out of, the Consolidated Fund, or the growing produce thereof.

(0) While sect. 4 has been scarcely put into force at all, as has already been pointed out, it was found that the sum of 250,0007. allowed for "special advances" was inadequate, and the Light Railways Bill of 1901, cl. 3, proposed to substitute the sum of 750,0007. for it.

The words "at any one time" are introduced because, where advances are made by way of loan, the sums advanced may, after repayment, be utilised again for the purpose either of loans or free grants.

Sect. 6.

of application

Railway Com

7-(1.) Where an application for authorising a Consideration light railway under this Act is made to the Light by Light Railway Commissioners (p), those Commissioners shall, missioners. in the first instance, satisfy themselves that all reasonable steps have been taken for consulting the local authorities (q), including road authorities (q), through whose areas the railway is intended to pass (r), and the owners and occupiers of the land it is proposed to take (s), and for giving public notice of the application (t), and shall also themselves by local inquiry and such other means as they think necessary possess themselves of all such information as they may consider material or useful for determining the expediency of granting the application (u).

(2.) The applicants shall satisfy the Commissioners (u) that they have

(a) published once at least in each of two consecutive

weeks, in some newspaper circulating in the area or some part of the area through which the light railway is to pass, an advertisement describing shortly the land proposed to be taken and the purpose for which it is proposed to be taken, naming a place where a plan of the proposed works and the lands to be taken, and a book of reference to the plan, may be seen at all reasonable hours, and stating the quantity of land required (t); and

Sect. 7.

(b) served notice in the prescribed manner on every reputed owner, lessee, and occupier of any land intended to be taken, describing in each case the land intended to be taken, and inquiring whether the person so served assents to or dissents from the taking of his land, and requesting him to state any objections he may have to his land being taken (s).

The plan and book of reference shall be in the prescribed form (v), and for the purposes of this section the expression "prescribed" shall mean prescribed by rules made under this Act (x).

(3.) The Commissioners shall before deciding on an application give full opportunity for any objections to the application to be laid before them, and shall consider all such objections, whether made formally or informally (y).

(4.) If after consideration the Commissioners think that the application should be granted (2), they shall settle any draft order submitted to them by the applicants for authorising the railway (a), and see that all such matters (including provisions for the safety of the public and particulars of the land proposed to be taken) are inserted therein, as they think necessary for the proper construction and working of the railway (b).

(5.). The order of the Light Railway Commissioners shall be provisional only, and shall have no effect until confirmed by the Board of Trade in manner provided by this Act (c).

(6.) Where an application for a light railway has been refused by the Light Railway Commissioners, the applicants, if the council of any county, borough, or district (d), may appeal against such refusal to the Board of Trade, who may, at any time if they think fit, remit the application or any portion thereof to the

said Commissioners for further consideration with or without special instructions (e).

(p) See Rules XXXII. and XXXIII. as to the application and the documents which are to accompany and follow it.

(q) There is no definition of "local authorities" and "road authorities" in this Act, but there seems to be no reason why "local authorities," as used here, should not include parish councils. Reference may be made to Tramways Act, 1870, s. 3, and Sched. A., and the notes thereto.

The present provision, that the local and road authorities shall be merely "consulted," is in strong contrast to that of Tramways Act, 1870, s. 4, whereby the consent of local authorities and road authorities is a condition precedent to an application for an Order, and to Standing Order 22, ante, p. 387, which embodies the same principle. 'Consulting" is a purposely indefinite word; any sort of negotiations with regard to the proposed railways would apparently be a sulting" (see the South Staffordshire case (1899), Rep. V. Oxley, 200). A statement of their assent or dissent must accompany the application, by Rule XXXII. (d).

con

39;

As to deposits with local authorities, see Rule IV., and as to notice to road authorities, see Rule XXVII.

The intention of the Act, then, is that local and road authorities should not have the power of preventing the authorisation of a scheme, but their opposition, as being the opposition of the general representatives of the districts through which the railways are to pass, has great weight with the Commissioners, and, except under special circumstances, may prove fatal to the scheme.

Instances of cases where the Commissioners did not think it right to overrule the opposition of all or most of the local authorities affected are London, Barnet, Edgware and Enfield case (1898), Rep. IV. 15; Finchley, Hendon and District case (1899), Rep. V. 19; Kingston, Surbiton and District case (1900), Rep. VII. 20; Oldham, Ashton-under-Lyne, Hyde and District (Extensions) case (1900), Rep. VII. 32; and Kingston, Surbiton and District (Extensions) case (1900), Rep. VIII. 11. Sometimes a portion of a scheme which lies in the district of a particular local authority is rejected, as in the Poole and District case (1898), Rep. IV. 24; Oxley, 173.

But a scheme has been rejected, in spite of the assent of the local authority, if local feeling was generally against it (Burnham, Berrow and Brent Knoll case (1898), Rep. IV. 4; Oxley, 62), and natural difficulties, coupled with local dissent, have been held to outweigh the local authorities' approval. (Llanfair and Beaumaris case (1898), Rep. III. 25; Oxley, 155.)

(r) It is submitted that the powers of the promoters are limited to the districts in which their works have been authorised; otherwise

S.

H H

Sect. 7.

Sect. 7.

they might carry out works to which local and road authorities would have had no opportunity of objecting before the Commissioners, as they would have received no notice of such works under Rules IV. and XXVII., or under this section. The question has arisen in the case of the Dudley and District Light Railways, under a clause similar to that set out post, p. 590. This clause gives the company power to place apparatus for the purposes of their railway "on, in, under or over any road." It is submitted that this gives them no power to do works on a road not within the districts enumerated in the title to the Order, and that, on the refusal of the road authority to consent, as in the Dudley case, the company are not entitled to an arbitration under that clause.

(s) "Owner" is defined for this purpose in Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 18), s. 3, as (( any person or corporation who, under the provisions of this or the special Act, would be enabled to sell and convey lands to the promoters of the undertaking."

As to these notices, see Rules XXVI., XXXIV., XXXV. and Schedule. A statement as to the assents and dissents is to be deposited with the Commissioners, by Rule XXXIII., within the period therein provided.

On preliminary objections being taken at the local inquiry, noncompliance with these provisions was held to be fatal to the schemes in the Devon, South Hams, case (1900), Rep. VII. 15, and the Hayling Island case (1900), Rep. VIII. 7, and the same view was taken where the application was to work a railway, for the construction of which Parliamentary powers were in existence, as a light railway under sect. 16. (Gifford and Garvald case (1896), Rep. I. 23; Oxley, 31.) It appears that a fresh issue of notices to persons not affected by the alterations may be dispensed with, where a fresh and amended application is made. (Trent Valley case (1898-9), Rep. IV. 29, V. 41; Oxley, 65.)

(t) See Rules I. to III. In the Finchley, Hendon, Edgware and District case (1899), Rep. VI. 16; Oxley, 246, it was held that the publication of a notice in a special edition of the local newspaper did not comply with the Act and Rules, and the application was rejected without local inquiry.

(u) The intention of the Act is that the Commissioners shall, (i.) as a preliminary step, satisfy themselves that an opportunity has been given to the public to protect themselves by notices and advertisements as prescribed by this section and the Rules, and (ii.) proceed to come to a conclusion as to the merits of the application by local inquiry, primarily, and also by any other means which they think it advisable to adopt. The first point is met by the proof of compliance, the form of which is set out post, p. 543. As to the second point, the section contemplates the holding of a local inquiry in every case, and this is in fact done in practice except (a) where the

promoters have not complied with point (i.); (b) where the Commissioners consider that the scheme is, on the face of it, not within their jurisdiction, e.g., a purely urban tramway (see note (d) to sect. 1; Colchester case (1898), Rep. V. 8), and (c) in the case of applications for amending Orders under sect. 24, where the circumstances do not call for a local inquiry (see note (k) to that section). Frequently, where schemes are competitive, or alternative, or closely connected, only one local inquiry is held in respect of two or more applications. The Act makes no provision, and no rules have been made under sect. 15 (2), with regard to the procedure at these local inquiries. They must not be regarded as strictly formal inquiries, such as those for which the procedure is laid down in Tramways Act, 1870, s. 63, and the other instances cited in note (c) to that section.

Not unnaturally, the procedure of Parliamentary Committees is followed as far as possible. Clauses, however, on account of the pressure of business, are settled for the most part by subsequent correspondence, and the Commissioners take a larger part in the actual settlement of them, and in their admission to the Order when settled, than is the case with Parliamentary Committees. The Commissioners are not willing to allow the postponement of an inquiry when the arrangements have been made. (Watford and District case (1899), Rep. VI. 36.) The time and place of the local inquiry is made known by local advertisements, and by notices to the owners and occupiers, local and road authorities and objectors. The object of the inquiry is to learn the practicability and advantages of the proposed scheme and the objections thereto (see Basingstoke and Alton case (1897), Rep. I. 11; Oxley, 1), and sometimes the Commissioners adopt supplemental means for the same purpose, as the section suggests, e.g., inspection of the proposed route. (County of Middlesex (No. 2) case (1900), Rep. VII. 14.)

(v) See Rules X. to XVIII., and as to the deposit of the plan and book, Rules IV. to VI. In the Chatham, Rochester and Gillingham case (1898), Rep. IV. 5, Rule V. (formerly IV.) was not complied with, and the scheme was withdrawn. In the Monmouth and Abergavenny case (1897), Rep. III. 18, the application was rejected without local inquiry for non-compliance with Rule IV. (formerly III.).

Rules IV. to VI. also require the deposit of sections, as to which see Rules XIX. to XXV.

(r) These are printed post, p. 527.

(y) Rule VII. provides that objections should be made in writing, and that copies thereof should be sent to the promoters. No doubt this course is the most convenient, and should be adopted wherever it is practicable. But it would seem that, in the face of the terms of this sub-section, the Commissioners could not refuse to hear an objection however presented.

Sect. 7.