The Sun.
London, England, 1865-01-03 00:00:00

Mr Disraeli, M.P„ on the Highway A cts of
1862 and 1864,

AYLESBURY, Monday Evening.
This afternoon, at the Court of Magistrates of the
county of Bucks, in Quarter Sessions assembled, at
Aylesbury, under the presidency of Sir T. F. Fre-
mantle ; the Right Hon. B. Disraeli, M.P., Col.
Gilpin, M.P., Col. Howard Vyse, M.P., Mr. R. B.
Harvey, M.P., Mr. T. T. Bernard, M.P., Sir Hain'
Verney, M.P., Sir H. Foulis, Sir P. D. P. Dun-
combe, Mr. F. C. Calvert, Q.C., and a large num-
ber of justices being also present ; the proposed
division of the county into highway districts under
the above acts came on for discussion. The subject
having attracted a large amount of public attention
and controversy, there were also present many of
the principal tenant-farmers of the county.
The report of the committee was read, from
which it appeared that though the committee were
not unanimous, yet they had come to the decision
that it was not advisable that the whole of the
county should be divided into highway districts.
The adoption of the report was moved by Sir P.
DUNCOMBE, chairman of the committee, and seconded
by Mr. ROSE.
The Right Hon. B. DISRAELI, M.P., presented
to the Court 166 memorials from various parishes
in Bucks, all against the adoption of the Highway
Act, all of which were, he said, almost identical in
their purport, and praying that that Court would
not apply to that county the Highway Acts of
1862 arid 1864, on two grounds-1. That, in the
general condition of their highways, that applica-
tion was unnecessary ; and, 2, that it would lead
the county to incur greater expenditure as com-
pared with the present cost of road management.
He also presented a memorial from Mr W. Smith,
of Woolston, who, as an extensive landowner,
praying to the same effect, and offering to pay his
proportionate share as a landlord if any additional
cost were imperatively required, and adding, that a
neighbour of his—a tenant-farmer, being a yearly
tenant, would, under the new Act, have to incur an
expenditure of £3OO. The memorialists represented
between 3,000 and 4,000 of the ratepayers of the
county, many of whom had a very large extent of
acreage.

The Clerk of the Peace presented several addi-
tional memorials from the Unions of the county.
A long discussion followed, in which the Rev. G.
Phi Elmore, Mr. T. R. Barker, Sir P. Duncombe,
Sir T. F. Fremantle, Dr. Lee, and other magis-
trates took part.
COl. HIGGINS said he thought that the Act would
prove eventually to be most efficient for the country
at large, and that the country would be deeply in-
debted to the Legislature for passing the Act,
which had been so generally condemned in that
county. In reference to the question of expense,
it did not follow that the expected enormous
amount of expense would be incurred. In Bedford..
shire he found that the average of the three previous
years cost, under the old system of parish surveyors,
throughout the district to which he referred, £1,711
3s. 9d. ; and during the last year, under the new
Act, the cost had only been within £3 or £4 of the
three previous years.
Colonel GILPIN said he differed from his gallant
friend about the same county. The surveyor in his
own district, who had to look after 206 miles of
road, had £2OO a year ; he had to keep two horses,
and he believed he could not properly do his duty
and live for the money. In Leighton district last
year the estimated cost of the district was £2,383.
The expenditure was £3,117 13s. sd. Why, in
Leighton alone they had spent £246 17s. 3d. above
the estimate, and the roads were worse than before.
Sir HARRY VERNEY, M.P., made some remarks
respecting the disagreeable duty of magistrates to
arder the destruction of cottages, which was the
case with one at Buckingham the other day, be-
cause it was within nine or ten feet of the centre of
the road, simply because the surveyor had not
)rdered the building not to be erected. He hoped
the discussion which had occurred throughout the
county would have the effect of putting the sur-
veyors on their mettle, so that they would ultimately
put better metal on the roads.
The Right Hon. DISRAELI said that, though he
had the honour of presenting to the Court memo-
la's from 2,000 of the ratepayers of the county, yet
la was the first occasion on which he had really
xpressed any opinion on the subject generally, ex-
;ept so far as that opinion had been indicated by his
rote in court on the motion that a committee should
)e appointed. It was certainly true that he felt it
us duty to attend the county meeting of the rate-
myers, and he by no means regretted it, for he
wanted to obtain information and acquire a know-
,edge of the opinion of the county as represented by
practical men from all parts of it ; and he felt it also
to be his duty to reserve any expression of his
opinion, because the Court of Quarter Sessions,
having determined that the matter should be dele-
gated to the consideration of a committee of his
brother magistrates, he had that respect and defer-
ence to their abilities and character that he thought
it would be indecorous to state any opinion of his
on the main subject then under investigation until
after he had heard their report. Having heard
that that report was not favourable to the imme-
:hate adoption of the Act in that county, it ap-
peared that there the matter might have rested ;
but when they heard speeches from their brother
magistrates, distinguished by their tone, which was
certainly surprising, indicating that they were
going contrary to the decision of the committee.
Certainly the Court ought not to enter into a sta-
tistical discussion ; that department ought to have
been left to the committee, who were best able
to deal in figures and other information necessary
for the formation of an opinion, and the Court
ought certainly rather to deal with the recommen-
dation of the committee, and to support the recom-
mendation. He could have left Colonel Higgins to
the answer of his gallant friend the member for Bed-
fordshire, but he could not say in justice that that
answer was conclusive, and it was shown that that
was by no means the tribunal at which they could
very well investigate the grounds of what might
be called a legislation for the county. He had re-
cently placed before him returns from 145 parishes
in the contiguous counties of Berkshire, Notting-
hamshire, and Bedfordshire--fair samples of answers
to the questions proposed by the committee which
had the conduct of the opposition in the county. A
few ot those answers, not many were favourable to
the Act—most of them were hostile to its applica-
tion to Buckinghamshire. All of them were cha-
racterised by such information, and many of them
said that under the new Acts the roads had been un-
proved, that the roads had been improved before, and
that the expense was increased. Returns from 30 or
40 of the parishes in Bedfordshire were by no
means of a satisfactory character ; and they were
decidedly to the effect that the expenditure had been
very ranch increased, and that the roads had by no
means improved. One case he particularly remem-
bered, that of a parish
in Bedfordshire that was
reported to him-_a parish very interesting to Buck-
inghamshire people, being
On the border of that
county and having land 'which was very much of
the same character and under the e kind of
circumstances--Leighton Buzzard, already
i referred
to, The expenditure on the roads of that parish
before the introduction of the Act was
annually
£2BB, and after the first year of the introduction Of the measure that annual expenditure had increased
to £533. He knew that it might be said
" Yes, you must expect expenses of the kind, and
be content, for by having at once a con-
siderable expense you will in a few years
hence be repaid in the advantage of good
roads, and a greatly diminished cost." Yes
but how did that apply to other parishes in Bedford-
shire, respecting which Col. Higgins ought to be
well acquainted? Well, the original expenditure
was £2BB at Leighton ; the increased cost was £533,
and the estimate for the present year was £6OO.
Something had been said in the discussions on the
question as to Oxfordshire. The new Act was not
generally applied in that county, and was only par-
tially adopted there. He had one very acute and
able friend, who knew much about rural life, the
Right Hon. J. W. Henley, who was very greatly
opposed to the introduction of the Act. He under-
stood that the average of the expenditure in Oxford-
alike had been 6d. in the pound, but it was at present