said, he had given Notice of his intention to move that the Lords' Amendments be considered this day three months. His object was to secure that the Bill should be thrown out; and he would at once proceed, as shortly as he could, to point out his reasons for taking this course, and the grounds upon which he based his opposition to the Bill. He ought, in the first instance, to explain, that in common with other Members of that House, he had received a paper called a "Statement," which had been issued on behalf of the promoters of the Bill. He did not propose to refer specially to this document, except in regard to one point—namely, that which related to the improvement of the Blackstaff River—and it was upon this point that he intended, in a great measure, to base his arguments in opposition to the further progress of the Bill. It set forth that he (Mr. Biggar) had already opposed the Bill in several ways, and it went on to specify the occasions—

"It appears that—1st, before the Commission on Local Government and Taxation of Towns (Ireland) which sat in Belfast in December, 1861; 2ndly, in a Petition against the Bill, deposited by him in the Private Bill Office on the 30th day of January last; 3rdly, before the Select Committee of the House of Lords to whom this Bill was referred, Mr. Biggar has made certain charges against the Corporation."

"Mr. Biggar has made certain charges against the Corporation which may he summarized as follows:—1. That the members of the Council are almost exclusively Conservatives and Protestants, and are, therefore, unfit to be trusted with the powers usually conferred upon Town Councils."

"that the Improvement Committee of the Council are guilty of improper conduct in furthering their private interests at the expense of the public."

"In the House of Lords he was allowed to appear in the character of a witness before the Select Committee upon the Bill, and gave full expression to his opinions; after which, the Committee called upon the Corporation neither for any rebutting evidence, nor for any reply."

"As Mr. Biggar's objections have thus had full consideration before proper tribunals, it is submitted that, even if they were relevant to the question before the House, they should not be entertained at the present stage. They are objections which might possibly have been urged, and, in fact, although not pressed, were taken as objections to the Bill in its passage through the House of Commons; but are in no way relevant to the Amendments made in the House of Lords which the House of Commons is now asked to consider."

"The number of persons who signed the Petition against the Bill in the form in which it went to the House of Lords was 21; of these only one or two appeared before the Committee, and the Council agreed to insert a clause which met the only substantial criticism made on their behalf upon the Bill."

"The Bill has practically the unanimous consent of the Town Council, and for a Bill of this kind an exceptionally unanimous approval from the general body of the inhabitants."

I must remind the hon. Member that he is not entitled to discuss the whole Bill. He is only entitled to discuss such Amendments as the House of Lords have made in it.

said, that all the arguments he intended to advance were contained in the Report of the Select Committee on Local Government and Taxation of Towns in Ireland. He did not intend to read one word of the Bill itself, nor had he any desire to discuss the general merits of the measure; but he intended and he thought he should succeed in basing his arguments in opposition to the Bill upon the particular Amendment which had been inserted by the House of Lords. His contention went entirely in favour of the idea expressed by the Select Committee in their Report, and he proposed to read only 12 lines of that Report, in the belief that the passage, together with his own arguments, would fairly come within the scope of the Amendment. He held in his hand the Report of the Committee on Local Government and Taxation of Towns in Ireland, of which Committee he believed the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was Chairman. In that Report, as it was finally agreed to by the Committee, they said—

"With regard to Belfast, complaints were made to the Commissioners of a want of attention on the part of the Corporation to the interests of the Roman Catholic portion of the inhabitants, and of their partiality in administering the law compelling the formation of roadways and footpaths in newly-built streets. On the latter point, the Commissioners express an opinion that 'the Corporation should seek to get rid of these clauses altogether, if they find they cannot carry them out fairly; but while they are part of the law of the land, they certainly ought to be so carried out as to leave no colour for the suspicions which are undoubtedly entertained that strict impartiality is not invariably observed.'"

Will the hon. Gentleman read that part of the Report which follows—I mean the part which comes at the end of their observations in regard to Belfast?

said, he would read it in due course. The Committee also said—

"The Commissioners also report a prevailing opinion among a large portion of the ratepayers that the Corporation are responsible for the continuance of the monster nuisance, caused by the polluted condition of the Blackstaff stream."

"Your Committee, while calling attention to these subjects, on which the evidence taken before them appears to bear out the views of the Commissioners, have pleasure in expressing their opinion of the generally satisfactory manner in which the municipal affairs of Belfast are managed by the Corporation of that town."

"The Commissioners also report a prevailing opinion among a large portion of the ratepayers that the Corporation are responsible for the continuance of the monster nuisance caused by the polluted condition of the Blackstaff stream."

said, he did not propose to follow the hon. Member for Cavan into all the details which he had referred to. He thought the hon. Member had taken a very unusual course in moving such an Amendment at this stage of the measure. The effect of postponing the consideration of the Lords' Amendments would be, of course, that the Bill itself would be lost so far as the present Session was concerned; and there could be no doubt whatever that by this Bill the Corporation of Belfast would be able to effect very extensive and much needed improvements in the town. The necessity for these improvements was generally admitted, and fully justified the Corporation in asking for further powers. The Bill had received the careful consideration of Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament, and the House of Lords had already agreed to it substantially in the form in which it was originally presented to them. No doubt, the hon. Member for Cavan and his Friends did oppose the Bill in the House of Lords; but the noble Lords who composed the Committee of the other House declined to sanction their objections, and the consequence was that the Bill now came down to the House of Commons for its approval in the final stages. The hon. Member for Cavan had favoured the House with a long dissertation upon the state of the Blackstaff stream. There could be no doubt that the question of sewage in Belfast was an old matter of controversy, and it was the desire of the Corporation that the present state of things should be remedied. Indeed, the promoters of the Bill were taking every pains to mitigate as far as possible the nuisance complained of, and already the hon. Member for Cavan and his Friends had had every opportunity afforded them of representing their views before the local authorities. First of all, the hon. Member was examined by a Select Committee upstairs appointed to consider the question of the Local Government and Taxation of Towns in Ireland. He was next called before the Commissioners in Belfast, and gave evidence there; and, very recently, he gave evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Lords upon the present Bill. The complaints of the hon. Member were confined to one particular subject, and they had received very full consideration. That they had not been acceded to was not the fault of the Corporation of Belfast, who were the promoters of the Bill. If anyone was to blame in that respect, it certainly was not the promoters of the measure. It was unnecessary that he (Mr. Corry) should enter into details as to the objects of this Bill for the improvement of the town of Belfast, because those details had already been fully considered by Committees of both Houses of Parliament; and he felt quite certain that the House would not consent to reject a Bill which, after much careful investigation, had been sanctioned by a Select Committee, and was now sent down for the final approval of the House, having almost reached its last stage.

, as Chairman of the Committee which considered the Bill upstairs, hoped the House would allow him to say a few words before they came to a division. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was quite right in what he said as to his objections not having been pressed before the Committee. He (Mr. Portman) was aware that those objections were embodied in a Petition against the Bill; but the Petition itself was not pressed. The objections had, however, according to the statement of the hon. Member for Cavan, been brought before the House of Lords and duly considered; and, under those circumstances, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion to a division. From all that the Committee of the House of Commons were able to see of the Belfast Improvement Bill, they came to the conclusion that it would carry into effect some very desirable improvements of the town; and he should be very sorry to see it rejected upon the present occasion. He hoped the hon. Member for Cavan would not persist with his Amendment, as if he did so, he was afraid that he could not give him his vote.

could not take objection to the course taken by his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan. He apprehended that his hon. Friend was perfectly within his right when he took upon himself to oppose the further progress of the Bill at this stage. He (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) thought that probably the object of the Bill was a very good one; but the grounds of objection taken by the hon. Member for Cavan were two-fold. The chief one, which his hon. Friend had placed upon the Paper, referred to the fact that the Corporation of Belfast had already been charged with an important public work, and had failed to carry it out. He thought that was a very fair topic to bring under the notice of the House, although it was by no means conclusive in the matter, and would probably not justify the House in going the extreme length of rejecting the present Bill. There was one matter, however, to which he thought the attention of the House ought to be specially directed. He held in his hand a document which had been circulated among hon. Members, which purported to be

"A statement on behalf of the Corporation of Belfast in support of the Bill, and against the Motion of Mr. Biggar,"

I think, Sir, it is hardly possible to imagine a more inconvenient course than that which has been taken by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) in making this Motion. The Bill, which the hon. Member referred to at some length in his opening remarks, has now passed through almost every stage in both Houses. It has been fully considered by a Select Committee upstairs, the Chairman of which has stated that it met the entire approval of that Committee. It has been to the other House of Parliament, and there carefully considered. The hon. Member for Cavan was himself called as a witness before the Committee of the other House, and, in deference to the opposition offered to the Bill in that House, the House of Lords introduced certain Amendments into it in the shape of a new clause, which is to follow Clause 22 of the original Bill. That new clause requires the Corporation of Belfast, within 12 months after the purchase of the necessary property for any new street or improvement authorized by the Bill, to proceed with the execution thereof in accordance with the Bill, and to complete the same with reasonable despatch. That is the only Amendment in the Bill upon which any general objection can be raised. Well, Sir, I think it would hardly be possible for the Forms by which Parliament has endeavoured to protect the promoters of a Private Bill to be more strained than by a Motion such as that which is now submitted to the House; or for the interests of suitors to be more sacrificed, than in the event of such a Motion being adopted—theresult of which would be to reject a Bill which has already passed nearly all its stages in both Houses of Parliament on a simple Motion for rejecting the Lords Amendments. It is not necessary that I should go into the questions of detail which have been raised by the hon. Member for Cavan. He may object to the Bill because he thinks that the interest of certain Roman Catholic citizens of Belfast are not generally considered. That is a large and important question, and I wish to express no opinion upon it. He may object further to the Bill on the ground that the Corporation of Belfast have omitted to fulfil certain engagements which they had previously contracted. But these are neither of them questions for the House to consider now. The House has only to consider whether the Amendments which have been inserted in the Bill by the House of Lords, and which are of the simplest character, are objectionable, or whether they afford sufficient reason for setting aside a Bill which has already received the approval of Committees of both Houses of Parliament, and which I hope on the present occasion this House will sanction. I trust that the Amendment will be met by a decided negative.

Does the hon. Member in charge of the Bill propose to agree to the Lords Amendments?

Yes.

asked leave to disagree with the Lords Amendment. The clause provided that the Corporation should, within 12 months after the purchase of property for a new street or improvement, proceed to complete and execute such new street or improvement with reasonable despatch. That clause was inserted in the Bill in the House of Lords in consequence of the opposition of his friend Mr. Ross. He proposed to make a small addition to the clause by adding the following Proviso:—

"Provided also, That the said powers of purchase shall not come into operation till the main drainage scheme, which has been approved of by the Local Government Board, has been completed."

said, he was compelled to take the same course in regard to the present Amendment as that which he had already taken in regard to the previous one, which involved the rejection of the Bill altogether. In fact, so far as his own knowledge went, he was not aware that any main drainage scheme had been approved of by the Local Government Board at all, or that the Corporation of Belfast were under any pledge to the Local Government Board to carry out any scheme. There were, however, certain works going on, and those works would be completely stopped if this Bill were not passed. The adoption of the Proviso moved by the hon. Member for Cavan would effectually stop all the improvements now going on in Belfast. He therefore hoped the House would not assent to it.

Does the hon. Member for Belfast propose to agree with the rest of the Lords' Amendments?

Yes.

In the absence of my noble Friend the Member for the Radnor Boroughs (the Marquess of Hartington) I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Convention of the 4th June between the Governments of Great Britain and Turkey has yet been ratified; and, whether the said Convention has been communicated to the Congress at Berlin, or to the European Powers separately?

Sir, the English ratification of the Convention was sent to Constantinople by special messenger some time ago, and Sir Austen Layard reported on the 8th that everything was settled, and Mr. Baring, who was to take the firman to Cyprus, had left Constantinople. We have not yet received any official Report of the Convention having been formally communicated to the other Powers at Berlin.

The hon. Gentleman will observe that the Question I asked him was, whether the Convention has been communicated to the Congress at Berlin, or to the European Powers separately.

The answer is that which I have given, and which I believe to be a complete answer to the Question —namely, that we have not yet received any official Report of the Convention having been formally communicated to the other Powers, either at Berlin or elsewhere.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, If he can state to the House the total cost of Turnpike Roads which have been disturnpiked since December 31st, 1870, and, which under the provisions of the Highways Bill, would become chargeable to the county rate; also the total cost of existing Turnpike Roads which, on ceasing to be such, might hereafter become chargeable under the provisions of the same Bill to the county rate?

, in reply, said, that the Returns of the annual cost of turnpike roads were given in the Appendices to the Local Government Reports. The cost in 1870 was £509,546; and, according to the latest Returns, the cost was £282,273, and half of the difference would primâ facie be the amount that would fall upon the county rate. The latest Returns were, however, 18 months in arrear, and it was estimated that the probable charge would now amount to about £150,000 a-year.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, When he will be able to put the Amendments to be introduced into the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill on the Table; and, whether he hopes to be able to circulate amongst hon. Members the Orders in Council before the Bill goes into Committee?

, in reply, said, he hoped to be able to place the Amendments on the Table that evening, and they would be printed and circulated immediately. With regard to the other part of the Question, he had communicated with the Privy Council on the subject, and the Orders would be laid on the Table as soon as possible; but he was unable to say if it would be before the Bill went again into Committee.

asked, what would be the order of Business on Friday next?

said, it was not easy to say what would be the particular Business on Friday. It would depend very much on what progress they made that day (Tuesday). He thought the Army and War Office Regulation Bill would be on the Paper for that day.

said, the Inclosure Bill was down first for Friday. He wished to know if it would keep its place?

said, that the Inclosure Bill would in all probability be taken first on Friday. It would keep its place on the Paper that day; but should any change take place, he would communicate it to the House before Friday.

said, it was a matter of great regret to him that Glasgow had been obliged to be so prominent in the discussion of the Roads and Bridges Bill; for he was sure that the House would be quite sick of the name of Glasgow and its grievances by this time. But Glasgow was peculiarly situated, and he was speaking under a stinging sense of the flagrant injustice imposed uponher—injustice of an almost unparalleled character. By an hard-and-fast clause in the Bill, it was proposed to inflict upon her an annual burden of £10,000 a-year for the maintenance of the county roads, and also to make her pay, on an equal rate with the counties, the whole of the county road debts. The injustice of the Government in this matter was not only that the clause was inconsistent with every other clause in the Bill, but that it was utterly inconsistent with the conduct of the Government in other matters; for on Friday they had the President of the Local Government Board proposing an Amendment on the English Highways Bill by which the Metropolis was specially exempted from paying any part of the county road debt.

said, his proposal had nothing to do with the debts of the turnpike roads.

said, he had made a mistake, having meant to say county road maintenance. The right hon. Gentleman had entirely excluded the Metropolis from payments to the county road maintenance, and had also excluded all quarter sessions boroughs from the same burdens; and yet, a few days before that, they had the Home Secretary proposing, under the Scotch Roads and Bridges Bill, that Glasgow should make large payments, both towards the debts and maintenance of the county roads. He maintained that these were inconsistencies which would not win the confidence of the country to the Government. When it saw the Government blowing hot and cold, doing one thing for the boroughs of England and an entirely different thing for a burgh in Scotland, the fact was not likely to create much confidence in such a Government. They had the Local Government Board and the Home Office distinctly at variance with each other in this matter. A very small concession at the eleventh hour was made; but he wished to make a distinct protest against the expression of the Home Secretary, that the concession was of the nature of a compromise. It was not a compromise at all, because Glasgow repudiated it. A compromise was an agreement between two parties; but in this case one of the parties had nothing to do with it. All that it enabled Glasgow to do was to come back in five years and renew the battle, sickening the House of Commons of that day as they were doing now; and in the meantime they would have paid the great bulk of the county road debt, and £50,000 for the maintenance of the county roads, no part of which was it ever proposed they should get back, even if the revision at the end of the five years was entirely in Glasgow's favour. This injustice of making Glasgow pay the county road debts was immensely aggravated by the nature of the valuations. In Glasgow every working man's house and every other residence and every shop was valued at the full amount, and must, therefore, pay towards the county road debt on the utmost valuation. But in the counties there was a totally different state of matters existing. They had there all the county magnates living in palatial residences, and they had these rated at the lowest possible figure—at mere nominal rents—and not at all in proportion to the magnitude of the property. Thus, while the county magnate paid the lowest possible amount, the Glasgow workman would pay to the utmost farthing. He maintained that before this flagrant injustice was done, Glasgow had a right to be heard by counsel. This right had been denied by a British House of Commons; led on by a despotic Government, with a large majority at its back. He protested against this. He believed the injustice to be utterly unprecedented, and that the case he had made out the other day for being heard by counsel was entirely uncontrovorted. It had hardly been denied—indeed, it appeared to have been admitted—that if the Home Secretary had been spoken to sooner he would have allowed it to be so heard. The right hon. Gentleman had not denied the hardship. He (Mr. Anderson) was bound to say that the learned gentleman who acted as the Speaker's counsel, and advised him in this matter, must have been very hard up for precedents when, after several days' search, the only one he was able to give dated some 34 years back—namely, the South Wales Highways Act. He (Mr. Anderson) had since examined it, and found it was not a precedent in any sense of the word. What Glasgow complained of, he repeated, was that by a hard-and-fast clause in the Bill this extraordinary liability for the county roads was placed upon it. In the South Wales Highway Act there was nothing whatever of the kind. All that it did was to appoint Commissioners for the adjustment of the county road debts, and to arrange a system of arbitration under which those who made objections could be heard. There was no such thing as a hard-and-fast line deciding that Brecknock, say, was to pay the debt of Radnor, or that Pembroke was to pay £10,000 a-year to support the roads of Cardigan. Therefore, he maintained that there was nothing in that Act which served as a precedent to justify the House in having refused that Glasgow should be heard by counsel before this injustice was inflicted upon it. The only excuse for this act of the Government was that Glasgow came too late with its objections. The Home Secretary had said the City of Glasgow had been guilty of certain laches in not having come at an earlier date and let him know the circumstances. His constituents entirely and distinctly denied these laches. On the 15th of February they saw the Home Secretary and the Lord Advocate together, and at that interview the proposals of Mr. Smith were laid before them and strongly protested against. That was not all. On the 1st of March they had another interview with the Lord Advocate, on the 20th of March a second, on the 27th of May a third, and on the 3rd of June a fourth interview with the Lord Advocate, besides sending, both to him and the Home Secretary, printed papers and written remonstrances. There were no fewer than four distinct interviews with the Lord Advocate, at every one of which the strongest remonstrances were made against these proposals; and yet they had the Home Secretary coming and telling the House that he never heard from the Glasgow magistrates since the 15th of February. How was Glasgow to know that the Lord Advocate was never communicating these remonstrances to the Home Secretary, or that the Home Secretary entirely forgot or ignored them? The magistrates of Glasgow had always understood, as had other Scotch corporations, that the Lord Advocate was the proper means of communicating between them and the Government. They knew no other. They had been accustomed to go to the Lord Advocate with other grievances. They went four times to the Lord Advocate, remonstrating with him upon this injustice, and yet they were told by the Home Secretary that he never heard a word about it. The fault lay either with the Lord Advocate or with the Home Secretary—in any case, with the Government, certainly not with the magistrates of Glasgow. The Home Secretary also complained that the actual Motion to be heard by counsel came very late—only after the clause was in the Bill. If the magistrates of Glasgow had believed it possible that the House of Commons would pass that unjust clause, and incorporate it with the Bill, the Amendment demanding to be heard by counsel would have been made even sooner; but it was made as soon as the clause was fairly in the Bill. He did not believe it would be any use at this late period to divide the House upon this matter. The Representatives of Glasgow had made the best fight they could; but with the large majority the Government had at its back, the fight was a vain one. The question would, however, be fought "elsewhere," and by much abler men. He trusted that in the "other place" the fight would have a more satisfactory issue. If that happened, it would not be the first time that an injustice inadvertently inflicted upon Glasgow by this House was redressed by the other. He said inadvertently, because he was quite sure the House of Commons would not willingly inflict injustice on anyone. If it came to be fought in the other House, he would have the Government consider whether it would not be better to allow the clause to be thrown out, with the result of leaving the Bill a perfectly good Road Act for Scotland, consistent with itself in all its parts. No one would be really aggrieved if this were done. The only effect would be that the counties in question would have to ask for a Provisional Order in regard to anything they did not like. There was abundant time between this and the Act coming into operation to have the different claims of the counties and of the City of Glasgow adjusted, after proper evidence, where the parties could be heard by counsel in the presence of each other. He urged the Government to remove this grievous blot upon the Bill. He was sure it would not be satisfactory to the Government to feel that this clause, introduced at the last hour, was to produce such an amount of hostility as it would create in Glasgow. It would only produce contempt for the law and resistance to the law; for the feeling in Glasgow was so bitter against the counties and the rate proposed, that he looked forward to an amount of bad feeling being created, to an extent which the Government might find it a very inconvenient thing to deal with. He asked them, therefore, at the last moment to allow this clause to be thrown out, and to leave parties to adjust their differences in future by a Provisional Order or Private Bill. He begged to move that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.

said, he thought the Lord Advocate ought to take some notice of what had been stated. The fact was that the Home Secretary was anxious to be here, but was unavoidably called away. He was certain if the right hon. Gentleman had been there, he would not allow the injustice his hon. Colleague (Mr. Anderson) protested against to pass without a word of explanation; and he really thought, in his absence, the Lord Advocate was bound to make some explanation, not in reference to the entire question, but in reference to a matter which had been for the first time brought before the House—the accusation of laches brought against Glasgow in this matter.

said, he thought a great deal of meaning had been attached to the word laches which was not intended to be conveyed by it. He took it that all the Home Secretary intended was that the suggestion of Glasgow came too late. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman intended to say that he was not aware of the position taken up by the City. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman had been made aware of it by the hon. Members for Glasgow whilst the Bill was in progress and in Committee. What he meant was that the Motion to send the Bill to a Select Committee could not be fairly considered at a period of the Session when the proposal would have the effect of shelving the Bill, and that the suggestion should have been made at an earlier period than when the Bill was passing through the Committee of the House.

also thought the term laches entirely had reference to the proposal to send a Bill to a Select Committee, which was an unprecedented proposition on the last stage of the Bill. It ought, if made at all, to have been earlier. There was a strong feeling that if the Government had taken a course of that kind it would have had the effect of throwing out the Bill. He did not propose to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) in his remarks. Had the whole burden fallen on them, the counties would have have had to be taxed at 1s. and 1s. 6d. in the pound for roads most extensively used by Glasgow. It was only just that Glasgow and the suburban burghs should afford the counties some assistance in this matter, as without seeking to eclipse the hon. Member for Glasgow in the use of strong language, he must say that, had the Bill passed without some provision of the kind which had been introduced by the Lord Advocate, it would have been one of the most iniquitous Bills that ever was carried.

said, the Lord Advocate had ignored the statement with reference to the four separate interviews between the magistrates of Glasgow and his Lordship. It was perhaps as well that the people of Glasgow should take note of the fact that though they might hold interviews with the Lord Advocate, it was possible that information of them might never reach the Home Secretary, and that while they were accustomed to look to the Lord Advocate, it was useless to send deputations to him; because it might turn out after all that the Home Secretary would get up in this House and say that the representations had never reached him. He thought this was a matter which the Lord Advocate should explain more clearly than he had done in the very perfunctory statement he had made to the House. As the clause was introduced in Committee, it was impossible that its opponents could have proposed a Select Committee earlier than they did.

said, that the other day it had been shown that it was perfectly unnecessary to lay down any of those regulations. For his own part, he was not aware of any case of the kind in which danger to the public had arisen, and he thought that if they had to provide by bye-laws against every possible accident that might occur, they would have enough to do. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was better advised when he did not press any such regulations as these. The matter might safely be left to the Common Law, and he hoped that hon. Gentlemen would join with him in opposing the Amendment.

said, he knew of a case in which a tree had been lying immediately in front of an approaching vehicle, which had run into it before the driver had time to stop. In some cases, the occupants of a vehicle had the option of being despatched by a tree or drowned in a pond. Such a case had occurred within a few yards from his own house.

said, he rose to oppose the whole of the propositions of the hon. Baronet. It might happen that the bye-laws might be passed in one county and not in another, so that a man going from one county to another would not know under what bye-laws he existed. He was under the impression that the system of making different bye-laws for different localities had been carried to an extreme, and that they really must allow some matters to be determined by the common sense and judgment of people who were engaged in the management of districts. With regard to the evil of trees, he could not say that he had passed over as many country roads as the hon. Baronet; but, in his whole experience, he had never met with the slightest inconvenience in the way indicated.

thought the hon. Baronet ought to get some credit for his attempt to make things a little better than they were. He could speak from experience in the matter, seeing as he did from time to time similar cases occurring down in Hertfordshire. He did not know whether the Common Law would prevent it or not, but they did want some better regulations than they already had in reference to their roads. They also wanted some authority to clean out ditches by the side of roads.

said that a discussion on this point was beyond the limit afforded by the Amendment.

said, that he wanted to support the hon. Baronet, because he had seen frequent cases of accident occurring from people not noticing trees that were lying across roads.

hoped the hon. Baronet would not press the words he had proposed, or any of the Amendments he had to follow them. He should be very willing to establish a general power of making bye-laws similar to that which existed under the General Turnpike Act. The trustees under those Acts had the power of preventing certain nuisances upon roads, such as the opening of gates outwards into roads; and he thought that under some general words they might give such powers as would make it certain that all that was reasonable would be provided for. If the hon. Member would favour him by withdrawing his Amendment, and the other Gentlemen who had similar Amendments would do the same, he would substitute such an Amendment as the following:—

"For prohibiting or regulating all or any of such matters or things as may be prohibited or regulated under the General Turnpike Act."

said, he hoped the power included the lopping and trimming of timber which overhung roads which in some districts rendered them almost impassable for loads of hay and straw. But with regard to bicycles, they were almost a new machine, and if the hon. Baronet moved his Amendment affecting them he should be ready to support him, because he thought that without some regulation they were really a danger and a nuisance.

asked, whether power would be included to control the dragging of threshing machines along the roads?

said, the object of his Amendment was to give powers to the highway authorities which the turnpike trustees did not possess at the present time.

said, he should be very glad to leave the whole subject in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, and if he would deal with all the matters contained in the following Amendments he would withdraw those also.

said, he could not conscientiously say that his Amendment would include the management of bicycles; but if the hon. Baronet desired to deal with them now was the time to do so.

then moved the insertion of the following words:—

"(6.) For prohibiting the use of any bicycle on any highway, unless the rider of such bicycle shall be provided with, and shall use, a loud bell and whistle, as well as a clear light after dark, or other effectual means of giving at all times audible notice of his approach on meeting or passing any vehicle or any person on horseback."

agreed to accept the first part of the Amendment in the following form:—"For regulating the use of any bicycle on any road."

said, he had received a communication from the bicyclists of London, which led him to think that they would be perfectly content with the Amendment as altered. They had no objection to the prohibition of bicycling on footpaths, but they certainly objected very strongly to being compelled to use whistles.

said, he thought the present Highways Acts would meet the case suggested by the Amendment of his hon. Friend; and if they did not, he would undertake, if possible, to amend them.

suggested that the Amendment should end with the word "otherwise," leaving out the words "in or upon any vehicle," as those words narrowed the operation of the clause to those in or upon a carriage, and prevented horsemen being dealt with.

said, that any provision in the general Highways Acts would be applicable to roads which had been disturnpiked.

proposed, in page 9, line 9, to insert the words—

"(5.) For prohibiting or regulating the use of locomotives upon any highway, or across any bridge, where such authority is satisfied that such use would be attended with danger to the public from the narrowness, inclination, or imperfect construction of such highway or bridge respectively."

objected to the proposal, on the ground that it would enable local authorities to prevent the use of steam ploughs all over England, because they would not have permission to travel over the roads. He had known cases in which, under the existing law, farmers who wished to use steam power in the cultivation of their land had been unable to do so. It was, in his opinion, unjust to regard as being engaged in "regular traffic," a steam engine which was simply used for the purpose of working a steam plough or a threshing-machine, and had only to be moved from farm to farm as its services were required. It would be easy to put in the Bill provisions which would insure payment, by the persons causing it, for damage done to roads or culverts by the passing of locomotive engines over public roads; but he thought it would be a monstrous abuse of the powers of Parliament, to make a law which could possibly have the effect of preventing the use of steam power in agriculture.

said, it seemed to him absurd to give to any local authority power to stop the passage over roads, and so to prohibit the use, of any machines which were of great practical use in the conduct of farming operations. As far as he understood the proposals of the Government, they would, in a later clause, include such Amendments as would meet any reason able demand on the part of those who objected to the use of steam engines on public roads.

said, he thought it would be wise to make a distinction between locomotives which were proposed to be run frequently and regularly along public roads, and those which were only to be employed on the roads occasionally, in going from farm to farm, in connection with the operations of ploughing or threshing. The objection to locomotives, on the score that it would not be easy to pass them in certain circumstances, would apply with equal weight to a brewer's dray or a furniture van. If two of these vehicles met in a road too narrow for them to pass, one would have to back, and the same observation applied to locomotives. He perfectly agreed that there should be applied to bridges a special protective provision; because, at present, there was no law to prevent engines of any kind passing over bridges, and there was no law to compel persons damaging bridges to pay for such damage, unless they actually broke down the bridge.

thought some distinction should be made between locomotives which were intended to be constantly employed on public roads, and those which it was proposed to move about from farm to farm for agricultural purposes. He knew some roads off which the public were practically driven, by the fact that they were regularly traversed by locomotives. Although a road might be sufficiently wide for a vehicle to pass a locomotive, it could not be done; because the locomotive, owing to its weight, could only travel in the centre of a roadway.

said, he thought no one would object to the use of locomotives on turnpike roads in connection with the operations of agriculture; but he thought there could be some difference of opinion on the subject of allowing their use for ordinary roads, involving, as it would, the possible destruction of many bridges and the certain injury of a large number of roads and the culverts which ran beneath them, unless the roads had been previously made ready for such extra weight, a thing that ought to be attended to.

thought it would be better to deal with this question on Clause 24, than to attempt to deal with it here.

said, the clause now proposed referred to the bye-laws to be made by county authorities; and when they were regulating bye-laws, it seemed to him that this Amendment should be inserted. As, however, his right hon. Friend wished to have the alteration made somewhere else, he had no objection. With respect to bridges, the proprietors of locomotives were already liable by the Locomotive Acts, for the repair of any bridges they broke down; but the Acts at present did not stop them from going over weak bridges. As a result, if a bridge was too weak it broke, and parties using the road were for months unable to go that way because the bridge was under repair. The proprietors of the locomotives might be finally liable; but he wanted to prevent them from straining the bridge in the first instance.

said, he wished to move an Amendment, not on the Paper, of which he had given his right hon. Friend private Notice. He proposed, in page 9, line 19, to leave out the words "shall not be lawful to," and insert the words "be lawful for any highway authority to." His object was to give power to the local authorities to make these regulations optional if they chose—that was to say, to adopt them or not. Subject to the damage for excessive weight, he believed the right policy was to remove all these restrictions, and he wished to empower any and every county to be able to do so. Hon. Members generally had, he believed, no desire to prohibit or to unduly restrict the use of locomotives, but rather to encourage it, subject to public damage and public danger, and nuisance. It seemed to him that if they limited the width of wheel and the weight of the locomotive, they put a bar in the way of improvements, which might do far more harm than would now be done by leaving the use of locomotives free from any of these restrictions, except damage and danger. The principle laid down by Sir George Grey, in the first of these Locomotive Acts, was that the use of these engines should not be encumbered by too many restrictions. That principle had always been adhered to by the House in subsequent legislation; and he thought they might safely give power to the local authorities to dispense with these restrictions in the district under their jurisdiction, if they chose.

said, this part of the Bill was intended as an Amendment of the general law with respect to locomotives. It was not intended that the different county authorities should have power to make different regulations, for it would be intolerable that a locomotive could not pass from one county, or, perhaps, even from one parish to another, without being subject to different and varying rules and penalties. In his opinion, this was not a fit subject for regulation by the local authorities. The general Locomotive Acts of 1861 and 1865 regulated the use of these engines, and it was now proposed to improve those Acts in certain respects which experience had shown to be necessary. For the last two years he had been in communication, off and on, with gentlemen who were interested in the manufacture and use of locomotives, and the provisions and alterations now made had been carefully settled, with the view of making such reasonable amendment of the law as was thought necessary. On the other hand, these gentlemen had cheerfully submitted to certain restrictions to which by law they were not now subject. He thought these proposals were now very just and fair, and if they were to attempt to vary them they might do more harm than they were aware of.

said, this Amendment would introduce optional legislation, and its inconvenience would be apparent to the hon. Baronet if he would remember the number of different bodies these locomotive people would have to deal with. They could not have legislation that was at once optional and final; while if these regulations were left to the local authorities to settle, there would be an interminable number of difficulties introduced. The final appeal ought, in his opinion, to rest with the Board of Trade; and besides, they should have certain broad rules laid down and insisted upon, as was done in this clause. In proportion, also, as they enforced stringent legislation, they took the responsibility from the shoulders of the owners of the engines, and, in his opinion, that was undesirable.

said, the first of these sections applied to locomotives not drawing carriages, and he thought three inches was enough in that case.

said, he was not aware that there was any complaint as to the limit of 2 inches; but if his hon. and gallant Friend would withdraw the Amendment, he would inquire into the matter, and make a change in the clause on the Report, if he were satisfied it was necessary.

said, the width of the wheel was really a very important matter; for a very narrow wheel cut up the road a great deal, while a wide one became a road roller, and if they only chose to widen it sufficiently, the passage of the locomotive really became a benefit. He had considered the matter a good deal, and had made some inquiries. As a result, he was bound to say that he thought 1½ inch narrower than was necessary, while 2 inches was too wide. He should think 1¾ inch would be best.

said, if the weight of the locomotive was three tons, was the diameter of the wheel to be three times 60 inches?

said, the wording of this last Amendment would have to be altered, for, as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, it would read as if the tires were to be not less than 60 inches in diameter; whereas, of course, the wheels were meant.

said, this Amendment was given to him in manuscript, and though he did not doubt the correctness of the source from which it came, he would prefer to withdraw it now, and let it stand over till the Report.

said, the principle of the Amendment was certainly a good one—that the width of the wheel should be regulated by the diameter of the wheel. Of course, with a very large wheel the weight was distributed over a greater space; and, therefore, there was less pressure upon the road than with a smaller wheel.

said it was quite impossible to accept this Amendment. It would upset the whole of the clause. If such a restriction were agreed to, it would prevent the use of locomotives altogether.

entirely agreed with the hon. Baronet. He had often seen traction-engines run up steep hills, which they would never have been able to mount but for the cross-bars.

was sorry he could not accept the Amendment. It would not be reasonable to put in such a restriction as this.

said, he had placed on the Paper two subsections, the first of which was intended to secure that the weight of a locomotive should be legibly written upon it. The second gave power to a local authority to construct a weighing machine at some convenient point for the purpose of ascertaining the weight of locomotives. He trusted that the hon. and gallant Member for South Durham (Colonel Beaumont), who took an interest in this matter, might not see any reason to object to this proposal, and that his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board might see his way to adopting it. He begged to move, in page 9, line 38, after sub-section (4), to insert—

"(5.) The exact and true weight of a locomotive, including necessary water and coals, shall be legibly written in letters of not less than one inch in length, and affixed to some conspicuous part of the locomotive. (6.) For the purpose of ascertaining the true weight of a locomotive, any highway district or highway parish authority may, with, the consent of the county authority, construct and erect a weighing machine, with necessary approaches, in any convenient place on the road-side; and every locomotive passing along such road shall, once every six months, if required by the surveyor, go upon the said weighing machine, with coal and water supply complete, and be weighed thereon in the presence of the surveyor, whose certificate shall be true and sufficient evidence of such weight."

said, that while he did not object to the principle involved in the Amendment, he thought it would be imposing a very unnecessary expense upon parochial authorities to require that a weighing machine should be erected in every district throughout the country. He would point out that there was scarcely any place in England where there was not a weighing machine within a convenient distance. Every railway, for example was provided with one.

explained, that what he proposed was not a compulsory, but a permissive power to erect a weighing machine with the consent of the county authority.

said, he was quite aware of that fact. Yet, surely, it was indicating that it was more or less the duty of every district where a locomotive was used to have one of these weighing machines?

objected to the Amendment, that it would entail an addition to the rates. Everything was to be put upon the rates. It would seem that no Act of Parliament could be brought in without something more being put upon the rates. The Amendment would place an obligation almost on the County Boards to erect weighing machines, though there was one to be found at every railway station. He hoped it would not be pressed.

thought the hon. Baronet hardly contemplated what he proposed to enact. It was, that every highway authority might at some point of a road within their district erect a weighing machine, and that the locomotive should be weighed at that place. But the locomotive might not pass along that road at all. The Amendment said that it was only when passing the weighing machine, that the locomotive should be weighed.

pointed out that the local authorities had already power to cause any traction engine to be weighed. The fact was, however, that it was generally known perfectly well what an engine did weigh, and what amount of coal was required for the purpose of working it, and though he did not think much harm would arise from the passing of the Amendment, he believed it to be unnecessary.

said, he rather agreed that sub-section 6 appeared to impose an obligation upon the local authorities, and he would, therefore, ask the hon. Baronet to withdraw that portion of his Amendment.

thought the last suggestion was a very good one. To the first part of the Amendment there was no objection; but as regarded the second part, while it might do harm it could not possibly do any good, and there was no use, therefore, in overburdening the Bill with clauses which would serve no good purpose. There were many ways by which the weight of an engine might be easily ascertained, and he would, therefore, join in the appeal made to the hon. Baronet to omit the latter part of his Amendment.

remarked, that if the latter sub-section were withdrawn, he still thought that power should be given to local authorities to erect weighing machines where they thought it necessary for the general purposes of the Act.

was aware that his hon. Friend (Mr. Stanhope) held that view, and he did not pretend to say that it was an unreasonable one to hold. Perhaps, on the Report, some words might be inserted to enable a local authority to erect a weighing machine if they thought it necessary. He hoped his hon. Friend (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) would be prepared to withdraw the second part of his Amendment.

I accede to that request.

remarked, that at the present time steam ploughs were in use all over the country, and he should like to know what the owners of them were to do, if this Amendment were agreed to? Were they to wait upon or write to the persons who made them in order to ascertain the exact weight of the engine? It was generally known whether an engine was a 10-ton or a 15-ton engine; but the requirement as to the exact weight would, it seemed to him, give rise to great difficulty and a very troublesome operation. In fact, nobody would be able to use his engine at all. How on earth was one to ascertain the exact weight of locomotives?

pointed out that the engines sent out with steam ploughs invariably had the weight written upon them. All the engines in his district were so marked. There was no hardship in the matter.

agreed that there was no hardship whatever in regard to the question of weight. He believed that the owners of locomotives were perfectly willing to agree to what was proposed, and it was not worth the while of the Committee to discuss it.

suggested that the words "exact and true" should be omitted. It would be quite sufficient to say weight.

That Amendment cannot now be made.

said, he would take care that these words were struck out on the Report.

said, the object of the Amendment which he had placed on the Paper was to give some further notice of the approach of locomotives at night than that already provided for. He also thought that some light should be carried at the rear of the locomotive. He begged, therefore, to move, after line 38, to insert—

"(4.) In addition to the lights already required, a locomotive shall at night carry a red light in front, and also a light at the rear or end of the same."

hoped that the Committee would not agree to the Amendment. If they did, the locomotives, as far as he could see, would have a very bad time of it. If, in addition to the glare from the fires, locomotives had to carry a red light in front, which everybody knew was the signal of danger, and a red light behind, they would become such formidable objects that they might be driven off the road altogether. He was perfectly certain that a provision such as that proposed would have the effect of creating a danger which did not exist at present.

remarked, that there was another objection to the Amendment. Already, under the Locomotives Act, every engine had to carry two lights in front. The hon. Member (Mr. Gregory) now proposed to stick another light in front, and a light behind. Admitting that it might be desirable to have a light behind, still the Amendment, in its present shape, could not be accepted, because, as he had stated, the two lights in front already provided for by Act of Parliament were quite sufficient. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman, would not agree to the Amendment in the form in which it was proposed.

said, there was a further objection to what was now proposed. It was already provided that a man must walk before every locomotive. ["No, no!"] He begged pardon; in the day, a man carrying a red flag, had to walk in front of every locomotive. It might be necessary to have a light behind; he thought, himself, such a light would be very useful; but all other lights were already sufficiently provided for. He had never seen any engine—and he had seen a great many of them—which was not provided with lights.

must say that, personally, he would have a great objection to a red light being carried in front. He thought a light behind would be a reasonable requirement; but they need hardly insert a provision to that effect in this Bill.

said, his right hon. Friend had stated that he had been in communication with the proprietors of these locomotives. Might he ask him whether they had complained to him of the hardship which they now endured by being made to consume their own smoke, because that was really a very serious impediment to the use of steam on roads? There was no locomotive engine made which could consume its own smoke.

said, he wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. They had now got an Amendment inserted in this clause which required that "the exact and true weight of a locomotive, including necessary water and coals," should be written on the engine. The first sub-section of the clause stated that—

"a locomotive not drawing any carriage, and not exceeding in weight three tons, shall have the tires of the wheels thereof not less than three inches in width, with an additional inch for every ton, or fraction of a ton, above the first three tons,"

replied, that he had promised to strike out the words "exact and true" on the Report, and to see that the Amendment that had been inserted would otherwise square with the other provisions of the clause.

said, he was about to appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and to his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey), who had an Amendment of a somewhat similar nature on the Paper, to withdraw both their Amendments, and be content with the Bill as it stood. They were all agreed as to getting rid of the red flag, which did more harm than good; and what he proposed was that the original requirement of three persons to each locomotive should continue, and that one of them should render assistance to carriages passing the same. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Beaumont) wanted to reduce the number to two, which would not be an unreasonable thing if he had proposed some provision to meet exceptional circumstances; but it was almost impossible to say when a third or fourth man would be required. There was no local authority for the purposes of the Act except the county authority, who could not be expected to provide for these cases. His hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey) wanted to add to the number of the persons accompanying a locomotive, and to have four persons, instead of three. He would put it to the hon. Gentlemen whether they ought not to withdraw their respective Amendments, and allow the clause to remain as it stood—namely, that there should be three persons with each locomotive, one of whom should, if need be, assist passing carriages?

said, that the object which he had in view would be entirely met by the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for South Durham. All he desired was, that it should be the duty of some person to look out for carriages approaching, so as to give notice to the driver of a locomotive that they were desirous of passing.

The words in the clause are "shall in case of need assist horses and carriages drawn by horses passing the same."

agreed that it was desirable that there should be some person to assist carriages passing, and the words of the clause entirely met that view.

wished to explain how he proposed to deal with the matter. Where assistance was required the engine would be stopped, and there being two men upon it, one would be at liberty to jump off and render any assistance which might be requisite. His contention was, that the third man was simply useless.

could not agree with the hon. Member for East Sussex in this matter. He thought that a third man stationed so far ahead of an engine was more likely to create panic than to afford protection. He was of opinion that it was far better to have the thing remain as at present, the third man looking out and giving assistance when an emergency really arose.

considered the third man a most useful attendant, in his part of the country at all events, where some portions of the road were so formed that, with these locomotives in the way, it was physically impossible for carriages and horses to pass along, unless this third man went on some distance before the engine and gave the necessary warning. There was not so much difficulty, of course, where the road was wide, and there was plenty of room to pass.

said, the hon. Baronet (Sir Andrew Lusk) was under a misapprehension. The third man was not to be dispensed with; he was only to be differently employed. His duty, at present, was to go on some distance in front of the locomotive and display a red flag—or, in other words, to frighten every horse that came near him. In future, his duty would be to go close to the engine, and be ready to assist passing carriages and horses. That arrangement was much more sensible than the existing one.

said, it seemed to him that the advocates of this clause were treating the Committee as one would frighten a disagreeable bull, with a piece of red rag. But after all, the red rag was not an essential part of the question—which was, whether the man should go ahead of the engine, or walk beside it? Looking at the matter from that point of view, and leaving out of consideration the question of "flag or no flag," he certainly thought it a far more sensible expedient that the man should be ahead, in order to prevent a carriage from getting into a hobble, than that he should wait until the carriage got into a hobble, and then try to extricate it. In a crooked, and especially a narrow lane, a carriage might come suddenly upon one of these engines, and what would happen? The horse would begin to plunge, and, if so, the man should be there to hold its head, and carry out the negotiation between the two vehicles, and cause the engine to stop, before any accident occurred. But, if he remained at the side of the locomotive, he would be a little too late to stop the impending disaster. For his part, he advised that the clause should be withdrawn till the Report, and then the Government, who had dealt with more difficult questions before, might turn their attention to this question of "flag or no flag;" but, at least, let them have their protecting angel walking on in front.

said, his hon. Friend who moved this Amendment did not quite comprehend the effect of the clause as it then stood. It did not provide that a locomotive should be compelled to consume its own smoke. That was what the existing law did, and great hardship had arisen, and unjust prosecutions instituted in consequence. An Amendment, of which another hon. Friend had given Notice, was perfectly intelligible—namely, that a locomotive should be constructed on a principle by which it might consume its own smoke. That proposal would not be open to the objection to which this was liable.

remarked, that the principle was one which could not be carried out in practice, as no locomotive yet invented could consume its own smoke.

said, it was a mere delusion to suppose that, with certain kinds of coal, an engine could completely do so, although the evil was often unnecessarily increased by the carelessness of the firemen.

was of opinion that the introduction of words to the effect that an engine should be so constructed as to consume its own smoke, as far as possible, would not meet the difficulty of the whole case. What was wanted was a provision that not only should it be so constructed, but that it should be so used as—as far as possible—to consume its own smoke.

thought it was much better to leave the clause as it stood. It would otherwise lead to all kinds of litigation, and that would be, by no means, a satisfactory result. The words in the clause were found in other Acts of Parliament, and he believed they were the right words to use on the present occasion.

said, if the clause were intended to be operative, it ought to stand unaltered, leaving it to these engines to consume their own smoke, if it should be found possible. If there were any real difficulty in the matter, the insertion of the words "as far as practicable," would meet it; because his contention was, that it would be simply impossible, in all cases, to consume the smoke. He deprecated going into too much detail in a Bill of this kind, as imposing great hardship upon tenant-farmers, for he believed the time was not far distant when they would have to adopt considerably more steam-power in their operations than they used at present. He was afraid they would find that this legislation, instead of protecting them, would place them in more difficulties than any other trade experienced. He thought that, if the Amendment were adopted, it would make the clause, at all events, more complete. If it were agreed to, he would suggest that the sum of 5s. a-day should be substituted for £5.

assured the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), that the meaning of the clause would not be altered by the insertion of this Amendment.

believed engines might be reasonably expected to consume the smoke if they used Welsh coal, which was not much more expensive than other kinds.

then moved, in page 10, line 21, after "smoke," to insert the words "and shall consume the same as far as practicable." The hon. Member expressed his belief that the Amendment would meet the difficulty which had been complained of in the discussion on the preceding proposal.

said, the Amendment, as proposed, did not entirely carry out what was intended. Thrashing machines, for instance, were used in the narrowest of roads; because, necessarily, they had to be removed from one part of a farm to another part. Consequently, it would be requisite to omit the words "such highway," which appeared in the latter part of the Amendment.

pointed out that the object which the hon. Member had in view would be gained by leaving out the words "highway or."

expressed his willingness to adopt the alteration just proposed, provided the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) was prepared to accept the Amendment he had moved. He thought that the alteration proposed by the hon. Baronet (Sir Julian Goldsmid) would have the effect of giving the local authorities unlimited power of regulating the use of locomotives on highways, which, probably, was not his intention; whereas, the objection of his Amendment was to give them power only in certain circumstances—as narrowness, inclination, or imperfect construction.

said, he would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), and consider the whole matter before the Report with the view of bringing in, if possible, a clause that should carry out the spirit of the proposal.

thought it was very necessary that the Committee should have a definition of the term "regulations," so that their nature and extent might be clearly understood. It was also desirable that it should be stated whether the Amendment proposed to vest in the authorities powers of imposing regulations other than those provided by Statute.

replied, that the regulations would be of the nature of bye-laws.

said, the clause was one that should be very carefully drawn. He had not the Amendment of the hon. Member before him, and could therefore only catch the words as they were read. He would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) should not insert the clause at that time, but confer with the hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Gregory) and bring it up on Report. It was a great mistake to insert words without knowing their application, leaving them to be amended afterwards.

said, he would undertake to review the whole subject very carefully between that time and the Report, and make the clause fit in with the general sense of the Amendment.

said, it was only fair that the fees chargeable for licensing locomotives should be paid to the highway districts where they accrued. By this means, he believed that some appreciable compensation would be made for the damage done to roads of particular districts; whereas, if the fees were given to the whole county, it would be impossible to apportion the amount of fees earned in each highway district. He therefore moved, in page 10, line 40, to leave out the words "their county," and insert the words "each district." The two other Amendments having reference to the same part of the clause, and standing in his name, he did not propose to move.

hoped the hon. Member would not insist on his Amendment.

, in moving, in page 10, line 40, to leave out the word "ten," and insert the word "twenty," said, that when the damage done by each locomotive throughout the country was considered, the amount of £10 to be charged as fees on locomotives was too small, and he was satisfied that the sum of £20 would not be excessive. He ventured to give the Committee an idea of the increase in the cost of maintaining some roads in the districts with which he was connected, since the introduction of locomotives. The cost of one road, which was formerly £15 per mile, had been raised to £60. In another district the cost, which previously stood at £30 per mile, now amounted to £240, with the prospect of a very large rise. In the Oswestry district, the previous cost was £26 per mile, and it had now reached £500. On the other hand, what was the amount contributed by those mines and places from which the traction engines ran? In the first district, absolutely nothing was contributed; in the second, the rating was paid on £270 only; in the third district, nothing was paid; and in the Oswestry district, the rate was 15s. The contributions under the toll system were very different indeed. In the Oswestry district, for instance, the tolls formerly payable on locomotives under that system amounted to £87 a-year; but the tolls having been done away with, the engines now ran without paying anything. He trusted that some consideration would be shown to the highway districts by increasing the fees on locomotives, and that if the sum of £20 mentioned by him was not considered sufficient, a larger sum would be named.

thought the sum of £10 fixed by the Bill sufficient for the purpose of fees.

said, he was not prepared to go further than the limit of £10. It would be imposing too heavy a burden, to increase the fine upon locomotives that were already subject to all the various restrictions and regulations of the Bill with the object of preventing abuse of the roads.

hoped that every engine drawing a thrashing machine would not be subject to a fee of £10, and that the right hon. Gentleman would draw up two Schedules—one for the constant, and the other for the occasional, traffic.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had promised to distinguish between "extraordinary traffic" and "temporary traffic." The traffic then being considered was of a constant character, and he trusted it would be dealt with when the new clause was brought up.

thought it desirable that the amount of fee should be increased to £20.

hoped that the Amendment standing in his name would be accepted. He thought, at all events, that the fines recoverable under the bye-laws should go to the district fund, and with that view he would move, in page 12, lines 12 and 13, to leave out the words "county rate," and insert the words "funds of the district where the offence was committed."

said, he had no objection to the Amendment.

said, as it was very undesirable that notices of appeal should be given verbally, he would move, in page 12, line 27, after the word "thereof," to insert the words—

"Such notice of appeal shall be in writing, signed by the person or persons giving the same, or by his, her, or their solicitor on his, her, or their behalf."

, in moving, in page 13, lines 11 and 12, to leave out from the words "county authority," to the end of the sentence, and insert the words—

"The county authority for the purposes of this Act shall, until Parliament otherwise provide, be a body constituted as follows: The court of quarter sessions shall from time to time appoint a committee of not less than five, nor more than nine, justices of the peace for the purposes of this Act, and such committee shall not be affected by the termination of the session at which they are appointed. With such committee there shall be associated, with equal powers, rights, and duties, the chairman of every highway district board having jurisdiction over any road or roads within the county, and the mayor of every municipal borough within the county. The clerk of the peace of the county shall act as clerk of the county authority for the purposes of this Act. The expenses of the county authority shall be paid out of the county rate,"

opposed the Amendment, as he did not think it could be disputed that the magistrates were a fit body to perform such ministerial acts as they were empowered to do by the Bill. It had been said that there was no representation of the boroughs, but it was equally true that there was none of the parishes in the highway district. The county magistrates might be as well trusted to represent the boroughs for the purposes of the Act as the parishes and the highway districts. Then, again, it might be urged that the administration of the Highway Acts of 1862 and 1864 being vested in the court of quarter sessions, the court had still, under those Acts, the power to alter and vary a highway district. No doubt, that was so; and it would be quite impossible, without reviewing those Acts, to make them workable in connection with such a special county authority as proposed in the Amendment. For these reasons, and for the fact that the Bill laid down with so much precision what was to be done by the county authorities—that they were to perform merely ministerial duties, he could not accept the Amendment. He freely admitted that much more might be left to a representative body than was permitted to the magistrates; but it must be remembered that this was only a temporary measure, and at a future time he hoped a representative body might be formed.

objected to so much power being placed in the hands of the magistrates. He consoled himself, however, with the belief that they would not exercise it to any great extent. This measure was admittedly a temporary one, and in his district, at least, he believed magistrates would think twice before they incurred the trouble of making a new class of highways. The Amendment was, however, so wide in its terms, that he felt compelled to oppose it. Moreover, he also thought that the mere fact of these matters being left in the hands of quarter sessions would expedite the formation of county boards.

understood the President of the Local Government Board to say that this was a temporary measure; there was no doubt if it were not, it was full of injustice. It was clear that corporations and boroughs would, under the Bill, stand in a totally different position from what they had hitherto done with regard to the administration of county matters when vested, as the Bill proposed, entirely in the county justices. He did not object to the county justices; on the contrary, he thought they took as much care of the money in their charge as any other body would do; but still there ought to be some representatives of the boroughs associated with them. There ought to be some better reason given for the non-representation of the large boroughs which contributed so much to the rates. It was said that the ratepayers of the county were not represented, but they were so, more or less, by the justices themselves, who were large owners of land. There was no such corresponding relationship betweeen the county justices and the owners of property in boroughs. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) aimed at what was reasonable, and before the Bill passed he hoped he would propose some mode by which a representative system could be given to boroughs. While supporting the Amendment, he should not, however, offer any impediment to the progress of the Bill, but would trust to the Government for adopting the principle involved in the Amendment.

said, he was quite aware that there were districts where no highway authority existed. The Bill required a Provisional Order to enable the county authority to throw upon a district the expense of a road previously a main road; but there was no Provisional Order required to authorize the expenses of a main road being taken off a district. That was another reason why an elected representative authority should be insisted upon. He did not think that the Government had offered any sufficient reason why the Bill should effect the injustice of imposing rates upon a locality without giving it representation in the matter.

agreed with the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylancls), that there should be some representation upon the County Boards, but thought that the mode in which he proposed to effect it would be quite unworkable in the large counties in England. His hon. Friend proposed that there should be a committee of not less than five or more than nine justices; taking the municipal boroughs in Lancashire, there would be a body of something like 30 borough representatives against the nine county justices. As a similar state of things would exist in other large counties, he considered the proposal unworkable.

did not wish this Amendment to be taken as unopposed; but at that hour he thought the best plan would be to report Progress.

admitted the importance of the question raised by the clause which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Knowles). A recent decision in the Courts of Law had caused some anxiety among the mine-owners on the subject to which the clause referred. So far as he had been able to get advice on the question, that decision was not one on which he could ask the House entirely to rely. If it were altogether a reliable decision, it would undoubtedly have been his duty to propose an Amendment of the Public Health Act. His hon. Friend's clause was, in point of fact, an Amendment of that Act. Its object was to make the law clear on this point, that the vesting of roads in the hands of the urban sanitary authority should be a vesting for certain purposes—namely, for the repair and management of the streets, and for securing to the rightful owners the soil and freehold underneath such streets, and especially providing that the soil should carry with it the right of minerals beneath the surface, besides other purposes. For his own part, he could not see his way to a clear view of the subject; and, therefore, was not prepared to accept the clause. If his hon. Friend would consent to withdraw it, he would promise either to introduce an Amendment into the Bill on Report, or bring in a measure to amend the Public Health Act, so as to protect the rights of minerals in urban districts. This law as to the soil of roads had been in force since 1848, and until the recent decision to which his hon. Friend had referred, did not appear to require amendment.

said, he would willingly withdraw the clause, after the explanation which had been given by his right hon. Friend. The recent decision had, he believed, been obtained on the Public Health Act of 1875; but, in his opinion, that Act never contemplated the confiscation of minerals from the present owners, though there seemed to be some doubt upon the point. He hoped, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to frame such words as would meet the case. He, accordingly, withdrew the clause.

, in moving the following Clause:—

"Any county authority may, for the purpose of providing a county road fund, apply to the Local Government Board for a Provisional Order empowering them to levy tolls on any main road within their jurisdiction; and the Local Government Board shall thereupon cause a local nquiry to be made by one of their inspectors, who shall report to the said Board, and the said Board may issue such Order, prescribing therein the amount of tolls to be levied, the situation of the toll-gates, and generally the terms and conditions under which such tolls are to be levied and collected,"

"No greater cases of prospective hardship on parishes came before your Committee than where the line of road, with a very heavy mineral and trading traffic between large towns, or to and from railway stations, passed for a considerable distance through agricultural parishes. And whatever may be the provisions of a general measure as regards other parts of the country, it seems to your Committee that some special provision will have to be made to meet these cases.

"Your Committee are still of opinion that the compulsory formation of Highway Districts will not alone suffice. It is clear that in some cases a larger area of management is required, and, in many instances, the local authorities should have power to meet exceptional cases by exceptional measures."

hoped the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would not accept the clause, because it would alter the character of the Bill. This measure was a rating Bill, and the insertion of the proposed clause would convert it into a Turnpike Bill. Although the erection of a toll-bar under the clause would require the sanction of the Local Government Board, that was no security against the county authority, which was not representative of a borough, erecting a toll-bar close upon the outskirts of a populous town. The proposal was so exceptional, that he trusted the Committee would not approve of it.

thought his hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) had somewhat misunderstood the Report of the Turnpike Committee of last year, which was founded on circumstances altogether different from those which his hon. Friend had stated. No doubt there was great hardship under the existing law. If certain parishes outside some manufacturing towns in Lancashire, Yorkshire and other counties were to remain as they were, without adopting the Highway Acts, no doubt it would be necessary to keep up turnpikes; but the Committee had this year made a recommendation that disturnpiked roads should be supported partly out of a county rate. Therefore, they had entered upon an entirely different principle from that which had been adopted before. They could not have two different principles operating at the same time. The turnpike system was, no doubt, very good, so long as the large boroughs were not brought under its operation; but directly they brought in the large boroughs into the county rate—and he hoped all boroughs would be brought in—then they did away with the necessity for the turnpike system. He should like to see the county rate spread over all the boroughs, or else the boroughs, with quarter sessions, should contribute for the use of the road outside their boundary. He looked upon the turnpike system as a necessary evil; it ought not to be perpetuated in new legislation, unless it were really necessary. It had been said that this Bill was not intended to be a permanent measure. In that case, the whole question would, doubtless, have to be re-considered. It would be far better not to encumber this Bill with a principle totally different from that which the Turnpike Committee this year had recommended, and which constituted the backbone of the Bill.

expressed a hope that the Committee would be guided by the useful observations of his hon. Friend (Mr. W. Egerton), and would not be inclined to insert this clause in the Bill. It certainly would not be a proper thing that the county authority under the Bill—namely, the county magistrates—should have it in their power to recommend, or that the Local Government Board, on their recommendation, should establish turnpike toll-gates on county roads. The Committee would, therefore, do well to leave the matter open for future consideration. He was satisfied that the institution of tolls, under such a clause as this, would not be acceptable to the country generally; at all events, it required a much stronger and more representative body to deal with the question than that which was proposed.

said, that the Government could not be expected to give any satisfaction to the country unless they took advantage of every facility which they might properly use, to effect a permanent arrangement with regard to this question. So far from being settled, there would hereafter be a renewal of the difficulty. In the district which he represented, there was very little interest felt in the Eastern Question compared with this; for, whereas one person appeared concerned about the Eastern Question, ten persons inquired respecting the question of highways.

believed, if this or some such clause were not adopted, the Bill would not be regarded as a settlement of the question. There were cases which could not be met, except by an arrangement similar to that for Glasgow, which had been introduced in the Scotch Roads and Bridges Bill.

who regretted the lateness of the hour at which so important a question as this was being discussed, urged the Committee not to forget the very large reduction which would take place, from the abolition of tolls, in the amount of revenue applied to the maintenance of the roads of the Kingdom. He knew of no substitute being provided to meet the deficiency of income. The principle of charging for the maintenance of roads, as laid down in this clause, he considered a sound one—namely, that the people who used them should contribute towards their support. It would be difficult to substitute a better principle than that. The word "toll" had an objectionable sound, and he could well understand the Government hesitating to impose any provision in the shape of toll; but still there was nothing in the Bill to remedy the evil arising from a serious diminution of the revenue obtainable from tolls on highways. A new and increasing charge levied upon the body of ratepayers generally did not supply the necessary remedy. He could not understand why this clause should not be accepted, when the system adopted in South Wales had given so much satisfaction. He could not conceive that any fairer principle could be adopted than placing the tolls on a road in such a way as to catch the general traffic; and, therefore, if his hon. Friend (Mr. J. R. Yorke) went to a division, he would have the greatest satisfaction in voting with him.

hoped the hon. Member (Mr. J. R. Yorke) would go to a division, if for no other purpose than to see what amount of support he got from Members on that side. He disagreed with the hon. Member for Mid-Cheshire (Mr. W. Egerton) as to the meaning he attached to the Report of the Turnpikes Discontinuance Committee, last year; because he thought it did refer to tolls. The noble Lord (Lord George Cavendish), the Chairman of the Committee—who, it was believed, framed the clause of the Report in question—knew very well what was in his own mind at the time. Certainly, when he (Mr. Clare Read) read the clause, he thought it indicated tolls. To take the county money, and to say that they were going to subsidise a certain road, did not mean that they were going to make the people, who used the road, pay for doing so. There was a main thoroughfare between two great towns, neither of which contributed to a county rate. The only course to adopt in such a case was to make a toll-gate on the road.

agreed with an hon. Member opposite (Mr. W. Egerton) in the remark that the Turnpikes Committee had never contemplated keeping up the toll system; but they thought some compensation might be made, in regard to two large towns, between which a main road ran. The Turnpikes Committee was appointed some 10 years ago for the purpose of getting rid of toll; but the effect had been, in some instances, to suggest a plan like that to which he had just alluded. Great injustice existed under the toll system, when a miller who lived on one side of the gate altogether escaped from payment, while another living on the opposite side had to pay toll every time he passed along the road. His own feeling about this Bill was that, when it got into operation, a great many matters would require to be remedied in order to make the measure work well. The Government would then have to introduce an amending Bill, for adjusting inequalities and redressing grievances. He took that opportunity of saying that since giving Notice of a Clause to make the Highways Act compulsory, he had consulted several gentlemen on the subject; and, acting on their advice, he had come to the conclusion that it was not desirable to proceed with the proposition at that late period of the Session. He, therefore, preferred to see first how the Bill would work. He feared it would be very difficult to work in those innumerable small townships, where the county authority would have to look after so many small affairs. He hoped the clause now under the consideration of the Committee would not be pressed.

declared his determination to go to a division. He assured the Committee that the clause was not intended to be compulsory; and its object was to enable a county authority, after there had been due inquiry, and with the sanction of the Local Government Board, to put up tolls in exceptional cases. That was different from re-introducing objectionable turnpikes, with all the irregularities of the old system. He was assuming that the county authority was endowed with an average amount of common sense, and would be guided by the exceptional character of the localities under their control. The state of things in South Wales might be fairly taken as a guide for legislation on this subject. It had given considerable satisfaction for the last 40 years, and the plan was similar to the one proposed in this clause. The chief difference was that in Wales they began with turnpikes, and then, where the tolls were insufficient, supplemented them with contributions from the county rate. His plan would be virtually the same, only the order would be reversed. It began with the county rate, and where it was inadequate, it would be aided by tolls. Therefore, he thought this arrangement was one which might safely be placed in the hands of the county authority, more especially as he thought an amending Bill would have to be brought in next Session.

in reference to the remarks which had been made on turnpikes in South Wales, said, that if the Committee adopted the clause, they would revert to the old system, and not the present one. The old system was an attempt to catch exceptional traffic in certain places. Under the new one, there was no turnpike within six miles of another. The system was a uniform one, and there was no power under it for catching special traffic. The clause seemed to him to be going back to a very vicious system.

pointed out that the hon. Member who had just sat down had overlooked a very important part of the clause—namely, that the whole thing was to be done after due inquiry instituted by the intelligent and, he might say, the beneficent members of the Local Government Board, who had charge of the administration of the Poor Laws. Could the Committee suppose for a moment that the Head of that Department would wish to put a toll-gate in the wrong place? The clause would not have any harassing effect.

repudiated the assertion of the hon. Member who had just spoken, that the Government had pressed the Bill with pertinacity. With regard to the Motion for Progress, he hoped the Committee would consent to sit for another half-hour, in which time the Bill might be completed.

disclaimed any intention of making any charge against the Government; but simply wished to imply that it was sharp practice, at the best, to push the Bill on in this way. [Withdraw!]

hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Dillwyn) would not withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress. If the hon. Gentleman did withdraw, he would move to report Progress himself.

inquired whether the hon. Member for Swansea wished to withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress?

replied that he did not.

nominated Members of the Select Committee on the Corrib (Galway) River Bill.