The Commissioners have stated that where the objection to their jurisdiction is of doubtful validity their practice is to take a note of it and embody it in their report to the Board of Trade. (Dudley and District case (1897), Rep. II. 5; Oxley, 135.) (e) See, now, Light Railway Commissioners (Salaries) Act, 1901 (post, p. 526). (f) Their powers are now extended till December 31, 1904, by Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1903 (3 Ed. 7, c. 40). Sect. 1. for orders 2. An application for an order authorising a light Application railway under this Act shall be made to the Light authorising Railway Commissioners (g), and may be made (a) by the council of any county, borough, or or (c) jointly by any such councils, individuals, corporations, or companies (k). (9) Applications must be made in May or November (Rule XXXII.). The rules governing the mode of application will be found post, p. 527, and see also sect. 7 (1). (h) For the Scots equivalents of these councils, see sect. 26 (2) and (6), and the notes thereto. Compare with these words the list of local authorities who are entitled to apply for Provisional Orders in Sched. A. of Tramways Act, 1870, as varied by later enactments, which are given in the notes to that schedule. It will be noted that the present section, unlike that schedule, does not authorise applications by parish councils. The expenses of councils' applications are provided for by sect. 16 (1), and, in Scotland, sect. 26 (5). See sect. 3 (2 b) for the limitations imposed on councils in respect of applications for light railways wholly or partly outside their own districts. Instances of Orders granted to councils for light railways on public thoroughfares are:- County of Middlesex Order, 1901, Rep. VI. 11, VII. 14 (to a county council); Nelson Order, 1901, Rep. V. 30, VI. 27, and Colne and Trawden Order, 1901, Rep. V. 31 (to corporations of boroughs); Barking and Beckton Order, 1899, Rep. IV. 2 (to an urban district council); Halesowen Order, 1901, Rep. IX. 9, and Mitcham Order, 1901, Rep. IX. 16 (to rural district councils). light rail ways. Sect. 2. No Order has hitherto been granted to a local authority for a light railway not on public thoroughfares. It is essential that a local authority should have a full estimate of the expenses before them before promoting a scheme. (County of Middlesex (Extensions) (No. 4) case (1901), Rep. X. 5.) () Nothing could be wider than these words. The Commissioners, however, rejected the application of a lunacy board as ultra vires. (Uphall and Bangour case (1899), Rep. V. 53; Oxley, 83.) Sometimes an Order applied for by private promoters has been granted, by agreement, to the local authority. (Bradford and Leeds Order, 1900, Rep. III. 3; Darlington Order, 1902, Rep. VI. 12.) It will be observed that the consent of local and road authorities is not a condition precedent to an application by private promoters, as it is under Tramways Act, 1870, s. 4; but sect. 7 (1) provides that such authorities shall be consulted. (See also ante, p. 6.) Sect. 11 (e) provides for the constitution by the Order of a body corporate for the purposes of the Order. Where the promoters had registered themselves under the Companies Acts between the application and the local inquiry, the Commissioners insisted on incorporating a fresh company by the Order itself. (Redditch and District case (1898), Rep. IV. 25; Oxley, 185.) (k) Joint committees of councils for the purposes of this subsection are provided for by sect. 17. Besides joint applications by individuals, joint applications have been made by individuals and borough, district or county councils, either singly or in combination, by two district councils, by two companies, and by a county council and a company. The Dartford Order, 1902, Rep. IX. 6, which was applied for jointly by an urban and a rural district council, was granted, by agreement, to the urban district council alone; and in the County of Hertford (No. 1) case (1900), Rep. VII. 10, an Order applied for jointly by a county council and a company was to be granted, by agreement, to the former. Powers of local authorities under order. 3. (1.) The council of any county, borough, or district (1), may if authorised by an order under this Act (a) undertake themselves to construct and work, or way and partly in the other, any amount (c) join any other council or any person or body of (d) do any such other act incidental to any of the (2.) Provided that— (a) an order authorising a council to undertake to (1) For the Scots equivalents, see sect. 26 (2) and (6). There does not seem to be anything here, or in sect. 11 (c), or in the definition of "light railway company" in sect. 28 to justify Sect. 3. Sect. 3. a transfer or delegation of powers otherwise than as authorised by the Order. As to the general rule against the delegation of powers, see note (n) to sect. 19 and note (g) to sect. 44 of Tramways Act, 1870. See further, as to this sub-section, the note to sect. 11 (c). Clauses as to working agreements between local authorities and promoters will be found in Nelson Order, 1901, Rep. V. 30, VI. 27, and Colne and Trawden Order, 1901, Rep. V. 31. They set a limit on the amount to be expended for the purposes of such agreements. (n) Defined in sect. 28. The advance may be either by loan or as part of the share capital, and therefore it does not seem to be necessary that the promoters should be incorporated to enable them to obtain an advance. Contrast sect. 4 (1). (0) Defined in sect. 28. As to applications for advances by councils, see Rule XXXII. (g). (p) The only applications made hitherto (other than applications withdrawn) for such an advance in respect of a light railway to be laid entirely on public thoroughfares were in the Loughborough and District case (1900), Rep. VII. 26, and the Nuneaton and District case (1900), Rep. VI. 28. Instances of advances by local authorities authorised in the case of light railways (Class A.) will be found in Forsinard, Melvich and Port Skerra Order, 1898, Rep. I. 22; Bridlington and North Frodingham Order, 1898, Rep. II. 1; Dornoch Order, 1899, Rep. I. 28; Welshpool and Llanfair Order, 1899, Rep. II. 23; Tanat Valley Order, 1899, Rep. II. 22; Leek, Caldon Low and Hartington Order, 1899, Rep. II. 9; Wick and Lybster Order, 1900, Rep. V. 54. 635. These advances are governed by sect. 16, sub-sects. 2 to 6, and, in Scotland, sect. 26 (5). (See the notes to those sub-sections.) A model of the clauses and schedule which are usually inserted in Orders to give effect to these sections will be found post, pp. 579, Sect. 11 (f) confers power to give councils who advance money a representation on the managing body of the railway, and this is usually exercised by the clause printed post, p. 553. The advance is usually authorised either by way of loan or as part of the share capital, but in the Lauder Order, 1898, Rep. I. 25, it was authorised as part of the share capital only. (9) Compare sect. 2 and note (k) thereto. As to joint committees for these purposes, see sect. 17. (r) See, further, the note to sect. 11 (m). The Board of Trade held, very naturally, in the Nelson case (1900), Rep. V. 30, 31, VI. 27; Oxley, 203, that a Light Railway Order could not confer on a local authority the power to supply electric energy, whether within or without their district, unless, of course, such power was incidental to the working of a tramway of which they were themselves promoters. As to the general limitation of the supply of electric energy to the particular district for which it is authorised, see Imperial Gas Light and Coke Co. v. West London Junction Gas Co. (1868), W. N. 1; 58 L. T. 900 n.; and Gas Light and Coke Co. v. South Metropolitan Gas Co. (1889), 62 L. T. 126 (H. L.), decided on Metropolis Gas Act, 1860 (23 & 24 Vict. c. 125), s. 6. There have been cases, not reported, to a similar effect on Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), 8. 51. (s) At the time of the application the clerk to the local authority must prove the particulars contained in Sched. I. by means of a statutory declaration and certified copies of the resolution passed and of the notice convening the special meeting. (t) In the Nelson case (1900), Rep. V. 30, 31, VI. 27; Oxley, 203, the Board of Trade is reported to have stated that the Act did not permit an authority to work a light railway wholly outside its own district. This sub-section seems to assume that they have power either to construct or work such a railway if the proviso is complied with. On the other hand, sect. 2 (a) limits applications to councils through any part of whose district the proposed railway is to pass. The two sections can, it would seem, only be reconciled by taking sect. 3 (2 b) to refer to the construction or working of railways promoted by some one else, or by taking it as meant to cover the case where the proposed railway originally passed through the council's district, but where the portion in such district has been disallowed, so that the railway as authorised is wholly outside such district. Southend-on-Sea and District Order, 1899, Rep. V. 38, gave a local authority power to contribute to the expenses of road widening outside its district for the purposes of a light railway promoted by itself. (u) The necessary particulars will be proved by the clerk to the local authority by statutory declaration. A form of such declaration will be found in the report of the Southend-on-Sea and District case (1899), Rep. V. 38; Oxley, 189. See also the recitals to the Doncaster Corporation Order, 1900, Rep. V. 15. The City of Bath case (1900), Rep. VII. 9, is an instance of a scheme which was rejected for want of sufficient proof under this proviso. It was subsequently approved when a fresh application had been made. by the local authority jointly with private promoters. (Bath and District case (1900), Rep. VIII. 2.) Sect. 3. Treasury. 4-(1.) Where the council of any county, borough, Loans by or district (x), have advanced or agreed to advance any sum to a light railway company (y), the Treasury may also agree to make an advance (2) to the company by lending them any sum not exceeding one quarter |