I can say with full confidence, if that is the only answer the Treasury can give, that the local authorities would gladly say in response, "We do not want any responsibility at all as regards these great main arteries of traffic throughout the country. We are quite prepared to have nothing more to do with either their construction or their maintenance, so long as we have not any charge thrown upon the unfortunate ratepayers." I do not believe that the just cause of the motorists will be fairly met, or that these great arteries of traffic will be properly maintained, until you have a central road authority whose exclusive business it is to administer this new road fund, and itself to carry out through its own staff the construction and maintenance of these great arteries of traffic.
There are other reasons why it is unfair to make the grants from the Road Improvement Fund conditional upon local contributions. One of them is that the work now demanded by the Road Board is very largely experimental. The Road Board themselves do not profess to be able to say what is the most reliable method of constructing roads in view of the traffic which those roads have now to bear, or what is the best preservative for the surface of those roads. Yet they are making it a condition of their grant to these local authorities that various substances shall be used in order to construct or maintain the surface of these main roads, although they themselves are unable to say whether or not in two or three years' time these methods will still be recognised as being efficient methods for making a durable road. The very fact of its being in the nature of an experiment should be an additional reason 1770 why the extra charge should not be thrown upon the local ratepayers. In addition to that, may I remind the House of the fact that the local authorities and the ratepayers are already largely chargeable for the traffic for which this fund is intended to provide, and they are only given a small proportion of the fund that is available from the taxes or the duties levied upon motor cars. This fund consists of two parts. It is drawn partly from the taxes upon petrol, and as to the other part from the excess over the receipts of the financial year 1908–9, which may be derived from the issue of motor car licences. The local authorities, although they have to maintain the roads very largely at the present time for the local traffic and the local motor car traffic, cannot by any possibility under the arrangements of the Finance Act of 1909–10 get any of the additional taxation upon motors which that Act provides, or any of the advantages of the additional licences issued since that date, and which will be issued in largely increasing numbers in the future. It would not be fair for the Treasury to say to them, as they may do, that to some extent at any rate these roads, which are now being improved, are being torn up by local traffic and therefore it is only fair they should contribute an additional amount out of local funds. That point is already recognised by Section 90 of the Finance Act, by which the local contribution was cut down to the amount received from those licences in the year 1908–9.
My main complaint under this head is that this sporadic, piecemeal policy operates most unfairly in those counties where there is a low rateable value and a large mileage of main roads for through traffic. I do not think I can give a better instance than that of the county which I have the honour to represent, the county of Wilts. It is a purely agricultural county, consisting very largely of down-land including Salisbury Plain, but, curiously enough, having two or three of those main arteries along which motors pass between London and the south and the south-west of England, probably to a greater extent than on any other roads in the kingdom, excepting possibly the Bath Road and the Great North Road. That unfortunate county will contribute anything from 25 to 50 per cent. for the purposes of traffic, which is not local at all, on those great road arteries, which are kept up mainly for the purpose of people from London and other wealthy inhabitants who enjoy the privilege of owning motor cars and of 1771 taking them considerable distances for purposes of pleasure and amusement. Why it should be thought fair to throw upon such a county 25 per cent. of the cost of a main road for this through motor traffic, I for one am at a loss to know. I would emphasise this further fact that, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the main object of improving those main roads is to provide a benefit for the motorists themselves. I am inclined to think that that benefit is going to be defeated owing to the lack of a comprehensive system under which every part of the same main road will be treated in like manner. What is going to happen at the present time? If a road between London and the south coast happens to pass through a county which is comparatively wealthy, and which thinks it worth while to contribute, say, 90 per cent., of the cost of the improvement, subject to 50 per cent. being paid by the Roads Improvement Fund, motorists will enjoy the benefit on that road of a well tarred and dustless surface. But when the motorist goes along the same main road from that county into a poorer county where there is a low rateable value, and where they cannot, in justice to the ratepayers, accept the onerous terms of the Road Board, he will pass over what may be described as a second class road, and therefore will get no benefit from the additional taxes which have been thrown by the Finance Act upon his shoulders.
It is an uneven and unfair method of seeking to adjust the benefit to the chief user of these roads, namely, the motorists. At the same time the problem is not quite the same in every part of the country. There are certain counties immediately outside London which not only have a very heavy motor-car traffic but also a very heavy traction engine traffic. These motors and traction engines bring a large amount of produce sold by retail by the large London stores into the remotest corners of these home counties. What is the result? Not merely that the roads are seriously torn up by this traffic, which is carried on mainly for the benefit of London tradesmen, but the unfortunate local tradesman, who loses to a large extent his own custom, has to pay a higher rate in consequence of that traffic. Surely that is one of the very strongest reasons for treating this problem, as it ought to be treated, as a national question. If these roads are to be used for that kind of traffic, radiating from London to the populous centres, the whole improvement and maintenance of these 1772 roads for that purpose ought to be thrown upon the national Exchequer, or at any rate those sections which the hon. Member for the Newmarket Division is already administering. There is another, case still, which is a strong case, and was lately brought to my notice, the case of East Sussex. In East Sussex the county council have represented to the Road Board various schemes in respect to which they desire some contribution from the fund in order to improve the roads for motor traffic, and the Road Board have represented to the East Sussex County Council one principal road upon which they desire the larger part of the Road Board contribution to be expended, namely, that section of the road running between Lewes and Newhaven. There are many roads in the country which might be described as national in character, but there are very few roads which could to the same extent be described as international in character as this very road. There is a very large proportion of traffic which is not what you may call British or national traffic. It is traffic which comes from the Continent, and which is in a sense linking up the Continental roads with our own. It is most unjust surely in a case like that that any demand whatever should be made upon the local exchequer.
I want to ask a few questions of the Secretary to the Treasury with regard to certain parts of this Act which apparently have not yet been put into operation. For instance, some emphasis was laid, when these proposals were first brought before this House, upon the desirability of constructing new main roads which would be, as it were, short cuts between various important centres which motorists might desire, for pleasure or business purposes, to visit, and it was suggested that these new roads should be constructed, and not merely constructed, but, after construction, maintained, entirely out of the Roads Improvement Fund, and special provision is made in the Act for that purpose. In answer to a question put to the Secretary to the Treasury on 10th May, this year, he said that no money had hitherto been set apart for the construction of new highways, and no Grants had yet been made for that purpose. I want to ask the Secretary to the Treasury why this important section of the Road Board work has not yet been embarked upon, and I want to remind him and the House that if this new method of improving roads is going to be economically carried out, in my opinion it 1773 would be much truer economy in many instances, to construct a new straight road than to expend a large sum in many instances estimated by the leading surveyors as costing £2,500 per mile, upon improving the surface of circuitous roads, the maintenance of which in the future is likely to be a very serious charge upon the exchequer of the local authority. Surely it must be better policy, a more economic policy, in many, if not all those cases, to construct a new short road in the most approved way, even though it might be more expensive, and at the beginning to provide a durable surface such as the Road Board would put down, than to reconstruct the surface of the old circuitous roads, which would cost a good deal more in renewals.
I should like to give an instance from my own Constituency. As most soldiers know, there is a very large amount of traffic between Bulford Camp and Tidworth Camp and Salisbury, which is the chief railway centre. That traffic, as between Bulford Camp and Salisbury, comes by a somewhat circuitous route, and the deputy assistant quartermaster-general, or, at any rate some high officer who has the administration of such matters in his hands at Bulford Camp, has already represented to the County Council and to the Road Board the very great advantage that would be derived in that district by taking the road straight through from the Camp to Salisbury. That is where most of the traffic of the district is to be found, and it would cut off about two and a half miles of the existing road. Not only would it take a very much shorter time to carry persons and provisions between Bulford Camp and Salisbury if this proposal were accepted, but, by constructing a new road it would be possible to obtain a far more durable road, to get better value for the taxpayer's money, and substantially to reduce the cost of maintenance of that road. That is only one of the many cases in which the construction of a new road must, in the eyes of anyone who understands the construction of roads and realises the enormous cost that modern methods of construction of roads involves, be true economy. May I ask the Road Board to consider that case among other cases of the same character in which new construction would undoubtedly involve a saving of the finances of the fund which they administer.
There is another case which I should like to bring before the attention of the Board, a case in my own district, in the 1774 Forest of Dean. An application was made by the county council for a grant out of the fund to throw a short bridge across the upper estuarial waters of the Severn. The object of asking for that particular grant was to enable the traffic passing from London into South Wales to avoid the circuitous route which it now has to take through the Stroud Valley, in order to cross the existing bridge in the city of Gloucester. The new bridge would cut off something like seven miles of road now traversed by the main motor car traffic in the county. There again expenditure, although perhaps more considerable than the expenditure which had been authorised by the Road Board in that county, would in the long run be true economy, because the surface to be worn in the future by motor cars, if that bridge were constructed, would be the surface of a very much shorter road. I see that in Part III. of the Act is provided that the construction of new roads may be deferred by the Road Board till such times as in their opinion would involve the employment of unemployed labour. I think it is quite possible that the Road Board have taken this fact into consideration. I am quite prepared to hear that that is one of the reasons why the construction of new roads ought not to be carried out. That may be a reason for not carrying out the construction of new roads all over the country on a very large scale, but it is not a sufficient reason in the interests of true economy and of motorists for not carrying out the construction of new roads in certain districts where circuitous roads would be obviated. I also want to ask why it is that nothing has been done to carry out Section 13 of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909. That section provides:—
"The Road Board may, with the approval of and subject to regulations made by the Treasury, borrow on the security of the Road Improvement grants for the purpose of meeting any expenditure which appears to the Treasury to be of such a nature that it ought to be spread over a term of years, so however that the total amount required for the payment of interest on and the repayment of money so borrowed shall not exceed in any year the sum of £200,000."
Why is it that the Road Board have not taken advantage of that borrowing power provided by the Act? I ask this especially because, as I understand, the leading 1775 road surveyors in the country are of the opinion that in consequence of this new class of very heavy traffic to which our main roads are now subjected it would be good policy to construct our roads from the very bottom on an entirely new system altogether; to treat the mass of our roads throughout the country as being wholly unfit for the purpose for which they are intended, and to commence, as it were, de novo, expending, as I have already said, it may be £2,500 per mile upon making a road which would have a very much stronger and deeper bottoming, and which would be formed on the surface and coated on the surface in such a manner as the Road Board are now indicating as desirable. What these road surveyors have repeatedly pointed out is that if such reconstruction of present roads, or construction of new roads, were to take place the cost of maintenance in the future would be far less than it is at present and far less than it has been in the past, even with the ordinary, normal, county traffic. There, again, if the Road Board are prepared to embark on a bold policy—it is perfectly true at a considerable expenditure of public money—it ought to prove—in the opinion of experts, would prove—true economy in the long run, and the nation would be provided with large main arteries throughout the country of a type well suited to motor traffic, and so constructed as to be far more durable than our present roads.
I understand that the Grants from the Road Board for all purposes up to date have amounted to £275,390. The receipts of the Road Board to the end of the last financial year, 31st March, 1911, amounted to £862,640. The bulk of these Grants to which I have just referred are Grants, as I understand, which have only been made during the last two or three months. I would like to ask why it is that something less than one-third of the whole amount of the fund which is now standing to the credit of the Road Board, has hitherto been expended for these purposes? Why is it that, bearing in mind that so small a proportion of the total sum which has been provided by Parliament for the purpose of making these particular roads, which are a national concern, so small a proportion has been paid out of the total fund, why the remainder or a good part of it should not be provided from the same source instead of throwing an unfair obligation on local authorities, which, I sug- 1776 gest, it was never intended by this House should be thrown upon them? Judging from the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the famous Finance Bill was passing through this House, it never entered into his head that the matter should be treated as a local, as distinct from a national, obligation.

§ Mr. PERKINS
I beg to second the Amendment, and I desire to do so for the purpose principally of drawing attention to the fact that the Road Board has not issued its Report, which it is directed by Act of Parliament to do. The Road Board was constituted on 12th May, 1910. The Development Commission, constituted at the same time, have issued and published their Report dated 22nd June, 1911. We have no report whatever from the Road Board. It strikes one, in the absence of such a report, that the reason may be that the Board have nothing to report. I feel rather in the position of the ancient Israelites in having to make bricks without straw in attempting to criticise that which has not been done. Curiously enough, however, in the report of the Development Commission—not the Road Board—page 34, there is a reference, and one reference only, to road improvement. We are told there that on 15th February the first application was received for an Order for the compulsory acquisition of land from the Heaton Norris Urban District Council. The land, we are told, proposed to be acquired was for the rounding off of two corners of a street leading out of a road. Its extent is not more than a few square yards. Is it possible that the whole efforts of the Road Board and the somewhat expensive officials who comprise that Road Board have been directed to this one solitary proposal for the acquisition of a few square yards of land? Every Member of the House of Commons will agree with me that if the Road Board have any difficulty in disposing of their money every one of us can suggest local improvements in their roads which will cost a very great deal more than the amount of income which they have to spend.
I also want to direct attention to another fact. The Development Commissioners by the Act of Parliament are expressly prevented from dealing with road improvements. It is one of the things that they especially are not to do. Yet it is a curious fact, for which Members can look at page 34 of the report, that they claim credit for the solitary improve- 1777 ment in road widening. Another point I want to draw the attention of the Road Board to is a matter which I think is of very considerable importance to the people who dwell in the country, that is spraying the road surfaces with tar. We all know that there has been a good many experiments, which are still going on, as to the best method of treating road surfaces. There is a considerable difference of opinion amongst practical people as to whether after all the method of spraying surfaces with tar is the best. I myself, in my Constituency, have had very serious complaints, which I believe are very well founded, to the effect that the tar which is sprayed on the country roads in summer gets washed off by the rain into the adjacent streams, polluting the streams and poisoning the fish. It seems absurd that on the one hand we have a staff of chemists safeguarding the rivers from pollution, and making every effort to keep the rivers clean, whilst on the other hand we have an expensive body of Commissioners superintending the pollution of the rivers. I have no better method to suggest for the purpose of treating the roads, but I think the method of simply spraying with tar is a mistake, and that something foreshadowed by my hon. Friend who spoke last, something much more drastic in the direction of the total reconstruction of the roads from the bottom upwards would be an infinitely preferable scheme. Therefore I beg the Road Board not to spend too much money at the outset on the mere spraying of roads. My object in rising principally was to draw from the Government an explanation of the fact that no report has been published of the work, if any has been done, of the Road Board.

§ Sir CHARLES ROSE (who was very indistinctly heard)
I happen to be the only Member of the Road Board in this House, and I think it is desirable that I should make a short statement as to the actual work that has been done, and is being done, by the Board since it first came into operation. Although I am the only member of the Road Board present. I am not, of course, responsible to the House for the action of the Treasury. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] Every grant made by the Road Board has to receive Treasury sanction before being paid away. It is quite true that the annual report of the Road Board has not yet been published. It has, however, been before the Board, and it will be issued in a very short time. The 1778 hon. Member for Wilton has recited the work of the Board from the beginning, and perhaps I may confirm what he said. We were established in the early months of last year, and we had our first meeting in May. After the ordinary preliminaries had been gone through the first question we had to deal with was as to the possible amount of revenue at our disposal and how that revenue should be disposed of. We were led to believe through the assistance of the Treasury that the amount we would receive for the calendar years 1909–10–10–11 would amount probably to £ 1,000,000 sterling. That forecast has been very accurately fulfilled. The actual amount, I believe, as near as possible, paid to the Road Board up to last year was something like £1,100,000.
The next problem the Board had to solve was to lay down some general principle as to how the money should be allocated to the different countries. They had to deal with England and Wales, Ireland and Scotland, and it was no easy problem to decide on a fair and equitable basis for making this distribution. The Board took into consideration the facts at their disposal. They looked at the position of Ireland and Scotland as compared with England, and they tested the amount that Ireland and Scotland would receive on the basis of the amount of contribution received from those countries from Motor Spirit Duties or Motor Car Licence Duties; they recognise that that would not be a fair basis. Out of these funds, £1,000,000—I am speaking from memory—out of the total amounts received the amount received from Ireland is something like £38,000, and from Scotland something like £74,000. We dismissed that as an unfair bases as between Ireland and Scotland. We then, as far as we could, ascertained the real user of the roads in these countries, and we were quite satisfied from statistics that the burden of traffic in Ireland is very much lighter than in Scotland, and that in Scotland it is immeasurably lighter than in this country, and we came to the conclusion that it will not be fair to allocate the amount in proportion to the users of the roads, so we came to the conclusion taking everything into consideration, that the fair basis of dealing with the matter would be on the basis of population, because after all that was a safer test than anything else we could suggest.
On that basis then we made an allotment to Ireland of £150,000, and to Scotland of £175,000, leaving the rest for England. Some time afterwards we sent out cir- 1779 culars to all the highway authorities and county associations asking them to send in applications for grants which they considered necessary for work of an urgent character. The circulars to Ireland and Scotland indicated in a general rough way some roads on which the Board suggested it would be desirable to have the money spent. I am sure hon. Members will agree with me that in the case of this country it would be unwise to give grants broadcast and allow people to spend the money in various parts of the country without any definite scheme. Consultations have been held, and we have discussed the matter with local authorities, and they were in favour, as far as possible, of fixing upon a scheme that would be suitable. In this world you cannot satisfy everybody, but the course we adopted was thought to be the sanest and wisest policy. As regards England it was decided that the best means of making the allocation was to counties, also on the basis of population, through the various county authorities, and advised them of the amounts at their disposal for road improvement, and then inviting them to send in their application. Hon. Members can readily realise that the applications for grants very much exceeded the amounts we had at our disposal. The applications, I believe, as a matter of fact, amounted to £7,500,000.
The next step was to hold conferences and settle details, and we invited the various authorities of the counties to come up and interview our chairman and to bring with them their scheme so that we might go into the whole of the details. One hundred and thirteen conferences have been held, so that the Board was not by any means idle although it is true they may have delayed in presenting their report. These conferences have been going on continually during the past year, and many of the roads for which applications have been made have been inspected by the chairman and other members of the Board.
Dealing with the question as to how the Grants should be made, which is, I understand, quite a debatable point, and to which exception has been taken, I may say at once that the question was raised by the County Councils Association malcontents and received practically no sympathy at all, and the matter was dropped. I think it is a very 1780 plausible case when you put it before the authority and say to them you will only receive your grant on condition of your spending a certain amount. What is the position of the roads in this country—we have not had sufficient time yet to deal with the whole question—but there is no doubt that whether there is a Road Board or not the local authority would have to increase their rates very considerably in order to meet the ordinary everyday requirements of the new traffic. It would be much more simple for the Road Board to give to each local authority a certain amount to which they are entitled and have no more to do with them. The local authorities will then be much more likely to deal in a casual way with the amount than if they had themselves to pay a contribution which would make them much more careful as to the plans and in which they used the money and would make them see that it was much better spent than it otherwise would be. I may say that in the large majority of cases the local authorities would very gladly have further grants upon the same basis, and we could very easily distribute the whole of the money three or four times over to such authorities.

§ Mr. C. BATHURST
Does that mean they would be satisfied with an additional grant if the grant is made proportionally to the amount spent on the ordinary maintenance of the roads, or to that spent upon the additional improvement of the roads?

§ Sir C. ROSE
I was coming to that, I was going to deal with the bases upon which the Grants are made. The basis, as I understand, is this: You first ascertain the amount that would have to be spent by the local authority for maintenance on that portion of the road. Having done that, it is deducted from the full amount and of the balance we control three-fourths. In the case of Ireland they get in the majority of cases 50 per cent. of the gross cost, and that 50 per cent. of the gross is very much better that 75 per cent. of the net. The figure is very likely to be misunderstood. The character of the roads in Ireland differs totally from those in this country, but I am informed that upon that basis the amount is higher in Ireland than the 75 per cent. in England, and that Ireland receives better treatment than England or Scotland. I explained the basis on which we are working. Our policy may be approved or disapproved, but I for one believe it is a sound and a wise policy.
1781 In spite of the criticisms that have been made of the new method of road binding, experience has proved, especially in the case of Kent, Notts, and Sussex, that dust is being allayed and that the roads are put into a sound condition, and that very little damage is done to them even by very heavy motor traffic. In time to come the benefits of the new system will be found not perhaps in the reduction of the rates, but in many other directions. With regard to the methods we are adopting of road binding, one hon. Member opposite complained that the tar was washed off by the rain and carried into the streams, and another hon. Member stated that the matter was only in the experimental stage. I think it has got very much beyond the experimental stage, and that is recognised by all the road authorities, and there could be no better authority, as well as our chairman, and I take this opportunity of congratulating the Government on having secured his appointment. No other man in England could have such vast experience of dealing with road matters and traffic problem, and his presence places the Road Board in a very strong position. There are three methods of dealing with roads, and authorities differ in their views as to which is the better, but the treatment of roads and the improvement of roads has undoubtedly passed beyond the experimental stage, as is now recognised by all the highways authorities in the country.

§ Mr. C. BATHURST
Is it not a fact that in some cases tar macadam is recommended and in some cases granite treated with tarmac? Is that not evidence that this is still in the experimental stage?

§ 5.0 P.M.

§ Sir C. ROSE
No, I do not think so at all, because practically they are the same process. The whole essence of this principle is the use of this bituminous tar. Some of this tar has been down for five years, and it shows no signs of the road being in any way disturbed. We believe this is a wise policy to adopt in the interests of the country generally. We have been devoting our attention to the existing roads, and this will occupy our time for many years to come. We have had many applications for making completely new roads, but the cost is enormous. If every county will adopt the same principle as Nottingham, Kent, and Sussex, in a few years a great improvement will take place. 1782 Something has been said about the amount of the grant to the county of Sussex. May I point out that Sussex is only entitled to a certain amount, and if you expend a larger amount there it must come out of somebody else's share. We have thought it wise to deal with this matter on broad principles, and treat all localities practically alike. The remainder of the small amount of money has been distributed. The amount of time occupied in going through all the details and settling all the small points with the various authorities, takes so long that it is difficult to get the details settled. With the exception of about two counties, all the grants have been settled, and a considerable amount of money has been paid away. Probably in a very short time the whole amount due to the counties will be paid. We do not want to lay any proposals before the Treasury until we have got everything complete. I may say that the Secretary to the Treasury has been of great assistance to us, and has not caused one hour's delay in any applications we have put before him.
With regard to the county boroughs, they are in a very different position. Applications from the county boroughs are generally for widening their own thoroughfares, and hon. Members will recognise that that is a matter of very great cost, and practically deals only with local traffic. I think it would be a waste of money to spend sums in this way. We think it best to assist in improving the means of ingress and egress from the county boroughs where they go to congested neighbourhoods. The Road Board is dealing with this question. No Grants have yet been made to county boroughs, but their problems are at present under discussion. I can assure the House that there is ample opportunity for the Board spending a great deal more money than it has at the present time. We have power to deal with other improvements, such as the widening and cutting off of corners. I have never been in favour of the cutting off of corners, and I am not sure that this policy would not be more dangerous than leaving the corners as they are. The driver of a motor vehicle, under proper control, can turn these corners with perfect safety. The Board have made Grants and received assistance from local authorities, but the total amount applied to cutting off these corners has been practically infinitesimal. I think our policy in this respect has been supported by the highway authorities where there are very sharp 1783 corners at the bottom of the hill. Although this is a debatable point, and the Board would be very glad to hear any suggestions as to the injustice of the policy we have laid down, we believe it is a wise and sound policy that we should ask the local authorities to make some contribution towards the improvements they wish to have carried out. The Board believe that by dealing with the intolerable dust nuisance and improving roads they will in this way relieve the extra burden upon the rates that seems inevitable. I am speaking simply as an ordinary Member of the House, and many of the matters which hon. Members have raised are matters which concern the Treasury, and not myself. We adhere to our policy, and we believe that the policy of the Board in asking for contributions from the local authorities for works of improvement is a wise and a sound one.

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
I am sure the House is greatly indebted to the hon. Baronet for the interesting speech which he has just made, but I hope he will forgive me for saying that I think it is a little astonishing that two years after this Act has become law there is not a single Member of the House of Commons who can put his finger upon any document which will tell us who the members of the Road Board are, when they meet, how they meet, what they have done, what money they have got or expended, and what schemes they have proposed for England, Ireland or Scotland. I think that is a most extraordinary state of things. I could not believe it when I went into the Library today and hunted about trying to get some information upon the subject. I hope the hon. Baronet will not think that I am attributing any blame to him. As a matter of fact, we are dealing with an expenditure of over £1,000,000, and this House has a right to know how the money has been expended. In Ireland we have special reason for taking an interest in this expenditure by the Road Board. The case of the two countries necessarily is absolutely different. We do not know what a road is in Ireland, because there is not a road in the entire country approaching in character the roads around London. In Ireland there is not a road in character or service to be compared with any of the roads which are within a shilling cab fare of this House. Furthermore, the roads in Ireland were made, not for the advantage of the inhabitants, but for military purposes, or by the landlords at 1784 the expense of their tenants to enable seizures of cattle to be made and for the purpose of collecting rents. The result of the policy of the Conservative Government in 1898 has been that the whole of that burden has now to be borne by the general body of the people of Ireland. When you come to consider what it means to the farmer having a bad road and a good one, a road where you cannot haul 10 cwts. when you ought to be able to haul 22 cwts., it makes a great difference in the cost.
The question of having a good or a bad road is really one of the most important questions that can concern the agricultural people of the country. The hon. Baronet opposite said he was not in favour of cutting off corners. May I say that he does not know what a corner is in London. I do not believe he has ever seen a corner. I am specially anxious to know what the Board are doing in regard to some of our roads in Ireland. Take the road which has become an awful burden, not to my Constituents, but to another county—I mean the Prince of Wales route leading into Killarney. That road consists simply of huge stones thrown down any way. As has already been pointed out by the hon. Member below the Gangway, this road is not for the benefit of the local people, but for the benefit of the tourists from all parts of the Kingdom; and yet the county of Kerry has to bear the expense of maintaining it. It always happens that the most picturesque parts of any country are the poorest, because those parts are generally mountainous, and yet it is upon the poor people of the county of Kerry that the expense falls of what really ought to be a national charge. This route ought to be kept up not merely by the local people, but by all those who enjoy the scenery. In the case of a road of that kind it is absurd to allow it to continue in its present condition, or to demand from the people of Kerry that they should make a contribution out of their local fund towards this road, because practically nobody travels upon it except tourists.

§ Sir C. ROSE
I believe that very road has already been scheduled.

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
Nothing has been done, because I was over the road only last week. What is more, the road is today far worse than it was five, ten, or twenty years ago. The Kerry roads were made fifty years ago by a gentleman named Stokes, one of the best 1785 road builders in the whole world, and, if left to themselves, they are absolutely adequate for the local traffic; but the railway companies have put on two huge motors—awful things. I think it is a shame to have them in any country. They weigh at least five tons, and on these they crowd something like fifty or sixty people. Fancy that on a little country road, a thing the like of which was never seen before on land or sea. It only acts as a plough going along these miserable roads. Then you say to the local cottager, a man of £4 or £5 valuation, abutting on what ought to be a great tourist road: "We will give you 10s. for every 10s. you lay on the road." He asks, "Why should I lay 10s. on the road? I have been among this scenery all my life, and I never have anything but a donkey on the road. Why should you expect me to improve the road because men come from England and America. It is perfectly absurd." There is another road in the north, the Rock Road leading practically from Belfast almost up to Giants Causeway. It is a magnificent road. Supposing we had the country in our own hands, we should keep these roads and several roads in Connemara as international roads, and they would be dealt with by means of contributions from the people of the entire Kingdom. It is, in my opinion, an absolute injustice to throw that burden upon the locality.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he held out such an alluring prospect two years ago, said: "If you will pass this Bill"—I think it was the Motor Tax or this Road Development Fund he was referring to—"it will amount to taking 4d. in the £ off your local taxation." I am not saying that the Bill has not done a great deal of good. I am not saying that in richer districts we have not had useful and proper contributions, but, instead of local and poor picturesque districts having had relief from the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however well-intentioned, they have only had an additional burden. It will be very unfortunate if the strictly local people of Ireland get the idea that this Road Board is only being used for the purpose of extracting out of the pockets of the local ratepayers an additional sum, not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of an international and tourist traffic, which I suggest it was never intended they should be asked to keep up. Therefore, I think it is most desirable we should have a report from the Road Board setting out what are their 1786 schemes as regards the entire three kingdoms. Nobody disputes for a, moment they are doing their best. Sir George Gibb was one of the best selections that could have been made for the chairmanship of the Board. We all know that for many years he was general manager of the North-Eastern Railway, and was managing director of several of the local London railways. I do not suppose, so far as railway traffic is concerned you could get a gentleman better qualified; but here we are at the end of the Session, and we do not know what are his plans. That is a position in which this House should not be placed.
Apparently in England, as well as in Scotland, there is a considerable demand to know what are the intentions of the Road Board. We have the same curiosity in Ireland, and with much better reason. You spend on Hyde Park, in London, 10d. per square yard, and you spend on Phoenix Park, in Dublin, 1½d. per square yard. That is the view the Government take on the two sides of the Channel. If the hon. Baronet has correctly laid down the policy in saying he expects contributions from local authorities in every case, I would respectfully say I do not concur in that policy. It is a perfectly right policy in dealing with counties like Dublin. There is the great road from Dublin to Belfast, and you say, "We will give you £2,000 if you will spend another £2,000 on the improvement of the road." That is a perfectly right policy in that particular prosperous part of Ireland, and I am with you there, because you have a rather well-to-do county council, and you have a great main road stretching from one Capital to another. You would probably ask county Down and Antrim—fairly well-to-do counties, to make contributions, and in that part of the country it might be very fair to adopt the policy which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but, if you draw a line down the centre of Ireland, and take the west side of the country, I should say, speaking generally, the policy was a wrong one. That is what I may call the sick and delicate part of the country, and the poor and impoverished parts of the country should be subjected to wholly different treatment and should have wholly different consideration.
I trust we shall never again have an important Vote of this kind brought forward without further information. The Act itself provides that there are to be two paid men in connection with the development part of the scheme. They are to get 1787 salaries not exceeding £3,000 a year each. We do not know who they are. We do not know what is the salary. We do not even know who has been selected. I infer Sir Francis Hopwood may be one of the salaried gentlemen, but we are in the dark. I do not think that is a fair way to treat us. We have a report from the gentlemen acting under this Act on the development side, and I rather differ from the view laid down in their report. They apparently consider they should deal with forestry, cattle breeding, and other matters like that. I certainly think we have sufficient Boards in Ireland for dealing with these matters without having them considered by a Board sitting here in London, even although there may be one Irish gentleman, a very competent gentleman, placed upon it. The way in which they deal with this question of the Treasury is not unworthy of note. The hon. Baronet is the first man who, in my somewhat rather lengthy experience, has ever said a word in praise of the Treasury. He has said it, and I am quite sure it must be well deserved. Here is the report of the Development branch of the Commission. They say:— In the first place, the Commissioners themselves have no power to make grants or loans from the Development Fund like other Royal Commissions; they can only recommend expenditure, which must be finally authorised by the Government. Treasury approval is required for every penny spent from the fund. Secondly (again like other Royal Commissions or the majority of them) they have no executive power; the schemes recommended by the Commissioners must be carried out either by a Government Department or by some other body under the supervision of a department. Thirdly, they have no formal and official cognizance of applications from bodies other than Government Departments, and cannot report to the Treasury on them. I gather from this report applications have been made to them from one department dealing with cattle breeding, and from another department dealing with forestry. I gather they have not made grants in either case, and I can only say for myself, I think it would be much better if these moneys with which these gentlemen are dealing, instead of going through the circumlocution of being paid first into this Development Fund, were handed direct to the Agricultural Board or to the Congested Districts Board. I think it is somewhat absurd to have this Department taking evidence from Mr. T. P. Gill and other gentlemen of the Agricultural Board as to whether money should be spent on forestry or horse-breeding, instead of the money being paid direct to the Agricultural Board itself or to the Congested Dis- 1788 tricts Board without the intermediate intervention of a body which cannot have the same acquaintance with these matters. I think the position of the Road Board stands on a wholly different footing from the position of the Development Board. I respectfully think there is really no necessity whatever for the Development Board. We have Departments enough in Ireland. Still, I am extremely obliged to the hon. Baronet for his statement, and I do hope he will at once press for a report of the Road Board to be laid before the House, for it is a matter in which intense interest will be taken in every part of the Kingdom.

§ Mr. SANDERS
I would join with the hon. and learned Gentleman in thanking the hon. Baronet opposite for the very lucid exposition which he gave us of the policy of the Road Board so far as it has gone. It is all the more welcome because we have no report to go on up to now. There are just one or two questions I want to ask him if he will allow me, and perhaps he or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hobhouse) will be good enough to answer. The first is as to the policy of this Road Board in not giving a grant unless a corresponding grant is made by the county council. I want to ask him if every county council has fallen in with that. Are there any county councils who have got grants without having paid themselves, or are there any county councils who refuse to pay, and so get no grant at all? If that is so, and there are some counties which are getting nothing, then I want to know what becomes of the money which would otherwise go to them. Would that be distributed among the counties ready to give contributions? Then I want to ask whether grants have been made to district councils. I know it is a fact district councils have applied for grants in a considerable number of cases, and I should be very much obliged if the hon. Baronet would inform me whether any grants have actually been made to district councils, and, if not, whether it is the intention of the Road Board to make grants to them in future.
I want to say one word of protest against the assertion of the hon. Baronet that it is a waste of money to pay for cutting off corners. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am afraid the hon. Baronet cannot really know what is a corner. I think if he saw some of the corners, not only in Ireland but in the west country, he would agree that they were dangerous and that everything possible should be 1789 done to shear off those corners, or, if that be not possible, to lower the banks and hedges so that one can see around them. I feel sure he will agree that that would be an eminently desirable improvement, and one that would make the roads very much safer. I wish to join also in pointing out how very much misled have been the people who thought that these development grants of the Road Board were going to do anything to relieve the rates. The grants have not reduced the rates in the very least. I never thought they would. Whenever new legislation is introduced we are told it is going to reduce the rates, although those who have had anything to do with county government know perfectly well that these promises never come to anything and that the rates go steadily up and up. I shall be very much obliged if I can get an answer to the question which I have put. I am sure the hon. Baronet will be glad to hear that my own county (Somerset), when asked what criticisms it had to make in reference to the Road Board, replied that there were no complaints to be advanced. Having made that handsome admission to the hon. Baronet, I hope he will see that in the future the transactions of the Road Board with Somerset shall be such that the county will come off particularly well.

§ Mr. J. SAMUEL
I desire to congratulate the representatives of the rural constituencies upon their repeated demands upon the Treasury. I have listened to the speeches made from time to time on the other side of the House by those who represent rural constituencies, and I must confess I am afraid that the bulk of the money raised under the Budget of 1909 will go to the rural districts which usually do derive the main benefit from Grants-in-Aid. I was rather surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for the Wilton Division of Wilts (Mr. C. Bathurst). I understood him to say that, despite the grant, some of the county council rates for highways had gone up to the extent of from 1d. to 3d.

§ Mr. C. BATHURST
No; what I said was that the contributions required by the Road Board would result in an increase of these rates by from 1d. to 3d.

§ Mr. J. SAMUEL
I certainly understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the rates had gone up. I can only affirm, as a member of a highway board for very many years, that I congratulate the Road Board on the fact that they do exact contributions from the local authorities for any 1790 grants that they may make; otherwise I am quite certain it would lead to any amount of extravagance on the part of the local authorities if they were enabled to demand that improvements were carried out without themselves having to find a proportion of the cost. The hon. Baronet the Member for Newmarket (Sir Charles Rose) commented on the fact that the income of the Road Board only amounted to £800,000, and that they had already had applications from the local authorities representing an estimated expenditure of £7,500,000, and I take that as an indication that if the Road Board did not insist upon some contribution being made by the local authority towards the cost of improving their roads it would lead to great extravagance and to a still greater demand on the part of those authorities. After all, we are fighting practically the same position as the Irish ratepayer. I think it is the duty of the local authority to keep their roads in repair as much as possible. If they are free to place the burden on the Road Board the tendency will be towards a great waste of public money.
I wish to call the attention of the House to another point in connection with this Grant of £600,000. I understood the hon. Baronet the Member for Newmarket to say that circulars had been issued to the county councils informing them of the amount of the Grant in proportion to the population of the county. On this point I want to emphasise a remark which has been made with regard to some of the minor authorities. The Act itself states in Section 8, Sub-section (a) that the Road Board shall have power, with the approval of the Treasury, to make advances to county councils or other highway authorities in respect of the construction of new roads or the improvement of existing roads. But there is nothing in this Act to show that the intention of Parliament when it passed the Act was that all highway authorities should not be treated alike. I understand that the policy of the Road Board is to deal directly with the county councils. I consider that that is a grave injustice to some very important non-county boroughs. A very large number of these non-county boroughs have not applied for any grant under this Act for the simple reason that they have not received the circular which was sent out to the county councils. There are non-county boroughs without any main roads, or with a very small mileage of main roads, within their jurisdiction. They have main roads in their area, but the county 1791 councils will not main them. Applications have been made from time to time to have the roads declared main roads, but they have been refused, and, therefore, the cost of maintaining these important through thoroughfares falls upon the local boroughs, which are non-county boroughs. Why should these roads be treated in this way? I disagree entirely with the hon. Baronet the Member for Newmarket. I say it would be a great advantage for these roads to be taken in hand, and to have some of their corners cut off. They are narrow, they get congested with traffic, and it is very desirable that these through main roads should receive attention. I was very much surprised to hear the hon. Baronet say that in non-county boroughs the intention and policy of the Road Board is not even to deal with them—not to take in hand the widening of these thoroughfares and the rounding off of corners. What is the use, however, of this House voting money to the extent of £600,000 a year, if the whole of this money is to be given to rural districts and none of it to be expended within the confines of county or non-county boroughs, or of important urban district councils?

§ Sir C. ROSE
What I said was that the applications from county boroughs had been mainly for grants for the widening of streets in their own boroughs, and that the cost had in many cases been too great.

§ Mr. J. SAMUEL
But I have no doubt they would be quite prepared to make a contribution towards that expenditure. I know counties where the rates (excluding the Education rate) do not exceed 6d. in the £, and where there is no highway rate at all. On the other hand, you have towns with highway rates amounting to shillings in the £. You have the rates going up to 8s., 9s., and even 10s. in the £. You are practically giving this money to rural authorities whose rates do not exceed 2s. or 3s. in the £, while in the case of important boroughs where the rates vary from 6s. to 10s. in the £ you decline to do anything in the way of helping them to improve their through roads. I think it is time that those of us who represent the towns should make a strong protest in this House against that policy. It is an unfair and a very unjust policy that the towns should be taxed as they are taxed. After all the bulk of the money for this improvement work comes from the towns—the bulk of the money raised under 1792 the Budget of 1909 is raised practically in the towns, and not in the rural districts. The Increment Value Duty comes from the towns and not from the rural districts. You have towns like Bristol, Newcastle and Birmingham in this position, and yet it is quite evident there is no intention on the part of the Road Board to make Grants for these large bodies for the improvement of their roads. I have heard demands made on many occasions in this House for advances for the rural districts, yet all the time the claims for assistance in making improvements of large and important towns, practically crushed by their rates, are ignored. I think it advisable to raise my protest against this policy, and I hope that the representatives of the towns generally will also raise their voices in this House by way of protest against a policy of favouritism in giving the money to the rural districts. I hope the Government will take this fact into consideration. I do not wish to say anything about the position of the Road Board. I am pleased they have such a chairman, because he comes from the same district as that from which I come, that is the North of England. I would like to repeat that to send out circulars to county councils inviting them to send in application, and at the same time to ignore the non-county boroughs, is a wrong policy, and I hope the Treasury will see that in the future the towns will have more justice under this scheme than they have had in the past.

§ Sir JOHN SPEAR
The House is indebted to the hon. Member (Mr. C. Bathurst) for raising the question, for there is a feeling in the country that no statement of what has been done by the Road Board has yet been forthcoming, and considerable disappointment has accrued from the fact that, instead of the establishment of the Road Board doing something to relieve the burden on the ratepayer, it has up to the present increased it. But we very much appreciate the statement of the hon. Baronet (Sir C. Rose) who, from his experience of what has been done and is being done by the Road Board, takes a somewhat optimistic view, and leads us to hope that even yet some good may come from the establishment of the Roard Board. Up to the present considerable disappointment has accrued. When the Road Board was established it was considered to be a medium through which a larger share of Imperial funds should be used for the maintenance of the main roads, which I 1793 think all sides of the House have come to recognise is largely an Imperial responsibility, and should be paid for to a larger extent at least than has hitherto been the ease from Imperial funds. County councils especially, who have been face to face with constantly increasing charges on the ratepayers for the maintenance of roads were hopeful that, in the establishment of the Road Board, the Government recognised the justice of our claim that main roads are an Imperial responsibility, and sets up this machinery with a view to bearing a larger share, at least, of the cost of the upkeep of these roads. But up to the present, at any rate, we have been disappointed, and it is clear that, since the Road Board has decided that they will only make a grant towards the cost of the improvement which they sanction, a considerable balance of the cost of the improvement must devolve on the local ratepayers and consequently, instead of the policy adopted by the Road Board reducing the cost to the ratepayer for the maintenance of main roads, it has had exactly the opposite effect, because the local bodies have to find a considerable sum of money before the Road Board are prepared to carry out improvements which they sanction. I am sure we are all agreed that it is desirable that improvements such as have been hinted at to-day should be made, and we are glad to know from the hon. Baronet that steps are being taken with that end. We also gather that he does not consider it a desirable policy for the Road Board to take off acute corners in roads. If he knew the Devonshire lanes he would change his mind and would agree that one of the first things in the interests of the safety of motorists and the public would be that the Road Board should use some of their money in taking off acute corners and in lowering the fences so that people might have a chance of being aware of approaching vehicles. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. Member (Mr. C. Bathurst) allude to some grant being made by the Road Board towards the spraying of roads. I hope I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the Road Board declined to make any grant at all towards the upkeep of the roads. The only grant they made was for improving the roads.

§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse)
indicated assent.

§ Sir J. SPEAR
The right hon. Gentleman endorses that statement. Then surely 1794 the hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that the Road Board has made any grant towards the spraying of roads. I should be glad to hear that they were doing so. We have been using tar spraying in Devonshire with very considerable advantage, and it would be a branch of work which the Road Board might very well undertake. We, who are local ratepayers and members of local bodies who have to maintain roads, feel a disappointment that the Road Board, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer of course honourably thought was going to result in a reduction to the ratepayer ultimately of 4d. in the £, is increasing the burden on the ratepayer, which is already too great. We feel the grievance all the more acutely at present because of the alteration in handing over to the bodies who maintain the roads a stated grant commensurate with the licences received in 1907–8, whereas if we were to receive towards the upkeep of the roads the proceeds of the licences to which we are entitled to-day we should have a very much larger source of income than we have at present. I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the arrangement believing it was convenient for public bodies and would do complete justice. In Devonshire alone last year we received £4,400 less than we should have received if we had taken the actual licences collected. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take this fact into consideration and see if something cannot be done, either through the Road Board, or by the alteration of the system of handing over local taxation licences to the county body, to relieve the burden resting upon us. At present we have, through the great increase of motor traffic, greatly increased the wear of the roads, which local ratepayers have to find the money to repair, whereas the licences which accrue from the increased motor traffic go to the Imperial Exchequer. That is most unfair. The increase of the motor traffic has greatly increased the cost of the upkeep of the roads, and surely the increased revenue that comes from the increased motor traffic should go to the local bodies and not to the Imperial Exchequer. It is not that we in the country districts want to shirk our fair share of the cost of the upkeep and of the public services, and we do not ask favouritism towards rural districts as against the town, but we appeal to him to consider more than ever in the days of increased motor traffic that the maintenance of the main roads is an Imperial responsibility, and therefore should 1795 be met much more than at present from the Imperial Exchequer rather than from the local rates. I trust that the Road Board will go as far in that direction as the Act of Parliament will enable them to do.

§ Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE
The hon. Baronet (Sir C. Rose) told us the reasons which the Road Board had for adopting the policy of refusing to give grants to local authorities unless a considerable contribution is made by the local bodies. Personally, I think the reasons were inadequate, but whether they were right or wrong in coming to the decision, the hon. Baronet did not answer the question which was so very clearly put forward by the hon. Member (Mr. C. Bathurst), namely, why it was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in bringing forward this scheme, not only stated, but definitely promised, that this money was going to be used towards the reduction of the local rates. I hope the Financial Secretary will explain why it was this has not been carried out. It was not only during the passage of the Bill that that pledge was given, but afterwards, because as late as 10th April the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to a question, said this: It is within the power of the Treasury on the recommendation of the Development Commission to make advances either by way of grant or loan out of and up to the total amount of the development fund. Clearly at that time the policy which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was advocating was that the Road Board should give a grant up to the total amount, and although during the Debate this afternoon certain reasons may have been brought forward as to why County Councils should contribute a certain amount towards the expense incurred in these improvements, I do not think any good reason has been brought forward to show why any charge should be put upon the rural district councils. I would specially urge the hon. Baronet, as a member of the Road Board, to consider the advisability of reconsidering their decision as to not granting contributions to district councils without making it compulsory on them to spend money and increase the rates. One hon. Member opposite said it would not be advisable to do so because it might lead to great extravagance, but the Road Board are masters of the situation, and if they find that the district councils are applying unfairly sums greater than they should get, they can always check that by refusing to give grants. The Road Board 1796 can by their surveyors and advisers perfectly well discriminate for themselves as to whether an application is really for what is in the nature of improvement and not in the ordinary nature of the upkeep or everyday expenditure which councils should make. Further, not only in an extra burden thrust upon the local ratepayers if the rural district councils have to spend these large sums in order to get any benefit out of the grants at all, but in addition there is extra expenditure thrown upon the local authorities for the upkeep of these improvements. If an improvement is made in a road the cost does not begin and end with the improvement, but there is the annual upkeep if the road is widened, or is kept in a better state, and so year by year a greater expenditure is cast upon the ratepayers to keep up that improved standard. We all know that wherever a grant is made by the county authority to the district authorities, pressure is put on them to see that the road is kept up to a high standard, otherwise the grant is withheld or reduced, and that in itself is quite sufficient burden to put upon the local authorities. The good which may be derived by this development grant will be not only minimised, but in many instances cannot be taken advantage of if some steps are not taken to reduce this very large demand put on small local authorities by the Road Board, because if this grant is given, as it is intended, entirely for an improvement, that improvement will not come under ordinary expenditure, and indeed may be an improvement which is not necessarily for the benefit of local traffic, and would not therefore be undertaken by the local council.
6.0 P.M.
In the Constituency I represent I am chairman of a rural district council, and I know that applications were before the Road Board this year for improvements to certain roads which, under no circumstances, could that district council itself undertake. The rates are already high, and these improvements are only rendered necessary by the fact that, with increasing motor traffic along the south coast, the roads are too narrow in places. I do feel that the hon. Baronet should try to see whether the Road Board cannot carry out the policy which the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised, namely, that local rates should be relieved, and so enable some benefit to be derived locally from this fund. Otherwise I foresee that the whole of the money will be used in large 1797 populous and probably rich districts, and not given to the smaller rural districts, which are most in need of this grant.

Mr. KING
We have had a very interesting discussion, and incidentally it seems to me to have brought out one or two important principles. I think it has illustrated the extreme difficulty, which is increasingly felt, of retaining control by this House over additional expenditure. The speech of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Cambridgeshire, brought out the fact that really the Road Board are in very close contact and agreement with the Treasury. We have also had it brought out in the course of the Debate that that is a very unusual state of things. The hon. Baronet seemed to take credit to himself and his Board that they got on so well with the Treasury. For my part I take it rather as an accusation which he was unwittingly, but very clearly, making against himself. The Treasury exists to carry on the work of the different departments, with as much regularity and lack of enterprise, and with as little couarge and progress as possible, and it seems to me, therefore, that when a new department starts by saying that they have never had a moment's difficulty or doubt with the Treasury, it shows that the department is carrying on its work without courage and enterprise, and without any real progressive principles. That really came out in the course of the hon. Baronet's speech. He said that they were dead against making any new roads at all.
I understood that this Road Board was going to make new roads where they were necessary. I am sure many of us know many districts in which it is absolutely necessary to have a new road. I may mention just two which are probably familiar to most Members of the House. Any Member travelling by road westward from London, say to Bristol or any of the great towns in the west, must go through Uxbridge. Now there is no more dangerous place for anybody to pass through in any kind of vehicle. I am not sure that it is not even dangerous to pass through that town as a passenger on the sidewalk. I hold that one of the improvements which will benefit not only the dwellers in that locality, but all those living west of London, would be the providing of some substantial improvement in the road communication of Uxbridge. I take another instance in my own locality. Anybody who goes down the Portsmouth Road, whether to Goodwood Races or a Naval Review, 1798 has to pass through the town of Godalming, a small town with a narrow High Street, with a sixteen or seventeen feet roadway. That is the main road for something like half a mile on the great Portsmouth highway. It would be perfectly easy, and it would be obviously the right and sensible thing to do, to make a detour road round the outside of that little country town. That would greatly facilitate the whole traffic between London and the south-western districts. I hope that is the sort of scheme which will in future be taken up. Apparently, from the statement of the hon. Baronet, it is a scheme which up to the present has not even been looked at, and until it is looked at I am sure the Road Board will not be fulfilling the duties expected of it by the country.
I should like to call attention to another matter—namely, the conditions under which the Road Board carries on its work. It is quite obvious from this Debate in which we have had expressions of opinion from a number of Members engaged in the work of county councils and districts councils, that the actual conditions under which the Road Board is giving grants are not fully understood. We ought to be able to go to some public announcement—some Blue Book or report of the Road Board in which the lines of its policy will be distinctly laid down. That may be forthcoming when we get the promised report, but apparently, so far as I gather from the Debate, the rules and conditions under which grants are made are not yet fully and clearly laid down. I want also to add my protest to that made by a number of hon. Members that the amount of money going out is apparently going entirely to the rural counties and the large country disticts on the basis of population. It is quite true that the great increase of traffic on the roads, and motor traffic especially, has hit the rural districts much harder than the town districts. At the same time there are many parts of urban and city districts which are as much in need of improvement as is the case in the country. Moreover, when you want to improve an urban district by widening a road or cutting off a corner— and that ought to be done in many more instances than the hon. Baronet is aware of—it is much more expensive to carry through; in fact, the cost is often so high as to be quite prohibitive.
I trust that the policy of asking for a pro rata contribution will not always be adhered to. A pro rata contribution from a local authority seems to me to penalise 1799 those authorities which are poor, and though I think it is often desirable to insist upon it in dealing with rich authorities, yet I am sure there are many cases in which it would be right, fair and advisable not to insist upon that condition. I hope as a result of this Debate that we shall have more information, and that we shall have greater interest also in the country in the beneficent work which is now only beginning, but which I am sure, will have in future more and more significance.

§ Mr. HICKS BEACH
I am sure the House was very much interested to hear what the hon. Member (Mr. King) said in regard to the business of the Treasury. He told us that it was the duty of the Treasury to see that other Departments carried out their business regularly with lack of enterprise, and with as little courage and progress as possible. That is rather a sweeping condemnation of the unfortunate Treasury. I think that the primary duty of the Treasury is to see that other Departments do not spend the money which is voted to them in an extravagant and an unsatisfactory manner. I think it was a satisfactory part of the hon. Baronet's speech in which he told us that the Road Board had not spent even half of the money allocated to it up to the present. I wish to draw attention to the fact that the Act has been interpreted totally different to the intention with which it was passed. Let us remember in the first place what were the grounds on which this money was devoted to the purposes of the Road Board. A very large additional sum was to be derived from the increased duties paid by the owners of motor cars, and from the new duty imposed upon petrol. Those representing the motor car industry and the petrol industry relaxed their opposition to the duties when they were told that the proceeds would go towards improving the roads of the country. Upon that ground these new and increased taxes were let through this House in the Committee stage of the Budget in a much shorter time than they would have been if there had been no such promise given. This amounted to £600,000 a year. We were told, when the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act was passed, that this sum was to be devoted to the improvement of the roads of the country, and to mitigate the nuisance which was being caused to the unfortunate residents in 1800 the country on account of the dust raised by motor-cars. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also led us to believe that the beneficent action of the Road Board in expending this £600,000 a year would have a tendency to diminish and not to increase the actual amount of rates paid to the highway boards of the country, and what I do not understand is how the Commissioners can ask the authorities for and insist upon a definite contribution in order to obtain a grant from the Road Board. Section 8, Sub-section (4), of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act provides:—
"An advance to a highway authority may be either by way of grant or by way of loan, or partly in one way and partly in the other, and shall be upon such terms and subject to such conditions as the Board think fit."
The Board have interpreted the last part of that paragraph in a very broad way, and I venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Treasury that when that particular Sub-section was passed it did not occur to anybody's mind that the Board would interpret the last two lines in the way they have done. They are most enigmatic, but they have been read to signify that the Board could impose such terms as they thought fit in regard to repayment, the amount of interest, and the number of years that should be allowed to pay off the loan. It never occurred to anybody's mind that in order to obtain any grant at all the local authority would have to spend an additional sum to what they were already spending on roads. I think it was understood that no highway authority would be able to obtain a grant if they diminished the amount they had usually expended upon roads. The whole object, in our mind, of this Road Development Act was to mitigate the nuisance caused by motor-cars to residents of the country where highway authorities do not feel that it is capable of being mitigated with the funds at their disposal; and they, therefore, looked to these funds, derived from the Road Board, to be able to assist them in that respect. I agree cordially with my hon. Friend in thinking that the Commissioners have very much exceeded their powers in the way they have carried out this Act. There is one other point. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. J. Samuel) urged that some of this money should be spent on widening streets in some of the big towns.

1801

§ Mr. J. SAMUEL
Widening the roads and cutting off corners.

§ Mr. HICKS BEACH
I thought the. hon. Gentleman rather urged the hon. Baronet to persuade the Development Commissioners to spend large sums of this money in widening some of the narrow streets in our towns.

§ Mr. J. SAMUEL
No; what I said was that we should have an opportunity of making application for road improvements in the boroughs, but each case should be decided on its merits.

§ Mr. HICKS BEACH
I venture to ask the hon. Baronet to stick to the terms of his Resolution, and not to devote any of this money to widening streets in towns, because, after all, it is much better to make a new road round the town than to spend a very large sum of money widening streets for the benefit of the town itself. The whole object of the Road Grant is to improve the communication between one town and another. It is not to improve the actual streets of the town. I agree with the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. King), who is very anxious to have a new road built round Godalming in order that he might motor down to Goodwood races in comfort. That is a very desirable tiling, and I hope that the next time he goes down to Goodwood he will have a very pleasant time. There is one very important announcement as regards the agricultural part of the work of the Development Commissioners. They contemplate an expenditure of £40,000 a year for agricultural research, and they propose to allocate £65,000 a year for agricultural education in England and Wales. I believe that this £65,000 a year has been sanctioned by the Treasury on the understanding that it shall take the form of a Grant of £325,000, which is not to be exceeded in the next five years. That is quite the same thing as a Grant of £65,000 a year. I quite agree that there is nothing on which the Development Commissioners could spend money to better advantage than on agricultural research, and I very cordially welcome the Grant of £40,000 for that purpose. But I am not quite certain as to what is the method by which this Education Grant of £65,000 a year is to be spent. I have been informed by a Chairman of an Agricultural Education Committee of a county council that they are being told there that they are to start a sort of farm of instruction, and they do not know what is meant. They do not know whether they are to start an ex- 1802 perimental farm or a farm which is to be a model for all the farmers round about. These are two very different things, because it passes the wit of man to conduct an experimental farm in a way that will show a profit at the end of the year. After all, I do not think the county council are quite the best people to start experimental farms.
Nothing is more valuable to an agriculturist than to know what is the actual effect of certain chemicals on a certain soil on his farm, and it is very essential to find out what are the actual experiments which may be of advantage to the soil in that neighbourhood. But if the county councils are to start a farm which is to be a model for farmers in the neighbourhood the first thing the farmers look into will be the balance-sheet of the farm. If the county council farm shows a balance on the right side then farmers may be disposed to think that they do not know everything about farming, and that there may be something for them to learn from a farm of this kind; but if the kind of farm to be started by the county council is to be of an experimental nature and, consequently, does not show a profit, the carrying on of that farm will be absolutely a waste of expenditure, because no farmer will have any respect at all for a farm which is pretending to be a model which does not show a handsome profit at the end of the year. I was glad to see, in reference to forestry, that the Commission are taking a much more cautious view than a Commission which reported not so very long ago. I would venture to suggest that they would make as much use as possible of the existence of a certain number of people who have got a certain number of acres of wood. What they have not got is scientific knowledge; it would be best to tell them how to make use of their wood. It would be a real advantage to the country as a whole if the Commissioners would start a school in which trained foresters would be brought up so that these trained foresters could be used as peripatetic instructors going about advising existing owners of woodlands. This might be done very well, and it would be a great advantage to the State, because the owner would bear the cost of the experiment. What he would get in return would be the trained and skilled advice of someone who really knows his business. A great deal might be done to improve the forestry of the country in that way, and it would be far cheaper to the State as a whole than to set up a large number 1803 of experimental stations. If the right hon. Gentleman will answer these points I will be very much obliged.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has raised two important points upon the work of the Development Commissioners, which I do not think come within the scope of the matter which we are discussing, and I am not prepared to go into details of the points which have been raised. It is quite true that proposals have been made by the Development Commissioners for the expenditure of sums, amounting approximately to £300,000, for agricultural education, and that that point is now under the consideration of the Treasury. No decision, so far as I am informed, has been yet arrived at on this point, and therefore it is premature to discuss in this House considerations on both sides which may affect us in our judgment and our decision upon that question.

§ Mr. HICKS BEACH
Have not instructions been sent out to the various county councils concerned as to the particular manner in which it is desired that the money should be spent?

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I confess I am not prepared to answer offhand. I understand that the question is under discussion, but I would rather, if the hon. Gentleman will not press his point, not discuss it this afternoon. I have, unfortunately, to be responsible in this House for a number of departments, and it is rather difficult to carry the detail of each of them in one's head. I come back, therefore, with the permission of the House, to the subject which we have been discussing, and I think discussing with great profit to all of us this afternoon. We had the advantage at an earlier stage of this Debate of both the first-hand and first-rate exposition of the principles which have guided; the Road Board Commissioners in their policies and views, and it would be really almost superfluous of me to develop this afternoon the sphere of activity of that Commission after the speech of my hon. Friend behind me, the Member for Cambridge. But there are certain points on which I may cross the "t's" and dot the "i's" in relation to his speech, if the House will so far bear with me in patience. I think the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) rather complained —and he spoke in unison with Members on that side of the House—that the report of 1804 the Road Commission was not before the House. I would beg the House to consider the circumstances in which that Commission worked during the past year.
It is only fourteen or fifteen months ago, and not two years ago as the hon. Gentleman says, that the Commission was constituted. It consists of five members, of whom Sir George Gibb, whom I need not eulogise, was appointed chairman. The other Commissioners are Lord Pirie, Lord Kingsburgh, representing Scotland, Lord St. Davids, representing Wales, and my hon. Friend behind me (Sir Charles Rose), representing the interests of England on that Commission. I venture to say that a better informed body of men for discussing this kind of subject has not been got together in recent years, and when their names were submitted to the House they commanded general approval and commendation from all quarters; and I am quite sure they have done nothing since that time to forfeit the good opinion which was then held about them. Their field of operations was exceedingly varied and extensive. It embraced the communications of the whole of the three countries. Therefore, it was essential before they entered upon any operation which would diminish the fund at their disposal, and therefore deprive localities which were in need of their assistance, to gain a full knowledge of all the difficulties that it was desired to deal with. Therefore they circularised—and they were very wise in doing so—all the local authorities as I am informed in this country. They did not stop short, as my hon. Friend suggested, at county councils, but I am informed that they sent circulars out to county councils, county boroughs, non-county boroughs, and district councils.

§ Mr. J. SAMUEL
I simply took a statement of the hon. Member for Newmarket. He stated distinctly that circulars had been sent out to the county councils.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I quite understand why my hon. Friend referred to the matter. I only place the facts before him so that any misapprehension in his mind may be corrected.

§ Mr. J. SAMUEL
It is the policy of the Road Board to exempt.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I am coming to that. They circularised all the local authorities for the purpose of getting the best information they possibly could as to the requirements of the different localities 1805 throughout the country and they have been receiving a vast number of applications from all kinds and sorts of local authorities involving as my hon. Friend pointed out about £8,000,000. It is rather important to see, in view of the complaints of hon. Gentlemen opposite, the kind of applications that were made to the Road Board. Directly from county councils and other authorities within their administrative area there were applications not for the creation of new roads but for the improvement of roads to the amount of £1,700,000. For the widening of roads, £2,500,000; for road diversions, £500,000; for reconstruction and improvement of bridges, £660,000; and for new roads and bridges, £340,000. Therefore, in respect of the opinion of the local authorities, so far as they can be gathered from the applications which these authorities made to the Road Board, what they wanted was the improvement of the crust of existing roads. They also wanted, and mainly in the rural areas and not the urban areas, the widening and improvement of corners in the existing roads. These facts are very important, because they show the trend of the opinion of the country. That is so far as England is concerned. The same proportions are true of Scotland, and the same proportions are true of Ireland. In Ireland there is a desire, not for new roads and bridges, because there was no application from Ireland for that purpose, but entirely for the improvement of the existing road crusts. The result of the applications from all three countries is this:—To improve the road crusts, the applications amounted to £3,500,000; for road widening and improvements, £2,750,000. For road diversions, etc., £500,000; for reconstruction and improvement of bridges, £750,000; and for new roads and bridges for the whole of the country, only £340,000. I think that is a very significant indication of what the public demand in the way of improved communication in the country. The Committee will see that the applications were decidedly in excess of the revenues available, as my hon. Friend behind me has pointed out, which were estimated at £1,200,000, but actually amounted to £1,160,000.
Therefore, it was clearly necessary that the Board should proceed with great caution and hesitation, and even, if you like, with delay, in allotting the sums which were at their command, not merely because the funds were inadequate to the applications, but in order that the sums 1806 which they had got might be devoted to the best possible use amongst all those various local authorities. The Board therefore, in deciding which of the applications they should entertain and which of them they should entertain first, have to lay down certain general propositions for themselves. They have first of all to decide what should be the relative share of the three countries in the sum of over a million—which they thought themselves justified in estimating for. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, they gave £750,000 to England, £150,000 to Ireland, and £175,000 to Scotland. Having done that, taking the sum available for the three countries, and as far as that went, they gave to the local authorities in the three countries amounts based on the possible disposal of each sum in each different country. The hon. Member for South Wilts (Mr. C. Bathurst) laid stress upon the fact that he has been disappointed in the amount by which the rates have been relieved by the action of the Road Board, and by the disposal of the sums which they have at command.

§ Mr. C. BATHURST
I was very careful not to talk about being disappointed. What I laid emphasis upon was the extent to which the local rates would be increased.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I was coming to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. I was saying that he was disappointed that the country was not being relieved in respect of rates, and he was alarmed by the fact that the rates have been raised. I gather that in some localities from what he stated the rates have been raised by 4d in the £.

§ Mr. C. BATHURST
I did not say that. What I said was that this contribution demanded by the Road Board from local authorities would have the effect in various localities of increasing the rates in the counties from 1d. to 3d. in the £.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
The hon. Gentleman is alarmed because the rates may not be reduced and that they will even go up. I have had an opportunity of consulting the reference to which the hon. Gentleman made allusion in regard to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend on the 20th May, 1909, said:— I think the fund ought to be devoted solely to the use of the highway authorities of the country. It is intended to be used for the purpose of improving the 1807 roads and to make better motor roads. Naturally, no doubt, that will have an effect on the local charges, for the simple reason that a good many local authorities now spend huge sums of money in making roads fit for motors, and to that extent grants must reduce the rates in districts where considerable sums of money are spent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1909, col, 686, Vol. V.] That was the expectation of my right hon. Friend. I am going to put this to the House, if I may. It is clear, from the applications which I have read from the local authorities that, having regard to the heavy traffic of motors, the roads of the United Kingdom would have to be improved out of all previous knowledge, and, if the Road Board with its funds had not intervened, the whole of that expenditure must have been borne, under existing legislation, by the local authorities. That would have involved not the 1d. or 3d. to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but a very much greater sum, an incalculably greater sum, the whole cost of which would have fallen on the shoulders of the ratepayers all over the country.

§ Mr. J. SAMUEL
Is it not the fact that the local authorities, in regard to any large scheme, could have borrowed the necessary money, and not paid for it out of the rates?

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I do not think that objection has very much to do with the point I am arguing.

§ Mr. C. BATHURST
The right hon. Gentleman will allow me——

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is in possession.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I am trying to develop what I believe to be a perfectly sound general argument, that the communications were not up to the standard required, that the crusts of the roads would have to be improved in any case, and that the whole burden of that improvement would have fallen upon the ratepayers if it had not been for the sum put at the disposal of the Road Board by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That, I believe, to be a perfectly incontrovertible proposition. What has happened? An allocation has been made amongst the various local authorities which, of course, does not give satisfaction to every interest concerned. But we have to take into consideration the bearing of the claims of urban authorities and of rural districts, and, in doing that, the Board has wisely come to the conclusion that what it has got to consider 1808 is not the purely local needs or requirements of a particular town or particular city, which no doubt desires and deserves that its internal communications shall be improved, but that those internal improvements should be completed, not at the cost of the general taxes but at the cost of the residents in the particular town. The real need of a town or city is the improvement of communication between neighbouring centres of industry and commerce, so that access to the town or city may be made easier, and that communication with its neighbours of all sorts and kinds should be improved as far as the funds are available for that purpose. That, I believe, is the true line to take, and it is the line taken by the Road Board. Once the Road Board arrived at these general conclusions, it had, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, a large number of conferences with local authorities, and if hon. Gentlemen will only recall the number of days that the Board has been in existence, and the number of conferences which it has held with rural authorities, they will see that nearly on every other day, certainly on every third day, since it has come into existence, it has held conferences in one part of the country or another, travelling to Scotland or Ireland for the purpose of many of those conferences. The Board have actually on every third day of their existence had a conference with some local authority or other, which is proof of their activity and their thoroughness in going into the questions with which they have to deal. Having settled first of all the kind of improvement which was desired, the Board then had to say what part of the improvement was to be borne by the Road Board and what part was to be borne by the locality which would gain the benefit of the improvement.
There are two kinds of improvements which may be made in communications if they are desired by the local authorities. One is the improvement of the crust of the road, which it was found by experience in many cases had actually been worn down to the bone, as it were, that is to within an inch or two of the original surface, by the extremely heavy pressure of the traffic during the last two or three years. The Board has, in the first place, to decide that point, and then it has to allocate as between the Road Board and the local authority, how much of the treatment of the road, giving it a new crust, could be fairly ascribed to improvement and how much could be ascribed to repair of the 1809 existing road surface. In many cases no doubt that was difficult to do. Supposing, as I think the hon. Gentleman suggested, the whole improvement had been borne by the Road Board: the hon. Member opposite and I are both members of county councils, and he must be aware, as I am aware, that every local authority is exceedingly generous in spending Imperial funds. It does not always consider the best way of spending those funds; it has got a certain amount allocated to it, and is generally in a hurry to get rid of the funds placed at its disposal. When it has to spend its own funds then it is exceedingly careful and economical, and It him administers its own funds admirably. Here we have an attempt upon the part of the Road Board to combine the advantage of both systems—to give to the local authority a generous contribution towards the cost of the improvements, while, on the other hand requiring the local authority to contribute to that improvement such a proportion of the cost as would induce it to produce adequate plans and adequate specifications; in fact, well prepared and well-thought-out plans for the improvement it proposes. They, therefore, fix in some cases, though not in all, a proportion which amounts to about 75 per cent, from the Road Board, leaving the locality 25 per cent. I think the House will consider that the amount which will ultimately be at the disposal of local authorities for a scheme either actually sanctioned, or in the course of being sanctioned by the Board, to meet the requirements of traffic due to general causes will be very considerable, and that amount, but for this grant or subsidy, must have fallen entirely upon the shoulders of the local ratepayers. I read out just now to the House a summary of the applications which were made to the Board. Let me give one or two figures as to the amount of the grants which have been already made to the local authority. For the improvement of crusts to the county councils and subordinate authorities within their administrative areas there have been granted altogether £209,000, for widening £35,000, for road diversion £10,000, for reconstruction of bridges, £10,000, making in all £264,000.

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
From what is the right hon. Gentleman quoting?

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
From information supplied by the Road Board.

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
Why have we not got it?

1810

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
The hon. Gentleman was not in the House when I was speaking on the subject before.

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
I came in the moment I saw the right hon. Gentleman's name on the recorder.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I do not complain of the hon. Gentleman having been absent. I am only supplying him with information given to the House when he was absent. It is hardly necessary to explain that two years have not elapsed, as the hon. Gentleman alleged, since the Board came into being, but barely fifteen months.

Mr. PEEL
made some remarks which were inaudible in the Press Gallery.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I thought I had spoken to some effect. The Board had to start an entirely new work and get itself into swing, and until it had been some time in existence it had nothing to report to the House. I am obliged for the courtesy of the interruption. It was also suggested that the policy of loaning sums have been entirely neglected. That is not so. The amount of loan is at present exceedingly small. I think it only amounts to £7,500, some of which is free from interest, and some of which is at 3½ per cent, interest. There have, however, been other sums which are practically settled, and when the final details can be presented to the House, and when the report of the Board is actually printed it will show that a very much larger sum is either actually in contemplation to be loaned, or the whole details of which are complete. There is only one other point in connection with expenditure I should like to deal with. Some hon. Gentleman in the course of the Debate suggested that there was a very considerable staff which was swallowing up half of the revenues of the Board. That is not so. The cost of the staff is only £6,660 per year, and the travelling expenses, etc., represent £5,000, and the total ratio of the cost of the staff to the expenditure is only 1.76, a very moderate figure, I think, for the administration of so large a Parliamentary Grant as this. I hope that may reassure the hon. Gentleman opposite that his fears are unreal. I can only say in conclusion, I think, though they have not been able to present to the House before the Adjournment a printed report, yet that which I and my hon. Friend (Mr. Samuel) have been able to report to the House, he as a working member of the Board and I as the official responsible to this House for the sums 1811 which are placed by Parliament at its disposal, I think we have been able to show to the House that they have done good work; that they have had very difficult considerations to deal with; that they have dealt with them upon a rational basis, and though they have not embarked upon the work of construction of new roads, and though perhaps there may not be even in contemplation by them indirect construction of new roads, that has been due to the fact that the local authorities who are concerned in the introduction of new communication between place and place have, at all events for the present, more earnestly desired the improvement of existing communications than the control of new roads.

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
Is there any intention of specially dealing with what I call the intensely tourist parts of the country, which are really so poor. The Killarney road, for instance; is that to be left in a state of chaos.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I understand in that particular case one of the local authorities concerned, the Kerry County Council, has refused to accept the terms the Road Board offered.

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
Naturally.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
They are refusing terms which are more advantageous to them than the existing state of affairs, because the whole sum may not be adequate or to their expectations.

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
May I respectfully say, by the indulgence of the House, that the road in question is purely a tourist road. It is absolutely of no account to the county, absolutely none whatever. It is purely for the advantage of strangers coining to the district. Of course, it is most desirable that they should come. The road has been reduced to its present condition purely by tourist motors, and not by any local traffic The only local traffic on it consists of a few donkeys. Here is this road ploughed up by tourists, and you ask the local people to pay for it. It is really monstrous, and you cannot expect it.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I do not pretend to know the road as well as the hon. Gentleman, but I have travelled over some of the world, and it is my experience that tourists bring a considerable amount of money into the districts, and they also cause the creation of a very considerable 1812 amount of buildings, which add to the rateable value of the county. That side of the question must not altogether be forgotten in any argument on this particular case. I am sorry to have diverged from the point which I wish to make in conclusion to the House, namely, I think that the Road Board have deserved well of this House for their activities during the time they have been in existence, and that they have accomplished not little, but much.

Mr. PEEL
I listened very carefully to the reason which the right hon. Gentleman gave as to why the Road Board have not issued any report. I am bound to say, after listening to those reasons, that if my hon. Friend insists on the Amendment and goes to a Division, I shall be very glad to support him, because I am afraid the reasons the right hon. Gentleman gave were entirely inadequate. The right hon. Gentleman seemed rather to resent my interruption, and I should like to put the matter to him in this way. I do not say a word against the Road Board or the composition of the Road Board. I quite agree that the appointments were very admirable and very good ones, but surely it is no argument to say that because you have good men appointed to the Board they should not report to Parliament as to the way in which they spend their money. I think that is a monstrous suggestion. What is the other reason why we are told they should not present their Report. It was that they have only been working fourteen or fifteen months. But the Development Commission have produced a report, and a valuable report, and I do not quite see why one body should be excused from doing what the other did. An hon. Friend calls my attention to Section 14, under which it is provided that the Road Board shall annually make to the Treasury a report of their proceedings. I do say in all seriousness that it is not very satisfactory, where a considerable sum of money is to be spent by the Board, and where they have actually spent a large amount of it, that the only explanation we get is in a sort of semi-casual way owing to the accident that one of the members happens to be a Member of Parliament, and that we get certain information which the right hon. Gentleman gave to us, and which was handed to him by the Road Board. For this reason especially do I think so. I think it is exceedingly important at the inception of this enterprise, and much more important than when they have been some five or six years working, 1813 because it is the principle on which the money is to be expended that we have the most right to know in this House and to criticise. It is impossible to make up our minds on these complicated questions if we are not possesed of any thought-out and considered scheme as to the way in which they are going to spend the money.
Let me say a word about the Chancellor's view about the raising of rates. I think I am the only Member present, so far as I know, who was on the Committee of the Bill dealing with the Road Board. I am bound to say I never did hear any suggestion by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there would be any saving on the rates. I understand what he said in the House was to suggest that indirectly there would be a saving. After all, the saving which is effected, because if something had not been done some other thing would have been necessary is not a saving on which we can pride ourselves. What he did say was this that though the money was not to be expended on the saving of rates, yet that in the construction of these schemes money for expenditure would not fall on the local authorities, and that the only expenditure that could fall on the local authorities was when new roads had been constructed, or alterations had been made, and when the maintenance of those newly-constructed roads or altered roads would fall on the local authorities. I see that the hon. Baronet opposite shakes his head.

§ Sir C. ROSE
made some observations which were inaudible in the Press Gallery.

Mr. PEEL
I think my recollection is quite right. For that reason, I certainly question whether the Board have the right to make those conditions as to the local authorities finding certain money for the construction of roads. The right hon. Gentleman takes a different view. He does not actually say that they have got the right to do it. What he argued was that it was a very wise method of administration.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
made some remarks which were inaudible in the Press Gallery.

§ 7.0 P.M.

Mr. PEEL
I must deal with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. What he said was this, that the county council and local authorities, though very careful with their own expenditure were very careless in the expenditure of what came to them from outside. That would have been an admirable reason as to Government grants 1814 that are made to the local authorities, and as to money they spend on certain purposes, but it is not a relevant argument as regards money which is administered by the Road Board, because you have got in this case what you have not got in the others—a special Board of very eminent persons whose whole business it is to see that the Grant is properly expended. That makes the whole difference between the two cases. I am not the least surprised that applications to the extent of £8,000,000 have already been received. We are familiar with the fact that when public money is going there will be any number of people very anxious to take advantage of it. But after all, when the £8,000,000 has been sifted, I daresay that not more than £2,000,000 would be found to be necessary expenditure. Still, we must lay stress on the fact that the Road Board are to be the judges of the matter, and they are responsible for seeing that the money is properly expended.
The hon. Baronet (Sir C. Rose) and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hobhouse), in describing how this money was to be expended, said that it was first of all allocated on certain principles between England, Scotland and Wales. That subject was discussed in Committee upstairs, and my recollection is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer strongly deprecated the division of the spoils, as it were, between the different countries. He rather considered that the money was granted to the Board, who had to spend it in the best possible way, irrespective of the county or country in which it was spent. As I understand, the Board have gone even further than that: they are allocating the money assigned to the different countries among the different counties, so that you have the money split up in the different countries according to the population of the different counties. I do not think that that was the principle or the intention of the Act, and I think it a bad principle. You will never have any large scheme undertaken if you follow that principle. You will have the money, not squandered, but frittered away on a number of small improvements, and you will have great difficulties as to the way in which the surplus shall be dealt with. It is quite clear that the Road Board themselves, on their own confession, are not going to indulge in the creation of any new roads. The new roads would probably be between certain counties, and that would upset the whole principle of allocation on which they have proceeded. I 1815 submit that that is a wrong principle, and one that ought not to be followed so closely by the Board. I do not want to say anything about corners, because the hon. Baronet has already been put in a corner by almost every speaker. He is very familiar with Newmarket, where there are no corners. I daresay the corner he knows best is Tattenham Corner. Something, however, might be done in reference to corners, though that, after all, is a small matter. But could not the Board consider the question of loop roads round villages? That is a matter of great importance. Many hon. Members know villages where the twists are so great or the cottages are built so close to the road that it is dangerous for a motor to go through at almost any pace. I hope the Board when considering the allocation of this money will keep in mind these difficulties, which might be avoided by making loop roads.
Reference has been made to the way in which the Grants have been misconceived by some hon. Members. This money was not granted for the general improvement and development of roads. There was something in the nature of an agreement with the motorists and those who use petrol that if this special tax were taken from them it should be applied in a special way, not for the general development of roads, but for the improvement of roads with a view to motoring. As far as I understood the hon. Baronet it has not been so devoted. There has been a general scattering of money among fortunate counties for the improvement of roads in those counties, but the position of the motorists, from whom the money has been collected, has been very largely forgotten. If my hon. Friend persists in pressing his Motion to a Division, I shall vote with him as a protest against public money being spent in this way by a public body without any records being brought before the House except in a purely casual and indirect manner.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Development Commissioners in connection with afforestation. May I ask whether the Development Commissioners will deal with afforestation in Scotland?

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I must confess I have not all the details in mind. I cannot say for the moment.

1816

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE
The Government have settled that there are to be Small Holdings Commissioners in Scotland, who will be responsible for afforestation. At present there are two authorities in Scotland to deal with this question, and I wanted to know which is to be supported by the Treasury.

§ Mr. CASSEL
I approach this question from rather a different point of view from that of any Member who has yet spoken. We have heard the views of representatives of rural areas, of representatives from Ireland, and of representatives of county boroughs. I approach the question as a London Member, and I would ask the hon. Baronet what attitude the Board take with reference to the county of London. The hon. Baronet stated that the Road Board were allocating their funds among the counties according to population. If London is to be treated as a county for this purpose I am afraid that statement is almost too good to be true. London has a claim to share to some extent in this fund. I do not base my claim upon private motor cars, because such cars, although registered in London, no doubt largely tour through the country and injure the roads in those districts. But an enormous proportion of the total funds is derived from payments made in respect of motor omnibuses, motor cabs, and trade motors, and London has an infinitely larger proportion of those vehicles than any other part of the country. According to a calculation which has been made, one-tenth of the entire fund is derived from these sources, in respect of petrol used on the road in the county of London. Therefore, I submit that London has a claim to share in the fund. As I gather, London has not yet been made any allocation at all, but there seems to be a large surplus available, and I would ask that favourable consideration should be given to the facts which I am urging. If it be the policy of the Board that the county of London should have no share in the fund, it is a grievous injustice and I think contrary to the words of the Act. The Act clearly contemplates that London should have a share, because Section 15 states:—
"For the purposes of this part of this Act the expression 'highway authorities' includes as respects the Administrative County of London the London County Council."
1817 If the Road Board intend entirely to exclude the county of London it would be contrary to what appears to be contemplated by those words.

§ Sir C. ROSE
The hon. Member may reassure himself. London is to receive an allocation, but the method in which it is to be applied has not yet been decided.

§ Mr. CASSEL
I thank the hon. Baronet for that statement. It was not our fault that we were not aware of the fact, as we have had no report before us, and that part of the problem in which, as a London Member, I am specially interested, has not been dealt with in any of the speeches which have been made. Having regard to the fact that one-tenth of the fund is derived from trade motors, motor omnibuses, and motor cabs, taking only the petrol used while going along the roads in the county of London, I submit that London is entitled to a considerable allocation from this fund, and I am glad to hear that it is to have a share.

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
When these taxes were introduced some two years ago, I made certain appeals to the House from the point of view of the motoring community. We have heard to-day a good deal from the point of view of the county councils, the district councils, and the Road Board, but very little from the point of view of the people who really pay these taxes. I am not quarreling with the attitude of the Road Board generally; but I wish to emphasise the fact that a quasi-agreement was arrived at in this House that these people should pay certain taxes on their petrol and motor cars, and that that money should be looked upon as money paid by motorists in order to wipe away the feelings of indignation with which motorists were undoubtedly at that time regarded in many parts of the country, and also the difficulties which motor traffic undoubtedly caused, in many districts. I admit that motor traffic is, or was, distasteful to very large numbers of the community, and we were quite willing to pay these taxes in order to ease the situation and to make it better, not merely for the motorists, but for the inhabitants of the districts through which the motorists ran. What I think the motorists would really prefer is, for the present at all events, that the bulk of the money should be devoted to the crust of the roads, rather than to their widening or to the cutting off of small corners. As a motorist I do not believe that the cutting off of small corners and the rounding of 1818 sharp corners, will really be beneficial to the motorists who drive moderately and properly. If you have a sharp corner, properly protected by a notice board, the decent motorist takes particular care in going round it, not to be a nuisance to anybody else and incidentally not to risk danger to himself. If the money of the Road Board is spent in cutting off corners, or in making it easier for the man described as a "road hog" to spin round corners at twenty or thirty miles an hour, the action of the Board will really not be beneficial either to decent motorists or to the community through whom he motors. I believe that the real objection to motorists is not on account of their speed or even of the danger, but on account of dust, and in that matter the inhabitants of the villages and of the countryside have, if I may say so, my most sincere sympathy. During the late hot weather I have dreaded motoring because of the unpleasantness that the dust is bound to create, and I believe that the Road Board would do well if they would consider applications almost as much for crust development as for road widening. If they would devote their attention for a moment to the improvement of the crust of the roads and the diminution of the dust the object of the motorists who are paying those taxes, of smoothing away the opposition to motoring by the general public, would be very largely achieved. I would also say a few words from the point of view of motorists with regard to the main roads. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hobhouse) gave us certain figures with regard to applications from local authorities, namely, for crust improvement £3,500,000, for widening and corners £2,750,000, but for new roads only £340,000. What is the explanation of that? It is not that new roads are not desirable or are not wanted, but that new roads are so important and so big that they run through the boundaries of various local authorities, so that no one local authority will make application for a new road.
I am quite sure the Road Board has had carefully under its notice the very able Report of the Board of Trade recently published on the subject of road development and signed by Sir Herbert Jekyll and Colonel von Donop, another eminent authority. It deals with the roads into and out of London. I did not hear the speech of the hon. Baronet who represents the Road Board, but so far as I can understand the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hobhouse) nothing definite has yet been decided by the Road Board with 1819 regard to that Report, and the new roads recommended by them. There are new roads required, and we may take as an example one which deals with the constituency with which I am now somewhat closely connected, that is in Brentford, what is called the "Bottle Neck" in Brentford, and another road out of the East End of London. I am not appealing for one or other of these schemes. Every motorist knows, without taking the name of the Monarchy in vain, that, from the time of the late King Edward motoring to Windsor, the road is a disgrace as the principal entrance to the capital of this country. The object of the motorists in coming to this agreement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer two years ago was that at all events a considerable proportion of this money should be spent in entirely new roads. Whether this new road is to take the form of widening the old Brentford High Street I am not now discussing. I am quite sure the Road Board will take it into consideration. But, equally, a new road is urgently needed for the traffic in the East End of London. Let any one go down Commercial Road or Whitechapel Road, and he will see that the whole of the traffic is congested by the large amount of heavy commercial traffic, and motorists do desire that some of this money should be spent in making a new monumental road right through Shoreditch to Colchester and to Romford and beyond that. I may say, with the humility characteristic of motorists in general, and of myself in particular, that we do object to our contributions being, I hardly like to say frittered away, but to there being any large proportion of these grants in proportion to the numerical population of any individual county. I do not want to find undue fault with the Road Board, but I do make the suggestion that that is not the real basis upon which the contributions of the motorists should be divided.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
May I explain for a moment. I am afraid that I left a misapprehension upon the minds of the Committee. When I was speaking about the population basis I meant as between England, Ireland, and Scotland. I am not aware that the population basis entered into the minds of the Committee in discussing the schemes and the claims of different counties. I desire to remove that misapprehension.

1820

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I can quite see that the population of the three countries may be a rough basis in regard to them. But I do want to support the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) with regard to the claim of London. I believe London pays more than one-tenth of the whole of this taxation. Certainly the omnibus and cab proprietors pay at least half of the total of the petrol tax, and at present there has been no expenditure, of any moment, at all events, in the county of London in respect to this heavy taxation upon London motorists and London omnibus and cab companies. I can assure the hon. Baronet who represents the Road Board that we are paying this taxation, and paying it willingly, to a certain extent for the benefit of the public and the improvement of the roads. I do ask the Road Board, though I do not want unduly to press them, to take into consideration very strongly the report of the Board of Trade on the subject of new roads through London, and if he can give us any kind of assurance on that subject we shall be most grateful. I hope that when these Grants and the Estimate comes before the House next year the Road Board will be able to show us that they have taken into account at least one of those great monumental improvements, which were the real object, I think the hon. Baronet will agree in that, which made the motorists so willingly and cheerfully two years ago submit to the imposition of this heavy taxation.

§ Colonel YATE
I should like to say a word or two in support of what has been said about the report in favour of new main roads in London. I hope we shall have that report duly considered, and that we shall have some assurance that some of these new main roads will be made. I should like also to express my regret that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hobhouse) did not tell us anything about any action by the Roard Board with regard to the cutting of high hedges at cross roads. I think that is a very important point. We may travel as moderately and carefully as we can, but if motorists cannot see each other owing to high hedges at the cross roads accidents may happen at any moment. I should like some assurance that the Road Board will take this question into consideration.

§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman may rest assured that 1821 the subject has not been lost sight of. It is one of the greatest reforms that ought to be carried out.

§ Mr. MACMASTER
I only desire to intervene with regard to the question of sharp corners, which are positively dangerous, and are not confined to the Division I represent myself. It is not merely the danger of an impact between two motors, it is the danger of motorists coming into contact with vehicular traffic which cannot be observed owing to sharp turns and corners. Sometimes there are obstructions created by hedges, and on other occasions

1822

§ by buildings, and it is quite evident that the roads now used by motors have been constructed with reference to different conditions of traffic from those which prevail to-day. I am not speaking for anybody else but myself, but in the general interest it appears to me that many of these sharp corners should be cut off, and many of the hedges should be shorn and cut away to obviate the dangers of accident now existing to ordinary travelling in the country.

§ Question put, "That '£1,744,191' stand part of the said Resolution."

§ The House divided: Ayes, 181; Noes, 79.

1823

Division No. 332.]	AYES.	[7.28 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)	Hackett, J.	O'Brien Patrick (Kilkenny)
Addison, Dr. C.	Hancock, John George	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Alden, Percy	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	O'Doherty, Philip
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)	Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)	O'Dowd, John
Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)	Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)	Ogden, Fred
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)	Parker, James (Halifax)
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Barnes, G. N.	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Barry, Redmond John	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	Pointer, Joseph
Beale, W. P.	Haworth, Sir Arthur A.	Power, Patrick Joseph
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Hayward, Evan	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)	Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)	Pringle, William M. R.
Bentham, G. J.	Henry, Sir Charles S.	Radford, G. H.
Bethell, Sir John Henry	Higham, John Sharp	Raffan, Peter Wilson
Boland, John Pius	Hinds, John	Rainy, A. Rolland
Booth, Frederick Handel	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Bowerman, C. W.	Hodge, John	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Brunner, J. F. L.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Bryce, J. Annan	Hughes, Spencer Leigh	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Burke, E. Haviland-	Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Illingworth, Percy H.	Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)	Johnson, W.	Rose, Sir Charles Day
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Rowlands, James
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)	Rowntree, Arnold
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Chancellor, H. G.	Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Chapple, Dr. William Allen	Keating, M.	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Clancy, John Joseph	Kellaway, Frederick George	Shortt, Edward
Clough, William	King, Joseph (Somerset, North)	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Clynes, J. R.	Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)	Smith, H. B. (Northampton)
Collins, G. P. (Greencok)	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Crickland)	Snowden, Philip
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th)	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Leach, Charles	Sutton, John E.
Crooks, William	Levy, Sir Maurice	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)	Lewis, John Herbert	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Davies, E. William (Eifion)	Logan, John William	Tennant, Harold John
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Lynch, Arthur Alfred	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Dawes, J. A.	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)	Verney, Sir Harry
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas	Maclean, Donald	Wadsworth, J.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Macpherson, James Ian	Wardle, G. J.
Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Waring, Walter
Essex, Richard Walter	M'Callum, John M.	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Falconer, J.	M'Laren, H. D. (Leicester)	White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles	Marshall, Arthur Harold	White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Ferens, T. R.	Millar, James Duncan	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Ffrench, Peter	Morgan, George Hay	Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Wiles, Thomas
Gelder, Sir W. A.	Muldoon, John	Wilkie, Alexander
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	Munro, R.	Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Gibson, Sir James puckering	Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Gill, A. H.	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Needham, Christopher T.	Young, William (Perth, East)
Greenwood, Glanville G. (Peterborough)	Neilson, Francis	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)	Nolan, Joseph
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Norton, Capt. Cecil W.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. Dudley Ward.
Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)	Nuttall, Harry
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.	Neville, Reginald J. N.
Aitken, Sir William Wax	Fell, Arthur	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Archer-Shee, Major Martin	Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes	Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Fleming, Valentine	Perkins, Walter F.
Ashley, W. W.	Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)	Pollock, E. M.
Astor, Waldorf	Gibbs, G. A.	Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs)
Baird, J. L.	Goldman, C. S.	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Balcarres, Lord	Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Sanders, Robert A.
Barlow, Montague (Salford, S.)	Gretton, John	Sanderson, Lancelot
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)	Spear, Sir John Ward
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Hall, Fred (Dulwich)	Steel Maitland, A. D.
Bird, A.	Hamersley, A. St. George	Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)
Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)	Healy, Maurice (Cork)	Talbot, Lord E.
Boyton, J.	Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)	Thynne, Lord Alexander
Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell	Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)	Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hills, J. W.	Touche, George Alexander
Bull, Sir William James	Hoare, S. J. G.	Tryon, Captain George Clement
Burn, Col. C. R.	Hohler, G. F.	Tullibardine, Marquess of
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Horner, A. L.	Valentia, Viscount
Cassel, Felix	Houston, Robert Paterson	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Cator, John	Jessel, Captain H. M.	Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude
Cautley, H. S.	Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee	Wolmer, Viscount
Cave, George	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)	Worthington-Evans, L.
Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.	Macmaster, Donald	Yate, Col. C. E.
Clive, Captain Percy Archer	Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)
Clyde, James Avon	Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. C. Bathurst and Mr. Stewart.
Courthope, G. Loyd	Mount, William Arthur
Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

Question put, and agreed to.

§ Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
I wish to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to leave this question of the Killarney Road in its present position. We have not even been told what the offer was that was made to the county council of Kerry. I will not renew the argument I have already put forward, but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with it in a sufficiently adequate manner. County Kerry generally gets no advantage whatever from these tourist, roads. The right hon. Gentleman must remember that this is an extremely large county; it is, I suppose, nearly 190 miles long, and very wide. I very rarely pass over the road; I have nothing to do with the parties concerned, and, therefore, I am speaking with absolute detachment. These counties are not like a fairly rich county, like Cumberland, where people go to the Lakes, and where the road maintenance to a considerable extent falls upon the district. The county; of Kerry stands in a wholly different position. The matter surely is not going to be left in the position in which it is because of this quarrel between the county of Kerry and the Road Board?

§ Sir C. ROSE
The views of the hon. and learned Gentleman will be brought to the notice of the Road Board. So far as I can recollect the position of the Board, the cost of the reconstruction of the road was to be £25,000, of which we offered to make a Grant of £4,000.

1824

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
Quite inadequate.

§ Sir C. ROSE
Our own view was that that was very favourable.

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
The like of the road does not exist anywhere.

§ Sir C. ROSE
The representations of the hon. and learned Member will be brought before the Board.

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
I thank the hon. Gentleman.