of

(2.) The Board of Trade shall give public notice any order so submitted to them in such manner as they think best for giving information thereof to persons interested, and shall also state in the notice that any objections to the confirmation of the order must be lodged with the Board and the date by which those objections must be lodged (g).

(f) Until the Coatbridge and Airdrie case (1898), Rep. III. 30; Oxley, 149, the Commissioners used merely to make a report of objections founded on alleged competition, but did not hear evidence or arguments upon them, leaving them to be dealt with by the Board of Trade. In the Dudley and District case (1897), Rep. II. 5; Oxley, 135, the Commissioners stated that where parties objected to their jurisdiction they embodied the objection in their report, unless their jurisdiction was clear.

In the Pewsey and Salisbury case (1897), Rep. II. 14, the Commissioners made a special report as to the opposition of the War Department, and granted the Order subject thereto.

The Board of Trade refuse to allow parties to see the Commissioners' report. (Dundee and Broughty Ferry case (1898), Rep. IV. 32; Oxley, 176.)

By sect. 9 (2), the Commissioners are to give assistance generally to the Board.

(g) Notice is given in the London or Edinburgh Gazette and in local newspapers, stating that the Commissioners have submitted the Order for confirmation, and that any objections to the confirmation of the Order should be addressed to the Assistant Secretary (Railway Department), Board of Trade, and must be lodged on or before a certain day (usually between three and four weeks later); that these should be accompanied by copies of any clauses or amendments that may be desired to remove the objections; and copies of the objections. clauses and amendments should at the same time be sent to the promoters' agent; lastly, that copies of the Order submitted may be obtained at not more than one shilling per copy from the promoters' agent.

The Board of Trade will not allow objections to be taken which have not been lodged within the time limited in the notice, except those which are germane to the objections duly lodged (London United Tramways case (1898), Rep. IV. 17; Oxley, 164), unless, apparently, by consent. (Liverpool and Prescot case (1899), Rep. IV. 14; Oxley, 180.)

9.-(1.) The Board of Trade shall consider any

Sect. 8.

Consideration

Sect. 9.

of order by Board of Trade.

order submitted to them under this Act for confirmation with special reference to (h)—

(a) the expediency of requiring the proposals to be submitted to Parliament (i); and

(b) the safety of the public (k); and

(c) any objection lodged with them in accordance with this Act (1).

(2.) The Light Railway Commissioners shall, so far as they are able, give to the Board of Trade any infor mation or assistance which may be required by the Board for the purpose of considering any order submitted to them or any objection thereto (m).

(3.) If the Board of Trade on such consideration are of opinion that by reason of the magnitude of the proposed undertaking (n), or of the effect thereof on the undertaking of any railway company existing at the time, or for any other special reason relating to the undertaking, the proposals of the promoters ought to be submitted to Parliament, they shall not confirm the order (¿).

(4.) The Board of Trade shall modify the provisions of the order for ensuring the safety of the public in such manner as they consider requisite or expedient (k).

(5.) If any objection to the order is lodged with the Board of Trade and not withdrawn, the Board of Trade shall consider the objection and give to those by whom it is made an opportunity of being heard (1), and if after consideration they decide that the objection should be upheld, the Board shall not confirm the order, or shall modify the order so as to remove the objection (o).

(6.) The Board of Trade may, at any time, if they think fit, remit the order to the Light Railway Commissioners for further consideration (p), or may themselves hold or institute a local inquiry, and hear all parties interested (q).

(h) Points (a) and (b) are matters which it is the duty of the

Board of Trade to consider, whether objections based upon them have in fact been raised or not; though they do in fact frequently form the basis of objections.

(i) This Act does not confer any power on the Board of Trade to submit the scheme to Parliament. The promoters must follow the usual course, if they are so advised. The matter was discussed in the Pewsey and Salisbury case (1897), Rep. II. 14; Oxley, 39, and was to have been put right by the Light Railways Bill of 1903, cl. 3, which provided that the Board might bring in a bill for the confirmation of an Order rejected by them under these sub-sections, which, if opposed, should follow the ordinary course of private bills. Compare the provisions to meet a similar situation in the case of applications under Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, ante, pp. 311, 312. It is clear, on the construction of sub sect. 3, that the two reasons specially mentioned are (a) the magnitude of the proposed undertaking; and (b) the effect of the undertaking on an existing railway, not "the magnitude of the effect." The Board of Trade seem, in fact, to have followed this construction, and to have regarded any material effect on an existing railway to be a ground for refusing to confirm an Order, whatever the magnitude of the effect may be; although in the report of the Coatbridge and Airdrie case (1898), Rep. III. 30; Oxley, 149, 152, they are said to have approved of the other construction of the sub-section. See, however, as to this, London United Tramways case (1898), Rep. IV. 17; Oxley, 164, 167.

(i) The magnitude of the undertaking.

There has hitherto been no instance of a refusal to confirm on this ground alone. It was suggested as an objection in the London United Tramways case (1898), ub. sup., in conjunction with competition.

(ii) Competition with an existing railway.

It will be observed that nothing is said here about competition with an existing canal or tramway, though such competition, one would think, might be just as good a ground for a submission to Parliament. See note (y) (vi) to sect. 7. Competition with a canal was made a ground of objection before the Commissioners in the North Holderness case (1897), Rep. II. 12; Oxley, 33, and the Merthyr Tydfil case (1898), Rep. IV. 30; Oxley, 183.

It has already been observed (see note (y) (vi) to sect. 7), that the Commissioners formerly did not hear evidence and arguments as to competition, but left the matter to be dealt with by the Board of Trade, owing to the provisions of this section. They now hear evidence and arguments; but still, in some cases, after hearing the evidence, leave the decision of the matter to the Board of Trade. (County of Hertford (No. 1) case (1900), Rep. VII. 10; Tickhill case (1900), Rep. VII. 35.) On the other hand, the Commissioners have themselves rejected several schemes on the ground of com

Sect. 9.

petition without submitting them to the Board of Trade (Musselburgh case (1899), Rep. V. 51; Hamilton, Motherwell and Wishaw case (1899), Rep. V. 49; Bridgwater, Langport and Glastonbury case (1899), Rep. VI. 9; South Shields, Sunderland and District case (1901), Rep. X. 18; Derby, Nottingham and District case (1902), Rep. (1903) XI. 12; Erewash Valley case (1902), Rep. (1903) XII. 17; Luton, Dunstable and District case (1902), Rep. (1903) XI. 23; Preston and Lytham case (1902), Rep. (1903) XI. 30; Ramsbottom, Edenfield and Rawtenstall case (1902), Rep. (1903) XI. 31; Stroud and Gloucestershire case (1902), Rep. (1903) XII. 18), even where the local authorities were in favour of the scheme. (London United Tramways case (1899), Rep. V. 27.) In the Burton and Ashby case (1902), Rep. (1903) XI. 2, XII. 2, the Commissioners rejected the application of private promoters on the ground of competition with a railway company, but approved a similar application made by the railway company themselves.

Instances of rejection by the Board of Trade on the ground of competition under this section will be found in the Coatbridge and Airdrie case (1898), Rep. III. 30; Oxley, 149; the Dundee and Broughty Ferry case (1898), Rep. IV. 32; Oxley, 176; Rhondda Valley case (1901), Rep. VI. 40, IX. 26; Staines and Egham case (1901), Rep. VIII. 18.

(iii) Other reasons.

Among these might well be the pendency of a bill for the same or similar purposes in Parliament, or the proposed interference with rights already conferred by Parliament. (See note (d) to sect. 1.)

Instances of light railways authorised by Act of Parliament will be found in Rother Valley (Light) Railway Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. lxvi.), and Vale of Rheidol (Light) Railway Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. clxxiv.).

As to the application of this provision in the case of amending Orders, see sect. 24.

(k) Stress is laid on the safety of the public here, because it is the particular province of the Board of Trade to provide for it. They are assisted, in the case of a Light Railway Order, by the report of one of their inspectors on the proposed line. The provisions for the safety of the public usually inserted in Orders will be found post, pp. 563, 567 sqq., 614 sqq. See also the Railway Acts usually applied to the light railway by the Order in sect. 11 (b), and the notes thereto.

(1) As to the notice given by the Board of Trade, and as to the necessity of lodging objections in time, see note (g) to sect. 8.

The observations already made, as to the persons who may object. and the objections which they may make, in note (y) to sect. 7, and ante, p. 45, will apply to objectors and objections before the Board of Trade.

་

There is nothing to limit the objectors appearing or the objections taken before the Board of Trade to those dealt with by the Commissioners. It sometimes happens that objectors reserve their objections altogether till the Order comes before the Board, and objectors who have already appeared before the Commissioners raise fresh objections before the Board. The Light Railways Bill of 1903, however, prohibited this in the case of objections based on sub-sect. 1 (a) above. It seems that promoters have technically no right to appear against their own Order before the Board, as they might wish to do, if clauses had been inserted by the Commissioners to which they objected; but no doubt the Board would usually hear them. (Cranbrook, Tenterden and Ashford case (1899), Rep. V. 11; Oxley, 84.)

Before the Board the promoters do not, as in the case of a bill before the second House, commence by proving their preamble. That is taken as proved at the outset, and the objections to it, if any, are heard. These are then met by the promoters. The discussion of clauses then follows.

(m) Compare sect. 8 (1).

(n) For the meaning of this word, see note (o) to sect. 43 of Tramways Act, 1870.

(0) The only cases hitherto in which the Board has rejected an Order as a whole have been cases which fall, in their opinion, under sub-sect. 3. (See note (i) above.)

(p) In the Llandudno and Colwyn Bay case (1897), Rep. II. 20; Oxley, 131, the Order was remitted to the Commissioners, since the local authorities complained that they had had no opportunity of objecting to a deviation which had been inserted in the Order after the local inquiry.

(q) See also sect. 15 (1).

Sect. 9.

of order by

Board of

Trade.

10. The Board of Trade may confirm the order with Confirmation or without modifications as the case may require (r), and an order so confirmed shall have effect as if enacted by Parliament (s), and shall be conclusive evidence that all the requirements of this Act in respect of proceedings required to be taken before the making of the order have been complied with (t).

(r) The Board almost always modifies the Order to some extent. The following instances of modifications may be given :-As to the incorporation of railway Acts in the Order, the position of a station, the position of the tracks, the protection of gas and water pipes, the substitution of bridges for level crossings, the steepness of gradients permitted on deviations, the limitation of deviations to lands acquired by agreement, the omission of parts of lines autho