COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 3 July 1862)

THE EARL OF CARNARVON
objected to the provision that the final order of the justices in Quarter Sessions confirming the provisional order of the petty sessions as to highway districts should not be valid unless approved by the Secretary of State. He held that the Quarter Sessions formed the proper court of appeal in such a case, and that their decision ought to be conclusive. If the Secretary of State were to have any control over the distribution of the money, he could understand it; but the formation of highway districts was a purely local matter, and ought to be dealt with by the local authorities. There was an excessive tendency to invoke on every occasion the interference of the Secretary of State. The control of the Secretary of State was salutary, but it was salutary only when limited to subjects within his comprehension; and this was not one of those matters. It would relieve the local authorities of a sense of responsibility which they ought to feel, and it would impose on the Secretary of State a task which it 1324 would be utterly impossible for him to perform. He would therefore move the omission of the last two lines of the clause.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
said, he did not see what objection there could be to the order being approved by the Secretary of State, and it certainly would give any dissatisfied parish the opportunity to state reasons, and request that the order might not be affirmed.

§ LORD EGERTON
thought it would be a waste of time, and a useless matter of form, to refer to the Secretary of State upon such a purely local question.

§ THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE
reminded their Lordships that the Bill was not compulsory. There was the greatest possible jealousy among parishes as to any combination for highway purposes, and it would materially diminish opposition if the Bill declared that the decision of the justices should not be final. It might be almost a matter of form, but it would have the appearance of an additional security.

§ LORD LYVEDEN
said, it placed a veto in the hands of the Secretary of State, which might discourage justices from making efforts to bring the Bill into operation, If an appeal were allowed to objecting parishes within a certain time, it might not be objectionable; but this was not an appeal.

§ EARL GREY
thought there ought to be an appeal to some impartial person, and there could be none better than the Secretary of State. If these words were struck out, there would be no appeal at all. The Court of Queen's Bench could not act as a court of appeal in questions of expediency and convenience such as these; and, in fixing the Secretary of State, the Bill only followed the analogy of other Acts.

§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURY
agreed with, the noble Baron opposite (Lord Lyveden) that to give this power of appeal would frequently discourage justices from taking the initiative. He could see no reason why the Secretary of State should be called in to discharge duties which were so entirely foreign to the proper duties of his office.

THE EARL OF CARVARVON
denied that the Bill in giving the appeal to the Secretary of State followed the analogy of other Acts.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
said, that as there seemed a general concurrence of opinion that this power of appeal was unnecessary, and as he himself attached 1325 very little importance to it, he would not further oppose the Amendment.

LORD WODEHOUSE
moved, to insert words "and with the consent in writing of the owner and occupier of every part thereof."

§ LORD PORTMAN
thought that the law on this point was better as it now stood, and therefore moved to disagree to the clause as amended.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
said, the clause was useful, and hoped his noble Friend would withdraw his Motion.

EARL POWIS
thought it was unfair to impose such a liability upon the justices who undertook voluntary and gratuitous duties.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
could not allow that, under the circumstances, the provision was unreasonable.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
moved to add words at the end— Except highways which any railway company, or the owners, conservators, commissioners, trustees, or undertakers of any canal, river, or inland navigation, are liable by virtue of any Act of Parliament relating to such railway, canal, river, or inland navigation to make, maintain, repair, or cleanse.