The Duke of Rich- mondmoved, "That the Report of the Highways Bill be now received."
The Earl of Falmouthwished to move an Amendment in the Clause which gave to the surveyors of roads the power to take away from lands such materials as they might deem necessary for the repair of roads, provided that such materials were not abstracted from gardens, orchards, plantations, &c. He should propose that the word "woods" should be inserted before plantations. It would be a very great hardship upon a poor individual, whose whole property might consist in a small wood, if the surveyors were allowed to enter it, and form a quarry for the purpose of procuring materials to repair the roads, not only without his consent, but perhaps entirely against his will. Again, compensation was to be awarded for the materials thus taken away, and for any damage which might be done to the land, by the magistrates assembled in special sessions. Now, he was very much afraid, if some alteration were not made in the Clause, that they would award only a minimum, and not a full and fair measure of compensation.
§ The Duke of Richmondsaid, this Bill had been for nearly two months before the House. It had been referred to a Select Committee, who had thoroughly investigated every part of it, and he certainly did think that it was very hard for the noble Earl to come down at that late period of the Session, with a number of Amendments. It was thought by many that the exemptions, as the Bill now stood, were too extensive; but if the word "woods," which was a very comprehensive one, were introduced, it would open a wide field of dispute and litigation. The Clause which the noble Earl wished to alter had been much considered by the Select Committee, and he could not consent to the Amendment.
The Earl of Falmouthsaid, he did not want to open a wide field, but to shut up a little wood. Was it to be tolerated that a surveyor should have the power to take the property of a private individual, and that that individual should only receive a minimum of compensation? If materials were taken for the benefit of the public, the public ought to pay an ample price for them. Such was the course pursued with respect to rail-roads, canals, &c. He should move that these words be inserted—"That in cases where the property of individuals is taken under this Bill for public use, the fullest and most ample compensation shall be awarded."
§ Viscount Beresfordsaid, the Clause which the noble Earl wished to amend had undergone the fullest consideration in the Select Committee.
§ Lord Colchesteralso opposed the Amendments, and observed, that the Bill had been fully considered in Committee; and that after full consideration, it was agreed that the terms of the Clause ought not to be extended more than at present.
§ The Duke of Richmondcould not consent to the proposed Amendments. The 13th of George 3rd. (the old Highway Act) had given powers more extensive than this Bill, and the Committee to whom the Bill had been referred, had rather restricted than extended the old law. Under the present Bill, the magistrates must, in the first instance, declare that it was necessary for public purposes to take the stone; and till they did so, no invasion of property could be made. The noble Earl talked of the invasion of private rights; but if he had attended the Committee, he would have found that private rights were fully considered and protected.
The Earl of Falmouthdid not know that because a Bill had been considered in Committee, no noble Lord was at liberty afterwards to propose an Amendment therein. He repeated, that if their Lordships consulted, as they were bound to do, the protection of private property, they would agree to his Amendments. He did not wish to press the Amendments now, but would consent to the Adjournment of the Bill for a day or two. He moved the Adjournment of the Question to Thursday next.
§ The Duke of Richmondopposed the Adjournment of the further consideration of the Bill, which had been already two months before the Committee. If he consented to the Adjournment, the Bill would not get through Parliament before the end of the Session. The noble Earl hardly considered the extent of the proposed Amendment, when he proposed to introduce the word "wood," for there were woods of between 2000 and 3000 acres in this country. The noble Earl ought to have attended the Commitee, which was the proper place for proposing the Amendments. However, the noble Earl might, if he pleased, propose these Amendments on the Motion for the third reading.
The Earl of Falmouthwould not consent to this assumption of superiority on the part of the noble Duke. He was perfectly aware that there were sometimes 3000 acres of wood, but these were forests; and the noble 568 Duke ought to know, that forests and woods were not the same thing, and he should be ready to limit the Amendment to woods of a certain extent. As to the Adjournment, he thought that the noble Duke went on so quickly that he was hardly able to keep up with him.
The Question that the Debate be adjourned was negatived. The Report was received, and the Bill was ordered to be read a third time.