Cornell University Library KD 43721895 Cases decided during tlie sessions, 1890- 3 1924 017 620 505 Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924017620505 RICKAKDS AND SAUNDERS'S LOCUS STANDI REPORTS. CASES DECIDED DUBINO THE SESSIONS, 1890-9I-92-9S-94, BY THE COUET OF REFEREES ON Irifrak 3\\k in ^a;rliammt. A. G. EICKARDS AND R. C. SAUNDERS, BARRISTERS-AT-LAW. LONDON : BUTTERWORTH & CO., 7, FLEET STREET, Sato publialjera ta t\jt (guEcn'B iltoat fecellcnt ^njeatg; HODGES, FOSTEB & CO., GRAFTON STREET, DUBLIN. 1895. Printed hu PEWTRESS it CO., 8, LlTTlE QrEEN Stbeet, Londos, W.C. PREFACE a '^ TO EICKAEDS AND SAUNDERS'S ^E^ORfe. ,^ The Reports contained in this Volume include the Cases Decided by the Court of Repeeees on Private Bills in Parliament during the Sessions 1890-94, inclusive. For the sake of completeness, a notice of every Case decided by the Court of Referees will be found in this series of the Reports, although in cases depending mainly upon questions of Competition, Construction of Agreements, or other special circum- stances, and involving no definite principle, a short mention only is made, giving the Decision of the Court as to the Locus Standi of the Petitioners. Other cases vsdll be reported, at length as in the former Volumes of Reports. For convenience of reference, the Cases of each year are arranged in alphabetical order, but a com- plete Index of Cases and Subjects for the w^hole Volume is appended. Vols. I. and II. of " Clifford AND Stephens's Locus Standi Reports " (1867-1872) and Vols. I., II., and III. of " Clifford and Riokards's Locus Standi Reports " (1873-1884) together with " RiCKARDS AND Michael's Locus Standi Reports," and the present Volume of " Rickards and Saunders's Reports," together furnish a Record of the Decisions of the Court during the Sessions 1867-1894, inclusive. The Editors desire to express their thanks to Mr. Bonham-Carter, the Referee on Private Bills, and to Mr. Fielden Mitchell, of the Referees' Of&ce, for kindly obtaining for them copies of Bills, as deposited in the Private Bill Office, and other documents necessary to the preparation of these Reports. The Reports of Cases decided during the Session 1895 will be published early in next year, and will form Part I. of a new Volume of Reports. Temple, MarcJi, 1895. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Eeports op Cases of 1890 ....... 1 Reports of Cases of 1891 77 Repobts op Cases of 1892 ....... 167 Rbpobts of Cases of 1893 237 RiiPORTS OP Cases of 1894 313 Index of Cases 359 Index of Subjects 867 COURT OF REFEREES 11 PARLIAMENT. EEPORTS FOR THE SESSION 1890. [H.L.] added to the name of a BUI implies that the Bill oriijinated in the House of Lords. *j* Where a Standing Order is quoted or nferred to, the number is that of the Standing Orders for the Session 1892. ALEXANDRA (NEWPOET AND SOUTH WALES) DOCKS AND EAILWAY BILL. [H.L.] Petition of (1) The Rhtmney Railway Company. 16th June, 1890.— (Be/ore Mi: Shikess Will, Q.C., J/.P., Chairman ; Sir George Russell, M.P.; Mr. Healt, M.P.; and The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C.) Dock and Railway Company — Running Powers over Petitioners' Railway — S. 0. 133 \_In wliat cases Railway Companies to be hettrd]-^Exist- ing Agreement — Complaint against Past Legislation. Clause 6 of the bill empowered the Alexandra docks and railway company to run over and use the railways of the Pontypridd, Caerphilly and Newport railway company ; and by sect. 40 of the Pontypridd, &o., Railway Act, 1878, it had been provided that the Pontypridd company, " and any company or persons for the time being working or using the railways of the company " {i.e., the Pontypridd company) "or any part thereof, either by agreement or otherwise, may run over, work, and use .... for the purposes of their traf&c of every description," the railways of the Rhymney company between the junction of that company's Walnut-tree and Caer- phUly branches and Cardiff and the docks there. The petitioners, the Rhymney com- pany, pointed out that clause 6 of the bill, when read with the above sect. 40 of the Act of 1878, would have the effect of admitting the Alexandra company to run over their line, and compete with them for traffic at the docks in Cardiff, and they claimed a locus standi under S. 0. 133. It appeared, however, that the petitioners had, under an agreement scheduled to the Pontypridd, Caerphilly and Newport Railway Act, 1882, already agreed to grant to the Ponty- pridd company, " and to aU other companies and persons for the time being working or using the railway No. 1 of the Pontypridd company, power to run over and use in the usual way " the same portions of their railway as those to which they now objected to admit the Alexandra company by virtue of the powers con- ferred by clause 6 of the bill upon that company over the Pontypridd company's railways. The petitioners contended that it was not in the contemplation of the parties to the agreement confirmed by the Act of 1882 that the Alexandra company, being a dock company, should be admitted to " work or use " the Pontypridd railways : Held, however, that the petitioners were pre- cluded by the agreement confirmed by Parliament in 1882 from being heard against clause 6 of the bill, which conferred no further powers over their railways upon the promoters than they could have obtained by agreement with the Pontypridd company without coming to Parliament for the present bill, and locus standi accordingly Disallowed. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petitioners do not allege in their petition, nor is it the fact that any of their lands or property will or can be taken under the provisions of the COUET OP EEFEEEES. [Vol. I. bill; (2) the promoters do not admit the accuracy of the recitals of the Acts of Parlia- ment and agreements mentioned in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the petition ; (3) the petition appears to relate to clause 6 of the hill, which proposes to confer running powers on the promoters, and on any company or persons lawfully working or using their railways, over the railways belonging to the Pontypridd, Caerphilly and Newport railway company, but the petitioners' railway is not mentioned in the clause or in the bUl ; (4) it may be that the use of the Pontypridd, Caerphilly and Newport railway by the promoters involves the use by them under existing legislation of some portion of the petitioners' railway, but if that be the result it must have been provided for at the time such legislation took place, and the petitioners ought not now to be heard to raise objections to agreements and Acts of Parliament to which they were parties, but with which the promoters had nothing what- ever to do and do not now seek to alter ; (5) it is now too late for the petitioners to seek to alter provisions in Acts of Parliament and agreements in favour of the Pontypridd, Caerphilly and Newport railway company, for which they got equivalent advantages at the time, and they ought not to be heard against the bill for any such purpose ; (6) the peti- tioners do not state any facts or reasons in ■their- petition which, according to the practice of Parliament, entitles them to be heard against the bill ; (7) the promoters deny that the proposed running powers will prejudicially interfere, or are in any way inconsistent, with the before-mentioned agreement ; (8) none of the matters alleged in the petition are such as according to the practice of Parliament entitle the petitioners to be heard against the clause of the bill to which they object. Bompas, Q.C. (for petitioners) : The pro- moters are a dock company, and have some small lines of railway round the docks, with running powers over the Great Western rail- way, but these running powers have never been exercised, and also running powers over certain other lines. Clause C of the bUl provides that " The company, and any company or persons lawfully working or using the railways of the company, or any part thereof, by agreement or otherwise, may, from time to time, run over and use with their engines, carriages and wagons, officers and servants for the purposes of traffic of every description, the railways hereinafter mentioned (that is to say) : — The railways belonging to the Pontypridd, Caerphilly and Newport railway company, together with all terminal and other stations and the sidings, platforms," &c., &c. ; and by the Pontypridd, Caerphilly and Newport Eailway Act, 1878, sect. 40, it was enacted that " The company," i.e., the Pontypridd company, "and any company or persons for the time being working or using the railways of the company or any part thereof, either by agreement or otherwise, may run over, work and use with their engines, carriages and wagons, and officers and servants, whether in charge of engines and trains, or for any other purposes whatsoever and for the purposes of their traffic of every description .... so much and all such parts of the railways of the Ehymney company as are situate between the junction of those railways with railway No. 1 by that Act authorised" (which is the beginning of that part of our railway at Caerphilly), " and the town and port of Cardiff and the docks there, but not including that part of the Walnut-tree branch railway which lies to the south of the said junction, together with all stations, sidings," ifcc, &c., and (sect. 41), upon such terms as, failing agreement, shall be settled by arbitra- tion. The effect of clause 6 of the bUl, when read with sect. 40 of the Act of 1878, wDl be to admit the promoters "as a company working or using the railways of the company," i.e., the Pontypridd company, in the words of that section, to " run over, work, and use " our line, and so compete with us for the traffic at the Bute docks. I claim a loous standi under S. 0. 133, and I desire to call the attention of the Court to the fact that the effect of the bill will be to admit the promoters to run over our railways, for whom it would, but for the bill, be ultra vires as a, dock company to obtain running powers over any railway. Fope, Q.C. (for promoters) : It cannot be contended that the Alexandra company is not a railway as well as a dock company. They are owners of 30 miles of railway, were by statute created a railway company subject to the railway companies Acts, and have obtained by statute running powers over 80 miles of the Great Western railway. Their claim to be heard against clause 6 of the bill is precluded by an agreement made by them with the Pontypridd company in 1881, which was con- firmed by Act of Parliament in 1882. Bompas : I was about to call attention to that agreement which is dated 5th August, 1881, and is scheduled to the Pontypridd, Caerphilly and Newport Eailway Act, 1882, and made binding on that company and the Ehymney company by sect. 4 of that Act. The material parts of the agreement are as follows : — Article 1. " The Ehymney company to grant to the Pontypridd company and to all other com- Part I.] Alexandra (newport, etc.) docks and railway bill. 3 panics and persons for the time being working or using the railway No. 1 of the Pontypridd company, power to run over and use in the usual way such portions of your petitioners' Caerphilly branch as they have not now parliamentary power to use for traffic of all descriptions passing to and from its junction with the Caerphilly branch of the Brecon and Merthyr raUway company's Ehymney section to the eastward of Caerphilly, to and from the portion which they now have power to use as aforesaid, but the powers hereby given are not to be used for traffic local to the Rhymney company, nor for any traffic arising at or destined for the Rhymney town and works, or any point in the Rhymney valley or its tributary valleys westward of the Rhymney river and the line of the Cardiff and Caerphilly railway." 2. " The Rhymney company to put the portion of their Caerphilly branch referred to in the preceding article in good working order as a single line in time to take the Pontypridd company's traffic, and to afford all necessary facilities for the due transmission over the said Caerphilly branch of the traffic of the Pontypridd company as if it were the proper traffic of the Rhymney company themselves." Then article 3 provides for the tolls to be paid to us for the use of our line. It cannot be reasonably contended that when we made that agreement we contemplated that a dock com- pany would "work or use "the Pontypridd railway, but Parliament is now being asked to give a dock company a power which will incidentally enable them to run over us and we should say, " we ask you to put a clause into the bUl, saying with regard to this new dock company, that this power shall not be exercisable." Mr. Healt : The difficulty is this, it is not Parliament giving this power, it is your agree- ment that has already done so. What you will be arguing before the Committee will be, we have agreed to a certain thing ; now we wish to modify that agreement. Bovipas : In entering into the agreement confirmed in 1882, we never intended to admit a dock company to run over our lines. We did contemplate that such railway companies as the Great Western, the London and North- western, or any other raUway company, if they made an agreement with the Pontypridd, should thereby, without the trouble of coming to Parliament, have the right to run over us, and we might very well not object to that, because all these companies would not hurt us or the Bute docks by running over us. We were satisfied in 1882 that, without parliamentary sanction, a dock company could not by agree- ment obtain the right to run over the line of a railway company. The Chairman : The Alexandra company is more than a dock company. Bompas : It was not in 1878 or in 1882 when this agreement was confirmed by Parliament. The Chaibman : Now you are touching a material point. Suppose the Pontypridd and the promoters had met behind the backs of the Rhymney and agreed that the Pontypridd should grant running powers, you would have been powerless, would not you ? This dock company incorporates the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, and has all the powers of a railway company. Mr. Healy : The words in the agreement are, " all other companies and persons, for the time being working or using the railway No. 1 of the Pontypridd company," so that the agreement would appear to carry this, that not alone all persons who were then in a position to make such agreements with the Pontypridd should run over your line, but all perbons who should " from time to time," i.e., subsequently, have power to make agreements with them. Have you not practically put yourselves into the hands of the Pontypridd company on this point ? Bompas : I contend that it could not have been in the contemplation of the parties to that agreement that this dock company should be in a position to avail themselves of it. Sir Geokge Russell : The Alexandra com- pany could agree with the Pontypridd company for the use of their line behind your backs, and could therefore do what you object to without this bill. Bompas : By putting this provision into the bill the promoters have brought themselves within S. 0. 133. The Chaikman : You have shut your own mouth by this agreement, and you cannot ask the Court in construing S. 0. 138 to disregard that agreement, or to relieve you from it. Your complaint is in effect a complaint against legislation in 1882. The Locus Standi must be Disalloioed. Agents for Petitioners, Wyatt d- Co. Petition of (2) The Tape Vale Railway Company. Running Powers over Railway already possessed by Petitioners sought by Bill to be extended to Promoters — Working of Goods and Mineral A 2 COURT OP EEFEBEES. [Vol. I. Traffic by Petitioners — Control of Railway not vested in Petitioners — Practice. The Taff Vale railway company also objected to clause 6 of the bill, on the ground that it would admit the promoters to run over the railways of the Pontypridd company, over which they already had running powers under existing agreements, and the goods and mineral traf&c upon which they already worked. It was proved, however, by evidence that, although the petitioners supplied the locomotive power for working the goods and mineral traf&c, they had no control over the working of the line, the staff employed in working it, or the signals and junctions on it, or its maintenance ; and the Court held that there was nothing in their position to except them from the ordinary practice of the Court in such oases, and accordingly disallowed their locus standi. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the only provision of the bill to which the petition relates is clause 6, which proposes to confer on the promoters, and any company or persons lawfully working or using their railways, power to run over and use the railways belonging to the Pontypridd, Caerphilly and Newport railway company ; (2) the promoters deny that the powers proposed to be conferred on them by the said clause will have the effect alleged in paragraph 4 of the petition ; (3) the railways belonging to the Pontypridd, Caerphilly and Newport railway company extend from the Taff Vale railway near Pontypridd to the Caerphilly branch of the Ehymney railway, and from the Brecon and Merthyr Tydiil junction railway at Bassaleg to the promoters' railway near Nevfport, and form only a small part and not the whole of the route from Pontypridd to Newport as the third paragraph of the petition would appear to indicate, nor does any considerable portion of such railways consist of a single line of rails ; (4) the heads of agreement mentioned in paragraph 5 of the petition refer to facilities over the Taff Vale railway, and those facilities cannot be pre- judicially affected by the promoters' use of the Pontypridd, Caerphilly and Newport railway. The obligation to deliver traf&c into and take traf&c from sidings at Pontypridd has never been performed; (5) the further agreement mentioned in paragraph 6 of the petition does not give the petitioners any right to be heard against clause 6 of the bill. It is an agreement for the petitioners to perform the haulage of goods and mineral traffic at a fixed price per ton per mile for a limited period, the Pontypridd, Caerphilly and NevTport railway company paying the expense of maintenance and other expenses; (6) the Pontypridd, Caerphilly and Newport railway company work their own passenger traffic, as admitted in paragraph 7 of the petition, and other companies have running powers over the railways of that company, so that the petitioners have by no means the exclusive use of those railways, and are not entitled to be heard to object against the promoters having running powers ; (7) the promoters deny that the proposed running powers will prejudicially interfere or are in any way inconsistent with the before-mentioned agreements ; (8) none of the matters alleged in the petition are such as, according to the practice of Parliament, entitle the petitioners to be heard against the clause of the bill to which they object. Cripps, Q.C. (for petitioners) : We object to the powers proposed to be conferred by clause 6 of the bUl, on the ground that they will pre- judicially affect our rights and interests, under certain agreements between ourselves and the Pontypridd company. The simple question is, whether the promoters are asking by statu- tory provisions to get powers inconsistent with an agreement between us and the Pontypridd, CaerphOly and Newport railway, tmder which we work all the minerals and goods traffic over that line. By the heads of agreement set forth in schedule (A) to, and confirmed by, the Pontypridd, Caerphilly and Newport Railway Act, 1878, as supplemented by sect. 25 of the Taff Vale EaUway Act, 1879, the petitioners are under an obligation to afford facilities for goods and mineral traffic destined for or coming from the Pontypridd company's line, and to deliver all such traffic into and take the same from the Pontypridd company's sidings, adjacent to the junction between the railways belonging to that company and to the peti- tioners at Pontypridd, at rates per ton per mile not exceeding the rates for the time being charged by the petitioners for like traffic to or from any dock or tidal harbour at Cardiff or Penarth. Under a further agreement made between the petitioners and the Pontypridd company on the 20th June, 1884, which is stiU in force, your petitioners provide loco- motive power, and work from the Pontypridd junction south of Pontypridd all goods and Part I.J AYR HARBOUR BILL. mineral traffic passing from the petitioners' railway on to the Pontypridd company's railway at Pontypridd junction, and consigned to and destined for Newport and places beyond, to interchange sidings at or near the junction of the Pontypridd company's railway and the company's railway, and also provide locomotive power for and work to Pontypridd junction all goods and mineral traf&c passing over the Pontypridd company's line, and consigned to places on the petitioners' system, or any inter- mediate places between the said interchange sidings and Pontypridd. Under the said agree- ment, the whole of the traf&c (except passenger traffic) of the Pontypridd company's railway is worked by the petitioners, who are the respon- sible company for all the traffic except passengers, and the exercise of the proposed running powers by the company would seriously and prejudicially interfere with the proper working of the said traf&c by the petitioners and the performance of their obligations to the Pontypridd company under the agree- ments above referred to. The first clause of the agreement of 20th June, 1884, between us and the Pontypridd, Caerphilly and Newport is to this effect : " Upon the opening of the Pontypridd, Caerphilly and Newport railway for such goods and mineral traffic as herein- after mentioned" (which is in substance the whole of it), "the Taff Vale railway company will, so far as they lawfully can having regard to the existing rights of other companies or persons, provide locomotive power and work from the Pontypridd jtmction south of the Pontypridd junction all goods and mineral traf&c passing from the ■ Taff Vale to the Pontypridd, Caerphilly and Newport at Pontypridd junction." I call your attention to those words, "having regard to the existing rights of other companies." Now the proposal is that new rights shall be given to a company, which has no rights at the present time, and was not in existence at the time of, or in the contemplation of the parties to, our agreement with the Pontypridd company. The reason why a working company stands in a different position from a company with mere running powers is that the introduction of another company interferes with and may possibly alter the arrangements of the working company, and make it more dif&cult for it to work the railway. The Chaikman : The fact of the company being the working company might, in my opinion, make a very material difference, be- cause in the case of a working company the working company might have the management of the signals, the providing of the staff, and the whole control and responsibility, whereas in the case of a company with running powers merely they would not have the control of the signals, the providing of the staff, or the responsibility of working. Cnpps : We fix the times of the trains and all the locomotive work is done by us. Mr. Chandos-Leioh : You say you want to be heard against clause 6 because the effect of that clause may be to add difficulties to your locomotive and other arrangements ? Cripps : Yes. Pope, Q.C. (for promoters) : Unless the petitioners can show that they do more than exercise mere running powers over the Pontypridd railway, they are not entitled, in accordance with the practice of the Court, to a locus standi, to object to the admission to similar powers of another company over the line. The Chaieman : We have some little doubt as to what " working the goods traffic " means here. Under whose control is the Pontypridd railway and the stafl' ? Pope : Under the control of the Pontypridd company. The Taff Vale merely supply haulage for the goods and mineral traffic. [A witness was here called on behalf of the Taff Vale company, who admitted to Mr. Pope that that company had no control over the working of the Pontypridd company's line or the signals or junctions, beyond the junction of the Taff Vale railway with it.] The Chairman : Without offering any judg- ment as to what might happen in similar cases where the details might be dissimilar, in this particular case we do not think the claim to a Locus Standi has been made out. Agents for Petitioners, Sherwood d: Co. Agents for Bill, W. & W. M. Bell. AYE. HARBOUR BILL. Petition of (1) The Aedrossan Harbode Company ; and (2) The Duke of Portland. 17th April, 1890.— (Before Jl/c. Parker, M.P., Chairman; Tfte if o;i. E . Chandos-Leigh, Q.C; and Mr. Bonham-Caeier.) Railway and Harbour Companies — Power to Railway Company to subsidise Harbour Reremies — Opposition of Trustees and Owner of Com- peting Harbour — Vesting df Railways belonying to Harbour Trustees in Railway Company — Alleged Virtual Amalgamation — Improvement of Existing Competition — Diversion of Traffic to COUET OF REFEREES. [Vol, I. Harbour subsidised iij Railway Company — S. 0. 156 [Railway Company not to acquire Docks, cC'c.']. The bill confirmed an agreement between the Ayr harbour trustees and the Glasgow and South-Western railway company with respect to Ayr harbour, by providing for the guarantee by that company of the interest on a portion of the Ayr harbour debt ; for the division of surplus revenue derived from the harbour, after payment of interest and contribution to a sinking fund, between the trustees and the railway company ; for altering the consti- tution of the harbour trust, and giving the Glasgow company a larger representation upon the trust than they at present possessed ; and for vesting the railways belonging to the trustees, in and around the harbour, in the Glasgow company until the year 1915, or as much longer as might be agreed between the trustees and the company, and for matters incidental to these objects. The Ardrossan harbour company, and the Duke of Portland, as the owner of Troon harbour, both opposed the bill on the ground that it would import a fresh element into the competition already existing between the Ayr, Ardros- san, and Troon harbours, and would give the Glasgow company, which served all three harbours, and the Troon harbour exclusively of other railway companies, a pecuniary interest in, and an inducement to assign traffic to Ayr harbour in preference to Ardrossan and Troori, which it did now possess. The petitioners con- tended that the bill, by giving the Glasgow company, in certain events, a share of the profits derived from the harbour of Ayr, and by vesting the railways now belonging to the harbour trustees in and around the harbour in the Glasgow company, amounted to a virtual amalgamation of the harbour with the Glasgow company's undertaking. As an additional argument in favour of their locus standi, the petitioners directed the attention of the Court to the bill now before Parliament for the amalgamation of the Glasgow company's undertaking with that of the North British railway company, which bill the Ayr harbour trustees had, in the agreement scheduled to the bill, undertaken to support ; and which would (the petitioners contended) result in bringing still more additional traffic from the North British railway system to Ayr harbour to the detriment of their own harbours. The promoters contended that the bill now before the Court merely enabled the Glasgow company to subscribe to and subsidise the Ayr harbour revenues, and could not properly be considered an amalgamation bill, and that the effect of it would be at the most to increase an existing competition : Held, however, apparently without regard to the pending bill for the amalgamation of the Glasgow and North British railway companies, that both petitioners were entitled to a locus standi. The locus standi of (1) the Ardrossan harbour company was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the possession by the petitioners of a harbour at Ardrossan does not give them any right to be heard against the bill, which relates to the harbour of Ayr and works thereat ; (2) there are no provisions in the agreement to which the bill proposes to give effect which entitle the petitioners to be heard ; (3) if it were the case, which the promoters do not admit, that the effect of the bill would be to induce the Glasgow and South-Western rail- way company to divert their traffic to Ayr, that fact would not give the petitioners any right to be heard against the bill ; (4) no new competition as against the petitioners or in any way affecting the petitioners will be created by the bill ; (5) the existing competition between the petitioners and the Ayr harbour trustees referred to in the petition gives the petitioners no right to be heard ; (6) the state- ments in paragraph 14 of the petitioii are irrelevant. The promotion of a bill for the amalgamation of the Glasgow and South- western railway company (whether such bill does or does not affect the petitioners) does not, according to the practice of Parliament, entitle them to be heard ; (7) the petitioners are not entitled to be heard with respect to any interest, pecuniary or otherwise, which the Glasgow and South-Westeru railway company may have in the harbour of Ayr or its Pakt 1.] AYE HARfeOtfR BILL. revenues; (8) the bill does not give the Glasgow and South-Western railway company any exclusive right or control of Ayr harbour, which is and will remain entirely subject to the control of the Ayr harbour trustees, nor will the railway company have any preponder- ating interest or influence on the harbour board ; (9) the petitioners have no such interest in the undertaking of the promoters as to entitle them to be heard, and the petition discloses no ground which, according to the practice of Parliament, entitles them to be heard. The lociis standi of (2) the Duke of Portland was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the possession by the petitioner of large estates and a harbour at Troon does not give him any right to be heard against the bill which relates to the harbour of Ayr and works thereat ; (2) there are no provisions in the agreement to which the bill proposes to give effect which entitle the petitioner to be heard ; (3) if it were the case, which the promoters do not admit, that the effect of the bill would be to induce the Glasgow and South-Western railway company to develop the traffic at Ayr in opposition to Troon, the fact would not give the petitioner any right to be heard against the bill ; (4) no new competition as against the petitioner, or in any way affecting the petitioner, will be created by the bill; (5) the existing competition between Troon and the Ayr harbour trustees referred to in the petition gives the petitioner no right to be heard ; (6) the statements in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the petition are irrelevant. The promotion of a bill for the Amalgamation of the Glasgow and South-Western railway company with the North British railway company (whether such bill does or does not affect the petitioner) does not, according to the practice of Parliament, entitle him to be heard ; (7) the petitioner is not entitled to be heard with regard to any interest, pecuniary or otherwise, which the Glasgow and South-Western railway company may have in the harbour of Ayr or its revenues ; (8) the bill does not give the Glasgow and South-Western railway company any inclusive right or control of Ayr harbour, which is and will remain entirely subject to the control of the Ayr harbour trustees, nor will the railway company have any preponderating interest or influence on the harbour board ; (9) the petitioner has no interest in the under- taking of the promoters, or either of them, which would entitle him to be heard, and the petition discloses no ground which, according to the practice of Parliament, would entitle him to be heard. Saunders, Q.G. (for the Ardrossan harbour company) : The bill is of a peculiar character : it proposes to put the Glasgow and South- Western railway company, until it becomes amalgamated, if it should do so, with the North British railway company under a bill of this Session, in the position of having a very material precuniary interest in the harbour of Ayr. The harbour of Ayr is a public harbour vested in a body of 16 trustees, of whom the Glasgow company elect one, the harbour ratepayers electing others, and certain official members of the corporation being upon the body. The trustees want to improve their harbour, but the reserve fund is at present insufficient for this. The bill proposes to confirm an agreement between the harbour trustees and the Glasgow and South-Western railway, which at present serves the towns and harbours of both Ardrossan, Troon and Ayr. That agreement secures to the trustees a guarantee by the Glasgow, Company of 3i per cent, upon £37,000, the present debt of the trustees. By the fourth article of that agree- ment the trustees shall, as at present, be 16 in number, but in place of the company, as at present, appointing one person, they may appoint four persons to be trustees under the Harbour Acts ; and if any question shall arise between the trustees appointed by the company and a majority of the trustees present at any meeting as to capital expenditure or extra- ordinary expenditure of revenue, such question shall, at the request of the trustees or of the company, be forthwith referred to the sheriff of-the county of Ayr, who may, if he thinks fit, attend a meeting of the trustees, hear parties, and decide, and his decision shall be final. By article 5, "in addition to the railways which the company were, by the Glasgow and South- Western Railway Act, 1878, authorised to make and maintain, the company shall have power to lay rails connecting their railways with any portion of the harbour, the lines and levels of such rails being first approved by the trustees ; " but the sixth article provides " That the company shall purchase the railways belonging to the trustees, but exclusive of the solum, at a price to be fixed, failing agreement, by arbitration, and the said railways when pur- chased, and also any rails which may be laid by the company under the last preceding article, shall, for the purposes of tolls, rates, and charges, and for all other purposes whatso- ever, form part of the undertaking of the company." The ninth article provides " That this agreement shall come into operation on the passing of the bill hereinafter mentioned, and shall continue until and including Whit- COURT OP EEFEREES. rvoL. Sunday, 1915, or such later date or dates as the trustees and the company may from time to time agree upon. On the expiration of this agreement, the trustees shall acquire or re- acquire, as the case may be, the lines of rail- way to be purchased or laid by the company in terms of this agreement at a price to be fixed failing agreement by arbitration." The tenth article provides: "The trustees and the company shall promote a bill in the next Session of Parliament for confirmation of this agreement, or containing clauses for giving effect to this agreement." The eleventh article provides " That the trustees shall support a bill to be introduced in the next Session of Parliament for the amalgamation of the com- pany and the North British railway company." This bill is, therefore, brought in to give the Glasgow and South-Western, and ultimately the North British, a position which they have not got at the present time in the harbour of Ayr, and the question is, does that give the harbour of Ardrossan a locus standi for the purpose of being heard as to whether or not it is a matter of public policy that the agreement which the bill carries out should be confirmed ? The petitioners were incoporated by the Ardrossan Harbour (Sale and Transfer) Act, 1886, and the harbour became vested in them by that Act. Ardrossan harbour is now served by two railway companies, the Glasgow and South- Western and the Lanarkshire and Ayr- shire, who have equal rights in respect of the conduct of traffic, but the harbour company is perfectly independent of both these companies. Neither Ardrossan, Ayr, nor any other harbour have received any assistance by way of contri- butions of funds or guarantee from the South- western company such as to entitle the company to any pecuniary interest in the harbour revenues. All the harbours at present stand upon an equal footing, each competing for trade, but under the bill the Glasgow and South-Western seek to obtain special rights aUd interests in Ayr harbour which will induce them to divex't all traffic to Ayr. Not only during the time there is a possible deficiency in income will it be the interest of the Glasgow and South-Western company to increase the revenue of the harbour of Ayr, but also when the income is sufficient to pay the whole guarantee they will be just as much interested, for article 3 of the agreement pro- vides : " If it appear from the accounts of the trustees as audited in terms of the Act of 1855 for any year that, after payment of all expenses of management, maintenance, and other annual expenses, and the payment to the sinking fund in terms of the Act of 1884 (which shall be applied as aforesaid), and interest at £3 5s. per cent, per annum, or at such rate or rates, more or less, as shall be payable for that year on the capital borrowed for the time "by the trustees, there is a surplus of the revenues of the harbour, such surplus shall be divided equally between the trustees and the company, and the trustees shall make payment to the company of one-half of such surplus." The result is to make the interest of the Glasgow company permanent in favour of Ayr, at the expense of Ardrossan and other harbours, to which the access is by the Glasgow company. The result of this is just as detrimental to us as if we are forced by Parliament to compete with a harbour which has advantages which we do not have. We get no benefit from our connection with the two railways, except in respect of the traffic which they bring to the port. At Ayr the harbour authority will not only get the advantage which they get from having a railway running into the port, but they will get besides a pecuniary contribution annually, and the further advantage from the fact of the railway company themselves having a pecuniary inducement to direct traffic from all parts of their system upon Ayr, instead of upon Ardrossan. Not only are the ports com- petitive, but the traffic itself is distinctly of a competitive character, both ports dealing largely in coal. The Ghaibman : You say there is a railway serving several ports, and the port of Ardrossan objects to that railway company acquiring such an interest in one of the other ports as would give it a strong inducement to favour that port in preference to the others. Saunders : Yes. As long as the harbour of Ayr is independent, and has not the benefit of a guarantee from the railway company, we are on a x"^^' with them. Mr. Chan'dos-Leigh : You say, though it is not creating a new dock, still it is changing the status of an existing dock. Sannders : Yes. Mr. Chandos-Leioh : In a great many of the cases that have come before us — the Barry dock and railways, the Bute docks, and the Alexandra (Newport dock) cases — there was the creation of a new dock. Saunders : There have been the Bristol cases, theBarry dock cases, the Burnham tidal harbour, the High Bridge, and the Southampton oases, and many others in which, where new docks were proposed to be constructed, existing docks, even 15 or 20 miles away, were allowed to be heard. In principle this case is the same, because, by the bill, the promoters are import- ing a new element which practically raises a Part I.] AYR HARBOUR BILL. competition wliicli does not exist at present, that is, the competition of the railway interest. The railway interest to Ayr may kill the poor harbour interest at Ardrossau by reason of the long purse of the railway company. At present neither Ayr harbour nor Ardrossan can afford to go below the market price of the dues to get a reasonable interest upon its capital to pay its shareholders. But if the Ayr harbour dues were put so low as not to pay the expenses of management, then the railway company would have to pay the whole of the deficiency, and yet they might make a very good bargain because they would get the long lead upon their line. The Chaiejian : The Glasgow and South- Western company carry both to Ardrossan and Ayr ? Saunders ; Yes. I say it would answer their purpose to reduce the dues to Ayr, because they would get the longer lead between the point of junction near Ardrossan and Ayr. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : The lines of the Ayr harbour at the present are the lines of the trustees, but by this bill they are going to be made the lines of the railway company. Saunders : Yes ; the bill practically vests the railways in the Glasgow company. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : Do you rely upon Article 11, that the trustees shall support a bill to be introduced in the next Session of Parliament for the amalgamation of the company and the North British company ? Saunders : Yes. It becomes very important that a power of this kind shall not be vested in so powerful and influential a company as the North British. It is contrary to public policy to vest a harbour in a railway company. The Chaikman : You say it is not only putting Ayr harbour into the hands of one railway company, but also a railway company seeking amalgamation with a more powerful railway company ? Saunders : Yes. Pembroke Stephens, Q.C. (for (2) the Duke of Portland) : The Duke of Portland is the owner of the harbour of Troon, and he and his predecessors in title have spent a quarter of a million on the construction of the harbour and docks. With reference to this bill the Duke stands in the same position as Ardrossan harbour, with this exception, that the Glasgow and South- Western is the only railway serving Troon. I adopt the arguments urged on behalf of Ardrossan, and say, that this is virtually an amalgamation bill ; it may be called by another name, but it is a long step towards amalgamation. The Court has over and over again held that an amalgamation bill gives a wider latitude to opponents than almost any other class of bill ; and for this reason the recommendation of the Committee on amalgamation, was that in the case of amalgamation bills no technical rules of locus standi should be allowed to stand in the way of traders, or other persons interested, obtaining fair terms upon that amalgamation. In case after case where a possible diversion of traffic from one route to another has been shown even short of amalgamation, a focus standi has been allowed to companies and persons affected. Against the London and South-Western Eailioay {Various Powers) Bill, 1883 (3 Clifford and Rickards, 806), for instance, where there was a proposal to put several railways in the Isle of Wight into one hand, and where there was a mere possibility of diversion of traffic from Southampton, the Southampton corporation and the Southampton harbour were allowed to be heard. Similarly in the London and North-Western {England and Ireland) Eailwatj Bill, 1874 (1 Clifford and Rickards, 93), where the London and North- Western company were trying to form groups of railway interests to lead traffic to Greenore, Dundalk, a short distance off, was heard. Here there is a virtual amalgamation of the harbour of Ayr and the railway, and there is an avowed amalgamation bill being promoted this Session, and the two oases are so closely united in the minds of the promoters, that in the agreement scheduled to this bill the harbour trustees agree to support the amal- gamation bill, which makes this bill an avowed amalgamation. In the first place, this is a virtual transfer of the harbour to the railway company. Secondly, it is a bill practically for the creation of a new kind of competition between harbours only six or seven miles away from one another upon the same coast. Thirdly, we are absolutely dependent upon the Glasgow and South- Western for our success. Fourthly, this is part of a larger amalgamation, the whole arrangement being contained in two bills. Fifthly, the principle of ParUament in all these cases has been to give the parties affected by it the widest power of enquiry and of safeguarding themselves. This bill means facilities to the Ayr route, as Ayr harbour is in competition with the harbour of Troon, which is owned by the petitioner. The bill is also opposed to the policy of Parliament, as shown in S. O. 156. Po2)e, Q.C. (for promoters) : The question is whether the petitioners are entitled to object to the Glasgow and South- Western advancing any money to Ayr harbour. With 10 COURT OF BEFEREES. [Vol. I. reference to Ardrossan and Troon it seems to me they practically stand upon the same footing. The Chairman : The case of Troon would seem to be a little stronger than the case of Ardrossan, because they say the Glasgow and South-Western is the sole means of getting traffic. Pope : Yes, but the Caledonian have running powers to Troon with reference to certain traffic. The Chairman ; That tends to put Troon and Ardrossan more upon the same footing. Pope : I should be quite prepared to concede that ■ if you come to the conclusion that this is anything like an amalgamation between harbour interest and railway interest, then the question would be whether that interest might be used so as to divert traf&c from neighbouring harbours. The question is, does this bill give anything more than a mere right to the Glasgow railway' company to subscribe, but without any amalgamation of dock and rail- way interest, or any right to the management of the docks ? Mr. Chandos-Leigh : But you change the statiiii to a considerable extent ; you change the constitution of the harbour trust. Pope : A domestic alteration in the constitu- tion of the trust is no ground of locus standi to neighbouring harbour authorities, unless it be such as to give a railway company a pre- dominating interest in one port over another. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : Then this railway com- pany takes possession, except of the solum, of the harbour trustees' line. Pope : That does not affect the question of diversion of traffic. The only point is really the question of the guarantee of 3J per cent, and the division of the receipts, which may be said to give them a certain interest in the receipts of the port itself. Parliament has provided against the lowering of harbour dues so as to induce traf&c to pass over the longer lead of railway to the profit of the railway, by the Railway and Canal Traf&c Act, 1888, sect. 30. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : But the Duke of Port- land or the Ardrossan harbour company might wish to be able to stop it in the first instance without having recourse to the Railway Com- missioners. Pciiihi-oke Stephens : It is one thing to have a remedy against a monopoly when created ; it is another thing to stop the monopoly being created. The Chairman : Though the remedy is there it is an expensive remedy, and we think, not- withstanding that remedy, the Ardrossan harbour and the Duke of Portland are entitled to a Locus Standi. Agents for Ardrossan Harbour, Martin and Leslie. Agents for the Duke of Portland, Dyson d; Co. Petition of (3) The Caledonun Railway Com- pany. The Caledonian railway also claimed to be heard against the bill on the ground of com- petition. They had running powers and facilities from Muirkirk into Ayr, which, how- ever, they alleged were of little use to them in competing with the Glasgow and South-Western company for traffic to Ayr, and they com- plained that the bill, by authorising a virtual amalgamation between that company and the Ayr harbour undertaking, would put them into a still worse position as regards competition than they occupied at the present time. It was pointed out that the running powers and facilities at present enjoyed by the petitioners over the Glasgow company's lines were by clause 20 of the bill extended to the lines to be purchased or laid by that company under the provisions of the agreement with the harbour trustees confirmed by the bill ; and the Court held that under these circumstances the interests of the petitioners were not sufficiently affected to entitle them to a Locus Standi. Agent for the Petitioners, Beveridge. Agents for Bill, Grahames, Cttrrey £■ Spens, and Sherwood & Co. BEVERLEY & EAST RIDING RAILWAY BILL. Petition of The Scakroeodgh, Beidlington and West Riding Railway Company. 24th April, imO.— [Before Mr. Pabkee, M.P., Chairman ; cC'c, dc.) In this case the petitioning company claimed a locus standi on the ground of competition. The arguments consisted principally of references to maps of the district which would be served by the two companies, and the case was of no value as a precedent. The Locus Standi of the petitioners was Allowed on the ground claimed, viz., competition. Cri2>ps, Q.C., appeared for the Petitioners ; Clifford for the Bill. Agents for Petitioners, Sherwood iL- Co. Agents for Bill, W. and W. M. Bell. PaeT I.] BRITON MEDICAL, ETC., LIFE ASSOCIATION BILL. 11 BILSTON COMMISSIONEES WATEE BILL. Petition of The Guaedians oi? the Pook of the Seisdon Union. 17th April, 18^0.— [Before Mr. Paekek, M.P., Cliairmun; dr., dc.) Application to extend Time for ijii'imi Notice of Objections to Locus Standi of Petitioners. Pritt, parliamentary agent (for promoters) applied to the Court to allow the time for giving notice of objections to the locus standi of the Seisdon Union to be extended under the following circumstances. The notice of objections was due on the 6th March ; it was sent to his client for approval ou the 1st March, and returned by him with some suggestions on the 4th. Those suggestions having been given effect to, in the hurry of business the thing was over- looked, and the objectibna were not lodged till the 24th, and as there had been no sitting of the Court sioce the 24th, there had been no opportunity of bringing the matter before the Court till now. The bill was not yet grouped. Baker, parliamentary agent (for petitioners), claimed the beneiit of the oversight, and he referred to the case of the Southwark and Vauxhall Water Bill, 1872 (2 Clifford and Stephens, 222). The Chaieman : I am afraid we cannot accede to this application. The " special circum- stances " are that the objections were not lodged from a pure oversight. We regret it very much, but if we were to relax the rule in this case we should have to do it in others. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : The promoters can state the circumstances when they get to the other House. Locits Standi Allowed. BEITON MEDICAL AND GENEEAL LIFE ASSOCIATION BILL. Petition of (1) Geoege Mokley ; and (2) BeENAED BoAIiEE. 9th May, 1890.— (Be/o« Mr. Paekee, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shieess Will, Q.G., M.P.; Sir Geoege Bussell, M.P. ; and The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C.) The bill, to which was scheduled a scheme sanctioned by the Chancery Division of the High .Court for the reduction of the assurance and annuity contracts of the Briton Medical and General Life Association, provided for the reconstruction and regulation of the affairs of the Association. The petitioner (1), George Morley, claimed to be heard against the bill as a registered shareholder, and the petitioner (2), Bernard Boaler, as the legal transferee by deed of shares, and both petitioners claimed to be heard as parties to suits against the Association and its alleged present directors in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, in respect of, i)iter alia, the fraudulent issue and conversion of shares, and the inva- lidity of calls in respect of shares. In these suits both the petitioners had asked for a declaration of the Court that the present acting directors were not lawfully qualified to act as such, and for an injunction to restrain them from so acting. They claimed to be heard against the bill as prejudically affecting their legal status. The promoters objected to the locus standi of petitioner (1) on the ground that although his name appeared on the register of shareholders he was not at the present time a shareholder, his shares having been forfeited to the Association under an article of association which provided that " the company shall have a lien on and shall be entitled to retain and appropriate the whole value of the shares and interest of any share- holder for the time being for and in or towards payment and liquidation of any debt or liability due from or entered into by any such shareholder to or with the company," and . . . . " that the said shares and interests are hereby assigned and conveyed to and declared to be vested in the Board of Directors accordingly;" and that the petitioner was really in the position of a debtor to the Asso- ciation in respect of unpaid calls, against whom judgment had been obtained for the amount of the calls. They further argued that even if he were a shareholder of the Association he had not dissented at the public meeting called to consider the bill within the meaning of S. O. 132, and that his having taken separate action by instituting a Chancery suit did not give him a distinct interest from other share- holders within the meaning of S. 0. 131. With regard to petitioner (2), who claimed to be the legal transferee of certain shares in the Associiition, although his name did not appear on the register of shareholders, the promoters stated that there was a large outstanding debt to the Association for arrears of calls in respect of the shares in question, and that the directors had refused to register the transfer of the shares to the petitioner under one of their articles of association, which provided that "no shareholder in the company shall be 12 COURT OP REFEREES. [Vol. I. entitled or allowed to sell or transfer any shares or vote in respect thereof at any meeting of the shareholders till the amount of any call or calls made in respect of the shares in the company shall have been fully paid and satisfied." The promoters further stated that the petitioner had applied under the Companies Acts to the Court of Queen's Bench to rectify the register by inserting his name therein, but that the Court had dismissed the application with costs, and further that on an appeal by the petitioner to the Court of Appeal, that Court had dismissed the appeal with costs. The promoters therefore contended that the claim of the petitioner to be heard as a share- holder was res judicata, and that he had no interest entitling him to be heard against the bUl. The Court, after intimating that it was not competent for them to re-open or decide the question of the legal rights of the peti- tioners, Disallowed the Locus Standi of them both. The arguments were of a technical character, and turned largely upon the powers conferred upon the association by its articles, which were of a special character. Nevill appeared for Petitioner (1) ; the Petitioner (2) appeared in person ; and J. D. Fitzgerald for the Bill. Agent for Petitioner (1), Harman. Agents for the Bill, Eees cS; t'rere. BUTE DOCKS (CARDIFF) BILL. [H.L.] Petition of (1) The Bakky Docks and Railways Company ; and (2) The Alexandea (Newpoet AND South Wales) Docks and Railway Company, and of the Newpoet (Alexandra) Dock Company, Limited. 12th June, 18d0.— {Before Mr. Shieess Will, Q.C., M.F., Chairman; Mr. Healy, M.P.; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.G.; and Mr. Bonham-Caetee.) Docle Companies — Transfer to Competing Dock Company of Powers Conferred on Eailiray Company to Construct liaihcays — Competition, New or Improved. Part III. of the bill transferred to the Bute docks company powers, conferred upon the Rhymney company by the Bhymney Bail- way Act, 1888, to construct certain railways which would connect the Rhymney com- pany's Cardiff and Caerphilly railway with the Sirhowy railway of the London and North-Western company. The petitioners objected to the transfer of powers from a neutral railway company to a rival dock company in direct competition with them- selves for mineral traffic from the Welsh valleys to the north of Cardiff, which would, they alleged, result in a diversion of that traffic exclusively to the Bute docks, some of which, if carried by the Rhymney company, would have found its way to their respective docks. It was contended on behalf of the promoters that it would have been equally to the interest of the Rhymney company to have carried the traffic over the railways authorised to be constructed by them in 1888 to the Bute docks, and that inasmuch as the Act of 1888 conferred upon the Bute docks company full running powers over the railways authorised by it in the hands of the Rhymney company, the position of the petitioners under that Act could not be materially affected by the bill : Held, however, that both the petitioners were entitled to be heard against Part III. of the bill [Transfer of Powers] . The locus standi of (1) the Barry docks, &c., company, was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petitioners do not allege in their petition, nor is it the fact that any lands or property belonging to them will be taken or interfered with by the biU, and they have not and do not allege any such interest in the sub- ject-matter of the bill as to entitle them to be heard according to practice ; (2) the petitioners have no such interest in the traffic which will arise upon or be conveyed for shipment over the railways authorised by the Bhymney Railway Act, 1888, as would entitle them to be heard against the bill ; (3) the petitioners are not entitled to be heard against the bill in re- spect of the proposed transfer of the powers, already granted by the Bhymney Bailway Act, 1888, from the Bhymney railway company to the promoters ; (4) no such competition with the petitioners will result from or be created by the bill as to entitle them to be heard ; (5) the petitioners did not petition against the bill for the Bhymney Bailway Act, 1888, and even if they had petitioned against that bill they could not have alleged any interest of theirs as affected by that bill which would have entitled Part I.] BUTE DOCKS (CARDIFP) BILL. 13 them to be heard against it ; (6) the petitioners are not entitled to be heard in support of any apphcation for running powers over the rail- ways proposed to be transferred ; (7) the peti- tioners are not entitled to be heard on any general question of public policy raised in their petition ; (8) while not admitting the statements in the petition, the promoters maintain that the petitioners do not state any facts or reasons which, according to the practice of Parliament, entitle them to be heard against the bill. The lom(s standi of (2) the Alexandra (New- port, cfec.) docks and railway company and the Newport (Alexandra) dock company was objected to on the following grounds: (1) the possession by the petitioners of docks and works at Newport, does not entitle them to be heard against the bill, and they have not and do not allege any such interest in the subject-matter of the bill as to entitle them to be heard according to practice; (2) the peti- tioners presented a petition against the bill for the Ehymney Railway Act, 1888, but their locus standi was objected to in the House of Commons by the Rhymney railway company, and disallowed by the Court of Referees ; (3) even if the petitioners had been entitled to be heard against the said bill, they are not en. titled to be heard against the present bill in respect of the proposed transfer of the powers already granted by the Rhymney Railway Act, 1888, from the Rhymney railway company to the promoters; (4) no such competition with the petitioners wiU result from or be created by the bUl as to entitle the petitioners to be heard ; (5) the bill does not confer any new or additional running powers on the promoters over the Rhymney railways, nor would it enable the promoters to affect the traffic to or from the petitioners' docks and railways so as to entitle them to be heard against the bill ; (6) the petitioners are not entitled to be heard in support of any applica- tion for running powers over the railways proposed to be transferred ; (7) the petitioners are not entitled to be heard on the questions raised in paragraph 26 of their petition ; (8) while not admitting the statements in the petition, the promoters maintain that the petitioners do not state any facts or reasons, which, according to the practice of Parliament, entitle them to be heard against the bill. Pember, Q.C. (for petitioners (1) ) : Part III. of the bill transfers to the promoters, in default of its exercise by the Rhymney company, the power to construct certain railways conferred upon the Rhymney railway company by the Rhymney Railway Act, 1888. These railways would connect the Rhymney company's Cardiff and Caerphilly railway with the Sirhowy railway of the London and North-Western company. The petitioners claim a locus standi on the ground that the promoters having already running powers over the Rhymney railway as far as the point where the proposed line of 1888 runs out of the Rhymney railway, they will practically have a line of railway running all the way from the northern portions of the Rhymney railway over that company's railway and the Sirhowy railway of the London and North-Western company down to the Bute docks at Cardiff, the result of which will be that, instead of having a neutral company like the Rhymney to deal with, we shall have the traffic in the hands of the Bute dock company, whose first object will be to get every ton of traffic down to their own docks. At the present moment we have just concluded an agreement with the Taff Vale company to run over their railway as far as Walnut Tree junction, where we meet the Rhymney com- pany, and we can make arrangements for getting traffic over the Rhymney railway down to Barry, but if once this link passes into the hands of the Bute dock company we shall never be able to do so. In all these Barry bills and Alexandra dock bills you have always held that you would allow a locus staridi to parties interested in South Wales traffic — destined either for the Barry docks or for the Bute docks. The Chairman : There is a comparatively recent decision of this Court in regard to this district in the Bute Docks (Cardiff ) Bill, 1889 (Rickards & Michael, 235). Pope, Q.C. (for petitioners (2) ) : The petitioners object to the transfer proposed by the bill and ask for a locus standi on the principle that all the ports are interested in all the traffic in this district of South Wales. The promoters seek to take possession of a route in which we are, as a competing dock company, at present interested, with the view of diverting traffic from our docks down to their own. Bidder, Q.C. (for promoters) : With regard to the Barry docks company, they are another competing port, and have two junctions with the Taff Vale at Treforest and Hafod for the purpose of getting the Aberdare and the Rhondda coal; but their interest in the Monmouth coal is of the most remote character, and they are not damnified by the transfer of powers to the Bute company authorised by the bill, for it would be as much the interest of the Rhymney company, owing to the longer lead they would- obtain, to send all the coal they can get from Sirhowy to Cardiff, as it would be the interest of the promoters themselves to 14 COUBT OF EEPEREES. [Vol. I. get it to Cardiff. The same consideration applies to the Newport dock companies, whose interests cannot be prejudiced by our finding the capital and making the Hne. An important consideration in the case of both petitioners is, that sects. 33 and 84 of the Ehymney Railway Act, 1888, provide that the Bute dock company shall have full running powers, on the usual arbitration terms, over the railways authorised to be constructed under that Act by the Bhymney company. Under these circum- stances, the bill cannot make any material alteration in their position. The Chaieman : The Locus Standi of both the Petitioners is Allowed against Part III. of the Bill, and so much of the preamble as relates thereto. Agents for Petitioners (1), Dyson & Co. Agents for Petitioners (2), II'. d- W. M. Bell. Petition of (3) The Geeat Westebn Railway. Transfer to Dock and Railway Company of Powers to construct Railway previously con- ferred on Railway Company — Petition of Railway Company — Obstruction of Traffic. Practice — Railway Company as Landowners — Literference l>y formation of Junctions with Land of Railway Company — Omnibus Bill, General Locus claimed against— " Post Case" [London and North-Western Railway (New Works, d-c.) Bill, 1868, 1 Clifford & Stephens, 62] discussed — S. 0. 183 [In what Gases Railway Companies to be heard.] Part II. of the bill, which was an omnibus bill, empowered the promoters to make a railway. No. 2, terminating by a junction with the railway of the Great Western company, over whose land compulsory power was taken for this purpose. The promoters conceded to the petitioners a locus standi against Part II. of the bill, but a general locus standi was claimed by the petitioners as landowners on the authority of the decision of the Court in the London and North-Western Railway (New Works, c&c.) Bill, 1868, on the petition of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railivay Company (1 Clifford and Stephens, 62), known as the " post case," and subsequent decisions following it. These decisions, the petitioners con- tended, gave the Court no alternative but to allow a general locus standi to a peti- tioner whose land was to be taken compul- sorily under a bill. Counsel for the promoters contended that S. O. 183 placed railway companies, whose land was taken, in a different position to an ordinary land- owner, and that it was unreasonable that a railway company with whose railway a junction was authorised to be made should be heard against the whole of an omnibus bill, which dealt with many matters in which the petitioning railway company had no interest. The petitioners, failing a decision of the Court in favour of their claim to a general locus standi, also claimed to be heard against the transfer of powers to construct the railways authorised by the Rhymuey Railway Act, 1888, on substantially the same grormds as those advanced by petitioners (1) and (2) against the bill : Held, that the petitioners, in addition to the locus standi conceded to them against Parb II. of the bill (New Railways), were only entitled to be heard against Part III. [Transfer of Powers] , and so much of the preamble as related thereto. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds i (1) the petitioners do not allege in their petition, nor is it the fact that any lands, houses, or other property belonging to the petitioners will or can be taken in connection with the railways proposed to be transferred under the powers of Part III. of the bill ; (2) the fact that certain property of the petitioners may be taken or interfered with for the purposes of the two railways proposed to be authorised by Part II. of the bill, does not give the petitioners a right to be heard against the bill in respect of the proposed transfer of the powers already granted by the Rhymney Railway Act, 1888, from the Rhymney railway company to the promoters ; (3) the fact that the petitioners opposed the bill for the Rhymney Railway Act, 1888, does not entitle them to be heard against the bill ; (4) no such competition with the petitioners will result from or be created by the bill as to entitle the petitioners to be heard ; (5) the fact that since the said railways were authorised. Parliament has authorised the construction of other railways in the hands of the peti- tioners for the alleged purpose of affording Part I.] BUTE DOCKS (caRDIFf) BILL. 15 accommodation between the Monmouthshire valleys and Cardiff does not entitle the peti- tioners to be heard against the bill, or as to the necessity or otherwise of the lines authorised by the Act of 18S8 ; (6) the bill does not affect the provisions of the Bute Docks Transfer Act, 1886, referred to in paragraph 12 of the petition, nor are there any agreements such as are alleged to exist in paragraph 13, which would be affected by the bUl, so as to entitle the petitioners to be heard ; (7) the petitioners have no such interest in the tolls, rates, or charges to be authorised by the bUl as to entitle them to be heard ; (8) the petitioners are not entitled to be heard on the questions raised in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the petition ; (9) while not admitting the statements in the petition the promoters maintain that the petitioners have no such interest in the subject-matter of the bill, and do not state any facts or reasons which, according to the practice of Parliament, would entitle them to be heard against the bill. Pope, Q.C. (for petitioners) : I claim a locus standi on two grounds, first, as being affected ' by the proposed transfer of powers to construct railways from the Ehymney to the Bute docks company, and secondly as, a landowner, whose right to be heard is conceded against provisions of the bill dealing with his land, and who therefore has, by the universal practice of Parliament, a right to be heard against any other part of the bill, whether an omnibus bill or not, which is referred to in his petition. Bidder, Q.C. (for promoters) : It is admitted that you are landowners, and as such we concede you a locus against Part II. of the bill, which authorises the making of new railways, which will form junctions with your railways. Pope : I am as a landowner within the " post case." I contend according to that case, which has never been over-ruled, that the Court cannot limit me as a landowner from roving over any provisions of an omnibus bill. [London and North-Western Railway (New Works, cC-c.) Sill, 1868, on tlie petition of the Lancashire and York- shire Railway Co., 1 Clifford & Stephens, 02 ; Caledonian Railway (Additional Powers) Bill, 1872, on petition of North British Railway Com- pany, 2 Clifford & Stephens, 256 ; Great Eastern Railway Bill, 1874, on the petition of Owners of Land, i&c, in Epping Forest, 1 Clifford and Rickards, 79 ; Buckinghamshire and Northampton- shire Railways Union Bill, 1875, on the petition of the Great Western Railway Company, ibidem, p. 146 ; The East and West Yorkshire Union Railway Bill, 1886, on the petition of the North- Eastern Railway Company, Eiokards and Michael, 98.) Mr. He.\ly : Do you mean there is no power in the Referees to limit your locus standi, having regard to their own decisions, or having regard to the Standing Orders ? Pope : The practice of Parliament, which prevailed before the institution of the Court, and the practice of the Court has proceeded on the supposition that there is no power to limit the right of a landowner to be heard against the whole of a bill which proposed to interfere with his land. The Chairman : I remember that in early days that was undoubtedly considered to be the principle governing these cases. Without, however, expressing an opinion now upon that part of your case, the Court would like to hear you upon your other ground of loctts standi. Pope : The other ground on which I claim a locus standiis against the transfer of the powers of the Rhymney company to the promoters, and the consequent change of interest such conversion would effect to the detriment of the petitioners. The Great Western company are entitled under statute to equal privileges with every other company using the promoters' docks. The proposal is to change the whole character of the line, and is an appropriation by a dock company for itself of powers which at present exist in the Rhymney company. If this were a new line the promoters were making, the petitioners would be entitled to be heard. The policy of the Court has been to allow a discussion by all parties concerned in this group of railway and dock enterprises of any bUl affecting their relations to one another. The Chaieman : That is my understanding of the general policy of the Court with regard to this important district of South Wales. Bidder (in reply) : With regard to the claim of the petitioners to be heard against the whole bill as landowners, the " post case " does not apply, for they are not ordinary land- owners, but a railway company whose land is taken for the purpose of forming a junction, and they are therefore within the purview of S. O. 133, which, as it now stands, since the insertion in line 6, of the words " such provisions or," has modified the old practice of the Court. Pope : The decision in the Caledonian Rail- way Bill, 1872, on the petition of the North British Railway Company (2 Clifford and Stephens, 256) decided that a railway company and a private landowner were exactly in pari materia. Mr. Bonham-Caetek : Subsequently, in the case of the East and West Yorkshire Union Rail- way Bill, 1886, it was held, following the decision in the Caledonian Company's Bill, 1872, 16 COURT or REFEREES. [Vol. I. that the petitioners were entitled to a general locus standi. Bidder : In those cases the company was seeking to be heard against the proposals that affected them ; moreover, the bills were not omnibus bills. The Chairman : You are not aware of any decision that over-rules the " post case " ? Bidder : No, but that ease was over-ruled by Standing Order 133, which was passed a long time after the " post case," and which says that " Where a railway bill contains provisions for taking or using any part of the lands, railway, stations or accommodations of another com- pany, or for running engines or carriages upon or across the same, or for granting other facilities, such company shall be entitled to be heard upon their petition against such provi- sions or against the preamble and clauses of such bUl." Mr. Bonham-Caetek : It introduces an alter- native, and you claim to have that alternative exercised in your behalf ? Bidder : Yes, the Standing Order clearly contemplates that it is a matter of discretion with the Court to grant a general or limited locus standi. The " post case " does not apply, and if it did, I submit that it is time it should be over-ruled. On the second point raised by the petitioners as to the transfer, what I said in answer to the Newport petition equally applies here. The Chaiuman : The Locus Standi of the Great Western Railway Company is Alloioed against Part II. and III. of the Bill, and so much of the preamble as relates thereto. Agent for Petitioners, Mains. Petition of (4) The Pontypbihd, Caerphilly and Newport Railway Company. Transfer of Foioer to Construct Authorised Bailways to Dock and Railioay Company — Competition. The Pontypridd, Caerphilly and Newport railway company also claimed to be heard on the ground that it would be to the interest of the promoters if they made the railways, as proposed by the bill, to divert traffic coming from the Rhondda and Aberdare valleys, some of which would otherwise probably be sent over their railway to Newport, to the petitioners' own docks at Cardiff. They admitted, however, that the amount of such traffic would not be large, and the Court disallowed their locus standi. The ZocMs standi of the petitioners was ob- jected to on the following grounds : (1) the petitioners do not allege in their petition, nor is it the fact that any lands or property belonging to them will be taken or inter- fered with by the bill, and they have not and do not allege any such interest in the subject-matter of the bill as to entitle them to be heard according to practice ; (2) the petitioners are not entitled to be heard against the bill in respect of the proposed transfer of the powers already granted by the Rhymney Railway Act, 1888, from the Rhymney railway company to the promoters ; (3) the petitioners are not now entitled to be heard in respect of any objections which might have been urged against the railways authorised by the Rhymney Railway Act, 1888, by persons then entitled to make such objections ; (4) no such competition with the petitioners will result from or be created by the bill as to entitle the petitioners to be heard ; (5) the bill does not confer any new or additional running powers on the promoters over the Rhymney railways, nor would it enable the promoters to affect the traf&c to or from the petitioners railways so as to enable them to be heard against the bill ; (6) the petitioners are not entitled to be heard in support of any applica- tion for running powers over the railways pro- posed to be transferred ; (7) the petitioners are not entitled to be heard on the questions raised in paragraph 28 of their petition ; (8) while not admitting the statements in the petition, the promoters maintain that the petitioners do not state any facts or reasons which, according to the practice of Parliament, entitle them to be heard against the bill. Pope, Q.C. (for petitioners) : The object of the construction of the petitioners' railway was to shorten the distance from the Rhondda and Aberdare Valleys to Newport by means of the railway itself and of running powers over the Rhymney railway to Caerphilly and thence to Newport over the Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil junction railway. An arrange- ment was made between the petitioners and the Rhymney company that the gross receipts of the traffic should be equally divided between them. The proposed transfer will make such a change of interest as will affect the present status of the petitioners as a railway company, for it wai be the direct interest of the promoters Pabt I.] BUTE DOCKS (CAIiDIFF) BILL. 17 to prevent any traffic going by the petitioners' railway to Newport, but as tilings stand now there might arise a certain amount of traf&c destined for Newport, which would be inter- changed with our railway at the point of junction. The Chaikman : It seems to me that the Rhymney company would not very readily give you that traffic; because they would lose the run over their own line. Pope : I agree it is not likely to be a substantial amount of traffic. Bidder, Q.C. (for promoters) : The petitioners' line was constructed for the sole purpose of getting hold of coals in the western valleys and taking them to Newport, instead of their going to Cardiff, which is the natural out port for coal from the Aberdare and Rhoudda Valleys. The Rhymney company in 1888 obtained power to make a line to tap the Sirhowy valley. It would be impracticable for the proposed line to take coal to Newport, its sole purpose being to divert traffic to Cardiff, and the petitioners cannot have any possible interest as to whether the Bhymney company or the promoters are the owners of a line to carry coal from Monmouthshire to Cardiff. The Chaibman : The Locus Standi of the Petitioners must be DisallouH'd. Agents for the Petitioners, W. & W. M. Bell. Petition of (5) Lord Tbedegae. Transfer of Powers to construct Railway — Exten- sion of Time for Construction of Railways, bnt not for Compulsory taking of Lands — Landoicnei' not having received Notice to Treat — Injury to Competing Docks by Divei'sion of Traffic — Ground Landlord and Shareliolder. The bOl was also opposed by Lord Tredegar (1) as owner of land across which the rail- way, the power to construct which was transferred by the bill to the Bute docks company, was to be made ; (2) as ground landlord of and a large shareholder in the Newport docks, from which he alleged that it would be the interest of and in the power of the promoters under the bill to divert traffic to their own docks at Cardiff. As regards the first ground (1), the peti- tioner alleged that although the bill did not extend the time for the compulsory taking of lauds for the railway authorised by the Rhymney Railway Act, 1888, it extended the period for its construction, and made that construction more probable than it would have been in the hfinds of the Rhymney company, from whom he had not received any notice to treat. With regard to his claim to be heard (2) as ground landlord of and largely interested in the Newport docks, the arguments with reference to diversion of traffic to the Bute docks were similar to those advanced on behalf of (1) and (2) the Barry and Newport dock companies (q. v. supra). It was contended on behalf of the promoters that the transfer of powers proposed by the bill did not affect his status (1) as ti, landowner, and that (2) the bill would not materially affect the Newport docks or his interest in them : Held, without specifying upon which of the two above-mentioned grounds his claim to be heard was admitted, that he was entitled to the same locus standi as the dock companies, namely, against Part III. of the bill (Transfer of Powers), and so much of the preamble as related thereto. The locus standi of the petitioner was objected to on the following grounds : (1) no new works are proposed to be authorised by the bill affecting the petitioner's property, nor is any extension of time thereby sought for the taking of the lands of the petitioner ; (2) the fact that the railways authorised by the Rhymney Railway Act, 1888, the powers for the construction of which are by the bill to be transferred in certain events to the promoters, are in a great measure to be constructed through the petitioner's estate does not (whether the petitioner did or did not oppose in Parliament the bill for the Rhymney Railway Act, 1888) give the petitioner any right to be heard against the bill ; (3) the petitioner is not entitled to be heard with respect to the powers sought by clause 18 of the bill for extending the time for the construction of the works authorised by the Rhymney Railway Act, 1888 ; (4) the interest alleged in paragraph 6 of the petition that the petitioner has in the Park Mile railway or in the traffic frorr; the Monmouthshire valleys passing over the said railway is too remote and does not entitle the petitioner to be heard against the bill. Moreover, the bill does not propose to authorise any new powers pre- judicial to that interest ; (5) the petitioner is not entitled to be heard in respect of any B 18 COURT OF EEFEREES. [Vol. I. interest he may have as a shareholder in any dock company at Newport, or in respect of any alleged interest in the prosperity of the town or docks of Newport ; (6) the fact that the petitioner would have objected to the authori- sation of the railways sanctioned by the Ehymney Railway Act, 1888, if that Act had been applied for by the promoters is irrelevant. The said railways are now authorised, and the petitioner is not entitled to be heard with respect to the transfer of the powers for their construction from the Ehymney railway company to the promoters ; (7) the fact that since the said railways were authorised. Parliament has authorised the construction of other railways in the hands of the Great Western railway company for the alleged purpose of affording accommodation between the Monmouthshire valleys and Cardiff does not entitle the petitioner to be heard against the bill, as to the necessity or otherwise of the lines authorised by the Act of 1888 ; (8) the petitioner is not entitled to be heard against the bill on the ground of any alleged competi- tion by the promoters with the docks at Newport, and it is not the fact that any new competition as affecting the petitioner or the said docks will arise by means of the bill ; (9) the petitioner is not entitled to be heard on the question raised in paragraph 13 of his petition ; (10) while not admitting the statements in the petition, the promoters maintain that the petitioner does not state any facts or reasons which according to the practice of Parliament entitle him to be heard against the bill. Cn]}ps, Q.C. (for petitioner) : Lord Tredegar is entitled to a oeus standi on two grounds. First of all he is a landowner, over whose land the bill proposes to give the Bute docks com- pany the power to construct railways ; and, secondly, he is the ground landlord of all the dock interests at Newport, and a. very large shareholder in the docks, from which it will be to the interest and ■ in the power of the Bute docks company to divert traffic if the bill passes. As a landowner the petitioner has opposed every bill seeking to get railway access across his laud brought forward by the Bute docks company ; but when the powers were sought by the Ehymney railway company he did not oppose, as in the hands of the Ehymney com- pany they would not prejudicially affect his interests. One of the lines proposed to be transferred passes for about two miles through his land. The promoters have not given him notice to treat, and they are not entitled to deal compulaorily with his land. The Chaikman: The dock company are seeking power to construct a railway upon your land, and they will have to give you notice. Bidder, Q.C. (for promoters) : I was not bound to give a landowner's notice to the petitioner, for I do not- seek to obtain com- pulsory powers over his land, because so far as Lord Tredegar's land being compulsorily taken is concerned, that was settled in 1888 when the Ehymney company obtained leave to do so. The bill is for a mere transfer of powers from one company to another, and the petitioner must show that he is prima facie in a worse position should the bill pass. The Chaibman: At the present time com- pulsory powers are given to the Ehymney over the petitioner's land. A certain time is limited for the exercise of those powers, and if they are not exercised the land will be free. The promoters are now coming to take up those powers which might otherwise fall to the ground, and also to take power to extend the time foi^ constructing the railway, although not for taking land compulsorily. Ciipps : The promoters have no compulsory powers against me. Bidder : Is it possible for this Court to act upon a suggestion that as things stand at present the Ehymney company may not construct the line, and the powers may fall to the ground ? Mr. Heaiy : The whole foundation for your bill is that they may not, and probably will not, do it themselves. Bidder : No doubt, or that they may delay the doing of it. I do not say that the petitioner could in no case have a word to say against a transfer, but I am protesting against the bold proposition that because the petitioner is a landowner, therefore, without any thing more being proved, he has a right to be heard against the transfer. The Chairman : I understand that the Ehymney company have not given the peti- tioner notice to treat, and, therefore, the land still belongs to him. Cripps: That is so. The promoters have now no compulsory powers against me. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : As a landowner, Lord Tredegar wishes to go before the Committee to say that he is in a worse position by the pro- posal of the bill, and this he alleges in para- graph 18 of his petition. Bidder : I admit that if the transfer from one company to another is in any wSy shown to be detrimental, then the petitioner must have a locus standi. The Chaibman : The Locus Standi is Alloioed. Agents for Petitioner, Bees <& Frere. Agents for Bill, Grahames, Gurrey (& Spens. Pabt I.] RAILWAY BILL. 19 CORK AND FERMOY AND WATBBPORD AND WEXFOBD RAILWAY BILL. Petition of (1) The Gkeat Southern and Western Railway Company. 24th April, ISdO.— {Before Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shiress Will, Q.O., il.P. ; Sir George Rdssell, 31. P.; Mr. Compton, M.P. ; and The Hon. E. Chandos-Leiqh, Q.G.) Construction of Raihvay Forming Junctions with Railway of Petitioners — Compulsory Powers of Taking Land — General Locus Claimed hy Rail- way Company as Landowners — Competition between Local and Through Railway hy means of Running Powers — General Locus Claimed. The bill empowered the promoters to construct two railways, which, by means of jnnc- tions and running powers over the lines of two railway companies which intervened between the two railways authorised by the bill, would form a competitive route with the railway of the petitioners. The bill also took compulsory powers over certain lands belonging to the petitioners at Cork and Fermoy, and, in addition, one of the proposed railways was laid out to cross the petitioners' railway near Cork. The petitioners claimed a general locus standi against the bill on both grounds, that of competition and as landowners. The pro- moters conceded them a limited locus standi on the ground of competition against one of the proposed railways, and a limited locus standi against the provisions of the bill which empowered them to interfere with the petitioners' lands and railway : Held, however, that inasmuch as the proposed railways would, by means of the running powers conferred on the promoters by the bill, form a through route in competition with the petitioners' railway, the bill must be regarded as forming one scheme, and that the petitioners were entitled to an unlimited locus standi against it on the ground of competition, as well as in their capacity as landowners. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petitioners are only entitled to be heard (if at all) upon their petition under S. O, 133 and against so much of the bill as relates to the Cork and Fermoy section of the proposed undertaking, and not further or otherwise. The railways of the petitioners lie at a distance of sixty miles, or thereabouts, from the nearest point of the Waterford and Wexford section, and are sepa- rated from it by the railway lines and properties of two or more wholly distinct and independent companies, in which, or some of which, the petitioners have no right or interest whatever ; (2) no running powers are taken or other facilities sought over the lands, railway stations, or accommodations of the petitioners, save for the purpose of effecting junctions or in con- nection therewith, and solely in relation to the Cork and Fermoy section. No such compe- tition can or will arise as alleged in the petition between the railways proposed by the bUl and the railways of the petitioners ; (4) the running powers contained in the bill are over or affect- ing the railways of other companies and not of the petitioners, who have no sufficient interest entitling them to be heard in relation thereto ; (5) the petitioners object to alleged heavy taxation upon the ratepayers of the city of Cork and upon the ratepayers and cesspayers of different baronies as being necessarily in- volved in certain proposed guarantees, but their petition does not show in what respect the petitioners represent such ratepayers and cesspayers respectively, and does not allege that the petitioners themselves are or will be subject to taxation in any of those localities or otherwise under the bill ; (6) the petitioners are not the road, local, or other authority in the case of the roads or any of them referred to in the bill, and do not allege that they are in any wise interested in such roads ; (7) save as afore- said the petitioners have no sufficient right or interest entitling them to be heard according to practice against all or any of the provisions of the bill. Cripps, Q.C. (for petitioners) : The line of the petitioners runs between Cork and Dublin. The promoters take power to construct two lines,' one from Cork to Fermoy, the other from Waterford to Wexford and Roslan ; they also take powers to make arrangements with the Fermoy and Lismore, and the Waterford, Dungarvan and Lismore, which intervene between the two proposed lines. Both at Cork and Fermoy they take land of ours, in addition to crossing our line just outside Cork. There is no dispute that land of ours is taken at Cork. (London and North-Western Raihoay (New Works, c&c.) Bill, 1868, on the petition of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railxoay Company, 1 Clifford & Stephens, 62.) B 2 20 COURT OP REFEREES. [Vol I. Mr. Shikess Will : Then there is an end of the case. Cripps : Besides this, they take power to run over the Permoy and Lismore line which we work. Mr. Shiress Will : Early in the history of this Court the Referees laid down in what has been called the " post case," that if a land- owner's land was taken by an omnibus bill, he had a right to be heard against the whole of the bill. Cripps : The promoters say we should only be heard against the Cork and Permoy line, and object to our being heard against the Waterford and Wexford line. Mr. Shiress Will : It will be urged that your locus standi should be confined to one line ; your case is that though the thing is made up of pieces it is really one system. Cripps : Yes, clearly. Pembroke Stephens, Q.C. (for promoters) : This is not one scheme made up of different pieces ; the two proposed lines are in different parts of Ireland altogether, separated by two independent railways. The Chairman : You take powers to enter into a working agreement with the intervening railway companies. Stephens : Yes, but not compulsory powers. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : The two separate rail- ways are in one bill ; there are the same directors and the same promoters. It is aU one thing. We must look to the ultimate object of the proposed lines, and we can see what that is. Mr. Shiress Will : The petitioner says that you have given him notice that some of his land is to be taken, therefore he claims a landowner's locus standi; his argument is, you must not limit me to the particular part of the scheme where my land is, because the whole thing is one scheme, though made up of different pieces. The Chairman: This is stronger than the case of an omnibus bOl. It is not a bill con- taining a number of miscellaneous pieces of line in various parts of the country uncon- nected with one another, but it is on the map apparently a continuous scheme, and there is a prima facie case that the whole bill should be treated as one matter. Stephens : Suppose you are proposing to make a line from London to York : if you cannot get a particular man's field the whole scheme f aUs ; therefore, the landowner's field being a necessary part of the whole scheme, the landowner is given a locus standi against the whole scheme. Take the case of a line with several branches : a landowner's house or land is proposed to be taken on one of the branches — he has an un- limited locus standi against the hill ; suppose the particular branch that affects him is cut out of the bill before it comes on : his unlimited locus standi is gone and he could not be heard before the Committee. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : He could appear, but when he began to object to the other branches, the Committee would say : " No ; you are con- fined to the four corners of your petition." Stephens : That is the meaning of a land- owner's locus ; it is theoretically a locus standi against the whole bill ; it is practically a locus standi against as much as affects him. The petitioners have nothing to do with the pro- posed line between Waterford to Wexford, they have no connection within 50 or 70 miles of it, and there is no competition except between Cork and Permoy. We do not take running powers over the two intervening lines, but only power to make arrangements. The Chairjun : You are seeking power to go over the Permoy and Lismore line. Stephens : Yes ; merely power to make agree- ments, and without which we cannot get beyond Permoy. A locus standi against the Cork and Permoy line will amply protect the petitioners. They have no interest and nothing to say in respect of the Waterford and Wexford part of the bill. This is not a continuous scheme, because we have nothing but the power of agreement with regard to the intervening lines. The Chairman : An unlimited Locus Standi is Allowed in this case. Agents for Petitioners, Sherwood d- Co. Petition of (2) The New Ross Harbour Com- missioners AND Merchants, Inhabitants, &c., OF New Ross. Interference by Railway Bridge with River forming access to Harbour — Harbour Com- missioners — Traders and Inhabitants — Injury to Traders' Interests — General Locus claimed — S. 0. 134 IMimicipal Authorities and Inhabitants of Towns'] . Railway, No. 2, authorised by the bill was so laid out as to cross the river Barrow in the neighbourhood of the town of New Ross by a bridge with a low headway. The New Ross Harbour Commissioners, under whose jurisdiction the river was at the site of the proposed bridge, and certain merchants and inhabitants of New Part I.] coeE and fERMOY, etc., railway bill. 21 Ross, representing three-fifths of the rat- able value of the town, claimed a locus standi against the bill not limited to dis- cussion of the mode of construction of the bridge, but generally to argue against the expediency of authorising the railways proposed by the bill. The Court, having pointed out during the arguments in favour of petitioners (1) (supra) that the bill formed one scheme of through railway commvmication, granted an unlimited loms standi against the bUl to the petitioners. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the allegations and complaints in their petition relate to the construction and apprehended effects of railway No. 2 authorised by the bill, or so much thereof as deals with the construction of an opening bridge across the river Barrow, but the petitioners are not the proper authority or persons (if any) to be heard on such matters or in opposition to the bill ; (2) the New Ross Harbour Commissioners in paragraph 4 of their petition distinctly allege that the site of the proposed bridge is with in the limits of their jurisdiction, and accordingly claim to be heard, but the Water- ford Harbour Commissioners in their petition (paragraph 10), on the contrary, allege that " the exclusive jurisdiction of the port and harbour of Waterford, which limits include the site of the proposed bridge at the junctions of the rivers Suir and Barrow," has been enjoyed by them for the last fifty years and upwards, " and the loc^ls standi of the Water- ford Harbour Commissioners has not been objected to. It is contrary to the spirit and practice of Parliament, or of the Referees Court, to duplicate oppositions and to grant a hearing against a bill to rival sets of petitioners, each claiming rights contradictory of the other, yet each based upon one and the same foundation or allegation or injury ; (3) the town of New Ross is situated at a distance of ten miles, or thereabouts, from the nearest works of the proposed railway or site of the proposed bridge, and the indi- vidual petitioners signing the petition have no sufficient interest according to practice entitling them to be heard even if they signed in sufficient numbers ; (4) the population of New Ross is between 6,000 and 7,000, but only 214 signatures are attached to the petition. In any case the individual petitioners would have no right or claim to be heard as to questions of interference with navigation or the consequence thereof, apart from, or in addition to, the right or claim to be heard (if any) of the New Ross Harbour Commissioners ; (5) the Commissioners complain of the possible injury or obstruction to steamboats, sailing vessels, barges, or other craft, using or navi- gating the river Barrow, but do not allege that they themselves, or any of them, own, navigate, or are otherwise interested in steamboats, sailing vessels, barges, or other craft using or navigating the river ; (6) the allegations and suggestions contained in paragraph 18 of the petition, are inconsistent with the allegations made in other paragraphs of the petition, and show the same to be unfounded or unreliable as affording grounds of locus standi; (7) the petitioners respectively have no sufficient interest, according to practice, entitling them to be heard. The petition, moreover, does not purport to have been signed, sealed, or authorised at any meeting, either of the New Ross Harbour Commissioners or of the individuals signing the petition, and is not in conformity with the rules and practice of Parliament. Ledgaj-d, Q.C. (for petitioners) : Railway No. 2 authorised by the bill is laid out so as to cross the river Barrow close to its junction with the river Suir, by a. bridge with fixed arches having a headway of only 12 feet above high water level. The Harbour Commissioners were appointed under the New Ross Port and Harbour Amendment Act, 1861, to regulate and improve the navigation of New Ross port and harbour, which includes the site of the proposed bridge. The Commissioners are interested solely in the collection of dues, and any diminution of their revenue would affect them as Commissioners to that extent. The interest of the traders differs in this respect, that the trade of the town is dependent to an unlimited extent on a free and unimpeded navigation. The Chairman : If the petitioners were allowed a locus standi in regard to the bridge that would be all they would require. Ledrjard : No, we want to oppose this section of the line, and show that it is not necessary in the interests of the traders, but that it would inflict damage upon them. Mr. Shiress Will : What would be argued against you would be that your locus standi should be confined to the construction of the bridge, and that you should not be heard against the policy of the whole line. Ledgard : I submit that we have a right to go into the policy if it affects us, in addition to the specific injury done to us by the construction 22 COUKT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. of the bridge. The petitioners, other than the New Boss Harbour Commissioners, claim a locim standi under S. 0. 134, whereby the inhabi- tants of a, district, alleging that the district would be injuriously affected by the bill may, in your discretion, be allowed a locus litaiidi,. The Waterford Commissioners have equal jurisdiction as regards their special interest, which however is quite distinct from the New Ross Commissioners' interest, to a point just below where the bridge is proposed to be placed. Mr. Shikess Will : You say the same water is within the limits of the two Harbour Com- missioners for two distinct objects. Under the Pier and Harbour Act each harbour authority has its limits strictly defined, and is given juris- diction over those limits. I never heard before of two harbour authorities having jurisdiction over the same water. What are your limits ? Ledr/ard : I will read them from our Act, sect. 29 : " Prom the junction of the river Barrow with the river Suir, up to the entrance of the Canal at St. MuUin's on the river Barrow, and to the dock quay of Innistioge on the river Nore." The Chairman : It is conceivable that the interest of the Waterford Commissioners might be conflicting with yours as to the building of the bridge. Ledgard : Yes. Assuming that the Waterford Commissioners have a locus standi that is not to oust us, as our interest is absolutely diiJerent, and we are entitled to be heard upon our case. If the Waterford Commissioners are allowed a locus standi and we are not, they might be settled with long before the case comes on. Even if you hold that the Ross Commissioners have no right to be heard, you must hold that these traders and inhabitants are entitled to be heard. They represent three-fifths of the total ratable value of the town. Mr. Shiress Will : The point is whether your loc^^8 standi ought to be limited. Ledgard : Probably the main objection would be to the construction of the bridge, but in addition to that we are entitled to contend upon the merits that there is no public case for the line. Pembroke Stephens, Q.C. (for promoters) : You have nothing to do with this at all. The parties who have to do with it are the Waterford Harbour Commissioners, and we have admitted their locus standi upon their statement that this part of the river is within their jurisdiction. Ledgard ; I have nothing to do with them. Mr. Shiress Will : They may allege any- thing they please ; you say your Act of Parlia- ment speaks for itself. The Chairman: We have had the words quoted from the Act, which gives the Ross Commissioners jurisdiction, and it was shown on the map that this was within their juris- diction. Ledgard : The question is whether we should be Kmited to the bridge and its effect upon the navigation. The Chairman : Upon that point you would be limited by your petition. It is entirely relating to the bridge, except that there is a suggestion that the bridge might be in a different part of the river altogether. Ledgard : We also say that there is no public case for the line. We ought to be heard, as inhabitants, to show how we are affected by the bridge, and by the undertaking taken altogether. I never heard that inhabitants of a district were not entitled, under S. O. 134, to go into the general question. Stephens (in reply) : There are two sets of petitioners raising the same question, and saying that the proposed bridge is within the limits of their jurisdiction, namely, these petitioners and the Waterford Commissioners, whose locus is not objected to. It is not the practice of the Court to give a locus standi to two petitioners who say the same thing. The Chairman : Not if the subject-matter which they deal with is the same, but it is contended here that the two harbour authorities may have conflicting interests, or at all events separate interests. Mr. Shiress Will : The question is whether this particular piece of water upon which the bridge is proposed to be built is within the limits of the Act. If it is, there is an end of the case. Sir Theodore Martin, parliamentary agent : I represent the Waterford Harbour Com- missioners. The statement in their petition was made under erroneous information. The jurisdiction between the points in question is in the New Ross Commissioners. Stephens : This is only a bridge crossing a, stream at a particular point, and the petitioners' jurisdiction does not extend into the county of Wexford or into the county of Cork, therefore if you think that there is interference with them in this river, give them a locus standi so far as regards the bridge within their own jurisdiction, but not further. The Chairman : An unlimited Locus Standiia Allowed. Agents for the Petitioners, Grahames, Currey and Spens. Part I.J COEK AND PERMOY, ETC., RAILWAY BILL. 23 Petition of (3) The Watkki'Oed Bridqe Cou- MISSIONEKS. Proposed Railway Bridge Across River — Owners of Existing Road Bridge and Ferry Rights — Competition and Abstraction of Traffic — Invasion of Ferry Rights — Obstruction of Access to Ferry by Level Crossing — General Locus Claimed. The proposed construction of a railway bridge across the river Barrow was also opposed by the Waterford Bridge Commissioners on account of (1) invasion of ferry rights, which the petitioners had purchased at the time of the construction of their road bridge, the site of the proposed bridge being included in the limits within which they had exclusive rights of ferry ; and (2) competition and abstraction of passenger and goods traffic, which was now brought across the river over the petitioners' bridge into the town of Waterford, but which railway No. 2, authorised by the bill, would bring across the river into the town of Waterford itself. The petitioners further claimed a locus standi against a provision in the bill, empowering the pro- moters to cross a road forming an access to one of their ferries, and a limited locus standi was conceded to them on this point. The petitioners contended that they were entitled to a general locus standi on grounds (1) and (2) to dispute the necessity of the railways authorised by the bill on public grounds : Held, as in the case of the other petitioners, that they were entitled to be heard generally against the bill. The locns standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition does not allege or show that under the provisions of the bill any property rights or interest of the petitioners can be so taken or interfered.with as to entitle them to be heard against the bill, according to practice ; (2) the Act 26 Geo. III., referred to in the petition, was passed in the year 1786, and accordingly long before the introduction of railways into Ireland, and its provisions were not, and are not, intended to obstruct or defeat the introduction from time to time of new and improved methods of communication. The bill does not propose to construct any road bridge, or to establish any ferry across the river Suir in competition with the bridge and ferry of the petitioners, and the petitioners have no statutory, common law, or other right as regards the said river, entitling them to be heard against a bill authorising the construction of a railway, or otherwise on the ground of competition ; (3) no ferry has in fact been maintained or established by the peti- tioners at or near the point where the intended railway bridge will cross the river; and the' bridge is capable of being constructed and maintained without interfering with the alleged ferry rights and ferry limits of the petitioners ; (4) the petition does not accurately describe or set forth the facts with regard to ferries and bridges over the river Suir, a bridge or bridges having been already authorised by Parliament connecting the railways on the north and south banks of the river Suir, against the bill for which purpose the petitioners sought to be heard, but their locus standi was disallowed ; (5) the bill does not propose to terminate, alter, or effect any of the contracts or agreements (expired or unexpired), which are referred to in the petition as existing or having been made between the Waterford and Limerick railway company, or the Waterford, Dungarvan and Lismore railway company respectively, and the petitioners ; (6) the two railway routes between Cork and Waterford, referred to in the petition, are in both cases routes for traffic intended for and stopping at Waterford, or originating at Waterford, as the case may be, and will not be interfered with underthe bill. Those routes respectively serve a different purpose and a different traffic, from the purposes and traffic which the failways authorised by the bill are intended to accommodate ; (7) the apprehen- sions expressed in the petition as to the open- ing or working of the bridge of the petitioners are unfounded and misleading ; (8) the other grounds of objection and arguments set forth in the petition are altogether vague and general. The real object of the petition (as seen by paragraphs 15 and 16) is to obtain compensation for alleged competition, and to this the peti- tioners, under the practice of Parliament, are not entitled. Moreover, such a claim, even if it could be maintained, is founded upon the alleged consequences of passing the bUl, and is accordingly matter for clauses and not of objec- tion to the principle of the bill ; (9) the petition does not contain any allegation, or disclose any grievance which, according to the practice of Parliament, is sufficient to entitle the 24 COUBT OF REFEREES. [Vol I. petitioners to be heard against all or any of the provisions of the bill. Saunders, Q.C. (for petitioners) : By the Act of 26 Geo. III., which empowered us to build our bridge, we were either to compensate the owners of the ferry for their loss of tolls by the competition of our bridge, or to purchase their ferry rights, and we purchased their ferry rights. The Act authorised us from the time we purchased the ferry to maintain the same or other ferries with ferry-boats to ply for hire across the river, and also enacted that the ferries should not be established higher up the river than Bilberry Rock, nor lower down than St. Catherine's Pill, both on the south side of the river ; there are no limits as to where the ferry should be on the north side. The pro- posed bridge crosses at Bilberry Rock, which extends about a quarter of a mile, and the whole of Bilberry Rock is within our ferry limits. It was laid down by the Irish Court of Queen's Bench in 1856 that provided we started our ferry from the south of the river between Bilberry Eock and St. Catherine'sPill, we could go to any point on the north side of the river, and it is possible for the promoters, according to the limits of deviation, to interfere with our ferry rights and limits. Our second ground for a locus standi is that this bridge cannot be con- structed as proposed, so as to be free from danger to our bridge, as it is only 1,300 feet away, and also owing to the size of the steamers which pass up the river, and the strength of the tides and force of the wind which are often very violent at this part of the river. The Chairman : You see what they say in paragraph 4 of the objections. Saunders : The case they refer to, the Dublin, Wickloio and Wexford Railway Bill, 1878 (2 Clifford & Riokards, 89), was very different to this case. The bridge there was about three- quarters of a mile beyond Bilberry Rock, and the argument mainly turned upon the fact that it was so far above our bridge that we were not entitled to a loms standi. In this case the limits of deviation clearly come within the statutory limits of our ferry, and the promoters will abstract traffic from us. The Chaikman : Having bought up the ferry rights, you not only got the right to make a bridge, but the exclusive right to the ferry within certain limits ? Saunders ; Yes ; only within uncertain limits on the north. The Chaieman : In the case to which you referred it was argued that there could not be competition of a character to give a locus standi between a railway bridge and a road bridge. Mr. Shikess Will : I distinctly differ from any such proposition. Saunders : There are cases where owners of bridges have been heard against railway com- panies, such as the case of the Greenwich, and Milwall Subway Bill, 1877 (2 Clifford & Eickards, 23). The real point is whether the proposed bridge is to serve the same purpose as the ferry, and whether it is going to abstract the traffic. Mr. Chandos-Leioh : I see the late speaker's counsel used almost your own words : "Is not the question whether the subway will abstract traffic from the existing ferry? " Saunders : There is another case, the North and South Woohcich Subway Bill, 1884 (3 Clifford and Rickards, 447). The Chairman : I think it is a sound dictum of the late speaker's counsel, and that it turns upon the scale upon which traffic is abstracted. Saunders : The traffic abstracted would be very considerable, for two of the main railways at Waterford have their terminus on the north side, the opposite side from the town, and the traffic at present has to be brought into the town over our bridge. The Chairman : Both the goods shed and the railway terminus are as close to the bridge as they could possibly be. Saunders : Yes ; the Waterford and Limerick railway take certain traffic across the river and pay us £320 a year for commuted tolls. We take tolls upon all the remainder of the traffic, including passengers and cattle across the bridge from their station, and also all traffic for the town of Waterford. By this bridge we should lose a considerable amount of revenue. The question is whether there is a sufficient public case made for depriving us of these tolls. The Chairman : Your petition mainly relates to the bridge and not to the general project of the railway. Would you be content with a limited loctis standi f Saunders : No. We ask to be allowed to go before the Committee, and say, " Do not pass this bill, involving this danger and this loss of traffic to our bridge, unless a case of paramount importance is made out." Another point on which we ask for a locus standi is this : At Abbey Church, on the north of the river, three-quarters of a mile below our bridge, there is a pier, and we have a ferry actually in operation crossing the river there. The sole access to the pier is a road which they propose to cut off by crossing it on the level. This road is maintained by us, and leads nowhere else. Part I.] cboydon and crystal palace railway bill. 25 Pemhrohe Stephens, Q.C. (for promoters) : We concede that you are entitled to a locus standi with respect to interference with that access. Saunders : This is an important part of their scheme. It is part of their through line, and their scheme would break down but for this line, audi submit that I have a right to be heard against the principle of constructing the railway. Mr. Shiuess Will : You say if your oppo- sition were confined to the question of the bridge, your hands would be so tied that your opposition would be practically useless. Saunders : Yes ; it would only be a clause opposition after the whole of the damage had been authorised. Stephens (in reply) : I agree to the petitioners having a hearing against the particular works clause, which does mischief to the access to the ferry at Abbey Church, but I object to their having any general loctis standi in respect of the bill. As to the difficulties in navigation, the Waterford Harbour Commissioners will be before the Committee, and if there is anything to he said they are the people to say it. With reference to the question of competition, in the Dublin, iricklow and Wexford Case (2 Clifford and Eickards, 89), the Bridge Commissioners raised every possible point, but their locus standi was disallowed. The combination of railways is the same ; there is the same crossing of the river ; there is the same inter- ference of traffic, for it is equally traffic going over the road bridge that will be abstracted. As regards the question of principle whether a toll bridge should be heard against a railway company proposing to construct a new bridge, on the ground of competition, I refer to the London and South-Western Bailicay (Various Powers) Bill, 1890, infra p. 36. Unless there are special circmnstauces, bridge trustees will not be heard against a railway crossing a river, that being a new and improved mode of communication, and not in pari materia. Mr. Shikess Will : I should have thought that if the same traffic would be carried and passengers would be abstracted, so that the Commissioners would suffer in pocket, those would be special circumstances entitling us to admit them on the ground of competition. The Chaikman : Can any one else put a ferry there ? Stephens : No, and if they could they could not land their passengers, for it is an inacces- sible shore, and, therefore, there is no practical value in these ferry rights. The Chairman : Speaking for myself, it does not seem to matter whether the ferry is practicable or not. The Bridge Commissioners, when they bought the ferry rights, acquired the sole right of carrying people over the river within the prescribed limits. Stephens : Assuming that they have a right to be hoard against the invasion of their ferry limits, how can that give them a locus standi against the construction of railways in County Wrexford or County Cork, or to our railway scheme taken as a whole ? The Chairman : The Locus Standi of the Petitioners is Allowed without limitation. Agents for Petitioners, Martin (& Leslie. Agents for Bill, Holmes, Greig & Greiy. CBOYDON AND CRYSTAL PALACE RAILWAY BILL. Petition of The South Eastern Railway Company. 13th March, 1890.— {Before Mr. Paekee, M.P., Chairman ; die, die.) Railways — Competition — General Locus — Practice. The bUl was opposed by the South Eastern railway company on the ground of competi- tion, both of a local character and also for London traffic by means of traffic facilities, given by clause 51, and powers given by clause 55, to the London, Chatham and Dover railway company, to enter into arrangements for the construction, use, management and maintenance of the proposed line by that company. The promoters denied that there would be more than an improvement of existing competition at the most effected by the bill, and further asked that the locus standi of the petitioners, if granted, might be limited to being heard against clauses 51 and 52, under which alone competition could be established. The Court, however, after calling the attention of the promoters to the decision in the Beaconsfield, Uxbridge and Harroxo Railway Bill, 1882 (3 Clifford & Rickards, 126), and the Leeds, Church Fenton and Hull Junction Railway Bill, 1883 (lb., p. 298), in accordance with its practice in cases of competition, Alloioed the Petitioners a general Locus Standi against the Bill. The arguments were of the usual character in cases of competition, and the case was of little value as a precedent. Worsley Taylor, appeared for the Petitioners ; Balfour Browne, Q.C, for the Bill. Agents for Petitioners, Cooper & Sons. Agents for Bill, Rees & Frere. 26 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL. (CHATHAM, ROCHESTER AND DISTRICT ELEC- TRIC LIGHTING ORDER.) Petition of Waltek Richabd Solman. 23rd July, 1S90.— (Before Mr. Pakkek, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shiress Will, Q.C, M.P.; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C. ; and Mr. BoNHAM-C,„ Mr. Chandos-Leigh: In deciding that the petitioners are to be heard as gas consumers, we should be following the decision m the 56 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. L Birmingham and Staffordsliire Gas Bill, 1875 (1 Clifford & Riokards, 135). There the petitioners petitioned both as ratepayers and as gas consumers, and we allowed their locus standi as gas consumers. Mr. Shieess Will : They are entitled to say on their own behalf everything that could be said by the whole body of ratepayers. The Chaikman : The Locus Standi of the Petitioner is Allowed against Part I. only of the Bill, which deals with the supply of gas as distinguished from electricity. Agents for Petitioner, Martin <£■ Leslie. Agents for Bill, Loch <£■ Goodhart. RIBBLE NAVIGATION BILL. Petition of The Coeporation oe Sotjthpoet. 13th March, 1890.— {Before Mr. Paekee, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Compton, M.P.;Mr. Healy, M.P. ; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.G. ; and Mr. Bonham-Caetee.) Corporation of Seaport seeking to Borrow Addi- tional Money for making Deep Water Channel — Neighbouring Corporation Alleging Injury to Tidal Flow — Works already Authorised hy Previous Acts — Complaint against Existing Legislation — Restrictions on Works Imposed by Bill — Control of Board of Trade. The bill was for enabling the corporation of Preston to give effect to an interim report of a commission appointed, in pursuance of the Ribble Navigation Act 1889, to inquire into inter alia the practicability and cost of providing a navigable waterway between Preston and the sea, in accordance with certain plans authorised by the Ribble Navigation Acts, 1883 and 1888, or with any other plans suggested by the commission, and the advisability of maintaining and completing certain existing training walls ; and the bill further authorised the corpo- ration of Preston to borrow additional money for carrying out the works already authorised by the Ribble Navigation Acts. The bill was opposed by the corporation of Southport, a favourite watering-place on the coast of Lancashire, a short distance north of the estuary of the Ribble, on the ground that the promoters ought not to be allowed to raise additional money for carrying out works which might injure the tidal flow past Southport, by causing silting or accretions of soil in rear of the training walls, without their being heard to obtain clauses for their protection. They also complained that the corporation of Preston had exceeded their powers under the Ribble Navigation and Preston Dock Act, 1883. On this point counsel for the promoters contended that the remedy for any illegal action of the corporation, if it had taken place, lay in an appeal to a Court of Law, while as to the general case of the petitioners for a locus standi, he pointed out that the bill authorised no new works, but only gave the promoters power to carry out those which Parliament had already sanctioned, and that therefore the com- plaint of the petitioners was againt existing legislation ; while raising further money was a question for the ratepayers of Preston, and did not concern the petitioners, who were not complaining of any provision in the bOl, which in fact imposed restrictions upon the promoters by requiring them to carry out their existing powers under the control of the Board of Trade, such restrictions being favourable to the peti- tioners and in accordance with the interim report of the Commission : Held, that under these circumstances the locus standi must be disallowed. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds ; (1) paragraphs 2 and 3 of the petition are' recitals only of certain contents of the bill ; (2) paragraphs 4 to 8 (both inclusive) are state- ments of the interests of the petitioners, the accuracy of which the promoters do not admit ; (3) the promoters deny that the petitioners are injuriously affected by the bill as alleged in paragraph 9 of the petition ; (4) the petitioners did oppose the Ribble Navigation and Preston Dock Act, 1883, but no provision was inserted for their benefit, nor was the termination of the south training wall fixed at their instance, or on their opposition, but was the termination proposed by the promoters in the bOl for that Act as deposited and sanctioned by Parliament ; (5) the promoters do not admit the statements in paragraph 11, but even if true they show no Part I.J RIBBLE NAVIGATION BILL. 57 ground entitling the petitioners to be heard against the hill ; (6) the promoters do not admit the allegation in paragraph 12 that they have prolonged the said south training wall beyond the termination thereof sanctioned by ParUa- ment, and even if they had done so the peti- tioners have then- legal remedy ; (7) the promoters deny the allegations in paragraph 13, and that they have injured the petitioners as therein alleged, and even if they have the petitioners have their legal remedy against the promoters, which is in no way affected by the bill ; (8) it is no action of the promoters which has prevented the petitioners briaging any grievance before Parhament, if which the promoters deny any such grievance exists; (9) the petitioners were not heard before the commissioners on any matter, which is the subject of the interim report referred to in paragraph 15 of the petition, or lq any way dealt with by the bUl, but on endeavouring to be heard were told that the commiss' oners were not then dealing with anything which entitled the petitioners to be heard, nor were they so entitled in fact ; (10) the petitioners themselves allege in paragraph 16 that the sole object of the bUl is to raise further funds, and the peti- tioners are not entitled to be heard against a bill promoted by the corporation of Preston to raise further funds for the execution of works already sanctioned by Parliament, and in no way altered by the bill ; (11) the absence from the bill of the provisions referred to in para- graph 17 of the petition does not entitle the petitioners to be heard against the bOl ; (12) the promoters deny that clause 7 of the bOl is illusory, or that it is framed for the purpose alleged by the petitioners in paragraph 18, but even if the allegations in the said paragraph were true, they do not, nor do any of them, entitle the petitioners to be heard against the bill ; (13) paragraph 19 is a general allegation which the promoters deny, and which, even if true, does not entitle the petitioners to be heard against the bill ; (14) the promoters have power given them by their Acts to do certain works. If they exceed that power, and by so doing injure the petitioners, they have a remedy in the Courts, and the bill in no way extends or alters that power ; (15) the petition does not allege or disclose any right or mterest, or any ground of objection, which according to the practice of Parliament entitles the peti- tioners to be heard against the bill. Pope, Q.C. (for petitioners) : This bill is pro- moted under very special circumstances. It is entitled " A bUl to enable the mayor, aldermen and burgesses of the borough of Preston to give effect to the interim report of the Ribble navigation commission, and to borrow additional moneys for the purposes of the Ribble navigation and Preston dock under- taking, and for other purposes." The circum- stances which led to that commission being appointed are shortly these : In 1883, the Preston corporation promoted a, bQl for the construction of docks, and deepening of the channel of the Ribble, which the corporation of Southport and others interested in the estuary of the Ribble opposed. The petitioners feared that the construction of the training walls in the estuary might result in reclama- tions behind them, which would affect the channel, and anything affecting the influx of the tide in that particular neighbourhood is of great importance to Southport, which is a favourite watering-place, a Mttle to the south of the estuary of the Ribble. The biU of 1883 was passed, but with the provision that the training walls should not be extended seaward beyond a point marked upon a plan signed by the chairman of the committee. The corpora- tion proceeded to carry out their works, and greatly exceeded and departed from their powers, and, in 1888, they promoted a bill to sanction the deviations from their plans of 1883, and to obtain additional money for the purpose of completing the works which they had com- menced and to some extent carried out in excess of their powers. Parhament granted them only a Hmited 'sum of money to overtake the responsibUities they had incurred, stayed the execution of the works, and directed them to devise, in combination with certain of their ratepayers, who had become discontented with their proceedings, a mode of carrying out the works which would be agreeable to aU parties. In 1889, they again came before Parliament and were again opposed by the ratepayers who objected to the course the corporation had taken ; the terms of the decision come to by Parhament are to be found in the Ribble Navigation Act 1889, Parliament insisting that a Commission should be issued by the Board of Trade to ascertain whether and how far the money that had been spent should be supplemented, and how far the works which they had already carried out should be carried forward to completion. This Com- mission met, and reserving for subsequent discussion the question of the possibUities of a deep water access to the sea which they would not decide without hearing those who were interested in the discussion of the question, they presented an interim report, and the avowed object of this bUl is to carry out that interim report. The petitioners were repre- sented before the Commission, and stated what 58 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. was the mischief they apprehended, viz., that if in a navigable channel training waEs were constructed of the character contemplated in the Act of 1883 (which training walls were wrongly extended by the corporation), in the rear of those walls so much slackness of the tidal flow would be created that silting would become inevitable, reclamation would follow, and the maintenance of a navigable channel round the coast become almost impossible, and in the suggestions which the Commissioners make in their report, theyadopt almost the words made use of by the petitioners in stating what was necessary in order to secure them from the mischief which they apprehended. The Com- mission recommends two things mainly, first, that there should be no more deposits such as have been made seaward of the point signed by the chairman of the Committee in 1883, but that the dredging deposits ought only to be made generally in such a way as not to create banks in a continuous line so as to increase the probability of accretion ; and, secondly, the report says that the walls already constructed must not be raised any higher, and there must be a reduction in the height of certain of those walls, in order that there may be no danger such as is apprehended by Southport. Instead, however, of the bill containing any provisions rendering imperative the suggestions of the Commission, it proposes definitely to give to the Board of Trade powers to depart from those recommendations and to sanction deposits of dredging and the construction of walls which we say would be absolutely injurious to us, and it contains no protection of those whom the Commission certainly intended should not be injured ; nor is there any provision in the bOl for the reduction in height of certain walls. A clause has just been inserted in the bill incorporating the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, but that is leaving to the Board of Trade what we say should be decided by Parliament after hearing us. The Chaikman : The policy of Parliament was to require the- Board of Trade to appoint a Commission. That Commission decided certain points to your satisfaction, and you say, let Parliament, in giving new powers, have their attention called through us to what the Commission did recommend. Pope : Yes ; I submit that I am entitled to be heard as to the sufBciency of the authority given to the Board of Trade in the bOl, and I am entitled to be heard to argue that, where the bill is entirely silent as to the recommenda- tions of the Commission, the carrying out of those recommendations shall be made an absolute legislative obhgation on the corporation, and not the subject of reference to a department at all. Mr. Healy : Pending the report of the Commission, were the powers of the corporation suspended ? Pope : Yes ; because they were refused any money to go on with the work. The Chaikman : All you ask is to be present to say, do not give them the money necessary to carry out the powers which stand suspended, unless they will make such a provision as to carry out obligatorily the report of the Com- mission. Po^ye : Yes, and to see that the money they ask for shall not be expended in future to the possible detriment of Southport. The question of the proper channel upon which to spend money was raised by the discontented rate- payers of Preston. Mr. Heaiy : Then it would seem that the powers of the corporation were suspended, not in consequence of any action of yours ? Po2)e : No ; in consequence of internal action on the part of their own ratepayers. This bill gives extensive jurisdiction to the Board of Trade over the estuary of the Eibble, which makes the petitioners' case stronger than in 1883, for they have since then acquired 3,860 acres upon the estuary of the Eibble, and whereas they are not now subject to the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade, this bOl wiU make them so. Mr. Healy : Do you say that it was in your interest that some of the recommendations were made by the Commission ? Pope : Some of the recommendations are curiously enough jn the very language employed by the petitioners in addressing the Commission. Bidder, Q.C., (for promoters) : The works, which Parliament authorised the corporation to construct in 1883, consisted practically of two parts, a large and expensive dock in Preston at the head of the tidal flow, and the power to make these training walls, and dredge right down to the sea. In 1888 I admitted to Par- liament that we had exceeded our powers in respect to the dock, but with this the petitioners have nothing whatever to do, and it was never suggested that, as regards the works in the estuary, we had done anything contrary to our powers. What the discontented ratepayers said was, " do not grant the additional borrow- ing powers for the additional works, because this way to the sea is not the best way, and, also, the dock is too large," and they persuaded Par- liament to stop the completion of the dock ; but so far as regards the estuary works that South- port is interested in, there was no alteration or suspension at aU, but money was given to secure that the dredging should be continued. By Pakt I.] KIBBLE NAVIGATION BILL. 59 sect. 59 of the Act of 1883, the only area within which the corporation may deposit dredgings shaU be the area shown on the plan signed by the chairman of the Committee, and that area goes a mUe seaward of the end of the training wall. It is not suggested by the Commissioners that we have deposited material where we have no legal power to deposit it, but what they say is, " We are of opinion that until we have heard the other parties interested in the estuary, and have come to a decision as to the best navigable channel from Preston to the sea, it is essential that the dredged material re- moved from the river east of Lytham should only be deposited in such localities and at such levels as will in no way " not, injure Southport but, " prejudice the question," and it is on this the petitioners seek to obtain a locus standi, and assume that that recommendation was put in for their benefit, whereas it was put iu so that the question between the corporation and their own dissentient ratepayers which way to take the channel to the sea should not be prejudiced. The Chaibhan : Southport would probably be one of those parties interested. Bidder .• They would if the Commissioners determined to report that not the authorised channel, but some other channel going in the direction of Southport, and beyond the parliamentary powers already granted, should be recommended to Parliament. Before the Commission the petitioners said they were only present to watch the case, and that they did not consider they had any right to intervene unless the existing parhamentary powers were proposed to be extended by the report recom- mending further legislation. Mr. Bonham-Caetee : It is suggested in the petition that you have exceeded your powers of depositing dredging material under the Act of 1883. Bidder : That statement is absolutely untrue, and if true, the Court of Chancery would interfere. I can bring evidence to show that we have deposited dredging only within the area in which ParUament expressly required it to be deposited. I say in whatever I have done, I have acted strictly withm my right. I have never denied the fact that I have deposited material where they say I have deposited it; but I say I have an absolute right to put it there, and Southport has no right to object. The Commissioners did not recommend the discontinuance of the deposit of the dredgings in a certain locaUty on account of injury to Southport, but they recommend that the dredgings should only be deposited in such positions as not to prejudge the question of the channel. Mr. Healt : Is not the object of clause 6 to prevent you depositing dredged material in such manner as would continue the training wall ? Bidder : Yes ; as long as the Commission think it is not desirable for us to do so. The whole bUl is to carry out this report in its entirety, and with a view to that object it makes the Board of Trade the controlling authority by incorporating the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, sect. 12 of which makes the consent of the Board of Trade a condition precedent to the execution of any works such as those authorised by the nibble Navigation Act. Then clause 6 imposes a restriction upon the deposit of dredging material which does not now exist, and protects the petitioners in a way in which they are not now protected. Clause 6 is as follows : " From and after the passing of this Act aU material dredged or raised by the corporation under the provisions of the Eibble Navigation Acts shall be deposited only in such positions within the area specified in sect. 59 of the Act of 1883 as the Board of Trade may from time to time prescribe." The bill is for the benefit, not the injury of the petitioners, and if it were withdrawn we should have our pre- sent powers unrestricted. We have got money for the dredging, but not enough for all purposes. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : That is a question for the ratepayers. Mr. Healy : The complaint is not that these clauses are in the bill, but that they do not go far enough. Bidder : The ground of locus standi against a bill is that it contains something injurious to petitioners, not that it does not contain some- thing for their benefit. This is purely a money bOl and a restrictive bill : it seeks for no powers whatever which we have not at the present time, but simply restricts the present powers of the promoters as regards the place of deposit and the control of the works. The Chaibman : You say the complaint of the petitioners is against existing legislation, aU that is new being additional restrictions and the power to raise money. Bidder : Yes ; and that they cannot be heard against the money part of the bill, that being a question for the ratepayers. Mr. Healy : It can hardly be said that this is merely a money biU, because it is expressly stated that it is a biU to carry out the interim report of the Commissioners. The Chaibman : The promoters would say it is a bill to give effect to that report by restrict- ing the powers of the corporation of Preston. Bidder: The Commission reported to the Board recommending a certain limitation, and 60 COUET OF EEFEREES. [Vol. I. at the same time they recommended that we should have certain money powers. We come with a bill to get those powers, and we think it proper at the same time to carry out in good faith the recommendations of the Commission, and to put ourselves under the control of the Board ; but the recommendation was not put in to protect Southport from injury, but to prevent a prejudging of the question which way the channel is to go. Mr. Healy : Yes ; I think it is perfectly plain that that recommendation about the dredging was principally with the object of not pre- judging the question of the channel ; but at the same time we cannot leave out of sight that while it leaves the question of the channel open it also prevents the virtual extension of the training wall. Bidder : Yes ; but there is a distinction between that and Southport having anything to do with it. The Commissioners say their object is to secure a good fixed channel from Preston to the sea. Then the question, they say, is, shall we secure that by keeping the present gut channel or go to the right or left ? If we go to the right or left we shall have to consult other people, but we wOl keep that question open. Do not deposit any more of this dredging material in this position ; do not prejudge the question. In the meantime the bUl authorises no new works, and imposes some new restrictions which are more or less favourable to the petitioners. The Chairman : The Locus Standi of the Petitioners is Disallowed. Agents for Petitioners, Lewin, Gregory and Anderson. Agents for Bill, Dyson & Go. EICHMOND rOOT-BEIDGE (LOCK, Etc.) BILL. Petition of (1) The Vestky of Hammeesmith ; (2) The Boakd of Woeks fob the Wands- woETH DiSTEicT ; (3) The Chiswiok Local BoAED ; (4) Inhabitants and Eatepayees OP Moetlake and Eipaeian Ownees ; and (5) The Duke or Devonshiee. 1st May, 1890.— (J3f/ore Mr. Paekee, il/.P., Chairman ; Sir Geoege Eussell, M.P. ; Mr. Shieess Will, Q.G., M.P. ; Mr. Compton, M.P. ; Mr. Healy, M.P. ; and The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.G.) Navir/ahle River — Construction of Bridge and Wdr, with Removable Sluices — Local Authorities, Inhabitants, Ratepayers, and Riparian Oivners Alleging Lijurioiis Affecting — 'Injury to Residential Property — Diminution of Tidal Scom — Representation by Conservancy Board — Remoteness of Injury — S. 0. 134 [Mtinicipal Authorities and Inliabitants of 2'oifH.s]. The object of the bUl was to preserve a certain quantity of water in the reach of the Thames opposite Eichmond at low water, and for that purpose it authorised the con- struction of a foot-bridge, the arches of which were occupied by removable sluices. The petitioners (1, 2, and 3) were the local authorities, under the Metropolis Manage- ment Acts, of districts below the proposed works, the nearest part of the district of one of them being eight miles below the works ; (4) a committee of inhabitants and ratepayers of another parish, which also fronted on the river, appointed at a vestry meeting held to consider the bOl (to this petition there being added the signatures of three riparian owners in the parish) ; and (5) the owner of a valuable residential property on the banks of the river three miles below the site of the works. The local authorities and committee of inhabi- tants claimed to be heard under S. O. 134 on behalf of theii districts, which they alleged would be injuriously affected by the retardation of the tidal flow and the diminution of scour, which they appre- hended would result from the construction of the proposed works, and the riparian owners alleged similar injurious affecting of their property, and all the petitioners urged that the works were of so novel a character as to render their effect upon the river impossible to estimate without adducing exhaustive evidence on both sides. The promoters objected to the locus standi of the petitioners on the ground (1) that in respect of any effect by the works upon the river they were represented by the Thames conservancy ; (2) that they were not entitled to be heard on account of the distance of their districts and property from the proposed works, and the remote- ness of the injury apprehended by them : Held, however, that probability of injury and not distance was the point to be con- Part I.] Richmond foot-bridge (lock, etc.) BILL. 61 sidered ; that the conservancy (upon which the petitioners were not directly repre- sented) could not be considered as repre- senting the private interests of the petitioners, which might he different from those of the navigation generally; and that the Jocks standi of aU the petitioners must accordingly be allowed. The locus standi of the petitioners (1), (2), (3) and (5) was objected to on similar grounds, mtitatii mutandis, viz. : (1) the petitions do not allege or show, nor is it the fact that any land, house, property, right or interest of the peti- tioners will be or can be taken or affected under the powers of the bUl or in consequence of the execution thereof; (2) the districts of the petitioners are situated several miles down the river Thames from the site of the proposed works, and the suggestion of injury to the part of the river to which their districts front is purely hypothetical. If any such injury as is suggested is likely to result to the districts (which the petitioners altogether deny), it would be too insignificant and too remote to entitle the petitioners to be beard against the bin ; (3) the whole case raised upon the petition is based upon the assumption that the river Thames wOl be injuriously affected by the construction of the proposed works. If there be any ground for such a contention (which the promoters altogether deny), the question is one which should and will be raised by the conservators of the river Thames who have petitioned against the bill, and whose locus standi is not objected to ; (4) the bill does not contain any provision affecting the peti- tioners ; (5) the petitions do not allege or show that the petitioners have, nor have they in fact, any such interest in the objects and provisions of the bill as entitles them to be heard against it. The locus standi of (4) inhabitants, &c., of Mortlake, was objected to on similar grounds, and because " the petition does -not show, nor is it the fact that the petitioners petitioning as the inhabitants of the parish of Mortlake, sufficiently represent, or that the inhabitants present at the meeting referred to in para- graph 4 of the petition sufScieutly represented the inhabitants of the said parish of Mortlake." Richards (for petitioners (1) and (2) ) : The Hammersmith petition raises the same questions as are raised by the Wandsworth district board of works, they ask to be heard as representing the inhabitants of the district for sanitary purposes, and as owners of a wharf which Is used for the purposes of their district. The Chaikman : The main objection apparently will be that there are conservators whose duty it is to see that the navigation is maintained, and that they would sufficiently represent you, and that you are too remote from the bridge and lock to entitle you to be heard. Richards: The broad effect of the bill is to reduce the length of the tidal area of the river at a point below that at which it is now checked at Teddington lock, and I submit in so important a question as this all I have to show is a reasonable probability of injury to my district which is five or six mQes below the proposed works. [Mr. Law, C.E., explained the construction of the proposed foot-bridge to the Court, and produced a photograph and model of it. It consisted of a bridge about 350 feet in length, with five openings with sluices capable of being lowered and raised, and which would be entirely removed duriog the upper half of the flowing tide, and stowed away underneath the roadway of the bridge. Under the arch on the Surrey side there was to be a lock, and under the Middlesex arch boat shdes, so as not at any time to interfere with the passage of large or small boats. The upper part of the sluices were made buoyant, and the water would raise the sluices so as to leave a clear space between the lower edge of the sluices and the bottom of the river, so that there would always be water running underneath them. The object of the sluices was to keep back a certain amount of the ebb tide so as to procure a certain depth of water opposite Richmond at low tide.] Richards : There is nothing in the bill to bind the promoters to preserve a flow of water under the sluices at low tide. The Ghaieman : Do you say your district is affected in a different way from other districts ? Richards : I do not know that I can say that, but part of the injury to the Hammersmith vestry would arise as owners of some wharves, and on the general case this is such an entirely new experiment that the degree of injury and effect generally upon the local authorities and riparian owners below the proposed bridge must be an uncertain quantity. The Chaibman : I observe this in the bill (clause 18), that when the works are completed they are to vest in and be maintained by (and I suppose to be controlled by) the conservators, that is, the conservators would work the sluices as they thought best for the river in general. You say that though they might work the sluices the best way for the river in general, they might work them so as to injure you. 62 COURT OF EEFEREES. [Vol. I. Richards ; Yes ; and though it is proposed by the bill that the conservators shall control the working of these sluice gates, they are going to object to having this obligation imposed upon them, and it might be struck out of the bill by the Committee. Mr. Ohandos-Leigh : On the face of the bill the conservators stand in the position of people promoting the bill, for they are to do every- thing, whereas we find that they oppose it. Richards : The object of this lock is to keep more water in the river at low water opposite Richmond and Twickenham and to benefit that section of the river to the probable injury and inconvenience of those below. With regard to the question of remoteness, I refer to the Wakefield Water Bill, 1874 (1 Clifford and Eickards, 122). In that case the petitioners, the corporations of Doncaster and Shefi&eld, were 32 mUes from the point where the water was to be abstracted ; also to the Liverpool Water and Improvement Bill, 1887 (Eickards and Michael, 167). The Chairman : You may assume that the Court will hold that where there i3 a river affected in any way, injury, not distance, is what governs the case. Of course there is the other question of representation, but it is a very common case where water is abstracted from a river for every one along the river to come and say, Our water will be taken away : and of course it becomes an engineering question to what extent that will be the case. The degree of injury is not measurable by miles exactly. Rees, parliamentary agent (for promoters) : I admit that the mere objection of remoteness by itself is not an answer to the petition, but . the petitioners must show the probability of injury. Richards : I say it is for the promoters to show that no injury could arise in a case Mke the present. With regard to the question of representation of the petitioners by the conser- vancy board, the Thames conservators are a. body 23 in number, four of whom are represen- tatives elected by persons above Teddington lock, while the remainder represent the navigation interests, the Trinity masters, and the corporation of London. It is proposed by this bUl to give a representation to two parishes below Teddington lock, namely, Twickenham and Richmond. At present the parishes below Teddington look have no direct representation on the Thames conservancy. The Chaikman : If the bill proposes to alter the representation, it seems to me that you might very well say that you are entitled to see that the conservators who are proposed to be added represent your interests. According to the preamble, none of the conservators directly represent the interests of the riparian parishes of which you are one. Rees, parhamentary agent (for promoters) : Neither the petition of the Hammersmith vestry, nor the petition of the Wandsworth district board of works refers to this question. Mr. Shibebs Will : It is not a point you would expect them to raise in their petition. You say. they ought not to be heard to allege that they wOl be injured because somebody represents them, and the answer is, " upon the showing of the bill they do not represent us." Rees : I say the conservators have the sole charge, and represent the river qua navigation. I do not say that they represent the riparian parishes or the other petitioners in other matters than navigation. The Chairman : Of course the conservators might say : " You in Hammersmith or Wands- worth must be content with a certain amount of water passing by your wharves, because it is in the general interests of the river that you should only have that amount," and the petitioners may wish to say : " We have invested our money in the wharves, and we are entitled to the present amount." Richards : It has been held in many cases that the conservancy board of a river does not represent aU interests ; in the Man- chester Ship Canal Bill, 1885 (Eickards and Michael, 46), Miss Watts was allowed a locus standi. The objection was that she was represented by the Mersey commissioners, and the Court held that her interests were entirely distinct from the conservancy board interests. We say that some of our interests might be affected, which it would be no part of the duty of the conservators to look after. The Chairman : That case of Miss Watts seems to me to be very much in point ; although what was proposed to be done might have been the best thing in the world for the river, it might have considerably injured her foreshore. Richards : The riparian property in Hammer- smith alone represents a ratable value of £15,067. Sir Gkoboe Edbsell : You say the objects of the conservancy are general; your object is specific ? Richards : Yes, and different in its nature. Mr. Shiress Wnx : The conservators, in their petition, say the object of the bill is to have a large sheet of water opposite Richmond and Twickenham at the expense of the people below, and you are one of them. Richards : There is that amount of similarity in our two petitions, but there are many im- Part I.l riohmokd foot-bridge (lock, etc.) bill. 63 portaut points of divergence between them. The Thames conservancy are not a local authority, and they are not owners of wharves as we are. The case for the Wandsworth district board of works is much the same, only that their district is two miles further down the river. Mr. Healy : Have the Wandsworth district board of works any wharves ? Richards : They have two docks, I am told, although there is no allegation to that effect in their petition. Baggallay (for petitioner. (3)) : Our general case is the same as that of petitioners (1) and (2), and I will not repeat the arguments used in their behalf ; but one of the grounds of objection to our being heard being that we are covered by representation, I will briefly point out what the constitution of the Thames conser- vancy is. Under the Thames Conservancy Act, 1857, no place except the city of London was represented. Then, by the Act of 1864, six con- servators were added, but still there was no representation of any district ; and then, in 188B, when the jurisdiction of the Thames conser- vancy was extended from Staines to Cricklade in Wiltshire five conservators were added, four being elected by the riparian owners above Staines, and one by the Board of Trade. There is therefore no representation whatever of riparian owners, or of local authorities in any of the districts below Richmond alleged to be affected by this proposed lock and weir. The Thames conservancy were originally con- stituted as purely a navigation body, but later jurisdiction was given to them to see to the purity of the water above the in-takes of the London water companies above Teddington. By the report of the Thames Flood Prevention Committee of 1877 it is shown that the Thames conservancy have no jurisdiction to prevent floods, and, therefore, when a local authority aUeges that the floods in their district will be increased by the making of the proposed works, it is no answer to say that the Thames conservancy safeguard the interests of the river. That is the present state of things. The Chaieman: What you aUege in your petition seems to be analagous to the case of Miss Watts against the Manchester Ship Canal Bill. Nothing is more difficult than to foretell what will happen in such a case. Baggallay : Yes, this biU proposes to alter the constitution of the Thames conservancy, and upon that I cite the North-Easteni Railway Bill, 1871 (2 Chfford & Stephens, U9). There it was held that the corporation of South Stockton were not represented by the Tees conservancy commissioners, although they had five representatives upon the Board. Mr. Healy : The two conservators proposed by the biU to be added to the board of con- servancy, representing the parishes of Twickenham and Richmond, would represent the promoters rather than the opponents of the scheme. Pembroke Stephens, Q.C. (for petitioners (4) and (51 ) : The petitioners (4) are a committee appoiuted by the vestry, and, as appears on the petition, they sign on behalf and by authority of the iuhabitants and ratepayers of the parish of Mortlake in vestry assembled. Fifteen of the petitioners are described as members of the committee, and three as riparian owners and occupiers. The petition alleges an apprehension of damage by the proposed lock and weir similar to that expressed by the other peti- tioners m this case. With regard to (5), the petition of the Duke of Devonshire, his Grace petitions in respect of Chiswick house and the grounds attached to it, which are three miles below the site of the proposed bridge and come right down to the bank of the river, with a frontage of two miles. The effect of widening London bridge, the embankment, and other works many miles away, has been to send up the tidal water in such quantities that his Grace, for no other purpose than that of protecting these lands and keeping pace with the result of the alterations of the river, has had to expend nearly £18,000 in raising the banks of his property from time to time, and in this case it is impossible to tell what the result of the works wUl be, whether to cause flooding, or a deposit of soil in the bed of this portion of river. Bidder, Q.C. (for promoters) : As regards the petition of (4) inhabitants and ratepayers of Mortlake, three of them are owners or occupiers of property abutting on the Thames and have riparian rights, but the rest are simply people who live in a parish which abuts upon the river, and I submit that' does not give them the position of riparian owners. It is not because they have constituted them- selves a committee that they can get any right of locus standi. They are not the sanitary authority, and the sanitary authority of Mortlake does not petition. You have not in the petition the signatures of the vestry, you only have the signatures of the gentlemen constituting a committee appointed at a meeting in vestry, and they do not allege that the vestry are riparian owners. The Chaieman: The petitioners are a committee appointed at a vestry meeting of a parish, which is a riparian parish. 64 COURT OP REFEREES. [Vol. I. Bidder : The petitioners generally apprehend a certain retardation of the tide, and a, diminution of the tidal scour, which is the very thing which the conservators are appointed to deal with. They are a body whose statutory existence is for the purpose of protecting the navigation and the tidal interests of the Thames, and Parliament has imposed upon them the duty of preserving the navigation, and they are the actual owners of the bed of the river. If the conservators do not represent the interests of the riparian proprietors, near or remote, then anybody down at the Nore has a right to be heard, because people at Gravesend have an interest in the diminution of the scour. The Chaikman : They would have to show a probability of injury. That is the principle the Court has laid down. The navigation of the river might be improved, and yet specific interests must suffer. Bidder : We have no desire to shut out from being heard anybody who can be said reason- ably to apprehend injury, and for that reason have not objected to the locus standi of riparian owners, barge owners, and others above Kew bridge, but none of the petitioners come under that category. Of the local authorities who petition none of them are riparian owners, or at any rate allege iu their petitions that they are so, except the vestry of Hammersmith, and the nearest part of the district of some of them is eight mUes below the proposed works. I submit that on the ground of representation by the conservancy and the remoteness of injury apprehended, the locus standi of the petitioners should be disallowed. Sir Geoege Russell : All these petitioners ui my judgment establish a immd facie case of injury, the amount of which can only be ascertained by evidence. The Chairman : The Locus Standi of all the Petitioners is Allowed. Agent for Petitioners (1), W. ir. Yoviig. Agents for Petitioners (2), Jordan di Son. Agents for Petitioners (3), IVyatt <& Co. Agents for Petitioners (4), Sherwood <& Co. EHYMNEY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.] Petition of (1) Babry Dock and Railways Com- pany ; (2) Tafe Vale Railway Company. 12th June, 1890.— (Be/ore Mr. Shikess Will, Q.G., M.F., Chairman; Mr. Healy, M.P.; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q. C. ; and Mr. Bonham-Cabteb.) Practice — Bill before Second House — Competinri Bills introduced by Promoters and Petitioners in First House — Rejection of Petitioners Bill — Claim to be Heard to Obtain Running Powers in Second House — Special Circumstances. The bni which had originated in the House of Lords, authorised the Rhymney company to make a railway (No. 1) up the Aber valley, from a, point on their existing railway, thus giving them a direct access from that valley to the port of Cardiff. The petitioners (1) and (2) claimed a locus standi under the foUowing circumstances. Both the petitioners had, in common with the Rhymney company, introduced bills into Parliament for the construction of railways covering the same ground as that of the Rhymney company, but before the bills had reached the Committee of the first House, to whom they had been referred, the Barry docks company had withdrawn their bUl, having come to an agreement with the Taff "Vale company for running powers over certain of their railways, including the proposed line up the Aber valley. The Committee to whom the Taff Vale and Rhymney companies' bills were referred, had rejected the bill of the former and passed the bill of the Rhymney com- pany, which was nQw beforethe Court. The promoters argued that neither of the peti- tioners had any right to be heard against their bill, as they no longer had competing bills of their own. Both the petitioners, whose case was practically the same so far as locus standi was concerned, contended that the fact of their having been promoters of bills for railways to serve the Aber valley in the present Session, was evidence of their interest in the traffic coming from that valley, which traffic they maintained would, by means of the Part I.] EHYMNEY RAILWAY BILL. 66 proposed raUway, be diverted by the Ebymney company from their docks and railways to the docks at Cardiff, and they claimed to be entitled to go before the Com- mittee on the biU to ask for running powers and faoUities, which it would have been competent for them, had they deemed it advisable, to have asked of the Committee of the first House. They further asserted that the general manager of the promoters had assented to giving them facilities in his evidence before the Committee of the House of Lords, but this was denied by the promoters : Held, that the petitioners not havingj at the present time, competing bills before Parlia- ment, were not entitled to a locus standi agaiast the bill. The locus standi of the petitioners (1) and (2) was objected to on similar grounds, namely, (1) the petitioners do not allege in their peti- tions, nor is it the fact that the bill contains any provision for taking any of their lands, or interfering with any property, right, power, or privilege of theirs ; (2) the circumstances stated in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the petition of the Barry docks, &c., company, and in paragraphs 5 to 10 of the petition of the Taff Vale company (even if true, which the promoters do not admit) do not entitle the petitioners, or either of them to be heard against the bill ; (3) the petition does not allege, nor is it the fact that the peti- tioners will be injuriously affected by, nor that any competition between the petitioners or either of them and the promoters, will result from the provisions contained in the bOl ; (4) the petitioners do not allege any grounds in their petitions, nor have they any interest which entitles them to be heard on their peti- tions against any of the provisions of the bill consistently with the ordinary _ rules and practice of the House of Commons. Pember, Q.C. (for (1) the Barry docks, &o., company) : The bill proposes the construction of a railway. No. 1, in what is called the Aber valley, in continuation of the Aber branch railway of the Bhymney company. We also brought forward a bill in the present Session for a line along this valley, to connect it with our docks, and the two bills were referred to the same Committee of the House of Lords as competing bills, but as the Taff Vale company also had a scheme for a railway up this valley, we withdrew our bill, and came to an agree- ment with the Taff Vale company, that if they got power to make their line, we should have running powers to Walnut Tree junction, and over their hue up the Aber valley. The Committee, however, passed the Bhymney BiU, and rejected the Taff Vale BiU; and what we say is that, seeuig the Ehymney have free access to the Bute docks at Cardiff, it would be their interest to divert trafidc from the Aber valley to Cardiff rather than to the Barry docks, and we ask, in the event of the bill being passed, to have a clause inserted giving us running powers over these proposed railways. It being practically impossible in these Uttle valleys to make competing railways, Parliament has invariably said, we wiU open these valleys to all ports, and put the different railway companies into communication with all the valleys. Mr. Healt : If you had not abandoned your line it would have connected you directly with Walnut Tree junction ? Pember : Yes ; I am in the same position with regard to the promoters, who by this proposed line will come down from Aber to Walnut Tree junction, as I was with regard to the Taff Vale company when they came down from Rhonda to Pontypridd and Treforest, and I obtained facilities with compulsory running powers over the Taff Vale from Treforest, where I joined them ; and I submit I ought to be allowed to go before the Committee and ask for similar running powers in this case, for I have such an interest in the valley and the traffic to arise in it, as entitles me to be put upon the same favourable footing for getting hold of a share of the traffic as I should have been if the Taff Vale line had been passed, in which event I should have had facilities over their proposed line. The Chaikman : Suppose this had been the first House, you unquestionably would have had a loctts standi as a competing Mne ; then what has happened is this : the bills have gone to the other House, and you make a bargain with one of the companies, but you rode the wrong horse, and that bill has been rejected, and the consequence is you are no longer in the position of a company with a competing bill, but still you claim to have the fact considered as evidencing your interest in this valley. Pember : And I ask to be allowed to say that I should be treated in the same way with regard to this valley as I am with regard to the other. Pope, Q.C. (for (2) Taff Vale) : Our case is practically the same. It was our bUl which was rejected by the House of Lords. The general manager and engineer of the Ehymney company said . they were wUling to grant 66 COtJBT OF REFEEEES. [Vol. I. facilities for tlie traf&c of other companies, and after that expression of willingness on his part their line was sanctioned. Can they now assume that Parliament did not intend that those facilities should be given, and as we cannot now appea,r as competing companies, are our mouths to be shut ? Mr. Chandos-Leigh : There was nothing to prevent you in the first House from bringing up clauses. Pope : No ; I thought the bill would emerge from the other House with those facilities in it after what was said by the general manager. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : Supposing the House of Lords had said on your britigiag up clauses, we will not have these clauses, then surely your locus standi would have enured to the House of Commons to bring them up there. Pope : That is the point. Mr. Bonham-Cabtek : But you must have a locus standi before the Committee to present your clauses, and you are liable to have your locus standi disallowed on its being objected to. The Chaieman : In the House of Lords if you had chosen to bring up these clauses you had a perfect right to do so, as you hai a locus standi. Then the question arises, " Have you lost that right merely because the House of Lords has decided against you on the merits ? " Bompas, Q.C. (for promoters) : All the peti- tioners say is that they desire to obtain some advantages if our bill passes, and I submit that is not a ground for a locu^ standi, and the fact that in the House of Lords there was an alternative line cannot affect their present position. The Chairman : Suppose two water companies proposed to supply the same town and the two bills came before the Committee as competing bills. When one succeeds and the other is rejected, the one that is rejected is dead so far as regards its power to follow the successful bin into the other House. So if two companies propose to take the same piece of land to con- struct a railway upon it, the one that is success- ful escapes opposition from the other in the second House. So far as regards that general principle we are not disposed to throw any doubt upon it. What took place in the House of Lords is, therefore, very important, because the question is whether what passed in regard to facilities makes any difference between this case and an ordinary case. Bompas : What took place before the Com- mittee of the House of Lords was this : The Taff Vale company, having made the agreement already referred to with the Barry docks, came and said, " Give us our bill and reject the Ehymney, or, if you pass the Ehymney bill give us running powers so that we may both have a right to this valley." In the course of the case a suggestion was made that if we got our bill it would make it likely that goods would go more readily to Cardiff, the lead to which was all on our own line, than to Penarth, the route to which consisted of two lines, and our general manager, Mr. Lundy, was asked how that was to be prevented, and he replied, not by our giving a binding clause, but by our re- ducing the rates to the same rates as we get ourselves when we go to Cardiff, in the way effected by Sir George Eliott's clause. The decision of the Committee thereupon was, " We think that so much of the preamble of the Bhymney Bill as refers to the Aber valley is proved, and we see no reason for giving running powers to the Taff Vale company." It was therefore no good their bringing up running power clauses after having fought the question out on preamble. Mr. Healy : It seems to be admitted that the Committee adjudicated upon this question of running powers. The Chaieman : But not, it is argued, upon the question whether they should have facilities under Sir George Eliott's clause. Bompas: If the Taff Vale had the least ground for saying that we should not treat them fairly, they could have put into one of their bills a clause compelling us to grant those facilities. Mr. Healy : Can a locus standi be claimed by a railway company merely for the purpose of demanding facilities of this kind ? Bompas ; No ; I submit that the only ground of locv^ standi is that the bill will or may in some way injure the person who seeks to oppose. Mr. Chandos-Leioh : Can the petitioners ask for running powers in the second House, having been refused them in the first ? Pope ; Yes ; the dif&culty is not as to raising the question of running powers again, but whether I can raise anything or whether I am absolutely defunct. I could not ask for any- thing unless I had a locus standi to appear before the Committee, and the question you have to decide in this case is whether the desire or the right to ask for these running powers gives such a right of locus standi. Mr. Healy : Is it a ground for a locus standi to say, this is a new line, we want running powers over it ? PojJC ; That is the question. Bompas : I ooiifidently say it is not. The most the Taff Vale allege is that there was some remark of Mr. Lundy that the traffic should have facilities, but that cannot give a Part 1.] RHYMNEY RAILWAY BILL. 67 locus standi, for which some agreement or undertaking would be required. It would only entitle them, if they had a locus standi, to go to the Committee of the second House and say it was admitted that it would be the right thing to give them. ParUameut wUl not hamper any railway company by unnecessary restrictions. If the Taff Vale can show that we are not acting fairly, then they can come to Parliament and get their remedy. Mr. Healt : I cannot see that a demand for such restrictions can be a ground of locus, and it also seems to me that the petitioners want to argue not only that they shall have running powers over the portion to be made, but over the existing line not dealt with by the bUl at aU. JBompas : The Barry company voluntarily withdrew their bDl, and not having a rival scheme before Parliament they clearly cannot be entitled to a locus standi. The Chairman: The Locus Standi of both Petitioners is Disallowed. Agents for Petitioners (1), Dyson & Co. Agents for Petitioners' (2), Sherwood <& Go. Petition of (3) The Pontypeidd, Caebphillt and Newpoet BAiLWAy Cojupany. The petitioners claimed to be heard against the construction of railways Nos. 2, 3 and 4, authorised by the bill, on the ground of competition. They had no railways of their own to the places to be served by the proposed railways, and no access to them,, but they regarded the district to be served by railways Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as a district which territorially belonged to them and not to the promoters. The Court, in the absence of competition by the proposed railways for traf&o already served by the Petitioners, Disallowed their Locks Standi. Pope, Q.C., appeared for the Petitioners; Bompas, Q.C., for the BiU. Agents for Petitioners, W. (& W. M. Bell. Petition of (4) The Makquess op Bute and The Tbustees oe the Will of the Late Maequess of Bute. raUway had no connection with the other proposed railways, and the raising of additional capital for their construction. One of the proposed railways (No. 2) crossed a piece of land belonging to the petitioners, who claimed to be heard generally against the bUl as land- owners whose property was to be taken compulsorUy : Held, that the petitioners were entitled to be heard generally against the bill. Bill for Construction of Several Eailways^Land of Petitioners Crossed hij one Railway— General Locus Claimed as Landowner. Clause 5 of the bill authorised the construc- tion of four short railways, of which No. X The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds: (1) the petitioners allege in paragraph 2 of their petition that the promoters propose to acquire oompulsorUy lands and property belonging to them, and they object thereto. The only property of the petitioners thus proposed to be acquired is a piece of waste land alongside of an occupation road to be crossed by railway No. 2 of the bill ; (2) the promoters submit that under these circumstances no lands or property of the petitioners will be affected or interfered with by the biU in such a manner as to entitle them to be heard against the bill ; (3) the petitioners should, if allowed to be heard, be confined to railway No. 2 of the bill, they having no interest in or right to be heard against any of the other railways proposed by the biU ; (4) the allegations contained in paragraphs 3 to 8 inclusive of the petition (even if true, which the promoters do not admit) are not such as to entitle the petitioners to be heard according to practice; (5) the petitioners have no interest which entitles them to be heard on their petition against any of the provisions of the bill consistently with the ordinary rules and practice of the House of Commons. Pember, Q.C. (for petitioners) : We are land- owners and own a small plot of land, which one of the proposed railways crosses. The scheme is made up of four bits of line. Mr. Healy : There appears to be no physical connection between railway No. 1 and railway No. 2. Bompas, Q.C. (for promoters) : No ; they are in separate valleys. The Chaikman : Are all those lines, 1, 2, 3 and 4, part of one scheme ? Pember : They are all included in one works clause, and the petitioners submit that they are entitled to a general locus standi as land- owners. . , T J Bompas : I admit the piece of land crossed gives the petitioners the right to oppose E 2 68 COtET OF EEFEREES. [Vol. 1. 2, 3 and 4 ; the only question is whether they have a right to say anything as regards railway No. 1, which is in a different valley, and has no more to do with the other railways than if it were in South Wales, and I submit they ought to be limited to the subject-matter in which they are interested, and that this is not a bona fide landowner's opposition, but is in the interests of the Taft Vale company, whose locus standi has throughout been a very doubtful one. The Ohaikman : The Locus Standi is Allowed. Agents for Petitioners, Grahames c& Co. Agents for Bill, Wyatt <& Co. acquired for the purposes of the railway that would involve the demolition of houses upon them : Held, that the diminution of rates during construction apprehended by the petitioners was of a sufficient amount to entitle them to be heard against clauses 4 and 14 of the biU. SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.] Petition of The Oveeseebs or the Poob foe the Pabish of St. Savioub's, Southwabk. 16th June, 1890. — (Before Mr. Shikess Will, Q.C, M.P., Chairman; Sir Geokge BussELL, M.P.; Mr. Healy, M.P. ; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C; and Mr. Bonham-Oabiee.) Railway Company acquiring Lands for Wideningt and Additional Purposes — Demolition of House Property — Overseers of Poor — Diminution of Rates during Construction of Works— Quantum of Injury. This was an omnibus bill, which provided, inter alia, for widening the South-E astern railway, and for that purpose empowered the company (clause 4) to take certain lands in the parish of St. Saviour, Southwark, of which the petitioners were the overseers of the poor, and (clause 14) certain other lands in their parish for additional purposes. The total amount of rateable property upon the lands named in clauses 4 and 14 amounted at the present time to about £10,000, the whole rateable value of the parish being £220,000 ; and the loss of rates during the construction of the works by the demolition of this property was estimated at £800 a year. Counsel for the promoters argued that the biU did not provide for the immediate erection of works or the demolition of house property on the lands to be taken under clause 14, but the CJourt pointed out that as they were The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition does not allege or show nor is it the fact that any land, house, property, right, or interest of the petitioners will be taken, or injuriously affected, under any of the powers of the bill, or in consequence of the execution thereof; (2) the promoters deny that the purchase of lands and the construction of works proposed to be authorised by the biU, wUl occasion any such deficiency in the assessments of the rates within the parish of St. Saviour, Southwark, as alleged in the petition, as would entitle the petitioners to be heard against the biU upon that ground. If the petitioners have any right to be heard at all against the bill, upon the ground set forth in their petition, which the promoters deny, they have no right according to practice to be heard against the preamble ; (3) the petition discloses no ground which according to practice entitles the petitioners to be heard against the bill. Jeune, Q.C. (for petitioners) : We desire to be allowed to go before the Committee to ask that the company shall be required to insert in this bUl, which is principally a bill for widening the promoters' railway, what certainly has been inserted in a great many biUs, namely, a pro- vision that tUl the railway company comes to be assessed on the property put up ia the place of the property which they may demolish, and which property will not yield rates during the time of construction, that is to say, in the present case, for five years, the railway com- pany should make good the rates as if the houses had not been pulled down. The loss of rateable value will be £7,000 or £8,000 in respect of property within the limits of deviation, but if under the powers of clause 14 of the bill they take the whole of certain properties described in that clause for additional purposes, which will mean the demolition of the houses on the land, it will raise the value to £10,000, the total rateable value of the parish being £220,000. In the Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railway Companies Bill, 1879 (2 Clifford and Riokards, 200), on the petition of St. Dunstan's, the rateable value represented by the property Past I.] south yoekshire junction railway bill. 69 demolished was £12,000 to £15,000, and various Acts were quoted during the arguments on the case, in which the provision we ask for had heen invested. In the Charing Cross Eailway Act, 1864, which authorised this rail- way, which it is now proposed to widen, there was an exactly similar clause. The Chaieman : The first question is whether the figure is a substantial one. Do the promoters say the amount is not a substantial one ? Worsley-Taylor (for promoters) : Yes, that is the main point. I think the principle is settled by the case cited, subject to subsequent deci- sions of Parliament, because the petitioners say such clauses are to be found in almost all the Metropolitan railway bills. The Chaiemah : What is meant is that where- ever there has been a. substantial disturbance of rating, you may expect to find such clauses. Worsley-Taylor : I shall ask to be heard upon that, but I should like some information from the vestry clerk as to the figures given, because now by the provisions inserted in the other House our power of demoUshiug property has been very much cut down. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : The promoters say the bill was considerably altered in the House of Lords, therefore the amount of rateable value, which would have been taken for the works as originally proposed, is much greater than at present. Jeune : I do not know to what the promoters refer. I take the biU as it stands. There is no alteration in the limits of deviation. What they will do no one can say. Worsley-Taylor: As the Court goes into questions of substance on the question of amount, I ask them to go into the question of real substance as to this point, and not to be bound by any technical rule that they are to take the bill as originally deposited, but to take the biU as introduced into this House. The Chairman: Though the widening is restricted to fifteen feet as described, yet if the promoters take part of a house or premises for the purpose of that widening, they may, under the 92nd section of the Lands Clauses Act, have to take the whole, though they may not require it. [The vestry clerk, Mr. Henry Langton, was caUed, and his evidence showed that the estimated total loss to the rates, judging from the current rates at 2s. in the £, would be £800 a year.] The Chairman: The promoters must show us that they can reduce this £8,000 or £10,000 materially, h6ca,\iae,primiifacie, it is a substantial figure. Worsley-Taylor (in reply) : I submit that, looking at the total rateable value of £220,000, and remembering this, that it is merely those rates that are not covered by sect. 133 of the Lands Clauses Act, the loss of these particular rates is not such a matter as the petitioners should be heard upon, especially as the uniform decisions of Parliament in the metropolitan area during the last 12 years has been to refuse such a clause as is now asked for. The Chairman : We cannot go into what Committees have been in the habit of deciding after a locus standi has been granted ; with that we have no concern, we are merely concerned with the right to be heard. Worsley-Taylor : The petitioners include certain lands which we take power to acquire and use for general purposes of our undertaking . No doubt we might clear off the houses on it, but the bUl says nothing about that, and anybody else might do the same, and when once we get possession we shall not be in a different position from the present owners. Mr. Healy : You only take the lands for rail- way purposes, such as to extend your stations or make approaches, and that would involve the demolition of house property. You do not take lands for the purpose of making an investment in real estate. The Chairman : The Locus Standi is Allowed against clauses 4 and 14, authorising the taking of lands for widenings and additional purposes, and so much of the preamble aa relates thereto. Agent for Petitioner, Ball. Agents for BUI, Cooper <& Sons. SOUTH YORKSHIRE JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL. Petition of The North - Eastern Railway Company. 20th June, 1890.— (JSe/ore Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman; Sir George Russell, M.P.; Mr. Healy, M.P. ; and The Hon. E. Chandos- Leigh, Q.C.) Competition— Construction of Short Railway hy Independent Company — Working Agreement Authorised— Petition of Company Forming Linh in Chain of Through Communication. The bill authorised the construction of a short railway from an important colliery to form a junction with the Hull, Barnsley 70 COURT OP REFEREES. [Vol. T. and West Biding Junction railway, power being given to the promoters to make working agreements with that company. The petitioners' railway received coal coming from the same colliery from the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire railway company and conveyed it to Hull, and they complained that a new competi- tion with this route, five-sixths of which consisted of their own railway, would be created by the biU. The promoters con- tended that the bill would only improve existing competition ; that the petitioners, not being at the colliery in question, were not the parties to be heard, but the Sheffield company, whose locus standi was admitted, and that inasmuch as the route by the railways of the Sheffield company and the petitioners was considerably shorter and more convenient, the competi- tion apprehended by them could not be of a serious character : Held, however, that the petitioners were entitled to be heard on the ground of competition. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) it is not alleged in the petition, nor is it the fact, that the bill contains any provision for taking or using any lands or property of the petitioners, or for running engines or carriages upon or across any railway of theirs ; (2) the petitioners have no such rights or interest in the portions of railways over which running powers are sought by the bill as to entitle them to be heard against the same ; (3) the petitioners are not entitled, according to the practice of Parliament, to be heard against the provisions of the bill, authorising the promoters to enter into agreements with other companies, except in so far as it is proposed to authorise agreements with the petitioners ; (4) no such competition with, or diversion of traffic from the railways of the petitioners will, or can be, created under the powers of the bill, as to entitle them, according to practice, to be heard against the same ; (5) except as stated in the third paragraph of the notice, the petition discloses no grounds upon which, according to practice, the petitioners are entitled to be heard against the biU. Bidder, Q.C. (for petitioners) : The bill empowers the promoters, who will be nomi- nally an independent company, to construct among others a line from Denaby main to a junction vrith the Hull, Barnsley and West Riding Junction railway at Wrangbrook, and to enter into working agreements with the Hull and Barnsley and the Great Eastern railway companies. We claim to be heard on the ground of competition. The object of the pro- posed Une is to give a new route in connection with the Hull and Barnsley from Denaby main, where there is a large output of coal, to Hull, its port of shipment. At present this coal is carried by the Manchester, Sheffield and Lin- colnshire company from Denaby maia to Doncaster, where it is handed over to the North-Eastern railway company and carried by them to HuU. This proposed line intro- duces entirely new competition. I am not aware of any decision that says that one of two partners in a route shall be heard, and that the other has not a right to be heard. By the present composite route from Denaby main to Hull is 48 miles, of which 40 miles is North- Eastern, so we are the owners of five-sixths of the route, and yet the locus -standi of the Sheffield company is allowed, and ours disputed. By the new line the distance is 56 mUes, but that is not of much consequence in mineral traffic, and by the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire, and the Hull and Barnsley, 65 miles. The promoters would go to a different dock from the one we go to at Hull, but that does not matter, for the ships go where the coal is coming, and practically the whole of the traffic goes by our line. Pembroke Stephens, Q.C. (for promoters) : The petitioners' mode of access 'to Hull is not the only one for traffic ; there are three other ways by which it can go. Their route does not get to the same point in HuU as ours, and they are dependent on the Sheffield railway company, whose locus standi is admitted, for the traffic, which they get, reaching them at all, and the question is, are the North-Eastern also entitled to be heard as part of the joint route, not being themselves in the Denaby main district. Does the fact that the petitioners form part of a through route give them such an interest as entitles them to be heard, when the proposed railway does not spring out of their line, does not touch their line, and is some mUes from it ? A locus standi on this ground was refused in the SvU, Barnsley, d;c.. Railway and Dock, ate of the Llanelly district. Both these petitioners alleged that the effect of the bill would be to divert mineral traffic at present shipped at Llanelly to Burry Port, which would result in a diminution of the revenues of Llanelly harbour. The promoters contended (1) that the construction of the proposed railway would not result in any diversion of traffic from Llanelly harbom- to Burry Port, being only intended to accommodate traffic which could not, from the character of the quays and docks there at present. 82 coVet of eefeeees. [Vol. I. be accommodated at Llanelly, and was therefore carried for shipment to Swansea ; (2) that in any case the Llanelly local board of health, who had voluntarily pledged their rates as collateral security for the harbour revenues, could not be heard in addition to the Harbour Commis- sioners : Held, however, that the competition between the two harbours, which would probably result from the construction of the pro- posed railway and the working agreements authorised by the bUl, was such as to entitle the Harbour Commissioners to be heard ; and that the existing charge upon the general district rate of the Llanelly local board gave them such a distinct interest as to entitle them also to be heard upon their petition. The petition of (3) the Great Western railway company alleged that the biU would create a competition between tho docks at Burry Port and a dock at Llanelly, of which they were the owners : Held, that they were fentitled to be heard against the bill on the ground of competi- tion. The locus standi of the petitioners (1) was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petitioners do not allege in their petition, nor is it a fact, that any lands, houses or other property belonging to the petitioners will be taken or interfered with under the powers of the bill ; (2) the fact that the peti- tioners have, as the local board of health for the district of the borough of Llanelly the local management of such district, does not give them a right to be heard on their petition. Neither the petitioners nor the inhabitants of the said district will, in fact, be injuriously affected by the provisions of the bill ; (3) the interests of the petitioners in the undertaking of the Llanelly Harbour and Burry Naviga- tion Commissioners are wholly represented by such Commissioners, whether the said Com- missioners are or are not entitled to be heard on the petition which they have presented against the bill, and no apprehension of in- jurious affection of, or of competition with, or of diversion of traffic from, the harbour and landing stages of the said Commissioners to result from the passing of the bill, and no charging of the said Commissioners debt upon the public estate of the petitioners or upon the general district rate of their district gives the petitioners a right to be heard on their petition ; (4) even if the petitioners have an interest in the said undertaking of the said Commissioners so separate and distinct from the interests of these Commissioners as to prevent such Com- missioners fully representing the petitioners, the bill will not enable the promoters to com- pete with, or divert traffic from, the harbour and landing-stages of the said Commissioners in such a manner or to such an extent as to give the petitioners a right to be heard on their petition ; (5) the fact that the promoters by the bill do not seek power to construct a rail- way from PwU to Sandy Gate but only seek power to take tolls thereon, and that that railway shall be deemed part of the promoters' undertaking does not, and the allegation of the petitioners that such railway is not an authorised railway assuming such allegation to be in fact true, which it is not, does not give the petitioners a right to be heard on their petition ; (6) the financial position of the promoters and their power, or want of power, to raise capital, do not give the petitioners a right to be heard on their petition ; (7) the petitioners do not allege any ground in their petition, nor have they any interest which entitles them to be heard on their petition against any of the provisions of the bill, consistently with the ordinary rules and practice of the House of Commons. The locus standi of the petitioners (2) was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petitioners do not allege in their petition, nor is it a fact that any lands, houses or other property belonging to them, will be taken or interfered with under the powers of the bill ; (2) the bill will not enable the promoters to compete with or divert traffic from the petitioners' harbour or shipping stages in such a manner, or to such an extent, as to give the petitioner a right to be heard in their petition. The petitioners will not, in fact, be injuriously affected by the provisions of the bUl ; (3) the fact that the promoters by the bill do not seek power to construct a, railway from PwU to Sandy Gate, but only seek power to take toUs thereon, and that that railway shall be deemed part of the promoters' undertaking, does not, and the allegation of the petitioners that such railway is not an authorised railway, assuming such allegation to be in fact true, which it is not, does not give the petitioners a right to be heard on their petition; (4) the financial position of the promoters and their power, or want of power to raise capital, do not give the petitioners a right to be heard on their petition j Part I.] burrY port and (Javendreath valley railway bill. 83 (5) the petitioners do not allege any ground in their petition, nor have they any interest which entitles them to be heard on their petition, against any of the provisions of the bill con- sistently with the ordinary rules and practice of the House of Commons. The locus standi of the petitioners (3) was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petitioners do not allege in their petition, nor is it the fact, that any lands, houses or other property belonging to the petitioners will be taken or interfered with under the powers of the bill; (2) the bill will not enable the promoters to compete with or divert traffic from the petitioners' railway or docks or ship- ping places, in such a manner or to such an extent as to give the petitioners a right to be heard on their petition ; (3) the bUl does not seek powers for the promoters to acquire land for making a railway from Pwll to Sandy Gate, or to make such railways. If the promoters have not such land, or have not powers to make such railway, the petitioners cannot be affected by the bill, and have no right to be heard upon their petition with reference to whether the promoters have or have not the said land and power. If the promoters have the said land and power to make such railway, the petitioners have no right to be heard upon their petition with reference to the promoters having such land and powers ; (4) the bill contains no provisions giving the petitioners a right, nor have they otherwise any right to be heard upon their petition with reference to the financial condi- tion of the promoters or their ability to construct a railway from PwU to Sandy Gate or the proposed railway ; (5) the bill contains no provisions affecting or enabling the pro- moters and any other persons, bodies or com- panies, or any of them, to do anything which would affect the agreement between the peti- tioners and the Llanelly and Mynydd Mawr railway company in the petition mentioned, or entitling the petitioners to be heard upon their petition with reference to any effect which the petitioners allege the passing of the biU might have upon such agreement ; (6) the bill contains no provisions giving the peti- tioners a, right, nor have they otherwise any right to be heard upon their petition with reference to the engineering of or the necessity in the interests of the public for the proposed railway, or the grant to the promoters and the Llanelly and Mynydd Mawr railway com- pany of powers of entering into agreements ; (7) the petitioners do not allege any ground in their petition, nor have they any interest which entitles them to be heard on their peti- tion, against any of the provisions of the bill consistently with the ordinary rules and practice of the House of Commons. Richards (for (1) the local board of health, &c., of Llanelly) : The line proposed to be authorised by the bill is a short link that will connect the existing Llanelly and Mynydd Mawr railway with the Pwll and Sandygate railway, and thereby will give the Llanelly and Mynydd Mawr railway an access to Burry Port, in which we are interested. The bill authorises the making of a junction be- tween the existing working system of the Llanelly company, which runs down to Llanelly harbour and docks, and the Pwll and Sandy Gate, which was authorised as far back as 1812, and which if made would form a connec- tion with another railway to Burry Port. The position therefore is this : the bill authorises a junction in the hands of the Lanelly com- pany, enabling them to carry traffic from their existing lines, which they cannot do at present, to Burry Port, and it enables the promoters — the Burry dock and Gwendreath Valley company — to make working and other agreements with the Llanelly company. The petition in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 shows the peculiar position that the local board are in with regard to the charge upon their general district rate, and states that : " Your petitioners are duly constituted, and acting by law as the local board of health for the district of the borough of Llanelly, and as such local board have the local manage- ment of the district, and your petitioners allege that they and the inhabitants of the district will be injuriously affected by the bill, and they object thereto. By the Llanelly Harbour Act, 1878, the Llanelly Harbour and Burry Navigation Commissioners obtained powers for the purpose of paying off the sums of money then owing by them, to borrow, with the consent of your petitioners, £50,000, and to charge the repayment thereof upon the harbour revenues, and as collateral security upon the income of the public estates belonging to your petitioners. Subsequently, by the Llanelly Local Board Act, 1888, your petitioners were granted power to charge the repayment of such borrowed money upon the general district rate of their district, not exceeding in any one year 6d. in the pound upon the assessable value of that rate. The Com- missioners have, with the consent of your petitioners, raised the greater portion of the said sum upon the security of the harbour revenues, and the collateral security of the income of the public estates of and the general district rate levied by your petitioners." 84 COURT or REFEREES. [Vol. 1. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : I suppose your apprehension is that the revenues of the harbour would be diminished by this short line by diverting traf&c ? Richards : Yes ; the greater the deficiency in the harbour revenue, the greater is the burden thrown upon our rate. The Chaikman : There are two petitions, one from the local board and one from the Llanelly Harbour and Burry Navigation Commissioners. Richards : Yes. With regard to competition and diversion the two petitions are at one ; but we have a distinct interest from the Harbour and Navigation Commissioners. The Chairman : Do any of the local board sit on the harbour board ? Baygallay (for promoters) : Yes, the local board have a considerable majority on the harbour board, 16 or 18 out of 26. Richards : The interests of the two bodies are distinct. Mr. Shikess Will: The public estates do not belong to the harbour board. Richards : The preamble of the Llanelly Local Board Act, 1888, recites: "Whereas by the Llanelly Harbour Act, 1878 (in this Act called 'the Harbour Act'), the Llanelly Harbour and Burry Navigation Commissioners were authorised, with the consent of the local board and for the purposes in that Act mentioned, to borrow sums not exceeding in the whole the sum of £50,000 upon the security of the harbour revenues, and by way of collateral security to charge the same upon the income of the public estates " {i.e., those of the petitioners), " and provision was made that in case the harbour revenues should prove insufficient for the pay- ment of any sum due by way of interest or principal borrowed under the authority of that Act, such sum should be deemed to be and should be well charged on the income of the public estates subject to any charges affecting the same respectively and then subsisting, and should be paid out of the same. And provi- sion was made that in case the funds in the hands of the Commissioners from the harbour revenues should be at any time insufficient for the repayment of any moneys borrowed by the Commissioners with the consent of the local board under the authority of the Act, or for the payment of any interest on any moneys so borrowed, the local board should pay to the order of the Commissioners any sum or sums demanded as in that Act mentioned by the Commissioners out of the surplus income of the public estates for the time being in the hands of the local board, and out of the accruing income of the public estates. Pro- vided that if by reason of any such payment the income of the public estates should be insufficient for the payment of any principal, moneys and interest thereon, which had been borrowed by the local board under the autho- rity of the Water Act for the water works purposes, and which should be secured upon the public estates, the local board should make good such deficiency out of the rates, rents and charges for water and the water- rate by the Water Act authorised, and in case the same should be insufficient, then out of the general district rates, as the case might be, so that the total net income of the pubhc estates might, if required, be available for payment of all principal moneys and interest thereon bor- rowed under the authority of the Harbour Act and for the time being charged upon the in- come of the public estates, and it was enacted that the lands and hereditaments contained within the limits set forth in Part II. of Schedule A to that Act should constitute the district of the local board and the order of 1850 and the order of 1866 should be respec- tively construed throughout as if from and after the confirmation of the same respec- tively the limits of the district of the local board thereby respectively fixed had been therein respectively described as the same were respectively described in Part I. and Part II. of the Schedule A ; and whereas it is expedient that the trusts affecting the public estates be so varied that the local board be empowered to sell such estates or any part or parts thereof freed from the trusts mentioned in the Public Estates Act and from all charges upon the same created under or by the Public Estates Act, the Water Act, and the Harbour Act, or any of them, the proceeds of any such sale or the investments representing such proceeds being held and applied by the local board as in this Act provided ; and whereas it is ex- pedient that the local board should no longer be required to make and levy a water rate ; and whereas it is expedient that the local board be empowered at the request of the Com- missioners, to charge as limited by this Act, the general district rate, by way of further collateral security, for the repayment of moneys borrowed by the Commissioners, under the powers of the Harbour Act ; " and sect. 16 enacts that, " In addition to the powers for securing the repayment of moneys borrowed by the Commissioners, under the authority of the Harbour Act, with interest, conferred by that Act, the local board may, if they think fit, in consideration of moneys lent to the Commissioners, under that Act or this Act, from time to time, by way of further collateral security, for the repayment of such moneys. Part I.] burey port and gwendreath valley railway bill. 85 with interest, charge the repayment of such moneys, with interest, upon the general district rates, provided that the aggregate amount which may, in any one year, become pay- able in respect of any charge or charges thereby created, shall not exceed the amount which might, in such year, be produced by a general district rate of sixpence in the pound on the assessable value of property assessable to the general district rate." The Chaiksian : You say that that establishes a distinct interest. Rickards : Yes. Then the petitioners further say in paragraph?: — "If the biU be passed into a law, the proposed railways, when constructed, wiU cause a considerable portion of the traffic which is now carried by the LlaneUy and Mynydd Mawr railway, and shipped at the docks and harbour of the said Commissioners, to be diverted to Burry Port, and will thus deprive the Commissioners of the toils and dues which they are now entitled to charge on imports to and exports from their docks and harbour." And in paragraph 8, they say that " Your petitioners and the ratepayers and inhabitants would be seriously affected by • the diminution of the harbour revenues, upon which security the money borrowed by the Commissioners was charged, and would result in your petitioners being compelled to increase the general district rate levied by them to meet the deficiency in the harbour revenues." The Chairman : Whatever amount has been raised by the Harbour Commissioners, interest has had to be paid upon it. Has that interest been met by the revenues of the harbour, or have you had to make up part of it ? Rickards : We have had to meet the interest out of the revenues of our estates, but not at present out of our rates. Mr. Chabdos-Leigh : Wben the Harbour Commissioners raised the money, they virtually raised it on a double security, and you say that the effect of the competition that will be created by a diversion of traffic to Burry Port will be to diminish the tolls, and make "you liable for the deficiency. Rickards : Yes ; we assisted the Harbour Commissioners by mortgaging part of our public estates. The Chairman : How will what is proposed by this bill create a new competition ? Rickards : The traffic at present comes straight down from the north, from the mineral district to the port of LlaneUy. Along the coast there is the Great Western railway, which runs to Pembrey , where there is a junction and a short railway c'own to Burry Port, but the LlaneUy company have no power to run over that railway which is hostile to them. At the port of LlaneUy the Harbour Commis- sioners have power to levy ordinary dues, buoyage dues, light dues, and harbour dues. Mr. Shiress Will : Your case is that £50,000 was borrowed with your consent by the Harbour Commissioners, and it was charged first upon the harbour dues and secondly on your public estates and public rates. At present the traffic coming from this vaUey finds its way to LlaneUy harbour, and if that traffic is diverted the harbour revenues will be diminished and therefore your security will be come upon the sooner. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : Did the Harbour Commissioners petition in the House of Lords ? Rickards : No ; the reason we did not appear in the House of Lords was that the Harbour Commissioners had determined to petition, and at a public meeting the promoters repre- sented that it was only intended to ship at Burry Port the coal which came down by the LlaneUy company, and was shipped at Swansea, a port 12 miles from LlaneUy, and Jhereupon the ratepayers determined not to oppose. When the bill was before the House of Lords, it became evident that it was intended to divert coal from LlaneUy to Burry Port, and the ratepayers at once determined, by a majority of 2 to 1, to oppose the bill. The first objection to our locus standi is, that we do not represent the ratepayers. Mr. Shikess Will ; You need not argue that. Rickards : The second objection is, that we are represented by the Harbour Commissioners that our interest is distinct. The Chaikman : You have established a separate interest. Rickards : I wish to refer to the following cases, all decided on the same ground in favour of the petitioners: — The Midland Rail- way Bill, 1882, on the petitions of the Stroud Water Navigation Company, the Conservators of the River Thames, the Severn Commissioners, and the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Navi- gation Company (3 Clifford & Rickards, 190) ; The Freshwater, Yarmouth, and Newport Railway Bill, 1883, on the petitions of the Southampton Harbour Board and the Corporation of Southampton, ib. 278; The London and South- western Railway (Various Powers) Bill, 1888, on the petitions of the Southampton Harbour Board and the Corporation of Southampton and others, ib. 306 ; The Swindon, Marlborough, andAndover Railway Bill, 1883, on the petition of the Corpora- tion of Southampton, ib. 354. As to distinct interests, I wiU refer to The Upper Mersey Navigation Bill, 1876, on thepetition of the Justices of the Peace of the Countif of Chester (1 Clifford 86 COURT OP REFEREES. [Vol. I. -and Eiokarda, 270); and The South-Eastern Railway (Various Foioars) Bill, 1889, on the petition of the Trustees of the Royal Liver Friendly Society (Rickards & Michael, 301). We say our interests are distinct, and our rates may be affected, and as the rating authority we are entitled, both as mortgagors of our tolls and under S. 0. 134 as representing the inhabitants, to be heard generally against the bill. Baggallay (in reply) : The cases of the peti- tioners (2) and (3) are cases of competition, and if you should hold that there is such competition as would entitle the local board to be heard, supposing they have a separate interest, we should not fight the competition question upon the other cases. First, as regards the separate interest. Suppose instead of our getting the local authority to give the security of their rates, we had gone to a private individual, with a limited interest, who could only give a limited charge for any money he borrowed on the security of his estate, and we wanted him to borrow money for us on the security of his estates, and he obtained leave from the Court to borrow in excess of what otherwise would have been his power to borrow having regard to his limited estate, that lender would not have had a locus standi. The mere fact of Parliament having given the local board power to pledge their rates in order to help somebody else to borrow money cheaply does not give them any locus standi. The Chaieman : Is not that rather contrary to precedents ? Baggallay : No ; in all the Southampton cases, where the corporation was given a locus standi, the Southampton corporation were partners. So in the Upper Mersey Navigation Bill the justices of Chester were partners in the tolls. Rickards : I am told we are interested in the tolls. We receive part of the surplus tolls. The Chaikman : Suppose a private person had agreed that his estate should be collateral security on the existing state of things, and it was proposed to change that existing state of things, would not he have a locus standi ? ' Baggallay : I think not. Mr. Healt : Suppose a private person is a mortgagee, would not such mortgagee have a locus standi ? Baggallay : I should have doubted it. Mr. Healt : Is there any difference between a mortgagee who is a public body, and a mortgagee who is a private individual ? Baggallay : No. These persons, because they happen to be a public body, ought not to have any greater rights than an individual would have, Mr. Healy : Are not the local board, though not really mortgagees interested in these tolls, exactly as if they were mortgagees ? Will not their security be increased or diminished exactly as the tolls are diminished ? Baggallay : I should say they are interested, but it is a voluntary interest, which they took upon themselves. Mr. Healy : They took upon themselves a voluntary interest in one state of facts, and you come to alter that state of facts by statute. Baggallay : What the local board have done is to back somebody else's bill. The Chaikman : Under the existing state of things, which you propose to alter. Baggallay : As to the alleged competition, if there is any competition at all, it is not with Llanelly, but with Swansea. This bill is merely to authorise two railways to form a junction, which might, in certain cases, divert certain traf&c. What happens now is that traf&c, which cannot be accommodated at Llanelly harbour by reason of the size of the harbour and of the ships that can use the harbour, does to a considerable extent go to Swansea, and this is the traffic which would go to Burry Port. The Chairman : Llanelly harbour is doing all it can to accommodate traf&c. It cannot at present accommodate all, and it is proposed to make a junction that will take a part of the traf&c not accommodated at present to a very convenient port. Is it not probable that the rest of the traf&c will follow ? Baggallay : No ; it will only interfere with traf&c that would go to Swansea. If you give the petitioners a locus standi under S. 0. 134 it should be limited to an opposition to the two chains forming the junction, but they cannot have a loczts standi to go into the question whether we can make that other mile and a half between PwU and Sandy Gate outside their district. They cannot be heard against it, if it is an authorised line, as there is no proposal to authorise it by this bill. Mr. Shikess Will : The chairman would keep them to what was relevant. Baggallay : The petitioners also raise the question of finance, but they cannot go into that, for it is not material to them. Mr. Chandos-Leioh : You say that if they have a locus standi it should be limited ? Baggallay : Yes, to the construction of these two chains as injuriously affecting them by competition. There is nothing in the bill that authorises anything but the construction of the two chains. The bill does not authorise the raising of capital, but only by clause 15 the Part I.] Caledonian railway (additional powers) bill. 87 application of capital already authorised to the construction of the two chains of railway. Mr. Shibebs Will: If they have a locus standi at all to oppose you on preamble, they may use every weapon in their power which is relevant. Baggallay : In the South-Eastern Railway (New Lines and Widenings) Bill, 1882 (3 Clif- ford & Rickarda, 213), where there were a. number of local authorities opposing the South-Eastern proposal to construct new rail- ways in certain parishes, you held that each of the parishes had a locus standi against so much of the railway as was within its own district, but not as regards the railway outside. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : This is a different case altogether. This is a case of diminution of income in consequence of apprehended diver- sion of traf&c. The Chairman : If we allow a locus standi to the local board, that carries with it the locus standi of the other two petitioners, does it not ? Baggallay : Yes ; the question of competi- tion is raised by all three petitioners. Cripps, Q.C. (for petitioners (3) ) : Ours is a clear case of competition by diversion of traffic. The whole meaning of this bUl is to take traf&o from Mynydd Mawr to Burry Port which now goes by the Mynydd Mawr line to the Great Western docks at Llanelly. At present we have an agreement with the Mynydd Mawr company under which that traf&c has to come over our line. The Chairman : You are interested in Llanelly ? Cripps : Yes, we have a dock at Llanelly. The Chairman : The Locus Standi of all the Petitioners is Allowed. [Worsley-Taylor, Q.C. (for petitioners (2)), was not called upon.] Agents for Petitioners (1), JVyatt & Co. Agents for Petitioners (2), Wyatt (& Co. Agent for Petitioners (3), Mains. Agents for Bill, Speechly dt Co. CALEDONIAN RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL. Petition of The North British Railway Company. 16th April, 1891.— (Be/ore Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman ; Mr. Shiress Will, M.P.; Mr. Healy, M.P.; The Hon. E. Chandob-Leigh, Q.C; and Mr, Bonham-Caeter.) Practice — Petitioners served toith Notice as Land- owners — Absence from Petition of Allegation that Lands of Petitioners were taken under Bill — S. 0. 133 [In what cases Baikoays Companies to he heard'], Meaning of. The allegations of the petition were directed against the repeal by clause 39 of the bill of certain sections in the Caledonian and Scottish Central Railways Amalgamation Act, 1865, and the Caledonian and Scottish North-Eastern Railways Amalgamation Act, 1866, which conferred certain faci- lities and powers upon the Great Northern and North-Eastern railway companies, called in those Acts the Bast Coast com- panies, and against the powers conferred upon the promoters of constructing railway No. 2 authorised by the biU, the latter powers being, the petition alleged, in breach of an agreement between the petitioners and the promoters, which was scheduled to and confirmed by the Edin- burgh and Glasgow Extensions Act, 1864. It was, however, admitted in argument by counsel for the petitioners that the repeal of the section and of the Amalgama- tion Acts of 1865 and 1866 only concerned the East Coast companies, and that on further examination of the agreement scheduled to the Edinburgh and Glasgow Extensions Act, 1864, the allegation in the petition that the construction of Railway No. 2 of the bill was in breach of that agreement could not be sustained. The petitioners further claimed a general locus standi as landowners, whose land was taken for the purposes of the bill, and who had received notice as land- owners. They admitted the fact that the petition contained no allegation that their lands would be taken, but claimed that 88 COURT OP REFEREES. [Vol. I. the service of a landowner's notice upon them by the promoters was sufficient to cure that defect : Held, however, that the Court was prevented 1 by the total omission from the petition of any allegation that the petitioners' lands were taken from granting them a locus standi as landowners. (Great Eastern Railway (Metropolitan Railways, <&c.) Bill, 1870, on the petition of James Harman, (2 Clifford & Stephens, 16) cited and distin- guished.) The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition does not allege that the bill contains any provisions giving power to take land or other property of which the petitioners are owners, lessees or occupiers ; (2) the petition does not allege that the bill contains nor does it in fact contain any provision repealing, altering or -affecting the running powers or facilities conferred on the petitioners by the Amalgama- tion Acts referred to in the petition; (3) the allegations contained in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 9th paragraphs of the petition are irrelevant , inasmuch as the provisions of the Amalgama- tion Acts referred to therein, so far as relating to the petitioners, and the petitioners' parlia- mentary status thereunder, are altogether unaffected by the bill ; (4) the facilities and provisions proposed to be repealed by clause 39 of the bill are those conferred by the said Amalgamation Acts upon the North-Eastern and Great Northern railway coinpanies, who are themselves petitioning agalust the bill, and are in those Acts referred to as the East Coast companies. The petitioners are not (as erroneously alleged in paragraph 7 of the petition) one of the East Coast companies referred to in those Acts, and they have no rights under or interest in such facilities and provisions to entitle them to be heard in respect of the proposed repeal thereof; (5) the allegations in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the petition referring to the agreement scheduled to the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway (Extensions) Act, 1864, and to the Lanarkshire and Dumbartonshire line, are unfounded and wholly irrelevant. The said agreement has no beariug upon or relation to the promotion of railway No. 2 referred to in the petition. The reference to the Hamilton Hill branch is also irrelevant ; (6) the petition does not allege that any injury wiU be caused to the petitioners or any competition will arise from the construction of the said raOway No. 2 or show any grounds which would entitle the petitioners to be heard in respect of the said proposed railway ; (7) the petition does not disclose that the petitioners have any such interests affected by the bill, or that any facta or reasons exist which according to the practice of Parliament would entitle the petitioners to be heard against the bill or any of the clauses or provisions thereof. Pope, Q.C. (for petitioners) : Clause 39 of the bill enacts that the several facilities and powers (other than running powers) secured by the Caledonian and Scottish Central Railways Amalgamation Act, 1865, and the Caledonian and Scottish North-Eastern Rail- ways Amalgamation Act, 1866, to the East coast companies shall cease, and that the sections in those Acts which provide for such facilities shall be repealed, and in our petition we object to such repeal ; but on looking into the matter, I see that the Great Northern and the North-Eastern railway companies only are denominated in those Acts as the East coast companies, and therefore I concede that we are not entitled to be heard on that question. Then paragraph 12 of our petition is as follows : " By sect. 5 of the bill the Caledonian company also seek powers to construct a railway (No. 2) 1 mile 5 furlongs 3'5 chains, or thereabouts, in length, com- mencing by a junction with their railway, authorised by the Act of 1876, and therein called railway No. 1, and terminating by a junction with the Company's Glasgow Central railway (railway No. 6), authorised by the Central Act of 1888. Said railway No. 2 is contrary to and inconsistent with the terms of an agreement between the Caledonian rail- way company and your petitioners scheduled to the Edinburgh and Glasgow Extensions Act, 1864, and should not be sanctioned. No part of the railway authorised by the Act of 1876, and called the Hamilton Hill branch, and which was declared to be for the purpose of enabUng that company to utilise their property alongside the Forth and Clyde canal, has yet been constructed." On looking, however, into that agreement I am bound in fairness to admit that that allegation is not borne out. Railway No. 2 of the biU, however, is the same as railway No. 4 of the Lanarkshire and Bunibartonshire Bill of this session, and against that bill we have an admitted locus, and that being so, the question is whether we are not entitled to be heard against its con- struction under the powers of this bill. Pember, Q.C. (for promoters): The object of railway No. 2 in this bill is simply to complete PaBT I.] CALEDONIAN RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL. 89 the circuit of the Caledonian railway round ] Glasgow, and apart from the other railways authorised by the Lanarkuhire and Dumharton- shire Railu-ay Bill could not be used as a link in the chain of extension of the Caledonian system to the north of Glasgow. If the Lanarkshire and Dumhartonshire Bill is rejected, raUway No. 2 in this hill will be valueless for the purpose for which the petitioners apprehend it is intended. The Chatbman : I think that if the petitioners have a locus standi against this railway No. 2; as it stands in the Lanarksldre and Bumharton- sliire Bill, as a portion of a competitive route, it leaves no ground for them to be heard against it in this bill as a portion of a route which, by itself, is not competitive. Pope ; Then I come to the last ground upon which I claim a locux standi, namely, as a landowner, whose land is taken for the purposes of railway No. 2, and who has received notice accordingly. It is in the discretion of the Court to allow me a general locus standi under S. O. 133, and I claim it, although there is no allegation in the petition that we are the owners of land which is taken under the compulsory powers of the bUl. I contend, however, that that defect is cured by the fact of our having received notice as a landowner. Mr. Bonham-Caktek : In the case of the Bridgwater Railu-ay Bill, 1886, on the petition of the Great Western Railway Company (Eickards and Michael, 89), an unlimited locus standi was granted, though only an easement was asked for. Pemher : But there was no defect in the petition there. Mr. SHiREas Will: In the Great Eastern Railway {Metropolitan Railways, (&c.) Bill, 1870, on the petition of James Harman (2 Clifford and Stephens, 16), the question arose how far a defect m the petition is cured by the petitioners proving that they have received the statutory notice, and the locus standi of the petitioner was allowed. Pember : In that case there was an allegation that the petitioners' lands were affected though not absolutely to the effect that his lands were going to be taken, and you held that the allegation that his lands were going to be affected was ectuivalent to an allegation that his lands were going to be taken. The Chaikman :- It was a general allegation, which might include the particular mode of affecting them by taking them. We have been in the habit of being content with somewhat general allegations in petitions, though it is desirable that they should be specific. Mr. Bonh.vm-Caetek : Here there is no alle- gation at all. Pemher (in reply) : Although it is true that railway No. 2 of the bill is railway No. 4 of the Lanarksldre and Dumbartonshire Bill, and for reasons I can explain is included in both bills, railway No. 2, if this bill alone were passed, would merely complete the circuit of the Caledonian railway round Glasgow, and would not form an extension of the Lanarkshire and Dumbartonshire railway against which the petitioners could appear. The Chaimian : There is the further question as to the position of the petitioners as land- owners. Pember : Do the petitioners say that if they succeed in obtaining an amendment of their petition that they are to have a landowner's locus standi nadev the " post case " {Lo)ulon and North-Western Railu-aij Bill, 1868, 1 Clifford and Stephens, 62), and not only to appear against the making of this railway as a com- munication round Glasgow, but also to get back the locus standi which they gave up against the facility clauses ? Pope : No, clearly not. Mr. Shieess Will : I should like to be guided by the authorities, but it seems to me that S. 0. 133 was not intended to detract from the rights of a railway company standing in the position of a landowner. The S. O. is very general in its terms. If you merely run into a station, of course you do not take the land of the company, and the S. 0. was intended to say that in that case there should be a lociis standi, but I think a limited one. Pember :■ The meaning of S. 0. 133 I take to be this, that if you interfere engineeringly, and only so, with a railway, such interference is not necessarily to give them the position of ordinary landowners against the bill, but gives the Court a discretion as to whether the locus shall be general or not. I say there is no allegation of landowning interest here. The Thames Beep Water Dock Railway Bill, 1882 (8 Clifford & Rickards, 232), is a case in point, and you did not give a locus standi. Rickards {as amicus curite) mentioned the case of the Lancaster Corporation Bill, 1888, on the petition of the Lancaster Waggon Company, Limited (Eickards & Michael, 213). Mr. Chandos-Leigh : There is the case of the Oxted and Groombridge Railway Bill, 1883 (3 Clifford & Eickards, 325). Pmnber : There is no allegation here that the promoters " would seriously interfere with the petitioners' authorised railway." There there was an allegation that the line was crossed 90 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. and that their property would be otherwise interfered with, and the Court said that there was an inference that their land must be taken, but there is nothing whatever in this petition to lead to such an inference. All the damage alleged in paragraph 12 is damage that might easily take place, if we did not cross their line at all, and so give them a peg to hang a claim for a landowner's locus upon. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : There is also the case of the East and litest Yorkshire Unioti Eailu-ay Bill, 1886, on the petition of the North-Eastern Railway Company (Eiokards & Michael, 98). Pemher : That was a different case, as the bill was for an extension of time, and we may assume that the petitioners had a locus standi against the original bill, so it was the carrying on of the right to appear against the original bill. The question of an imperfect petition did not arise there, but the question was whether you would extend the right of a railway company to be heard to that of an ordinary landowner. So again in the Caledonian Railway (Tay Ferries, dc.) Bill, 1870 (2 Clifford & Stephens, 37J, no question was raised as to the petition being deficient, and the only question was whether the locus standi should be general or limited. The present is a case where neither under the Standing Orders nor as general land- owners have the petitioners any locus standi, general or limited, because they have not alleged that they are landowners, and the case comes under the decision in the Thames Deep Water Dock Railway Bill, 1882, which decided that where people have not cared to go upon the point of their being landowners, or in any way pleaded it, but have elected to go upon something else, they cannot simply because their land is scheduled and they have received notice, claim a general locus standi as landowners. Pope : The promoter's case is that, whatever the position of the petitioners is, they have not sufficiently alleged it. Pemher : I do not even say " sufficiently," for you have not mentioned it at all ; you have not elected to go upon it. There is no allega- tion at all ; it is not a question of the allegation being merely indistinct, and that being so I submit they are not entitled to even a limited locus standi. The Chairman ; The Court are agreed that the total omission of any allegations in the petition that the petitioners' lands are taken, prevents our giving them any locus standi. Locus Standi Disallowed. Agents for Petitioners, Sherwood cO Co. Agents for Bill, Grahames, Cnrrey & Spens. 4th June, 1891. — (The Court consisted of the same Members as lohen the Bill came before it on the 16th April, 1891, supra). Pope, Q.C. (for the North British railway company) : When the petition of the North British railway company was before the Court it was stated that railway No. 2 in the bill, which also appeared in the Lancashire and Dumbartonshire Bill, was simply included in this bill by the promoters with a view to complete their Glasgow connection, and would have no result as regards the North British agreement for Stobcross traffic. That resulted from a misapprehension, and I, therefore, ask the Court to assent to a motion of the Chair- man of Ways and Means that the petition might be referred back to this tribunal for re- hearing, in order that if it should turn out that we were under a mistake and there is something that affects that agreement the question of locus stdiidi should be reconsidered. Pemher, Q.C. (for promoters) : I do not think I can oppose that, but we do not admit the mistake. The Chairman : Will it be necessary when it comes back to take evidence of any facts ? Pope : It will only be a question of the deposited plans, which the engineer will explain. Pember : A little evidence may be necessary. The Chairman : The application is granted. Agents for Petitioners, Sherwood <& Co. Agents for Bill, Grahames, Currey cC- Spens. CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL. 26th February, 1891.— (Before Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leioh, Q.C. ; and Mr. Bonham-Carter.) Pritt (parliamentary agent) stated that the petitioners, whose locus standi was objected to, had withdrawn their signatures from the petition. Agents for Bill, Sherwood <& Co. Part I.] Edinburgh municipal and police bill. 91 BDINBUEGH MUNICIPAL AND POLICE BILL. Petition of (1) The Pakoohul Boakd op St. Cuthbekt's Combination, Edinbukqh, and Andrew Fekkiek, Inspeoiob of Poob, fob and on behalf of the said combination j AND (2) The Parochial Boaed of the City Parish of Edinburgh. 16tli April, 1891.— (i3c/ore ?[i: Parker, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shieess Will, Q.C, M.P. ; Mr. Healy, il/.P. ; The Hon. E. Chandos- Leioh, Q.C; OHiZ Mr. Bonham-Carter.) Proposed Exemption of Public Buildings from Poor Rate — Scotch Parochial Boards claiming to Represent Ratepayers — Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845 — Claim of Petitioners to be heard to Discuss Policy of E-risting Exemptions — Com- plaint against Past Legislation. Clause 78 (sub-sect. 3) of the bill amended sect. 70 of the Edinburgh Municipal and Police Act, 1879, so as to make certain public buildings in Edinburgh named in that section, which had been hitherto liable to assessment for poor-rate, exempt from it. The petitioners were the parochial boards for a parish and a combination of parishes situated partly within and partly without the boundaries of the city of Edinburgh, and they claimed to be heard against the bill on account of the addi- tional burden that the exemption proposed by it would throw upon the ratepayers whom they represented. The constitu- tion, powers, and duties of the petitioners were defined by the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845, and included the raising by assessment and the expenditure and ap- plication of the sums required for poor relief, and sect. 17 of that Act provided that " the whole administration of the laws for the relief of the poor should be under the direction and control of such parochial board." The loss in rates to the petitioning' parochial boards was ad- mittedly small, but they argued that this did not affect their right to be heard against the principle of the proposed exemption. The petitioners further asked to be heard, in connection with the ex- emption proposed by the bill, to argue before the Committee on the bill that certain exemptions from poor-rate of police buildings, &o., provided for by the Edinburgh Municipal and Police Acts, 1848 and 1879, should be reconsidered, and, if thought advisable, repealed. The promoters contended that the ratepayers of the parishes affected, or at any rate those of them whose property was within the municipal boundaries, were repre- sented by the corporation of Edinburgh, who promoted the bill ; and that in any case the petitioning parochial boards did not represent the ratepayers in respect of the payment of rates, their duties being executive and confined to raising and ex- pending the amounts required for the relief of the poor ; and that the proper parties to be heard in ■ such cases were the ratepayers themselves : Held, however, especially having regard to the provisions of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845, that the petitioners were the proper representatives of the ratepayers, and were entitled to be heard against clause 78 of the bill, but not to discuss before a Committee the provisions of the Edinburgh Municipal and Police Acts, 1848 and 1879. The locus standi of the petitioners (1 and 2) was objected to on similar grounds, namely : (1) the petitioners do not allege in their peti- tion, nor is it the fact that any lands or other property belonging to them, or in which they are interested, will be taken or interfered with under the powers of the bill ; (2) the petitioners do not set forth in their petition, nor do they possess any interest to be heard on the amend- ment proposed by sub-sect. (3) of clause 78 of the bOl, and they do not. allege that they represent, nor is it the fact that they do repre- sent, the ratepayers of Edinburgh, or the owners or occupiers of property in Edinburgh liable to be assessed for the relief of the poor ; (3) petitioners (1) are not entitled to be heard on paragraphs 8 and 9 of their petition, nor petitioners (2) on paragraph 8 of their peti- tion, inasmuch as the objection which the petitioners respectively raise in the said para- graphs is an objection to prior legislation, and, moreover, the subject of the objection is not 92 COUET OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. raised by or contained within the powers or provisions of the bill, nor does the bill impose any new obligations on the petitioners, and the petitioners have no interest and they are not entitled to be heard in support of the allega- tions of the said paragraphs ; (4) the petitioners do not possess, and, at all events do not show by their petition that they possess, any interest intended to be affected by the bill, which entitles them according to the practice of Par- liament to be heard against it. Graham Murray (for petitioners (1) ) : The clause of the bill to which we object is sub- sect. 3 of clause 78, which enacts that sect. 70 of the Act of 1879, the last General and Municipal Act of the city of Edinburgh, shall be read as if the words " the said police-offices, station-houses, houses, and cither buildings or grounds connected with the police establish- ment shall also continue to be exempted," last occurring therein were omitted therefrom. Sect. 70 of the Act of 1879 is as follows : " The burgh assessments shall not be imposed in respect of the Royal Palace of Holyrood," and a number of other public buildings, charitable institutions, hospitals, and public gardens, and grounds are exempted from the payment of such burgh assessments, "and the said police-offices, station-houses, houses, and other buildings connected with the police establishment shall also continue to be exempted from the payment of all cess or poor-rates imposed or to be imposed ; " 'these police buildings and offices being by the section previously exempted from burgh assessments not common with other public buildings which were not, however, Uke the police buildiags exempted from poor-rates. Now by striking out these words ' ' the said police- offices, station-houses, houses, and other build- ings or grounds connected with the police establishment, shall also continue to be exempted," they make the sentence read thus, that the Royal Palace of Holyrood, and the other buildings and groundSL " shall be ex- empted from the payment of such assess- ments," i.e., bm-gh assessments, " and from the payment of all cess or poor-rates imposed, or . to be imposed." These public buildings there- fore will, by the bill, be exempted from poor- rates as much as from burgh assessments. - The petitioners are the parochial board of St. Outhbert's combination, and the inspector of poor, on behalf of that combination. In Scotland, under the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845, it is lawful for certain parochial boards to make a combination, which must be sanctioned by the ruling central authority, the board of supervision. The combination of St. Outhbert's consists of the parish of St. Outh- bert's, and the parish of Oanongate. The boundaries of the parish of St. Outhbert's do not coincide with the boundaries of the city. It is what is called a landward burghal. There are, within the parish of St. Outhbert's, persons who live within the city ; others who live within the landward, and others who live within the burgh of Leith. The Poor Law Act provides that, whenever a combination is formed, it is to be divided into certain districts by the board of supervision ; these districts are solely for voting purposes ; the ratepayers within each district elect a representative ; and as the assessment is levied — one-half upon occupiers, and the other half upon owners — both owners and occupiers elect these repre- sentatives, and then the total board is made up by four representatives sent from each Kirk Session in the combination. The parochial board of St. Outhbert's combination is com- posed of 38 members altogether ; 30 elected by ratepayers within the districts ; 4 from the Kirk Sessions of St. Outhbert's, and 4 from the Kirk Sessions of Oanongate. The parochial board not only collects the rate, but also ad- ministers it, and the inspector is the person to see whether a person claiming relief is entitled to get it. The whole working of the poor law is done by the parochial board of the combina- tion, and this bill proposes at once to take out of assessment property, within the City of Edinburgh, which, hitherto, has contributed to the poor rate. The present case is covered by that of the Metropolitan, and Metropolitan, District Railway Gompanies Bill, 1879, on the petition of the Gomviittee for the Wlanagement of the Affairs of the Chai-ch and Parish of St. Dunstan's-in-the-East and Others (2 Oliiford and Rickards, 200) . That was a case where the rail- way company proposed to take certain property within the parish, and were going to pull down houses, and the committee constructed under the Local Act, who were also the recipients of the rates, opposed the bill. It was held that they properly represented the ratepayers, and were entitled to a locus standi against the clauses. In that case, the petitioners merely collected the rate, but we not only collect it, but have also to see to the spending of it, and therefore ours is a stronger case. Mr. Shikess Will: Prima facie it seems rather an obvious case. Mr. Healy: Is the rating affected by the bill considerable ? Graham Murray : We estimate it at about £60 a year, the total rating being about £80,000 a year for poor purposes. We also raise the rate for the School Board. The promoters have -ART i-] EblNBUEGH MUNICIPAL AND POLICE BILL. 93 convened the inspector of tlie poor of St. Cuthbert's combination in the Court of Session to find out that upon a just construction of the Act of 1879 they are not subject to poor-rates, and being apprehensive that they will be beaten they come to Parliament, and endeavour to obtain a clause which will place the matter beyond doubt, and when we come to Parliament they say, you the St. Cuthbert board and the inspector are not entitled to be heard. The Ohaieman : That conduct is not very consistent with this objection. They say you are objecting to prior legislation, but the fact is they are trying to get rid of prior legislation. Graham Murray : In paragraph 5 of our petition we say, " The latter part of this section, which exempts ' police-of&ces, station- houses, and other buildings or grounds connected with the police establishment,' from payment of poor-rates, was inserted first in Edinburgh Police Act of 1848, and again in the bill for the Act of 1879 without any intimation to your petitioners, and without their knowledge ; and as (so far as your petitioners are aware) there was no opposition thereto when these bills were under the consideration of Parliament, your petitioners fear that the effects of the said enactments were not fully appreciated. The Poor Law Acts recognise no exemption except on the ground of poverty, and your petitioners' powers of assessment thereunder have been materially affected by the limitation effected by the said provision," and in paragraphs 8 and 9 we ask to have this exemption from assessment to poor-rate repealed. We say that now they have introduced this matter of exemption, we should like to get the exemption they have already got reviewed, and that these exemptions would probably be taken away, and as they have raised this question as to whether public buildings are or are not to be exempt from poor- rates, bearing in mind that the general statute excepts no buildings at all, and nobody except on the ground of poverty, we submit, there- fore, it is not fair that the Committee should not be able to go into the whole question of exemptions. The Chaiemax : Yom- complaint against exemptions allowed by sect. 70 of the Act of 1879 would be against existing legislation. Pollock (for petitioners (2) ) : We are another parochial board, and so far as the general facts go the circumstances of our case are identical with those in the former case, and we are affected in very much the same way, as by the bill buildings in our area which now pay rates will be exempt and the amount of rating affected will be about the same as in the former case. The oases in which a locus standi has been given to a parish on the ground of interference with rateable value have been cases in which the rates have been lessened in value, but the promoters in this bill propose to take away the rates altogether on certain buildings. Mr. Chandos-Leioh : In the cases to which you refer we tried to ascertain what was the amount of diminution of rates. Mr. Shiress Will: Those were cases in which a railway company sought to clear away a number of houses ; but subject to anything the promoters may have to argue I do not think the question of amount will influence us. Pollock : In their objection (3) to our locus standi, the promoters object to paragraph 8 of the petition, in which we claim to raise the question of exemptions obtained under the Act of 1879. The promoters have already got certain exemptions, and they are proposing certain further exemptions by this bill. When the Committee come to consider the whole question they may possibly think that some of the exemptions conferred in the Act of 1879 should be struck out, and one or two of the exemptions now sought ought to be given, and they may wish to have the whole matter raised before them. If we are not given a locus standi upon this question it will prevent us raising that point before the Committee, and so tie their hands. Mr. Shieess Will: You must convince us that you are entitled to be heard against past legislation. Pollock : It is past legislation, it is true, but at the time these exemptions were granted no notice was served upon us, and we were not heard ; we were a party interested, but they did not serve us with any notice. The Chaieman : Can you refer us to any authority in favour of giving a locus standi against past legislation ? Pollock : This is a public question, and though I can refer to no precedent, I submit that in the exercise of your discretion you can allow us a locus standi to raise the question of repealing the exemption of the Act of 1879. The Chaiehan: The promoters need not argue the question of the right of petitioners (1 and 2) to be heard against exemptions not in the bill. Pember, Q.C. (for promoters) : The question whether certain property shall be exempt from taxation or not is one for the ratepayers, and the corporation are the custodians of the interests of the ratepayers in Edinburgh as elsewhere. I admit that a ratepayer who can show that his interest differs from that of the 94 COURT OP befereMs. [Vol. 1. community at large may be heard against the seal of the corporation, but the corporation are the custodians of the interests of the rate- payers. It is for the ratepayers to sanction or not the proceeding of the corporation in introducing the bill ; but when once the seal of the corporation has been affixed to a bill affecting the general interests of the ratepayers, no one can be heard against those general interests as represented by the corporation. The Chaieman: The petitioners ~ are not individual ratepayers or even a large number of ratepayers, but an organised combination. Femher : An organised combination for a definite purpose, but not to represent the sub- stantial interests of the ratepayers ; those are still left to be represented by the corporation, both poor rate-payers and burgh rate-payers. The Chaibman : The St. Cuthbert's combina- tion represent a different district to that of the corporation of Edinburgh. Some of the peti- tioners are not in the city at all. Feniber : They are a mere board of assess- ment and distribution, and whether it is to the general interests of the ratepayers of Edin- burgh that certain public properties should be exempted from assessment to the poor law is not a question for them, they occupy a mere ministerial capacity. Mr. Shikess Will : Whatever you call them, it is their duty to levy the assessment and to spend it. Femher : Yes ; and it does not matter to them, as an assessment and spending body, whether the money is raised by a two-shUling rate over a thousand acres, which contains public and private property, or whether it is raised by a heavier rate over a smaller area after excluding the site of public property. It does not matter to these assessors whether they levy £100,000 or £200,000. The Chaieman : They are not only assessors, but, in some degree, the representatives of the ratepayers. Mr. Chandos-Leigii : Are they not the guar- dians of the poor rate-payers within the district of the combination board ? Pember : No ; they are the raisers and spenders of money, but it is not their own money, but that of the ratepayers, and they do not represent the ratepayers. The Chaieman : They are elected to represent the ratepayers. Femher : But only for the purpose specified in the Act. Mr. Hbaly : Is it not the interest of every assessing body to levy a low rate ? Femher •• No ; only if they happen also to be the representatives of the pecuniary interest of the body assessed. These people are rate- payers in Edinburgh, and represented by the corporation. Graham Muiray : That is not so ; I represent people who are not in Edinburgh. Femher : Then I cannot rate you at all. Mr. Healy : That is not the question. You increase the amount that a ratepayer outside Edinburgh has to pay by lessening the area over which taxes can be levied in Edinburgh. The Chaieman : I think that point exceed- ingly important, because here clearly the interest of Edinburgh is to exempt as many as they can of themselves, and they assess people outside Edinburgh. Femher : Then persons outside might come and petition by themselves, it does not give this body a locus standi. By sect. 17 of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845, it is enacted that " In every burghal parish or combination of parishes, there shall be a parochial board of managers of the poor, and the whole administration of the law for the relief of the poor shall be under the direction and control of such parochial board, on whom shall devolve aU the powers and authorities hitherto exercised by, or vested in, the magistrates of burghs, in that behalf, or any other body, or persons administering or entitled to administer the laws for the relief of the poor in any burgh or burghal parish." Then the section provides for the constitution and election of the board of such parish or combination : "The persona assessed for the support of the poor within the parish or combination shall elect in manner after - mentioned to be members of the parochial board, such number of managers not being more than thirty, as the said board of supervision having due regard to the population and other circumstances of every such parish or combination may from time to time fix, and possessing such qualification by the ownership or occupancy of lands and heritages of a certain annual value within the parish or combination, as the said board of supervision having due regard to the population and other circumstances may from time to time fix, such qualification being in no case fixed at a higher annual value than fifty pounds to be ascertained in manner hereinafter provided in regard to the qualification of voters, and the magistrates of the borough shall nominate four persons to be members of the parochial board, and the Kirk session of each parish shall nominate not exceeding four members of such Kirk session to be members of the parochial board ; " and sect. 33 enacts that, " It shall be lawful for the parochial board of any parish or combination assembled at such meeting Part I.] edinbuegh Municipal and poLicb bill. 65 or at any adjournment thereof, or for the parochial board of any parish or combination at any meeting of such board called for that purpose, and of which due notice shall have been given by letter advertisement or otherwise to all the persons entitled to attend, to resolve that the funds requisite for the relief of the poor persons entitled to relief from the parish or combination, including the expenses con- nected with the management and administra- tion thereof shall be raised by assessment, and if the majority of such meeting shall resolve that the funds shall be raised by assessment such resolution shall be final, and shall be forthwith reported to the board of supervision, and it shall not be lawful to alter or to depart from such resolution without the consent and authority of the board of supervision previously had and obtained." I admit that if the result in the change of the law proposed in clause 78 of this bill is to make persons outside Edinburgh pay more than they otherwise would in the pound, be it large or small, they are entitled somehow to be heard, but not through their combination, because it is not the business of the combination to represent the pecuniary interest of their electors. The CHAiKiaAN : I do not see why not. Pember : They do not represent the ratepayers of Edinburgh for any purpose except to levy certain rates and spend the money. The petitioners say in paragraph 7 (a) " it is contrary to pubUc policy to limit by a local bill the statutory powers of assessment conferred upon petitioners by Act of Parliament." The bill does not limit their statutory powers, but what it does is to say on behalf of the whole of Edinburgh, of which they are a part, that certain amendments in this law as affecting the ratepayers of Edinburgh generally are worth having, and their interests are exactly the same as the general interests of the ratepayers. The Chaikjian : It is quite conceivable that one part of Edinburgh has more of these buildings proposed to be exempted than another part, and the bill may be unfair to one part as against another. Why should not each part be heard for itself ? Pember : Batepayers can only be heard against the seal of their corporation if they caa show that they have a special interest apart from and hostile to the rest of the rate- payers ; you have from time to time let them in. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : A certain body say here that in a particular district they have a special interest, and they appear by their representative body, the combination board. Pember : No, they do not say that. If there had been a meeting of the ratepayers saying that the combination board or the parochial board should appear to represent their pecu- niary interests, that would be a different matter, but the combination board have taken upon themselves to appear here and say they represent the ratepayers. If they were to say a change is going to be brought about which will interfere with our power of levying rates and spending the money and relieving the poor, that would be a perfectly different case. The Chaibman : It strikes me that in Scot- land there never is a doubt as to these boards representing the ratepayers. Mr. Shikess Will: That is how the case strikes me. Pember : They represent the ratepayers for certain definite statutory purposes ; what they are claiming to do is to be the custodians of the purses of the ratepayers. Mr. BoNHAM - Caktek : Paragraph 7, sub- sect, (c), of the petition of the parochial board claims a distinct interest on the part of the ratepayers of the city parish as against the ratepayers of the whole municipality. Pember ; Yes ; I do not say the petition con- tains an insufficient allegation of injury if this body represents the pecuniary interests of the ratepayers. The whole question is whether these bodies are the proper persons to allege it. Mr. Shieess Will : Why did you make them defenders to the action to which reference has been made ? Pember : Because they are the assessors, and we thought they were making a wrongful assessment, and we were therefore bound to treat them as the persons to be proceeded against ; that does not show they represent the pecuniary interests of St. Cathbert's. The Chaieman : I think they were necessarily made defenders in the action. Pember : The case of The Metropolitan Rail- icays Bill was different to this. There a rail- way company was coming to destroy a great amount of rateable property in a certain parish, and the representatives of the parish said we are going to suffer, and for this reason they were heard ; whereas in the present case this is a proceeding by the municipal body, of whom these ratepayers are the constituents. If the petitioners were custodians of the purse and interests of the ratepayers I should con- cede that they are entitled to a locus standi ; but that is what I deny. The Chaieman : As you admit that if these people were the proper representatives they should be heard, so you need not go into the 96 COURT OF EEFEREES. [Vol. 1. Mr. Bonham-Caktek : Who do you say would represent the ratepayers in this particular parish if they had separate and distinct interests ? Pember : They must in such a case represent themselves in the same way as traders and freighters do ; they could have a group of rate- payers, but they have not done this. The Chaikman : Here a change is going to be made in the statute law at the instance of private promoters and a parish whose rate- payers are going to be specially affected, and the promoters contend that the ratepayers should have called a meeting and shown that it was a sufficiently representative one. The Court is very much impressed by the exact wording of sect. 17 of the Act of 1845, the wording of which is very wide: " There shall be a parochial board of managers of the poor, and the whole administration of the laws for the relief of the poor shall be under the direc- tion and control of such parochial board, on whom shall devolve all the powers and autho- rities hitherto exercised by or vested in the magistrates of burghs in that behalf or any other body or persons administering or entitled to administer the laws for the relief of the poor in any burgh or burghal parish." Pember : That limits it to administration, and to defend the pecuniary interests of the rate- payers is not administration of the poor laws. I should say the same if this were an English board of guardians or overseers of the poor. The Chairman : The Locus Standi of both Peti- tioners is Disalloiiied, except as regards the part of the bill in question, i.e., clause 78, and so much of the preamble as relates thereto. The chairman of the police and sanitary com- mittee will be informed that the Court does not give any locus standi on the question of past legislation. Whether the Committee them- selves have the power of going into the question is not for us to decide. Locus Standi Allowed accordingly. Agents for Petitioners (1), Grahames, Currey and Spens. Agents for Petitioners (2), /tcfjjJHf/ d- Gloag. Petition of (3) Tex School Board of Edin- BUEOH. Exemption of Public Buildings from Poor-Rate — School Board — Collection of School-Rate by Parochial Boards also Petitioning against Bill. The school board of Edinburgh, whose district was oo-extensive with that of the two petitioning parochial boards (1 and 2) also petitioned against the bill on the same general ground as those boards, upon whom the school board served a pre- cept for the amount of the school-rate required by them, and the rate was then collected by the parochial boards with the poor-rate, and handed over to the school board who applied it in payment of sohool expenses. The petitioners claimed to be heard (1) on account of loss of rateable value to their district, and (2) as owners of school buildings, upon which an addi- tional poor-rate would be levied in conse- quence of the exemptions proposed by the bill, and whose value would be accordingly depreciated : Held, however, that the petitioners were not entitled to be heard on ground (1) in addi- tion to the parochial boards who repre- sented the ratepayers of the same dis- trict; and that as to ground (2), apart from the question of whether the addi- tional taxation apprehended by them was of sufficient amount to be tahen into consideration in deciding the question of their locus standi, the petitioners had no separate interests from other owners of property. The locus standi of the petitioners (3), was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petitioners do not allege in their petition, nor is it the fact that any lands or other property belonging to them, or in which they are interested, will be taken or interfered with under the powers of the bill ; (2) the petitioners do not set forth in their petition, nor do they possess any interest, entitling them to be heard against the bill; (3) the petitioners do not allege that they represent, nor is it the fact that they do represent, either the parochial board of the City Parish of Edinburgh, or the parochial board of St. Cuthbert's combination, Edinburgh, or the ratepayers of Edinburgh, or the owners or occupiers of property in Edin- burgh, liable to be assessed for the relief of the poor, or for school-rate ; (4) the petitioners do not allege that they possess any powers of assessment, nor do they, in fact, possess any such powers which will be interfered with by the bill ; nor do they allege, and it is not the fact, that any rights, powers, jurisdictions, or functions of the petitioners are, or are proposed Part I.] Edinburgh municipal and police bill. 97 to be, affected or interfered with by the bill ; (5) the petitioners are not entitled to be heard on paragraphs 6 and 7 of their petition, inasmuch as the objection which the petitioners raise in the said paragraphs is an objection to prior legislation, and, moreover, the subject of the objection is not raised by or contained within tl;p powers or provisions of the bill, nor does the bill impose any new obligations on the petitioners, and the petitioners have no interest and they are not entitled to be heard in support of the allegations of the said paragraphs ; (6) the petitioners do not possess, and at all events do not show by their petition, that they possess any interest intended to be affected by the bill which entitles them, according to the practice of Parliament, to be heard against it. Pembroke Stephens, Q.C. (for petitioners (3) ) : The school board stands, to a great extent, upon the same footing as the parochial boards, who levy the school board rate, but have no Interest in it, and are mere collectors of the money, and hand it over for administration by the school board. Our school district happens to coincide with that of the two petitioning parochial boards. Mr. Heaiy : It was argued that the parochial board did not represent the pecuniary interest of the ratepayers. How far is that the case with the school board ? Pembroke Stephens : The promoters certainly do not represent us. If the rates had been burgh rates, it would have been a different matter. Mr. Heait : Is there any limit to the amount of the school board rate ? Pembroke Stephens : No; but the effect is this : directly you take away a certain area of taxa- tion, you must levy a higher rate on what remains, so the iojury is the same as if they took so many acres off our taxing area. Mr. Healt : Do the parochial boards levy the school board rate separately? Is it called school board rate ? Pembroke Stephens : Yes. The poor-rate is the basis of the school board rate, and for convenience the arrangement is that these parochial boards who collect the poor-rate should also, from the same people, collect the school board rate. We present our precept to the parochial board and the money is paid over to us to administer, just as the parochial board administer the poor-rate, and except that the collection of the school-rate is for convenience in the hands of the parochial board, the change in our position is just the same qiia school rate as in the case of the parochial board qud poor-rate, and whatever exemption is made from the one would equally be made from the other. We are a school board with 25 or 30 blocks of buildings in Edinburgh, and the district belongs to us for school board purposes, and we are as much owners of our school buildings as any other owner of property. We are affected in two ways : we require rates for school board purposes, and we are also owners liable to rates for poor-rate purposes, therefore we are not merely affected by the interference of this bill with our rates, but by creating an entirely new class of exemptions from poor-rate and school board rate, those who do not get the exemption will have their property depreciated in value by the higher rates they will have to pay. Therefore, we are not only in the same position as the parochial board are of being injured by a diminution of the receipts we should get out of our rates, but we should also be injured, as individual owners, by the increase of taxation that would be put upon us. Mr. Shiress Will : The parochial board are the guardians of what I will call the poor law valuation, and they are the persons to protect the poor-rate, and we have given them a Incus standi to protect the poor-rate. You say they also collect the school board rate. Pembroke Stephens : Yes, but they have nothing to do with the constituency to the school board, or the expenditure of the amounts raised by them for us. They merely collect the rate. Pember: This was all fought out in the London Riverside Fish Market Bill, 1882, on the petition of the School Board for London (8 Clifford and Eickards, 182). Mr. Chandos-Leigh : There is the later case of the Swansea Corporation Bill, 1889, on the petition of the School Board for the Parish of Llansanilet Higher in the County of Glamorgan (Eickards & Michael, 303). Pembroke Stephens : In that case there seemed to be in the minds of more than one member of the Court an idea that just as the sanitary authority was the body to represent a locality on sanitary matters, so the school board were the proper people to represent the district where any school board question arose. The Chaibman : I think there is a difference between taking away a territorial district and taking away certain buildings. Stephens : The remarks that fell from the Court in that case seemed to show that to their minds there was a representative character about the school board itself. The Chaibman : What was involved then were educational interests. Here I think the educa- tional interest involved is very small indeed. Q 98 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. It might amount to the one-tenth of a penny in the rate. Stephens : I submit that the school hoard are in a representative capacity, so far as the bill can affect their functions, powers or school-rates. It is our money that is dealt with, and we are also the owners of property. The Chairman : As owners you are very much on the footing of other owners. Stephens : As an owner I am entitled to be heard, because the incidence of both the poor- rate and the school board rate is proposed to be altered upon my property. My rateable value is over £13,000, and I pay in total rates about £1,950 a year. Against the ArtUans and Lahmirers Dwellings (Scotland) Provisional Order (Leith) Bill, 1880, on the petition of James Barrie and James Heddle (2 Clifford & Rickards, 233), the petitioners were heard as owners of rateable property which would be made liable to additional taxation on account of the bill. The Chairman : We regard the school board as representatives not so much of pecuniary interests as of educational interests. In one sense the parochial board are to be heard about the school-rate, because they have to collect it for you. Mr. Healy : They cannot possibly defend themselves without defending yoii. Stejihens : There is the further question now raised by this bill with regard to the principle of exemptions generally : it is exemption of public buildings. Surely we are represen- tatives of public buildings ? Mr. Healy : You are now about to ask for a locus standi to put something into the bill. Stephens : We submit that clause 78, sub- sect. 3, bringing about an alteration of existing legislation at the instance of the promoters does not go far enough. We are proprietors of 25 or 80 public buildings in diiierent parts of Edinburgh as much entitled to exemption as all those buildings mentioned in sect. 70 of the Edinburgh Municipal and Police Act, 1879. I am here on behalf of all the schools in Edinburgh asking to be heard as a class. Can it be said that in this special case of Edinburgh (which is not like the case of the country at large) where there are these special exemptions and where they are proposed to be brought under review by the promoters that we, as owning a class of public buildings, are not to be heard ? That would exclude the very question upon which the Committee would naturally want information. Here is the school board which upon a matter affecting the whole of the schools in Edinburgh has something to say. This is not merely a collective interest ; this is a case of a class in itself. A class of traders is heard as a class where there is anything that may affect their particular interests. Here is a provision in this bill exempting all the other buildings mentioned in sect. 70 of the Act of 1879. The Chaiesun : That claim to re-open the legislation of 1870 has been already settled in discussing the locus standi of the parochial boards. We need not call upon the promoters. The Locus Standi of the School Board is Disallowed. Agents for Petitioner, Durnford & Go. Petition of (4) The Edinburgh. Street Tbamways Company. Pra-ctice — Right of Petitioners to be heard against Clauses of Bill as Amended for Committee. The petitioners had in their petition objected to certain clauses of the bill, but these clauses had been struck out of the amended bill, and other clauses had been inserted, to one of which the petitioners objected as pre- serving their obligations, but not their rights, under the Tramways Act, 1870. The practice of the Court being to allow petitioners to be heard against a bill as deposited, a discussion took place as to their right to be heard against a clause inserted in the bill as amended for Com- mittee subsequently to its deposit. After - some discussion counsel for the promoters undertook to insert a saving clause in the form required by the petitioners, who there- upon withdrew their claim iomlocus standi except as against certain clauses of the bill, as to which their right to be heard was conceded by the promoters. Semble, a petitioner is entitled to be heard against clauses affecting him in a bill as amended for Committee. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petitioners do not allege in their petition nor is it the fact that any lauds or other property belonging to them or in which they are interested will be taken or interfered with under the powers of the bill ; (2) the petitioners are not entitled to be heard against clauses 32 PaeT I.] EDINBUEGH MUNICIPAL AND POLICE BILL. 99 and 33 of tlie bill, inasmuch as the streets and roads within the city of Edinburgh are not vested in or under the control and management of the petitioners, and the sole control and management of the same are within the jurisdiction and powers of the corporation of Edinburgh, and no interest, right or functions of the petitioners will be affected or interfered with by the said clauses of the bill ; (3) the bill does not contain any clauses or provisions directly or indirectly affecting or relating to the provisions of the Acts of the petitioners, nor to the rights, authorities and functions conferred on local authorities by the Tramways Act, 1870, nor to the exercise of such powers by the local authority of Edinburgh, and the petitioners are not entitled to be heard on their petition against the bill on any of the said matters, and the petitioners are not entitled to import into the bill any such clauses or (Questions, nor to be heard thereon ; (4) if the petitioners are entitled to be heard at all, they are only entitled to be heard on clauses 64, 65 and 77 of the bill in so far as these clauses apply to the tramways of the petitioners, and the locus of the petitioners should in any event be restricted accordingly ; (5) the petitioners do not possess, and at all events do not show by their petition that they possess, any interest intended to be affected by the bill which entitles them according to the practice of Parliament to be heard upon it. Meysey -Thompson (for petitioners) : Our locus standi is conceded against clauses 64 and 65 of the bill, which relate to the licensing and re- gulation of tramway cars and other public conveyances ; and against clause 77, which repeals certain provisions of the Edinburgh Municipal and Police Act, 1879, and the General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862, but in our petition we also object to clauses 32 and 33 of the bill. These clauses have been struck out of the bill as amended for Committee, and clauses inserted in substitution for them. We object to one of these clauses which professes to be a saving clause inserted for our protection, but which preserves our obligations under the Tramways Act, 1870, but not our rights. Pemher, Q.C. (for promoters) : The bill must be considered in the form in which it was intro- duced, so that you cannot "make any reference to the amended bUl. The Chairman : If the bill is drawn in a form which would give no locus standi, and is altered into a form which would give a locits standi, would the petitioners have no locus standi ? Pemher : The remedy would be that we should suffer on Standing Orders. Mr. Shieess Will : I understand the practice to be this — that if, in your filled up bill, you remedy the objection made by a petitioner, that does not deprive him of his locus standi, because he is entitled to go before the Com- mittee to see that the bill is so altered as to remove his objection ; but I do not think we have ever decided that a petitioner cannot say, " The clauses are bad enough in the bill as brought in, but see what they are going to do by amending the bill ; they are going to make it worse." Pemher : To meet the objection of the peti- tioners I will undertake to insert in the bill the following amended saving clause: "Nothing in this Act contained shall prejudice or affect any rights, privileges, provisions, and obliga- tions conferred, imposed, or incumbent upon the Edinburgh Street tramways company or the Edinburgh Northern tramways company respectively." Meysey-Ttwmpson : On that undertaking I agree to withdraw my claim to be heard against clauses 32 and 33 of the bill as deposited. The Chaiesian : The Locus Standi of the Petitioners will therefore be Disallowed, ex- cept as against clauses 64, 65, and 97 of the bill (as conceded) and so much of the preamble as relates thereto. Agents for petitioners, Bees <£• Frere. Petition of (5) Cokpoeation op Leith. In this case, clause 22 and sub-sect. 7 of clause 62 of the bill, to which the petitioners objected, had been struck out of the bill at the instance of some other petitioners, and counsel for the bill undertook that they should not be reinstated in Committee. After some discussion as to the right of the petitioners' parliamentary agent to enter an appearance on their behalf at a late hour during the sitting of the Court, the agent decided, upon the above undertaking being given, not to do so, and the Locus Standi of the Petitioners was accordingly Disallowed. Kennedy, parliamentary agent (of Durnford and Co.), appeared for the Petitioners. Petition of (6) the Edinbuegh and Leith Hebitable Pkopeety Association, the Edinbuegh and Leith Master Buildees' Association, the Edinburgh and Leith House Factors' Association, and op Individual G 2 100 COtJET OF REFEEEBS. [Vol. I. OwNEiis OF Pkopeety, Batepayeks and othebs IN THE CITY OF EdINBUKGH. Police and Sanitary Proinxions — Additional Taxation — Voluntary Association of Land- moncrs, Builders, dc— Individual Owners and ers. The petition was signed by the presidents and secretaries of certain associations of owners of property, builders, and house factors, and individually by these officers and certain other individuals as owners and occupiers of property in Edinburgh, which would be subjected to increased taxation and restrictions as to building by the provisions of the bill. The pro- moters admitted the locus standi of such of the petitioners as were individually the owners and occupiers of property affected by the bill, but objected to the locus standi of the associations, on the ground that they were mere voluntary and unincor- porated bodies, who did not even allege in the petition that qua associations they were the owners of property affected by the bill: Held, that such of the petitioners as were themselves owners or occupiers of property affected were entitled to be heard; but that the lociis standi of the associations must be disallowed. The locus standi of the petitioners (6) was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petitioners do not allege in their petition nor is it the fact that any lands or other property belonging to them, or in which they are interested, will be taken or interfered with under the powers of the bill ; (2) the petitioners, the Edinburgh and Leith heritable property association, the Edinburgh and Leith master builders' association, and the Edinburgh and Leith house factors' association are not entitled to be heard on the said petition against the bill, inasmuch as (1) the said associations are not incorporated, and are not represented by the persons signing the petition on behalf of the said association respectively; (2) the said persons so signing do not possess any mandate or power of attorney or authority entitling or authorising them to sign the said petition on behalf of the said respective associations, or of any persons composing the same ; (3) the petition does not allege or show any such authority as would entitle such persons to sign the said petition on behalf of the said associa- tions, or of persons composing the same or any of them ; (4) the petition is not duly or sufficiently signed by the said associations, or by persons authorised in that behalf as required by the rules of Parliament, and the salid asso- ciations are not entitled, nor are any persons composing the same entitled to appear and be heard on the said petition against the bill ; (3) the individual petitioners are not entitled to be heard on the said petition inasmuch as (1) they do not allege that they represent, nor do they in fact represent, the owners or occupiers of property in Edinburgh or the ratepayers of Edinburgh; (2) they are not sufficient either in number or value to entitle them to represent such owners or occupiers or ratepayers ; and (3) they do not specifically allege or show that any of their property rights or interests will be interfered with or affected by the bill ; (4) nor do the said petitioners represent nor are they entitled to be heard on behalf of the population of Edinburgh, or the interests of the city of Edinburgh, or the citizens of Edinburgh, and they are not entitled to appear in support of any of those interests ; (5) the petition contains no such allegations, and does not show such interest as by the rules of Parliament entitles the petitioners to be heard on the said petition ; (6) the promoters, the corporation of Edinburgh under their common seal, represent the rate- payers and the community of Edinburgh and the interests of the city, and the petitionees have set forth no grounds entitling them to be heard against the seal of the corporation on any of the matters set forth in the said petition ; (7) the petitioners do not possess, and at all events do not show by their petition that they possess, any interest intended to be affected by the bill which entitles them, according to the practice of Parliament, to be heard upon it. Leslie, parliamentary agent (for petitioners) : Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the petition describe whom we are. The object of the bill is to confer upon the corporation of Edinburgh additional powers as regards sanitation, build- ing improvements, and street improvements and other matters which we allege collectively and individually impose additional burdens upon us as owners, and we therefore claim a locus standi. I cite as an authority in my favour the Huddersfield Water and Improvement Bill, 1876, on the petition of the Trustees of the Charity Estates of the late John, Armytage (1 Clifford and Eickards, 230). Mr. Shikess Will : There was a stronger case, that of the Edinburgh Municipal and ' ^ Part I.J edinbuegh municipal and POLICE BILL. :^^101 Police Bill, 1879, on the petition of John Hope (2 Clifford & Eickards, 149). There a single petitioner was allowed a locus standi. Femher, Q.C. (for promoters) : I do not ob- ject to an owner being heard. The Chairman : Seven of the petitioners sign as proprietors and occupants. Peniber : I do not object to them. Leslie : All the persons who petition sign as Individuals ; the presidents and secretaries of associations say they sign as individuals as well as on behalf of these associations, and they are also owners, though this is not stated. Mr. Shiijess Will : Then the question is whether we can recognise the associations. Peniber : We do not contend that there were not proper meetings of the associations. Leslie : I will call the secretary of the Edin- burgh and Leith heritable property association to show that it is a very important association. Peniber ; I do not say that it may not be on a very large scale, but I say it is nothing more than a voluntary association, and not incor- porated. I admit that the presidents and secretaries may be heard as individuals, be- cause they are owners, but I do not admit their right to a locus standi as representatives. Leslie : The rental represented by the Edin- burgh and Leith heritable property associa- tion is £400,000, and it is composed of ninety members who are very important owners of property in Edinburgh. I cite the following cases in my favour : — The Great Western Hallway Bill, 1877, on the petition of Traders, Freighters, djc. (2 Clifford & Eickards, 18) ; The London and North-Western Bailioay Bill, 1880, on the petition of the Mining Association of Great Britain and the . Bridgwater Trustees, ih. 284; The Southwark and Vauxhall Water Bill, 1880, on the petition of the Corporation of Kimjston- iipon-Thames, ib. 315 ; The London and North- Western Eailwaxj (Additional Powers) Bill, 1883 (3 Clifford & Eickards, 302) ; The London and North-Western Railway Bill, 1884, on the petition of Steamship Owners' Association and Irish Steam- ship Owners' Association, ih. 415. I submit that an association of builders or owners associated together to protect their common right are entitled to be heard against this bill, which very materially affects their rights. The Chaibman : What the promoters contend is that at a meeting of the association they might agree with each other with regard to opposition to the bill, and then as individuals they could be heard, but they must not call themselves associations. Leslie : There is no reason in principle why we should not petition in this way. Peniber : There are two builders' asso6i3,fe6ns, '■, they are not ratepayers; and* th§r© are two''- ' factors' associations, who are house agfe|t,ts.,' "'■■ ' Leslie : I cannot press for a locus standi for the factors' associations, but I do for the builders' associations, because they are owners. Mr. Heal-y ; But they are not associations, qua owners, but qua builders. Leslie: If I go before a Committee with a petition representing half-a-dozen gentlemen, though they may represent a very considerable interest, it would not have the weight that a petition representing £400,000 a year of rental would. Peniber (in reply) : I admit the locus standi of all the petitioners who are owners as indi- viduals, but I submit that this Court has always drawn a very broad distinction between traders and freighters and other persons. These are mere voluntary associations of landowners who wish to petition generally against the bill. They are not incorporated bodies. A landowner has a right to petition, to preserve his own interest, and several landowners may, for convenience, join in u, petition, but each landowner has only a right to say the bill should not pass, because it interferes with his particular interest ; and in the petition he must set up bona fide his own right and his own grievance. I submit that a mere voluntary association saying they are an association of landowners has no right to be heard ; the petition does not say their property is taken, or that the property of the association qua association is touched, but they go into the general question of public policy and travel over the whole of the bill. The petition does not allege that the building trade is affected. The Chairman : I was thinking" at the time of a speculative builder. Pember : He would appear as an owner of property, not qua builder. The Chairman : "SReAlloio the Locus Standi of Individual Owners, and Disallow the Locus Standi of the Associations. Agents for Petitioners, Martin & Leslie. Agent for Bill, Bevcridge. 102 COURT OP REFEREES. [Vol. I. FOLKESTONE, SANDGATE AND HYTHE TRAMWAYS BILL. Petition of The South or England Tkle- PHONE Company, Limited. 2na March, ISQl.— {Before Mr. Pakkek, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shieess Will, Q.C, M.I'.; J'lie Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.G. ; and Mr. Bonham-Cabter.) Extension of Time for Construction of Trcwmays — Power to Use Electricity conferred on Pro- moters by previous Acts — Telejylione Comxmmj 'without Statutory Powers — Claim for Insertion of Protective Clauses. The bill extended the time for the opening of tramways authorised by Acts obtained by the promoters in 1884, 1886 and 1888, and for the completion of tramways authorised by an Act obtained by them in 1889. The promoters had first obtained powers of working their tramways by electricity in 188G, and these powers had been made applicable to tramway extensions author- ised in 1888 and 1889 by the promoters' Acts of those dates, but up to the present time they had not exercised those powers, not having, in fact, opened any of their tram- ways for public use. The petitioners were a telephone company, without statutory powers, carrying on business under license from the Postmaster-General between the same places as those connected by the promoters' tramways, and having their wires carried in close proximity to those tramways. They asked to be heard in order to obtain the insertion in the bill of clauses for the protection of their wires from injury from leakage and induction arising from the use of electricity upon the tramways ; and they alleged as a reason for their not having opposed the bills which had conferred powers of em- ploying electric motive power upon the tramway company, the fact that their knowledge, like that of the rest of the public with regard to electricity, was not sufficiently advanced at the time those bills were before Parliament, while it had largely Increased since that date, and that during the last two years similar protec- tive clauses for telephone companies had been inserted in numerous bills and provi- sional orders authorising the use .of elec- tricity upon tramways, the power to use which, although authorised in some cases for many years, was now for the first time being put into operation by tramway companies : Held, that this being an exceptional case, owing to the change which had taken place in scientific knowledge and its practical appli- cation since the promoters had obtained their original powers of using electric power upon their tramways, the petitioners were entitled to a locus standi to ask for a protective clause. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds: (1) no property, rights or interests of the petitioners are taken or interfered with under the powers of the bill ; (2) the works in respect of which the petitioners seek to be protected have already been authorised by previous Acts of Parliament, and if such works in any way affect or interfere with any property, rights, or interests of the petitioners (which the promo- ters deny to be the. case), such affecting or interference is the result of past legislation, and does not entitle the petitioners to be heard against the bill ; (3) the petitioners have no such interest in the subject-matter of the bill as entitles them to be heard against the same. Pemher, Q.C. (for petitioners) ; This is a bill to extend the respective times for completing and opening certain tramways authorised to be constructed by the Folkestone, Sandgate and, Hythe tramways company, and for other purposes. The petitioners are a company carrying on a large business, under license from the Postmaster-General for a long term, in supplying telephonic communications to the public by means of the telephone exchange system, and also by means of private lines in an area including the greater part of Kent. The growth of our business is entirely modern, a very large proportion of our wires having been laid down since 1889, and if we cannot get the protective clauses for which we ask we shall be absolutely powerless. In 1886 this company first took power to work in the ordinary form their tramway by electricity or any other motive power. At that time electric science and knowledge was far more imperfect than it is now, and we did not oppose, nor had PaET I.J FOLKESTONE, SANDGATE AND HYTHE TRAMWAYS BILL, 103 we then the knowledge which would have warranted us in asking for the protection we now do, and last year especially there were several cases in which telephone companies obtained protective clauses of the same kind as v/e should ask for here. We did not appear in 1886 or in 1888 or in 1889, but recently a very great change and improvement, both in electrical knowledge and its applica- tion, has been brought about, and the tramway company intend to work their line by electricity, and put into practice for the first time those powers which, though they have been on the statute-book for years, have been practically a dead letter. Together with this advance in electrical knowledge comes the discovery of the damage which one set of electrical currents can do to another ; the two great ways in which this damage is effected are one by leakage, the other by induction, and in no case is the danger so great as in the case of tramway currents, because the way in which they use the earth with high power as a return for their circuit causes disturbance in every direction to telegraph wires, and more particu- larly to telephone wires, as they are conducted with very small currents at low tension, and the instruments with which you listen and into which you speak are of a most sensitive order ; consequently a tramway company using the earth as a means of return for their circuit use it in such a way as to make it useless to their neighbours, the telegraphs and telephones, but more especially the telephones. This bill is in effect a revival of powers, because the powers expire so soon, that the company could not, unless they obtained an extension of time, open their tramways for use with electric power within the prescribed period. We do not ask that an extension of time should not be given, nor do we seek to review or reverse the legislation of 1886, 1888 and 1889, which conferred the electric powers upon the pro- moters, but we ask to be put in the same position by a protective clause now as we should have been in when the former bills passed, if we, in common with the public, had known then what we know now of the gigantic effect upon such things as telephones of leakage and induction. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : Will you give us the names of any Tramway Acts in which the clause you propose to insert has been inserted ? Pember : In all the following bills this clause or something very like it was inserted : — Plijviouth Tramways, Lea Bridge, Leyton and Walthamstow, South Staffordshire Tramways, City ami Southwark Railway, North Metropolitan Tramways, Penzance and Newgate Tramways, Glasgow District Siihumys, )Vestern-Su])er-Mare Tramways, Wellingborough and District Tram- xoays, Torriiigton and Wal2Jole Tramroads, Lan- caster and District Tramicays, Gosport, Alverstoke and Oldham Trannoays, Tony Local Board Tramways, Poole and Bonrnemoutli Tramways, Bradford and District Tramways, Drypool and Marjieet Tramways. The clause provides that the tramway company shall not construct their electric circuits in such a way as to injuriously affect the wires of telephone companies, with a reference to the Board of Trade in case of dispute as to whether the proposed construction of electric circuits is calculated to injuriously affect telephone wires. \_A clause of this kind loas here handed in by the learned counsel.] The Chaieman : Your own proviso in this clause says, with regard to future wires, that the Act shall only apply if you have taken reasonable precautions in the protection of your wires, and then the question arises, have you protected your wires against existing ones? and you say no, because science was not sufHoiently advanced. Pember : Yes. The Chaibman: You took what precaution you considered reasonable in that state of scientific linowledge ? Pember: Yes; and we say under the circumstances that it would be hard if, because we did not appeal in 1866 and 1888 and 1889, therefore we shall not get any protection when the company comes for an extension of time. The declaration of Parliament by putting such a clause in so many bills has been precise and distinct to the effect that a claim is salutary, not only in the interests of the company, but of the public. The Chaibman : I think there is something in your point that though you are not repre- senting the public except indirectly, still you are asking for a locus standi not in the interests of the company only, but in the interests of the public who use the telephone. Worsley -Taylor, Q.C. (for promoters) ; If our tramways are to be used under such clauses as the petitioners propose it will enormously add to the cost of construction and of the working of these tramways, and will involve us in liabilities not contemplated when we undertook our obligations in 1888 and 1889, and we submit that a petitioner on a mere extension of time bill is not entitled to come and seek to alter a Parliamentary contract which he might have got varied at the time when it was made. The Chaibman : I do not think you must lay that down too broadly, because things may happen in the course of time, and if a company 104 COUBT OF EEFEREES. [Vol. I. does not complete its works within a given time and comes for an extension of time you have to consider what may have happened since it obtained its original Act. Worsley-Taylor : The authorities show that where there is a mere naked extension of time there is no locus standi, unless it is sliown that injury will follow to the petitioners from the extension of time itself, and in this case this does not arise from the extension of time, hut from the exercise of our rights under past legislation. The last specific authorisation of working by electricity over a new piece of line was in 1889, and the promoters have shown that the clauses they propose to insert' in this bill were actually inserted in a number of bills of that year, and yet they did not ask for a similar clause in one Act of that year, and now say that they did not know quite so much then as they do now. We submit' that they are estopped from appearing against us on an extension of time bill, and that there is nothing to take this case out of the ordinary rule. The promoters further submit that it is very doubtful whether the petitioners have a locus standi as their petition does not allege that they have any statutory rights ; they are mere licensees of the Postmaster-General to carry on the telephone business in Kent. The Chaibman : They have an existing interest acquired in other than a statutory way, and the petitioners say it concerns the public a great deal to maintain that. )VorsleTj-2'aylor : Then the guardian of the public in this matter is the Postmaster-General, whose licensees the promoters are. Mr. Shikess Will : As I understand, in 1889 the tramway company were in Parliament asking power to construct fresh tramways, and their bill passed, there being no opposition from this telephone company. In the same session of Parliament the telephone company or other telephone companies were quite alive to the mischief which they now apprehend, because they opposed other tramways, and got a similar clause to the one that was inserted in the bUl. Worsley-Taylor : It comes to this : is a man allowed to say, though all the scientific world knew of this danger, I chose not to enquire into it or shut my eyes to it, and I am to be allowed to come afterwards and open up past legislation. The Chairman : The Court consider this an exceptional case, owing to the change which has taken place both in scientific knowledge and in the practical applications of it, since the time when the promoters got their Acts ; and under the circumstances they grant a Locus Standi to ask for a clause, but they wish to say that they express no opinion as to the extent to which any protective clause that might be asked for by the Telephone Company should go, which is a matter for the Committee. , Agents for Petitioner, Martin d- Leslie. Agents for Bill, 7?. If. Coajjer cC- Sons and C. E. Mortimer. FOEFAK AND BEBCHIN EAILWAY BILL. Petition of (1) The Peovost, Magistrates and Town Council oe Fobeak, the Eabl of Steathmoee, James Taylob, and Manu- EACTDEEES AND TeADEES IN FOEFAR. 16th March, 1891.— (Be/ore Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman; Tfte JIo?i.E.CHANDOs-LEi&H, Q.C.; and Mr. Bonham-Caetee.) Abandonment of Railicay Authorised by Bill of Prerious Session, and Authorisation of another Railway in Substitution — Corporation of Scotch Burgh Alleging Injury to Town — Traders — Conversion of Local into Through Line — Loss of Present Bailway Facilities to Town at Present on Main Line — Support of Corporation to Bill of Previous Session — Breach of Faith — S. 0. 134 [Mnnicijml Authorities and Inhabit- ants of Toicns.} The bill empowered the promoters to abandon a short railway (No. 3) authorised by the Forfar and Brechin Eailway Act, 1890, and in substitution therefor to construct a railway described in the bill as Eailway No. 1 ; and to construct a further railway (No. 2) in extension of the main Hne authorised by the Act of 1890, to a point north of Brechin on the Caledonian rail- way, with which railway Railway No. 2 was to form a junction close to Marykirk station on the same railway. Eailway No. 3, of 1890, which was sought to be abandoned, was a short spur hue designed to continue the main line, Eailway No. 1, of the Act of 1890, between Brechin and Forfar, into the centre of the town of Forfar, where a station was to have been erected. Eailway No. 1, which it was proposed by the bill to substitute for this Part I.] FORFAR AND BRECHIN RAILWAY BILL. 105 railway, was a short railway commencing at a point a little south of Forfar on the Caledonian railway, and terminating by a junction with Railway No. 1, of the Act of 1891, and thus avoiding the town of Forfar altogether. The petitioners were the corporation of Forfar, the petition being also signed by the town clerk of Forfar in a private capacity as an occupier, and by a landowner, whose locus standi against the bill was conceded. The petitioners alleged injury to the town and trade of Forfar by the abandonment of Railway No. 3 of the Act of 1890, and the consequent loss to them of traf&o coming over the Forfar and Brechin railway, which would have been conveyed over Railway No. 3 into the centre of the town, and by the substitution for Railway No. 3 of a loop line avoiding Forfar, and really designed, as they contended, to form a new direct through route north and south in the hands of the Caledonian company, avoid- ing Forfar and leaving it to be served by a branch railway instead of being, as it was at present, a station on the main line of the Caledonian company. In support of this argument they referred to an agreement scheduled to the Forfar and Brechin Railway Act, 1890, between the promoters of that railway and the Caledonian company, whereby the Cale- donian company was to work the railway and become guarantors of a dividend upon the capital required for it. They further alleged that the alteration of the Act of 1890 by the bill was in breach of an understanding between the corporation and the promoters, under which the former supported the bill for the promoters' Act of 1890. The promoters contended that the petitioners would lose none of the substantial advantages of the scheme authorised in 1890, and that at the present time the Caledonian company were under no obligation to stop through trains passing northwards and southwards over their main line at Forfar station, and that the status of the petitioners as representing the interests of the burgh of Forfar would not be materially altered by the bill ; Held, however, that the petitioners were entitled to be heard generally against the bill. The loms standi of the petitioners (1) was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the burgh of Forfar and its inhabitants are not injuriously affected by the bill within the meaning of S. 0. 134 ; (2) the injuries alleged are not of the character contemplated by the S. 0., and are too remote and uncertain to entitle the corporation to be heard; (3) none of the proposed railways or any part of them will be constructed within the burgh, and it is not alleged or shown that any land, house, property, right or interest of the corporation will be taken or affected ; (4) it is not true, as alleged in the petition, that the corporation were induced to support the bill for the Forfar and Brechin Railway Act, 1890, by statements of a, misleading nature, and at variance with the scheme now submitted to Parliament ; (5) there are no provisions in the bUl injuri- ously affecting the corporation or the inhabit- ants of the burgh, and no grounds of objection are stated in the petition entitling them to be heard according to practice ; (6) as regards James Taylor, the petitioner does not specifically allege, nor has he in fact such interest in the objects and provisions of the bill as would confer a loms standi ; (7) no lauds or other property belonging to him, or in which he is interested, will be taken or interfered with under the powers of the bill ; (8) it is not true, as alleged in the petition, that he is the lessee and occupier of lands proposed to be taken or interfered with for the purposes of the pro- posed Railway No. 1 ; (9) he is not entitled to represent the inhabitants of the burgh, and there has not been, and could not be, any delegation to him of authority to represent them ; (10) as regards the traders, no lands or property of the traders are taken or used, and none of their rights and interests are interfered with ; (11) they are a section of the manu- facturers and traders in the burgh petitioning in their individual capacity, and do not in fact represent the manufacturers and traders of the burgh, many of whom are in favour of the bill ; (12) they are not entitled to be heard as repre- senting the traders or inhabitants of the burgh, as it is not alleged that the petition has emanated from any public meeting ; (13) they have no such interest in the bill as will confer a loms standi; (14) generally, as regards all of the said petitioners, the petition is based on a misapprehension of the intention and objects of the bill. Some of the statements in the petition are, in many respects, untrue and 106 COUKT OF EEFEEEES. [Vol. I. misleading, and no interest is disclosed entitling any of the said petitioners to appear according to practice ; (15) the apprehended diversion of traffic from the railways of the Caledonian railway company and of a diminution of the facilities of transit and travel at present afforded by that company to the inhabitants of the burgh is unfounded and conjectural, and in any case the allegations in that respect contained in the petition apply not to the promoters but to the Caledonian railway company, and cannot, therefore, entitle the petitioners to be heard; (16) the petitioners are not injuriously affected by, and are not entitled to object to the proposed abandonment of the promoters' authorised Eailway No. 3. The promoters' authorised Railway No. 4 will connect their line in a direct and convenient manner with the burgh and the existing station of the Caledonian railway company in Forfar ; (17) the petitioners do not possess, and at all events do not show, by their petition, that they possess any interest intended to be affected by the bill, which entitles them, according to the practice of Parliament, to be heard against it. Pembroke Stephens, Q.C. (for petitioners) : Clause 4 of the bill empowers the powers to construct the following railways : " A railway (No. 1) one mile four furlongs and one hundred and twenty-one yards or thereabouts in length, commencing in the parish of Glamis at a point three hundred and seventy yards or there- abouts from the centre of the bridge carrying the public road from Nether Drumyley to Kirriemuir, over the Caledonian railway com- pany's main line between Perth and Forfar, measured in an easterly direction, and termi- nating in t^e parish of Kirriemuir by a junc- tion with Eailway No. 1 of the authorised For- far and Brechin railway at a point four furlongs one hundred and forty-three yards from the commencement thereof." " A rail- way (No. 2) six miles two furlongs and one hundred and seventeen yards or there- abouts in length, commencing in the parish of Brechin by a junction with the termination of Eailway No. 1 of the authorised Forfar and Brechin railway, and terminating in the parish of Logic Pert, at a point six hundred and seventy yards from the centre of the bridge which carries the Caledonian ■ railway com- pany's main line from Perth to Aberdeen over the public road to Marykirk bridge, measured in a northerly direction." And clause 10 pro- vides that: "The company shall abandon and relinquish the construction of Eailway No. 3, authorised by the Act of 1890," that is the Forfar and Brechin Eailway Act, 1890. Eailway No. 1 of the bill is to take the place of the abandoned Eailway No. 3 of 1890, but the result to the petitioners (as representing For- far) of the substitution of one railway for the other is an important and unfavourable one. Sect. 5 of that Act thus describes Eailway No. 3, which is to be abandoned : "A raUway (No. 3) five furlongs and ten yards or there- abouts in length, wholly situate in the parish of Forfar, commencing in the said parish of Forfar at a point forty yards or thereabouts, measured in a north-westerly direction from the centre of Zoar bridge, which carries the public road from Forfar to Brechin over the Caledonian raUway company's main line between Perth and Forfar, and terminating at the intended point of commencement of railway No. 1." Eailway No. 3, therefore, was a short railway carrying Eailway No. 1, which was the main line authorised between Brechin and Forfar, but which terminated just outside Forfar, into the town of Forfar, where it terminated in a new station erected to accommodate traffic coming from Brechin over the new line into Forfar. The petition is signed by the proper representatives of the town, who are not merely representatives in the ordinary sense, but the representatives of " the common good." As regards the right of the corporation to represent the interests of the trade generally no question can arise. As regards the claim of the traders to appear on the same petition in addition to the corporation I can call evidence to show that the signatures are those of all the large traders in Forfar. {North Britishand Glasgow and South- western Eailway Companies Bill, 1890, Eickards and Saunders, supra, 50.) Lord Strathmore, who signs the petition, is the owner of land proposed to be taken compulsorily, and his locus standi is not objected to. Last year the line proposed was simply a Forfar and Brechin line, and nothing else, and ter- minated in a station in the centre of Forfar. By this bill the separate Forfar station is given up, Eailway No. 3, authorised by the Forfar and Brechin Railway Act, 1890, is abandoned, and a new loop line passing by and avoiding Forfar is added at the Forfar end, and a new extension line is added at the Brechin end, from Brechin to the Caledonian railway at Marykirk, so that a continuous line is for the first time proposed from a point north of and beyond Brechin, then by the line authorised last year to a point outside and avoiding Forfar and thence by a short new line authorised by the bill on to the Caledonian companies railway south of Forfar. What we say is, that under the Act of 1890 a purely Part I.] FORFAR AND BRECHIN RAILWAY BILL. 107 local line from Brechin to Forfar was authorised , but the line now proposed will be a new and shorter route for traffic going northwards from a point south of Forfar to Brechin and Mary- kirk which will not go to Forfar at all. Consequently, Forfar will no longer be on the main Caledonian line as it is now, and Forfar will lose a separate station altogether, and all the advantages of a separate and independent line, with stations of its own. We shall, consequently, lose many of the advantages which we expected by the Act of last year, the promoters of that Act, having obtained the name and advantage of the provost of Forfar, in support of their proposals on the express belief and understanding that this was to be a purely local line. This bill, in fact, seeks to create a new and virtually competitive line, as far as Forfar is concerned. The bill of last year brought traf&c to Forfar, by creating a new access to Forfar, whereas this bill creates u, new, competitive, and shorter route from north to south, and south to north, with- out passing through Forfar at all. In other words, the line sanctioned last year as a feeder to Forfar, is now to be converted into a line for diverting traf&c from Forfar, which must have passed through Forfar, under the bill of last year. This is clearly intended to be a through line, having through interests as distinct from local interests. The Chaieman: It seems to be opposed by the owners of the through line, the Caledonian company. Pembroke Stejihens : That is so, and I now come to the agreement between this company and the Caledonian company, which is dated 2nd July, 1890, up to which date this was purely an independent company, and an independent line. By this agreement which was scheduled to and confirmed by the Forfar and Brechin Railway Bill, 1890, in the Second House. Under it the Caledonian company are to be guarantees up to 3 J per cent., and are to work the railway and provide locomotive for doing so. I submit that this supphes a very good motive for the wish to get traf&c other than local trafi&c upon this line, and for making what was a purely local line part of a through shortened line in the hands of the Caledonian , while Forfar, which was on the main line of the Caledonian company, will no longer be so. We represent the interests of a great town, and claim to be heard against a charge in the character and class of the railway communica- tion, which is now proposed to be entirely altered by this bill, in breach of an undertaking entered into between the promoters and the corporation of Forfar last session. Now, with regard to the traders who petition. After the notices were given there was a representative meeting of Forfar traders, and resolutions against the bill were unanimously passed. Worsleij-Taylor, Q.C. (for promoters) : The real point is, can traders petition when the corporation appears and raises the same points ? The Chaibman : We say nothing as to a case where there might be two petitions. If these traders were appearing by a separate petition we should have to consider that, but they appear on the same petition. Pembroke Stephens : I am only contending for one joint petition. Having regard to what took place last session, and the totally diffe- rent character of -the proposal in this bill, I submit the town ought to be heard, and they can most conveniently be heard by the Provost of Forfar and Town Council as representative of " the common good," and by the traders as illustrative of the mischief caused by the withdrawal of the fast trains and facilities which they now possess. Worsley-Taylor : The petitioners state that they are entitled to a lou-as standi on the ground that we propose to abandon part of the line authorised last year, but that was a mere permissive power, and I know of no authority for a locits standi in such a case. The Chaieman : If it was abandonment of that line alone I do not know that they would be entitled to a locus standi, but when it -is abandonment with a view to substitute another line that alters the case. Worsley-Taylor : The real point, no doubt, is alteration of a line from a local to a through line, and not abandonment. The petitioners say that this was originally a line from Forfar to Brechin and that now we are going to ex- tend it, and that consequently the result may be that Forfar will be injured. The Chaieman: That it may be would be quite suf&cient ground to entitle him to argue it before the Committee on the bill. Worsley-Taylor : The question is, what damage wiU accrue to them if the bill passes, and whether that which they got last year will be taken from them ? The Chaieman : Not only what they got last year, but what they have had for a long time past, namely, the advantage of being on the Caledonian main line north and south. Worsley-Taylor : There was no necessity for the trains of the Caledonian company to stop at Forfar, but if it was their interest to do so it will probably continue to be their interest to stop at Forfar, and there is nothing in this bUl to prevent them doing so. If a locits standi is granted to the petitioners it will f oUow that 108 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. whenever a bill is brought in to extend a line the people at the terminus of the existing line will have the right to be heard against it. The Chairman : Supposing any considerable town is at present on a through line, and there is a proposal to make a new line, which gives a shorter route, and avoids the town altogether, it seems natural that they should be heard on the ground of apprehended injury by diversion of the through route. Worsley-Tmjlor : Yes, but if the traffic can be diverted now, as it can be in two ways, then according to practice there is no locus standi. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : Suppose the Caledonian company bought you up ? Worsley-Taylor : Then, perhaps, they would have the power to divert traf&c from Forfar, but they need not stop their trains there now. The Chairman : Forfar would become a second or third-rate station. Worsley-Tmjhr : At the present time traffic can be diverted from Forfar, and under the bill there may be a possible diversion of some traffic, and that is all. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : I think your real point is that the injury is a shadowy one. Worsley-Taylor : As to the agreement, the petitioners allege that this was a purely local line, and that no such thing as traffic being carried past Forfar was contemplated. This agreement is in the Act to which the peti- tioners say they were parties, and article 4, sub-sect. 2 of the agreement refers in express terms to through traffic. The Chairman : What Forfar complains of is the possibility that the main line will be diverted by agreement between the Caledonian company and the promoters, and that they will be put in the position of being on a side line. Worsley-Taylor : I submit that the agreement distinctly contemplates through traffic, and I am prepared to show that we both in fact contemplated the user of this line for through traffic before the bill came before Parliament. The Chairman : I think it all justifies very much the apprehension of Forfar that you may come to terms with the Caledonian com- pany, and that the traffic which now passes through Forfar might be carried past it and avoid it altogether. The Locus Standi of the Petitioners is Allowed. Agents for Petitioners, W. Rohertson du Co. Petition of (2) The Caledonian Railway Com- pany. Diversion and Partial Abandonment of Autlwrised Bailway— Agreement for Petitioners to work Railioay as already Autliorised — Petitioners not loilling to work Railway as Altered hy Bill — Breach of Agreement- — Competition and Diver- sion of Traffic — Throiigh and Local Traffic — Formation of Junctions luith Petitioners' Rail- way, How far entitling them to he heard generally, if available for 2}iir2)Oses of Com- petition — ■ Alleged Lnprovement of Existing Competition — S. 0. 133 — [In what cases Rail- way Companies to be heard] . The bill authorised the abandonment of a por- tion of the Forfar and Brechin railway, as authorised by a bill of the previous Session, and the substitution of a short railway for the abandoned portion. The petitioners, the Caledonian railway com- pany, objected to the bill on the ground (1) that it was in breach of an agreement be- tween the promoters and themselves, which was scheduled to and confirmed by the Forfar and Brechin Railway Act, 1890, whereby they (the petitioners) had under- taken to work the railway, as then proposed to be constructed, in perpetuity, and to guarantee a dividend on the capital of the company ; (2) as enabling the promoters, or any company working the railway as altered by the bill, to compete with them for traffic arising south of Forfar, and going to Brechin and beyond by railway No. 2 of the bill, to a point on their own railway north of Brechin, between which points they (the petitioners) had an existing, but more circuitous, route of their own; and (3) because the bill authorised the formation of junctions with the petitioners' railway, which, they alleged, would enable the promoters to compete with them for through traffic going north and south past Forfar. On this ground, as well as grounds (1 and 2), the petitioners claimed a general locus standi. The promoters denied the right of the peti- tioners to be heard generally on ground (3) according to previous decisions of the Court, and as to grounds (1 and 2), declared their willingness to include the railways as altered by the bill in the agreement scheduled to the Act of 1890, Part I.] FOEFAR AND BRECHIN RAILWAY BILL. 109 but this the petitioners declined to eater- tain : Held, that the petitioners were entitled to be heard generally against the bill. The locus standi of the petitioners (2) was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the promoters admit that for the purpose of forming junctions between the railways pro- posed to be authorised by the bill and the railways of the petitioners' compulsory ease- ments over the lands of the petitioners are sought, and they admit the right of the petitioners to be heard against the making of such junctions and the taking of such com- pulsory easements, but they deny the right of the petitioners to be heard against any other provisions of or powers sought by the bill ; (2) the alleged taking or user or any Interference with the lauds and railways of the petitioners does not entitle them to be heard against the bill except as hereinbefore admitted ; (3) the petition does not allege or show nor is it the fact that any such competition between the petitioners and the promoters would be caused by or result from the bill if passed, or by or from the railways to be thereby authorised as according to the practice of Parliament entitles the petitioners to be heard ; (4) the alleged apprehension of diversion of traf&c (even if well founded, which the promoters deny) is not such diversion of traf&c as would amount to competition within the meaning of S. 0. 130, and if it did such competition would be too remote and insignificant to entitle the peti- tioners to be heard in respect of it against the bill ; (5) the petitioners' rights and interests under the agreement referred to In paragraph 12 of the petition will not be so altered or affected (If at all) as to entitle them to be heard, and the promoters deny that any proposed altera- tions or extensions of their railways must under the said agreement be subject to the approval of the petitioners ; (6) the allegations that the proposals of the bill are premature, and as to the promoters' financial position, engineering, and the estimate of expense, even if well founded, which the promoters deny, would not give the petitioners any right to oppose the bill ; (7) several of the allegations of the petition are untrue and misleading, and none of them show that the petitioners have any such interest in the objects and provisions of the bill (save as above expressly admitted) as entitles them to be heard against it. Saunders, Q.O. (for petitioners) : The Caledonian railway company claim a general locus standi against the bill on the following grounds : First, on the ground of competition by the railway of the promoters as diverted and altered by the biU, because if the loop line (Railway No. 1 of the bill) is made as proposed from a point south of Forfar to join the main line authorised last year from Forfar to Brechin, and a prolongation of that railway from Brechin to Maryklrk (i.e.. Railway No 2 of the bill) is also authorised, that line will form a competitive route with an existing and more circuitous railway which goes by an easterly curve past Guthrie between the same points. Secondly, we say that this alteration of the Forfar and Brechin railway of last year is in violation of the agreement between us and the promoters of that railway, that we should work their railway as authorised in 1890 in perpetuity. Article 2 of that agreement, which is contained in the first schedule to the Forfar and Brechin Railway Act, 1890, is as follows: "Upon the construction, Completion and opening by the sanction of the Board of Trade of the railways and each part thereof, the first parties shall, in perpetuity but subject to the provisions in article ten hereof, work and manage the trafidc upon, and maintain the same, and shall provide the locomotive power, rolling stock, and plant of every kind (except the furnishing and con- veniences to be provided by the second parties mentioned in article first hereof) necessary for the working of the traf&c from the date of the opening thereof for passenger traf&c by authority of the Board of Trade as regards the working and management, and from twelve months thereafter as regards the maintenance. The first parties shall work and manage the railway under the provisions of this agreement in a proper, safe and convenient manner, and so as fairly to develope the traf&c to, from, and on the same. The first parties shall, except as hereinafter provided, fix the tolls, rates and charges for and in respect of all traf&c using the railway or any part thereof." And article 10 there referred to is as follows : " This agree- ment shall be in perpetuity subject nevertheless to the unconditional determination thereof by the second parties at the end of ten years from the passing of this Act confirming this agree- ment upon six months' previous notice in writing by the second parties to the first parties, and on such determination the second parties shall repay to the first parties any. advances under article 6 hereof." It is no answer to us to say that we may have the option of working the railway as altered by the bill, because that is not the railway we agreed to work and to guarantee a dividend of 3J per cent, upon, and we are not willing to work the railway as it is proposed to be altered by the bill. 110 COUET OF EEFEEEES. [Vol. I. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : If the promoters come to abandon a bit of the line authorised last year, are not you to be heard ? Saunders : Yes ; the mere abandonment of part of their line ought to give us a locus. The real point is, we having promised this guarantee on the traffic for the purpose of making the line for one purpose, the promoters now claim the right to propose other lines that will alter the whole character of this railway. Besides this, and as our third ground for a locus, the promoters will take our land for the purpose of a junction which will enable them to compete with us, and I submit that I am entitled to a locus standi on that technical ground and even though they only take power to make a junction with us. Worsley-Taylor, Q.C. (for promoters) : I concede your right to a limited locus as to the junction. Saunders : I claim a general locus standi in respect of the junction, and I cite the following cases where, notwithstanding that it was only an easement which was proposed to be taken, still it was held that the company were entitled to a general locus standi. Caledonian Raihoay (Additional Powers) Bill, 1872, on the petition of the North British Railway Company (2 Clifford & Stephens, 256) ; Bridrjewater Raihoay Bill, 1886 (Rickards & Michael, 89) ; East and West Yorkshire Union Raihoay Bill, 1886, ib., 98 ; West Highland Bill, 1889, on the petition of the Callander and Oban Railway Company and the Caledonian Raihoay Company, ib., 311. Worsley-Taylor (in reply) : I will deal with the point as to the junction first, the Bridg- water railway and the East and West junction railway cases are both of them cases of crossing and not cases of mere junction. That is the distinction the Court has drawn throughout the whole of these cases. The Callander and Oban petition was a case of junc- tion, but it turned more on the question of competition and diversion of traffic, nor does it follow from that case that if competition had not been there the Court would have given a locus standi. The other cases cited were both cases of crossing, and the lociis standi was limited. I cite in my favour the Oxted and Groom- bridge Railway Bill, 1883, on the petition of the South-Eastcrn Raihoay Company (3 Clifford and Kickards, 326), where the two things — compe- tition and junction — were separated and a locus standi were given on the ground of compe- tition generally, and not on the ground of the junction. Mr. Chandos-Lbioh : In the case of the Rotherham, Blyth and Sutton Raihoay Bill, 1891 (Rickards & Saunders, infra, p. 152), a limited locus standi was granted in the case of a crossing. Worsley-Taylor: Yes, there is also another case of the East and West Yorkshire Union Railways Bill, 1882 (3 Clifford & Rickards, 142), where only a limited locus standi was granted, though there was both a junction and running powers. The Chaikman : We are disposed to look to the broader features of this case than to take it on junction alone. Worsley-Taylor ■ Now I come to the question of competition. According to practice it must be a new competition, and not a mere improve- ment of competition already existing. The petitioners' case is, therefore, that this new competition will be brought in by conversion of a local line into a through line, but I submit that nothing more can be done under this bill than could have been done last year, and by clause 18 of the bill the railways proposed by the bill are to form part of the undertaking of the company, and, as such, could be worked by the Caledonian company. The Chaikman: There are two kinds of competition ; one is for through traffic, and the other is for local traffic from Forfar to Marykirk. Worsley-Taylor : There is not a word in the petition about local traffic ; the whole case is, that through traffic may be taken off the Forfar and Guthrie and Bridge of Dun line and diverted over this railway, but there is nothing about local traffic, and in this the petition differs entirely from that of the Provost and Corporation of Forfar. The petitioners, the Caledonian company, have shown that we are in their hands, and if they do not choose to make an arrangement with us, we cannot convert this into a through line. The Chairman: Have you completed your argument on this point ? Worsley-Taylor : Yes. The Chaikman : The Locu^ StaMi of the Caledonian Company is Allowed. 'Agents for Petitioners, Grahames, Gurrey and Spens. Agents for Bill, Durnford db Co. Part I.J Glasgow, etc., railway (steam vessels) bill. Ill GLASGOW AND SOUTH - WESTERN RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL. [H.L.] Petition of (1) The Lanaekshiee and Ayeshiee Railway Company; and (2) The Caledonian Railway Company. 4th June, ISn.— {Before Mr. Pabkeb, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shieess Will, Q.C, M.P. ; Mr. Healy, M.P. ; and Mr. Bonham-Caktee.) Railwaij Company seeking Steamboat Poicers — Competition — Petition of Bailway Companies Working and Ouiiing Competing Line — Peti- tioning Company Joint Owners of Bailway with Promoters — Alteration of Status, and Diversio7i of Traffic — Improvement of Existing Competition — Special Clauses of Bill relating to Combined Railway and Sea Fares, d-c., d-c— Railway Clauses Act, 1863 (Part IV.), sect. 30. This was a bill to authorise the Glasgow and South-Western railway company to pro- vide and use steam-vessels between ports and places on the River and Firth of Clyde. The petitioners (1), the Lanark- shire and Ayrshire railway company, claimed to be heard on the ground of competition, as being competitors with the promoters for traffic from Glasgow to Ardrossan, and thence by steamers, at present independently owned, to the Isle of Arran. Traffic carried by the peti- tioners (1) between these points passed over a raUway between Glasgow and BarrmOl, jointly owned by the promoters and the Caledonian railway company, a minimum toll for the use of this railway being charged in respect of traffic so carried, and it was then carried by (2) the Caledo- nian company over the Lanarkshire and Ayrshire railway, which was worked by the Caledonian company for 60 per cent of the profits, from Barrmill to Ardrossan and there shipped to Arran. The peti- tioners (1) claimed to be heard on the ground of competition as interested to the extent of 50 per cent, in the traffic thus carried over their railway, and destined for places on the coast to which steamers ran from Ardrossan. The promoters already had an independent railway of their own between Glasgow and Ardrossan, and the petitioners contended that if they were authorised to run steamers of their own they would obtain a practical monopoly of traffic between Glasgow and Ardrossan and the ports to which they would be enabled to convey traffic in their own steam-vessels. It appeared, however, that in addition to their railway being worked by the Caledonian company, the peti- tioners (1) had no control over the traffic carried over their line or the fixing of the rates for it, and that the bill in no way altered the minimum toll at present charged for the passage of such traffic over the joint railway of the promoters and the Caledonian company between Glasgow and Barrmill : Held, that under these circumstances the inte- rest of the petitioners in the provisions of the bill was not sufficient to entitle them to be heard against it. The petitioners (2), the Caledonian railway company, who worked the Lanarkshire and Ayrshire railway company, also claimed a locus standi as being inte- rested as partners and joint owners with the promoters in the Glasgow and Barrmill railway, and in tourist traffic to Arran, and generally in traffic to places upon the_ Firth of Clyde below Greenock and Gourock to which they had access in competition with the promoters, and they claimed to be heard on account of the alteration in their status as joint owners of the Barrmill and Glasgow line, and generally on the ground of competition. On the ground of competition they objected generally to the powers conferred upon the promoters by clause 4 of the bill [Power to company to provide and use steam-vessels] , and they objected on special grounds to the proviso to clause 5 [Power to charge for use of steam- vessels], "that the amount of through fares and rates by railway and steam- vessels may be less than the amount of the combined local fares and rates," as contrary to the general law as contained in sect. 30 of the Railway Clauses Act, . 1863 [Part IV.] ; to the provisions of 112 COURT OF EEFEBEES. [Vol. I. clause 7 [Power to make agreements for supply of steam-vessels] ; and to clause 8 [Power to make agreements with owners of piers, &c.] as unfair and prejudicial to themselves as competitors with the pro- moters. It was objected generally by the promoters that the petitioners, not being as a company owners of steam-vessels [although some of their directors had formed themselves into a limited company for owning steamboats] , could not be heard generally on the ground of com- petition, and further that the bill at most improved an existing competition : Held, that the petitioners were not entitled under the circumstances to be heard generally on the ground of competition, but that they were entitled to be heard against clauses 5, 7 and 8 of the bill. The locus standi of the petitioners (1) was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petitioners are not owners of any steam-vessels carrying on traffic between any places, between which it is sought to empower the promoters to work and use steam-vessels, and have no such interest in the traffic which the bill seeks to accommodate, as to entitle them to be heard against the bill ; (2) the promoters deny that the powers contained in the bill would place them in a, position detrimental to proper competition, &c., or give them any such monopoly as stated in paragraph 12 of the petition, or establish any such new or further competition as to entitle the petitioners to be heard against the bill in respect thereof ; (3) the promoters do not admit that the bill would confer upon them, as stated in para- graphs 8 and 9 of the petition, power to make agreements prejudicial to the petitioners or to the exclusion of other steam-vessels, and those paragraphs disclose no grounds upon which, according to the practice of Parliament, they are entitled to be heard against the bOl ; (4) so far as the objections of the petitioners to the bill, as set forth in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the petition, are founded upon the minimum toll now payable in respect of traffic carried over the Glasgow and Kilmarnock joint line, the bill contains no provisions dealing with the said tolls, or altering the position of the parties under existing legislation with reference thereto, or conferring upon the petitioners any right to ask for the abolition thereof ; (5) the petition discloses no' grounds entitling the petitioners to be heard against the bill. The locns standi of the petitioners (2) was objected to on the following grounds: (1) the petitioners are not owners of any steam-vessels carrying on traffic between any places between which it is sought to empower the promoters to work and use steam-vessels ; (2) so far as the petitioners have any interest in the traffic in the river and Firth of Clyde, for the ac- commodation of which powers are sought by the bill, such interest is not affected by the bill so as to entitle the petitioners to be heard against it, and tlae bill does not confer upon the promoters any new or further powers to com- pete for or divert traffic, in which the peti- tioners are now interested, so as to entitle them, according to the practice of Parliament, to be heard against the bill ; (3) the promoters deny that the effect of the bill would be to place in their hands the whole route for coast traffic, both by water and land, as stated in paragraph 11 of the petition, or to give them a greater control of the traffic than they now possess, or cause any such alteration of the relative positions of the parties as to entitle the petitioners to be heard against the bill ; (4) the provisions con- tained in clause 5 of the bill are in accordance with the present practice, both of the pro- moters and the petitioners, and do not alter the present rights- and iiowers of the promoters and the petitioners as joint owners of the Glasgow and Kilmarnock joint line, or other- wise as regards the traffic referred to in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the petition, and do not authorise any variation of the general law in respect of which the petitioners have any right to complain or are entitled to be heard against the bill ; (5) • the promoters do not admit that clauses 7 and 8 of the bill would have the effect stated in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the petition, or would confer upon the pro- moters further powers to make agreements prejudicial to the petitioners, and, even were it otherwise, the petitioners are not so interested in the subject-matter of the said clauses as to be entitled to be heard against the bill ; (6) the petition discloses no grounds upon which, according to the practice of Parliament, the petitioners are entitled to be heard against the bill. C'lipps, Q.G. (for petitioners (1) ) : The bill proposes to enable the Glasgow and South- Western company to become owners of steam- boats in order that they may run them in connection with the ports upon their railway. The petitioners' line runs from Barrmill to Ardrossan. At Barrmill it connects with a line running to Glasgow, and jointly owned by the promoters and the Caledonian company. There is also a line from Glasgow to Ardrossan Part 1.] Glasgow, etc., railway (steam vessels) bill. 113 in the hands of the promoters, so that the petitioners and the promoters have competitive interests as regards trafdo to Ardrossan, and a very important portion of tliis traf&o is that carried from Ardrossan to Arran, and it is in respect of our competitive interest in this traf&c that we claim a loms standi. The petitioners have a working agreement with the Caledonian company, under which they each receive half profits, and therefore we have both a joint and an independent and separate interest in keeping up the traf&c upon our line. There are minimum tolls upon the joint Caledonian and Glasgow line as far as Barr- mill, but on the competitive line of the promoters there is no such minimum toll, and they can lower their tolls to any extent they like. Though this is a grievance, yet it is not the ground of our locus standi, but merely an element in our competition with the promoters. If this bill passes, the promoters will be able to put on steamboats of their own between Ardrossan and Arran, where we are at present in equal competition with them, both com- panies having competitive railway communica- tion to Ardrossan, and proceeding thence to Arran by independently owned steamboats, which are open to both of us as competitors, and this bill will put us in a worse position by enabling them to become owners of steamboats and to carry traf&c in their own hands the whole way from Glasgow to Arran. Supposing there was a line between Ardrossan and Arran open to both of us on equal terms, which is the effect of the present state of things, for there are independent steamboats equally open to us both, if one of the companies was coming to take possession of that line apart from the ' promotion of any other line, the competing company would surely have a right to be heard. The Chairman : Of course, where a company proposes a new line alongside an existing line the existing line has a strong case, but the case of communication by sea is not so strong. Mr. Heaiy: Is it the fact that the Cale- donian company do run steamers of their own ? Pope, Q.C. (for promoters) : When the bill brought forward by the Caledonian company to enable them to own steamers was rejected, the Caledonian directors formed themselves into a limited liability company to own steamers. Cripps : I understand the promoters to sug- gest that the Caledonian company did some- thing of this kind without statutory powers, whereas the promoters are asking for statutory powers, but statutory powers were refused the Caledonian company when they asked for them. The Chaieman : That is very much to the point. It is set forth in the petition that Parliament has hitherto declined to give such powers, both to the promoters and also to the Caledonian company, and we know Parliament is a little jealous of putting steamers and railways into one hand, and have specially dealt with this by S. 0. 162. Cripps : In all these cases the question is whether the competition is substantial or not. Under clause 5 of the bill the through-fare where the steamboat and railway are- in one hand may be less than the sum of the railway fare and the steamboat fare where they are in two separate hands, and thus the promoters may give an undue preference as against their competitors, where the fare for the steamboat and railway are not in the same hands. The promoters might charge people coming by our line 2s. 6d. for the steamboat fare, and nothing at all if they came by their line. Clause 5 of the bill is as follows : " The com- pany may ask, demand and recover for the conveyance of passengers, animals, minerals, goods, merchandise and other things in the steam-vessels so provided and used by them such reasonable fares, rates or sums as they shall think fit. Provided always that the amount of .the through fares and rates by rail- way and steam-vessels may be less than the amount of the combined local fares and rates." Mr. Healy: Is there anything in the law that would compel the promoters to give the Caledonian company a through rate by the steamers ? Pope : Yes ; it is the general law that if we are carrying by through rates to Arran we must give the passengers by the petitioners' line through rates also. Cripps ; The pier of the promoters at Ardrossan is not the same as that of the petitioners, and I submit that we are entitled to a locus standi on the ground of competition. Saunders, Q.C. (for petitioners (2) ) : Our case is somewhat similar to that of the Lanarkshire and Ayrshire railway company for we work that line, but we are also interested in the line from Barrmill to Glasgow, which we own jointly with the promoters ; and we are inte- rested, not only in the tourist traf&c to Arran, but also to places upon the Pirth of Clyde below Greenock and Gourock in competition with the promoters, and I submit that in any bill introduced by one of the companies to alter the existing condition of things the other com- pany should be allowed a locus standi. Clauses 4, 7 and 8 of the bill give the promoters the largest possible powers with respect to steamers, and are as foUows:— 4. "The company may 114 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. from time to time build, purchase or hire, and may use, maintain and work steam-vessels in connection with their railways for the purpose of carrying on a convenient and efficient com- munication by means thereof for the conveyance of passengers, animals, minerals, goods, mer- chandise and things of every description to and from ports and places in the Eiver and Firth of Clyde and the lochs, bays, channels and inlets connected therewith north of a straight line drawn between Corsewall Point and the Mull of Cantyre and may take tolls in respect of such steam-vessels. Provided always that such powers shall not extend or apply to traffic to or from Inverary, Ardrishaig, Tarbert, or Campbelltown." 7. " The company may enter into agreements with any company, body or person being or who may hereafter become proprietors of steam-vessels with reference to the supply, use, maintenance, employment and hiring of any such vessels and the payment or other consideration to be made or given by the company therefor, and such consideration may be in whole or in part by way of subsidy or rebate." 8. " The company may enter into agreements with the several proprietors and lessees of piers and quays at any of the ports and places to and from which the company are by this Act authorised to work and use steam- vessels with reference to the use by the company of any such pier or quay and the accommodation of traf&c thereat." We are interested in Irish traffic, and not only in traffic limited to the Firth of Clyde ; and although we own no steamers going to either of these particular places, we book through and have arrangements with respect to Ireland and the Firth of Clyde traffic, and, therefore, have a sufficient interest in the subject-matter of the bill to be entitled to be heard. Then clause 5* of the Act seeks to repeal sect. 30 of the Railway Clauses Act, 1863, part 4, as to steamboats, by giving to the promoters power to give an undue preference, in the form of a reduction of rates, to persons travelling by their steamers, and on this ground also we are entitled to be heard, as an alteration of the general law to our detriment. I submit that it is contrary to the principle of Parliament to allow railway companies to own steamers. This right has been refused to us, and it is unfair that we should be prevented from being heard when such an exceptional power is given to a rival company. By clause 8 the promoters seek to make exclusive agreements with the proprietors of piers, and to this we also object, as giving * For clause 5, in extenso, see argument of Crqjps, Q.O. {supra). the promoters an unfair advantage over us as competitors. We share, in common with the Lanarkshire and Ayrshire company, the grievance as to the payment of a minimum toll for running over the line jointly owned by ourselves and the promoters between Barrmill and Glasgow. Pojjc (in reply) : The questions to be decided are, whether the petitioners are entitled to be heard against particular clauses of the bill, because they think such clauses may operate to their disadvantage, or whether they are entitled to be heard on the ground of competition. We are perfectly willing to insert words to make the construction of clause 7 perfectly clear, but we deny that they have any right to a general locus standi to discuss whether the promoters are to have the power of owning steamers. This question has been more than once decided in the negative, so far as petitioning railway companies are concerned, and I cite in particular the case of The Lancashire and Yorkshire, and London and North-}? estern Railway Companies {Steamboats) Bill, 1870 (2 Clifford & Stephens, 59) as an authority in my favour so far as these petitioners are concerned. The Caledonian company say that they have now through traffic between Arran and Glasgow, and that the power proposed to be given us by this bill to own steamers will afford a fresh means of competition. This, I submit, is an improve- ment of existing competition, and comes within the decision of the case just cited. This is not the establishment of a new competition entitling either of the petitioners to be heard. It is no ground for a locus standi for the Caledonian company that they asked in a previous session for the same powers and they were refused ; the only question is whether our getting these powers will create a new com- petition. With regard to the Lanarkshire and Ayrshire company, they have no traffic of their own. They are worked by the Caledonian company under an agreement, in perpetuity, at 50 per cent, of the receipts accruing from the Lanarkshire and Ayrshire portion of the route, applying to that portion the rates which the Caledonian company only have the power to make, and though a portion of the Cale- donian route is over the joint line of the Glasgow and South- Western company and the Caledonian company, and as to part of that line both companies have to pay for the user of it a minimum toll to the joint fund of the Caledonian company and the Glasgow and South- Western company, that minimum toll is unaffected by the bill. The Glasgow and South- Western company now have a line of PaBT 1.] GLASGOW, ETC., RAILWAY (sTEAM VESSELS) BILL. 115 their own from Glasgow to Ardrossan, which enables them to divert traffic without passing it over the joint line, and, therefore, without paying toll to the joint fund. This will not be altered by the biU, and it has no reference to steamers at all, and cannot affect the Lanark- shire and Ayrshire at all, and they have no interest in it except a mere share in the through rate, which is absolutely in the control of the Caledonian company. The Chaikman : We give a Locus Standi to the Caledonian Company, limited to Glauses 5, 7 and 8. As regards clause 7 it is proposed that certain words should be introduced, and the petitioners must imderstand that the limited locus standi is not given against the power, 2>er se, to hire and use steamboats. The Locux Standi of the Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Company is Disallowed. Agents for Petitioners (1), Martin & Leslie. Agents for Petitioners (2), Grahames, Gurrey and S2Hns. Petition of (3) The Clyde Steamship Ownebs' Association and Others. Railway Company Seeking Steamboat Powers — Joint Petition of Steamship Owners' Association, Individual Steamship Owners, Merchants and Traders-^Glaim of Association to Represent Trade Interest — Competition. The bill was also opposed by a steamship owners' association, and by individual steam- ship owners and firms, a joint petition being presented by them and being also signed by merchants and traders interested in the shipping trade at Glasgow and other places. The promoters admitted the locus standi of such of the petitioners as were owners of or interested in steamships trading between Glasgow and places within the limits named in clause 4 of the bill [Power to company to provide and use steam-vessels] , to which the promoters were empowered to run steamers of their own, but objected to the locus standi of the steamship owners' association, as a body which numbered owners of steamships trading to all parts of the world, and also objected to such of the other petitioners as were not owners of or interested in steam- ships trading between the places named in clause 4 of the bill.. All the petitioners claimed to be heard, and pointed out that the power contained in clause 7 of the bill [Power to make agreements for supply of steam-vessels] was not limited locally in the same way as that contained in clause 4, although it was contended on behalf of the promoters that it should be so read : Held, that inasmuch as the steamship owners' association represented various shipping and trade interests in no way confined to the trade affected by the bill, their locus standi must be disallowed, and that only those petitioners were entitled to be heard, who were individually interested in the trade affected by the proposals of the bill. Per Cur. .- An association representing a par- ticular trade may be heard, where an association representing a combination of various trades and interests is not entitled to a locus standi. The locus standi of the petitioners (3) was ob- jected to on the following grounds : (1) as regards the Clyde steamship owners' association it is not alleged in the petition nor is it the fact that they are the owners of any steam-vessels engaged in the carrying trade on the river and Firth of Clyde, nor is it alleged in the petition that any trade or business represented by the said association will be injuriously affected by the rates and fares proposed to be authorised by the bill, or by the rates and fares already authorised by Acts relating to the railway undertaking of the promoters. So far as the said association represents owners of steam- vessels engaged in the aforesaid carrying trade, all such owners as object to the bill have signed the petition and their locus standi is not objected to ; (2) the petitioners state that many of them own steam-vessels engaged in the carrying trade on the river and Pirth of Clyde, and that others of them who are interested in the general question of the expediency of rail- way companies owning or using steamers, are owners of steam-vessels engaged for the most part elsewhere, or are merchants interested in the carrying trade, and they complain that the bill would enable the promoters to compete directly and injuriously with many of the petitioners, and that their rights and interests will be injuriously affected by the bill, but except as regards such of the petitioners as are in fact owners of steam-vessels engaged in H 2 116 COtET OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. the carrying trade on the river and Firth of Clyde between the places which alone the bill seeks power to accommodate, and who are thus providing to the public similar accommodation to that which the bill seeks to empower the promoters to provide, the promoters deny that the rights and interests of the petitioners will be so injuriously affected, or that any such competition will arise or be created under the bill as to entitle them to be heard against the bill. The names of the petitioners whose right to be heard the promoters do not dispute are set out at the foot of this notice. The petition does not allege or disclose any grounds upon which, according to the practice of Parliament, the several persons signing the same (except as aforesaid) are entitled to be heard against the biU. Names of petitioners whose locus standi is admitted : — David MacBrayne ; the Firth of Clyde Steam Packet Company, Limited; the Campbeltown and Glasgow Steam Packet Joint Stock Company, Limited ; the Glasgow and Inverary Steamboat Company. WorsMj-Taylor, Q.C. (for petitioners) : The locus standi of some of the petitioners is admitted, and others, notably the Clyde steam- ship ovmers' association, is objected to. Pope, Q.C. (for promoters) : This very question was raised and decided in the Caledonian jRail- way {Steam-Vessels) Bill, 1889 (Riokards and Michael, 241). Worsley-Taylor : I submit that under clause 7 of the bill, which is unlimited, every steamship owner upon the Clyde is entitled to be heard ; for where there is competition there is a right to a locus standi. Pope: I will concede a locus standi as to clause 7. Worsley-Tarjlor ; The promoters object to the steamship owners' association being heard on the ground that some of the members of the association have signed the petition as indi- vidual steamship owners, and their locus standi is not objected to ; but they say that the association itself, because it represents indi- viduals engaged in other trades, is not entitled to be heard. This is very like the case of the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway (Steamboats) Bill, 1889 (Riokards &Michael, 270), where certain shipowners trading to the ports named in the bill had an admitted locus standi, and according to the doctrine of representation they would have been the people to represent the traders ; and yet the steamship owners' association, individual traders, and chambers of commerce were all admitted. Pope : The question is not whether you, as an association, are represented by any body. but whether you have any locus standi at all. We propose to allow the loctis standi of every- body interested in the trade with which we should compete, but we object to the Clyde steamship owners' association as they do not represent a distinct trade. Mr. Chandos - Leigh : In previous cases we have laid down a distinction between associations composed exclusively of one class of traders and associations like chambers of commerce, which include traders of all- classes. We have held that as a mining association was composed exclusively of one class of traders their claim to a locus standi was different from that of a chamber of commerce, whose members include traders of all classes, and are not even necessarily traders at all, and we have allowed the former a locus standi. Wherever an association represents a distinct trade it is different to a combination of trades as represented by a chamber of com- merce. Worsley-Taylor : The association is estab- lished for the purpose of assisting individuals to fight these questions, and there are several cases where associations of steamship owners have been heard. One case in point is the Lojulon and North-Western Railway Bill, 1884, on the petition of the Steamship Owners' Associa- tion and Irish Steamship) Owners' Association (3 Clifford & Rickards, 415). Pope: There the individual traders who might have been heard did not petition, and therefore their interest would have been un- represented altogether if the steamship owners had not been represented. Worsley-Taylor : The object is to prevent duplication of petitions, and in this case the steamship owners' association appear on the same petition. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : When an association represents an exclusive class of traders we have generally let in that association. Pope (in reply) : The only ground on which a steamship owners' association can be allowed a locus standi is that the bill will create some new competition with the interests of the association,- but here there is nothing of the kind. The association consists of steamship owners trading to all parts of the world, and they are not entitled to a locus standi in order to go into questions of general policy. We admit the right of all persons interested in steam-vessels engaged in the carrying trade on the Clyde to be heard, but we object to the locus standi of the association, qua association. The Chairman : The Court feel that there are associations and associations, and taking into consideration how greatly associations Paet I.] GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. 117 differ from one another, some dealing with a limited trade all of one character, others being very miscellaneous and wide in their character, and without saying that because there is an association they are not to be heard, and looking at the very large interests concerned in this case, some of which are wholly unconnected with the proposal, we do not think the Jocks standi of the Clyde steamship owners' asso- ciation should be allowed. The parties can settle between themselves which of the peti- tioners should be retained in the petition, as being individually interested in the trade affected by the bOl, and that should not be decided on too narrow grounds. Pope : We are quite content that the names to be retained in the petition should be settled by the Speaker's Counsel. [Wmsley-Taylor assented to this arrangement.'] Lociis Standi of the Clyde Steamship Owners' Association Disallowed ; Locus Standi of the other Petitioners Disallowed, except of such of them as were individually interested in the trade effected by the bill. The names of such Petitioners to be settled by the Speaker's Counsel. Agents for Petitioners, Martin d: Leslie. Agents for Bill, Sherwood dc Go. GLASGOW SOUTH SUBURBAN RAILWAY BILL. 2nd March, 1891.— (Be/ore Mr. Paekek, M.P., Chairman; dx.) The Locus Standi of the Corporation of Glasgow was objected to. The case was postponed by consent to March 9th, when the objection to the petitioners' locus standi was withdrawn. Agents for Petitioners, Martin d- Leslie. Agents for Bill, Durnford <£- Co. GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. Petition of (1) The Taff Vale Railway Company. 6th July, 1891.— (5e/o« Mr. Pabkee, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shieess Will, Q.G., M.P. ; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C. ; and Mr. Bonham-Cabtee.) Omnibus Bill — Bail-way Company as Landowners — Lands Comjmlsorily taken — Claim to General Locus — Eeriral of Powers to make Branch Rail- way — Conversion of Goods into Passenger Bailwaij — Claim to Extend Buniiincj Powers over Main Line of Promoters to Branch Railway — E.rtensionof Time fur Tlnilirnij Crosxing Land of Petitionee's — " Post Case," London and North-Western Railway Bill, 1868 (1 Clifford andStephens,62),i)jsc((ssc£Z — S. 0. 133 [In what cases Railwag Companies to be heard'\, how far entitling Petitioners to General or Limited Locus Standi — Practice. This was an omnibus bill, by clauses 9 and 29 of which the promoters took power to acquire compulsorily certain land belong- ing to the Taff Vale railway company. The promoters conceded the company a limited loots standi against these clauses, but the petitioners claimed to be heard generally on their petition, which dealt with other matters, including the revival of powers conferred upon the promoters by the Great Western Railway Act, 1880, to complete, as a double line, a certain branch railway, and to take the necesary lands for that purpose, and to enlarge the said branch railway from a single goods line, as it at present existed, and convert it into a passenger line. The petitioners claimed to be heard as to this proposal, in order to claim running powers which they already possessed over the promoters' main line in this locality, over this branch railway also ; and they further claimed to be heard on their petition to object to an extension of time being granted to the promoters by the bill to construct a rail- way authorised by the Great Western Rail- loay (No. 2), 1882. The petitioners ad- mitted that as to these matters their right to a loem standi could not be sustained, in accordance with the usual practice, but claimed that as landowners they were entitled to be heard generally on their petition, and relied on the decision in the "post case" {London and North- Western Railwag Bill, 1868, 1 Clifford and Stephens, 62), and other decisions following it, as giving the Court no discretion in the matter but to follow their usual practice, which could, it was argued, only be pro- perly altered by the makirg of a cew 118 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. standing Order. Counsel for the promoters contended that since the alteration of S. O. 133 [In what oases railway com- panies to be heard] to its present form it was in the discretion of the Court to allow the petitioners a general or limited locus standi, and that it would be contrary to practice, that they should be heard to ask for an extension of running powers to the branch railway or against the pro- posed extension of time : Held, that the petitioners were entitled to be heard generally on their petition, the Court expressly stating that in giving this decision they did not intend in any way to influence the Committee on the bill in determining how far the interests of the petitioners were materially affected by the provisions of the bill. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds r (1) the promoters admit the right of the petitioners to be heard against so much of clauses 9 and 29 of the bill as relates to the stopping up of the portion of road and the making of the new road in the parish of Canton described in clause 9 of the bill ; (2) the only other provi- sions of the bill to which the petitioners object in their petition are those contained in clauses 26, 27, and 81 ; (8) clauses 26 and 27 authorise a revival of powers and extension of the time for the acquisition of lands for, and for the construction of a certain railway known as the riverside branch, so far as may be necessary for converting it into a passenger line, but it is not alleged in the petition, nor is it a fact, that any lands or property of the petitioners will or can be taken or interfered with under the powers or for the pur- pose of those clauses ; (4) the petitioners are not entitled to be heard against the bill on the ground that they already have running powers over a portion of the promoters' main line of railway, and desire to have these powers extended to the riverside branch or on the ground that the Barry dock and railways company are by another bill seeking running powers over the riverside branch ; (5) it is not alleged in the petition that any new competition between the petitioners and the promoters will arise under the powers of clauses 26 and 27 of the bill; (6) by chuse 31 of the bill it is proposed to extend ihe time for the construction of a railway authorised in 1882 connecting the promoters' Ely Valley railway and the petitioners' railway at Forth, but that clause neither confers nor extends any powers for acquiring any lands or property of the petitioners, and the petitioners are not entitled to be heard in respect of the extension of the time for the construction of works ; (7) even if the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the petition are true, which the promoters do not admit, they disclose no grounds entitling the petitioners to be heard against the bill. The matters complained of in paragraph 12 are matters of past legislation, and no new competition between the petitioners and the promoters will or can arise under the powers of clause 31 of the bill ; (8) except to the extent admitted by paragraph 1 of this notice the petition discloses no grounds upon which, according to the practice of Parliament, the petitioners are entitled to be heard against the bill. Pope, Q.C. (for petitioners (1) ) : We are in the position of landowners as regards a portion of tte bill which proposes by clauses 26 and 27 to revive powers given by the Great Western Railway Act, 1889, to make a branch railway, called the riverside branch, from the South Wales line almost down to the Bute docks at Cardiff, and to convert that railway which has been constructed as a goods line into a passenger line. The House of Lords have compelled the promoters to widen a particular road as provided in clauses 9 and 29 of the biU, and in carrying out this the promoters must take the land and property of the petitioners. In the "post case," {London and North-Western Railway Bill, 1868, 1 Clifford & Stephens, 62), it was decided that you could not, even in an omnibus bill, which I admit this is, limit the right of a landowner to be heard, and that he would only be limited by the Committee to the allegations in his petition. In the year 1872 S. 0. 133 was passed, which was discretionary, and in the same year in the Caledonian Rail- way (Additional Powers) Bill, 1872 (2 Clifford and Stephens, 256), the construction put upon it was that, notwithstanding the dis- cretion given to this Court by that Order, if II. bill takes any part of the lands of a railway company, this Court will treat the railway company exactly as if it were a private land- owner, but where there is a provision for running engines or carriages upon or granting other facilities over the railway of the petitioning company this Court will exercise its discretion and only allow the peti- tioning company a locus standi against those provisions. Part I.j GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. 119 Mr. Shikess Will : That case was cited and followed in the case of the East and West Yorkshire Union Itailwaij Bill, 1886 (Rickards' and Michael, 98). The one thing which I understand is absolutely settled now is that a railway company, if it owns land, is no less a landowner than if it were not a railway com- pany, and that it has all the incidents and consequences of a landowner as regards locus standi; but I have never been able to under- stand if a railway company chooses to put in an omnibus bill half-a-dozen different things totally separate and distinct from one another, one of which may be the construction of works at Preston and another the shutting up of a footpath at Willesden, why a man at Preston should have a locus standi against the shutting up of the footpath at Willesden. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : I quite agree with that. Pope : It has been the uniform practice of Parliament to regard a landowner's interest as one which entitles him to object in any way he can to any interference with his property, and if he can make it difficult for the promoters of an omnibus bill to obtain their bill, one of the provisions of which is a power to take his land, he is entitled to take that position. The right of this Court to give a, landowner an unlimited locus standi does not interfere with the right of the Committee to limit him to the four corners of his petition. The Chairman : I think the real question for the Court is whether they should apply to the House to pass a new Standing Order, which should say that this traditional right of a landowner should be limited to the particular piece of the line for the construction of which compulsory powers were taken over his land. Po2Je : Yes ; the only way to deal with such cases as this of a claim of landowners to be heard against an omnibus bill, if it is found that inconvenience -results in such cases, is not by the Court exercising a discretion and saying that the established practice is unreasonable, but by an application to the House to modify that practice by a Standing Order. The Chairman : Possibly one ground for the present practice is' that it acts as a discourage- ment to omnibus bills. Pope : We submit that we are entitled to be heard on other grounds, but we prefer to resort to this landowner's claim, which gives us an undoubted locus standi. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : Have we ever refused a locus standi to a railway company against an omnibus bill if any lands are taken ? Po2)e : As far as I can remember never where there has been actual land taken, and not merely interfered with, for the purpose of making a junction for example. The Chaikman : We represent not merely the Standing Orders of Parliament, but to a cer- tain extent the mind of Parliament, and therefore, if we had reason to believe that the mind of the House on appeal from this Court would be in a certain direction, we might take leave to set aside decisions of ancient date. Saunders, Q.C. (for promoters) : I concede the petitioners a limited locus against clauses 9 and 29 of the bill. With regard to their claim to a general locus, the decisions up to the pre- sent time seem to have been that the " post case" should be followed even in the case of omnibus bills, there always being this limita- tion — that the petitioning company is confined within the four corners of their petition ; but the result of this is that, in order to give a locus standi against any part of a bill, the petitioners need only enlarge the limits of the four corners of their petition. The Chairman : I think the Committee would interpose a check on the petitioning company going into all sorts of matters that did not concern it. Saunders : It seems to me that it would be a complete answer for the petitioning company to say that the Locus Standi Court, who deal with these matters, had given them a general locus standi, and the Committee could not pre- vent them going into all matters alleged in their petition. Pope : In the East and West Yorkshire Bill, which was an extension of time bill, the North- Eastern company obtained a general locus standi, but the Committee refused to allow them to go into the allegations of their petition, which were entirely aside from their rights and wrongs as landowners. Saunders ; A great deal of discretion is vested in the Court by many Standing Orders, but if a Standing Order is so peremptory that the Court feel they are bound by it and by their previous decisions, I agree that the right course would be to go to the House itself for the purpose of getting the Standing Order altered. But that does not apply to a case of this kind, where the Standing Order is not peremptory. The Chaiehan : You distinguish between thoroughly established practice and the Stand- ing Order ? Saunders : I do. In 1868 the Standing Order was imperative, but it was afterwards altered and was made discretionary, and remains so now. It gives a discretion to the Court as to whether the petitioners should be heard against 120 COURT OF BEFEREES. [Vol. I. the preamble of a bill or only against certain provisions in a bill. Mr. Shieess Will: We have construed the Standing Order in a variety of cases in this way — where a railway company owns land, and that land is proposed to be actually taken, we do not limit their locus standi, and we give them the same general loms standi that we give a private individual who happened to hold land. Mr. Chahdos-Leigh : But where one railway crosses another or crosses a bridge, we do limit the locus standi where the land is not actually taken. Saunders : I agree that is the distinction, but the cases do not say that the Court is impera- tively bound to give a railway company a general loctis standi under the Standing Order. I do not think it has ever been actually decided that even a private owner would be entitled to a general locus standi against an omnibus bill relating to diiferent objects in every part of the country. Mr. Shiress Will : That is the point. We have always assumed this " post case " to be law, but if it is examined it will be found that it was not necessary for the purposes of that case to decide the point, but the Court then said that they had theretofore had occasion to consider the matter, and that the practice was settled, and since then we have gone under the impression that it was the settled practice of the Court. Saunders : The Standing Order was impera- tive when that case was decided. The Chaibman : In the Bridgewater Railway Bill, 1886 (Eickards & Michael, 89), this matter was discussed, and in the Caledonian Railway, {Additional Bowers Bill), 1872, on the petition of the North British Railway Company (2 Clifford and Stephens, 256), the late Speaker's Counsel said it was competent to read S. O. 133 so as to say, we must give a locus standi if the land of the railway company is to be taken, but not necessarily if only facilities are to be given. Saunders : It is common ground that a peti- tioner cannot go outside of his petition, but what I ask' is, unless you are absolutely tied by the practice and are obliged to give a general lociis standi, that you shall not read the Standing Order as obliging you to give a locus standi extending to the whole of the bill. Mr. Shieess Will: It may be that the reason why this doctrine has prevailed so long is that it has been considered by the Court that the petitioning company would be limited by the Committee. Saunders : Supposing the promoters deal first with the matter which directly affects the petitioner, and suppose we dispose of that, there being nothing left in the bill on which the petitioners could have a right to a locus standi, nevertheless they would, if you give them a general locus, be able to oppose with reference to matters which in no way con- cerned them. Moreover, if you give them a general locus standi against the bill, you will be giving a locus standi against an extension of time, and to claim running powers over a new railway on the ground that they already possess them over an existing railway, which is distinctly contrary to your practice. The ChaieiSian: We grant a general locus standi in this case, but we wish it to be recorded that we do not intend, in coming to this decision, to influence the Committee in their judgment as to what may or may not be considered material by them in dealing with the interests of the petitioners as affected by the bill. We leave that to the Committee to judge. Locui Standi Allowed. Agents for Petitioners, K«es <£- Frere. Petition of (2) The Baeey Docks and Railway Company. Same Land Scheduled hy Bills of Promoters and Petitioners — Land required for New RailiDoy and for Extension of Authorised Railway — ■ Claim of Petitioners to he heard against both Powers of Bill — Insufficiency of Allegations in Petition — Practice — Claim of Petitioners to obtain Protective Clauses in Bill, and Power to make Railway on Default by Promoters — Absence of Injury caused by Bill. Clause 4 of the bill authorised the promoters to take certain land for the construction of Railway No. 2 authorised by the bill, power to take which was also contained in a bill promoted by the petitioners in the present session of Parliament. The peti- tion stated that the land in question was required for the construction of Railway No. 4 authorised by the bill of the petitioners, but the deposited plans showed that some of the land was also required for the completion and doubling of a branch railway authorised by the Great Western Railway Act, 1880. The peti- tioners, upon this, claimed to be heard against the completion of the branch Part I.] GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. 121 railway, which was authorised by clauses 26 and 27 of the bill : Held, that, inasmuch as the allegations of the petition failed to mention that the land in question was required for the completion of the branch railway, the locus standi of the petitioners must be confined to clause 4 so far as it affected the land required for the construction of Railway No. 2 of the bill. The petitioners also claimed to be heard against clauses 26 and 27 of the bill for the completion of the branch railway, on the general ground that it was a railway intended to accommodate traffic coming from their own line, and in which they were therefore interested, and because their own bill of the present session contained powers for them to complete it in default of its completion by the promoters. They also alleged competition by it, if it were authorised to be completed by the promoters, and claimed to be heard to obtain clauses for their protection, and generally : Held, that as the powers contained in this part of the bill did not, in themselves, in- juriously affect the petitioners, they could not be heard to obtain the insertion of provisions iu the bill for their benefit. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) it is not alleged in the petition, nor is it the fact, that any lands or property of the petitioners wUl or can be taken or interfered with under the powers of the bill. The promoters admit the right of the petitioners to be heard against clause 4 of the bill so far as that clause authorises the promoters to acquire lands which the petitioners are also seeking power to acquire by their bill of the present session ; (3) the only other provisions of the bill referred to in the petition are those contained in clauses 26 and 27, by which it is sought to revive the powers and extend the time for the acquisition of lands for and for the construction of the railway known as the riverside branch so far as necessary to convert it into a passenger line, but it is not alleged in the petition, nor is it the fact, that any lands or property of the petitioners are affected by such revival of powers or extension of time ; (4) the petitioners are not entitled to be heard against the said clauses on the ground that they are by their bill seeking powers relative to the conversion of the riverside branch into a passenger line, or on the ground of apprehension that the powers sought by the said clauses may be allowed to remain- in abeyance; (5) except to the extent admitted, by paragraph 2 of this notice, the petition discloses no grounds upon which, according to the practice of Parliament, the petitioners are entitled to be heard against the bill. Cripps, Q.C. (for petitioners) : As regards clause i of the bill our locus standi is conceded, because we are seeking compulsory powers over the same land for Railway No. 4 authorised by our Barry Docks and Railway Bill of this session. I submit we ought equally to have a locus standi upon clause 4 of the bill against the revival of powers for the riverside branch railway contained in clauses 26 and 27 of the bill, because we are both seeking compulsory powers over some of this land, we for our Railway No. 4, and they for a portion of their riverside branch railway, as is apparent by reference to the deposited plans. Saunders, Q.C. (for promoters) : This is not in the petition ; it is an entirely new point of which I have had no notice. CHpps : In our petition we point out first that we both take the same land, and then we show what our case on the merits really would be. We do not oppose the making of the river- side branch, but we are seeking to have it carried out on such terms as will protect us and our traffic. Having stated what we have iu paragraph 7 of the petition, it was for the promoters to look at the deposited plan. Mr. Shieess Willi You say they were bound to look at the deposited plan in order to understand your petition, so the petition does give them notice. Cripps : Yes. The Chairman : You say that the words at the end of paragraph 7 " railway proposed by their bill " means the riverside branch, which they are to revive, as well as the new railway they are to construct. Cripps: Yes; when you look at this para- graph in connection with the deposited plan, we have a clear locus standi, but if this is not thought sufficient I will go into the general reasons why we ask for a locus standi in respect of the riverside branch. Saunders : I submit from the wording of the petition that it is clear it was never intended to refer to anything except the limitation of our power of taking land which the promoters 122 COURT OF EEFEREES. [Vol. I. require for Railway No. 2 of the bill. Tlie paragraphs of the petition relating to this matter are paragraphs 4 to 8, and are as follows : 4. " By clause 4 of the bill it is proposed to authorise the company to make and maintain, in the lines and according to the levels shown on the deposited plans and sections, the following railway : 1. A railway (on the deposited plans described as Railway No. 2) seven chains and thirty links in length, to be wholly situate in the parish of St. Mary the Virgin, Cardiff, in the county of Glamorgan, commencing by a. junction with the branch railway of the company to the River Taff, at or near the termination thereof, and terminat- ing on the north side of Corporation road at a point about four chains westward of the bridge carrying that road over the Glamorganshire canal. 5. Your petitioners are promoting a bill in the present session which is now pending in your honourable house, intituled, ' An Act to enable the Barry dock and railways com- pany to construct new railways, and for other purposes.' 6. Among the railways proposed to be constructed is a Railway No. 4, 8-5 chains or thereabouts in length, commencing by a junction with the branch railway of the Great Western railway company in the said Act described, and terminating at the north side of Corporation road, at a point 55 yards or thereabouts to the westward of the western end of the bridge carrying Corporation road over the Glamorganshire canal. 7. For the purpose of constructing the said Railway No. 4 your petitioners seek power by the said bill to acquire certain lands which are delineated on the deposited plans and described in the deposited books of reference, mentioned in their said bill, and powers are also sought by the Great Western railway company for the construction of the railway proposed by their bill, to purchase and acquire the same lands. 8. The construction of the Great Western railway company's proposed railway and your petitioners' proposed railway are not incon- sistent, but it is absolutely indispensable to your petitioners' scheme that the powers of the Great Western company to take land for the purposes of the said Railway No. 2 should be limited, so as to leave a sufficient quantity of land (which is quite practicable) for the construction of your petitioners' railway." The Chaikman: The Court think that the petition does not sufliciently allege that the lands, which the petitioners are seeking powers to acquire by their own bill this session, are the same lands as those sought to be acquired for the completion of the promoters' riverside branch, to give the petitioners a locus standi on that ground against the completion of the riverside branch. Cripps : I will now proceed with the general grounds upon which I submit I am entitled to a locus standi in connection with the revival of powers as to widening the riverside branch and turning it into a passenger line, both on the ground of interest in the line, and also on the ground of competition. Clauses 26 and 27 are as follows: — (Clause 26.) " The powers granted by the Great Western Railway Act, 1880, for the purchase of lands for the railway fourthly described in and authorised by that Act, which railway is hereinafter in this Act referred to as the riverside branch, so far as such powers have not been exercised and may be required for the purpose of enabling the company to complete and open the said railway as a pas- senger railway with a double line of rails thereon, and the necessary sidings, works and conveniences connected therewith, are hereby revived and continued, and may be exercised for the period of three years from the passing of this Act." (Clause 27.) " The powers granted by the Great Western Railway Act, 1880, for the construction of the riverside branch, so far as such powers have not been exercised and may be required for the purpose of enabling the company to complete and open the said railway as a passenger railway with a double line of rails thereon, and the necessary sidings, works and conveniences connected therewith, are hereby revived and continued and may be exercised for the period of five years from the passing of this Act." This scheme though in two parts is all one line, and cannot be separately discussed or considered, and we merely ask that the powers proposed by this bill shall be exercised in accordance with proper protection to our rights. In our bill of this session we have inserted a provision, that if the promoters do not complete the riverside branch railway, it shall be lawful for us to do so. Saunders (in reply) : The petitioners have a bill before Parliament, in which they are ask- ing for the same powers as they seek to obtain by their petition against this bill. We should not be harassed twice in the same session by different procedure. The general principle of locus standi is that petitioners shall not be heard merely for the purpose of getting some advantages conferred upon them by the bill, but for the purpose of meeting some injury which will be caused to them by the provisions of the bill. There is an entire absence of any allegation of injury in their petition, and they therefore are not entitled to be heard. Past I.J HANDSWOETH (sTAFFOED) EECTOEY BILL. 123 The Chaikman : The Locus Standi is Dis- allowed, except as against clause 4 of the bill. Agents for Petitioners, Dyson £ Co. Agents for Bill, Shenoood cO Co. HANDSWOETH (STAFPOED) EECTOEY BILL. [H.L.] Petition of Inhabitants and Chuechwaisdens OF Holy Trinity, Handswohth. 6th July, 1891.— (£c/o)'c Mr. Paekek, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shieess "Will, Q.C, M.P. ; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C ; and Mr. Bonham-Caktee.) Transfer of Advowson of Parish, and Re-endoto- inent of Rectory — Ecclesiastical Commissioners — Inhabitants and Churchwardens of Ecclesi- astical District formed from Parish — Proportion of Tithe-Rent already paid to Inctimbent of District — Claim to be heard against Bill to obtain Payment of Larger Sum — Status of Petitioners not affected by Bill. This was a bill for vesting in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners the endowments of the rectory of Handsworth, in Staffordshire, and for the re-endowment of the rectory and the transfer of the advowson to the See of Lichfield, and for the endowment or augmentation of new districts within the parish of Handsworth. Pour ecclesi- astical districts or parishes had been already formed from the parish of Hands- worth, and the tithe-rent charge of the parish had been charged with the payment of different annual sums to the incum- bents of the said ecclesiastical parishes respectively. The petition claimed to be that of the inhabitants, signing by one of their body deputed to do so at a public meeting, and the churchwardens of one of the four ecclesiastical parishes already formed out of the mother parish, and the petitioners claimed that, their district having largely increased in importance and population, a larger annual sum should be allocated to the incumbent of their parish, and that as the bill dealt with the advowson and income of the mother parish, they should be heard to obtain a larger share of the income. It was objected on behalf of the promoters that the bill in no way dealt with or affected the present payment to the in- cumbent of the petitioners' parish, and that they had no concern in the transfer of the advowson of the mother parish : Held, that the petitioners were not affected by the bill and could not be heard against it. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition does not allege or show, nor is it the fact, that any land, house property, right or interest of the petitioners, will be, or can be taken or affected under the powers of the bill, or in consequence of the execution thereof; (2) the petitioners do not complain of, nor is the petition directed against any provision contained in the bill ; (3) the ecclesiastical district or parish of Holy Trinity, Handsworth, was some time since formed out of the parish of Handsworth, the tithe-rent charge of the rectory whereof is now charged with a yearly payment to the incumbent of the said eccle- siastical district or parish, but the bill in no way interferes with or affects that charge; (4) the owner of the advowson of the rectory of Handsworth is competent to sell and dispose of the same, and the fact that a contract for the sale of the advowson to the Lord Bishop of Lichfield is proposed to be confirmed by the bill, and that provision is made by the bill for the conveyance of the advowson to and its vesting in the Bishop, as part of the possession of his See, does not entitle the petitioners to be heard against the bill, or to ask (as the petition in effect prays) that any larger share of the endowments of the rectory should be allocated to the ecclesiastical district or parish of Holy Trinity, than that district or parish is now entitled to ; (5) the petitioners are not the proper parties to raise any question as to the endowments of, or the payments made or to be made to the incumbent of the ecclesiastical district or parish of Holy Trinity, and such question (if it could properly be raised upon the bill, which the promoters deny) should be raised, not by the petitioners, but by the in- cumbent; (6) the petition does not allege or show, nor is it the fact, that the ecclesiastical district or parish of Holy Trinity is, or can be, injuriously affected by the bill ; (7) the pro- moters deny that the petition has been approved or authorised at any meeting of the inhabit- ants of the said ecclesiastical district or parish duly convened and held, or that Mr. A, J, 124 COUET OF RErBEEES. [Vol. I. Beynolds, who purports to have signed the petition on behalf of and by direction of the said inhabitants, was duly authorised to sign the petition on behalf of the said inhabitants ; (8) the bill does not contain any provision affecting the petitioners or the said eccle- siastical district or parish, or the inhabitants thereof ; (9) the petition does not allege or show that the petitioners or the said inhabit- ants have, nor have they, or any of them, in fact, any such interest in ■ the objects and provisions of the bill as entitles the petitioners to be heard against it. Pembroke Ste-phens, Q.C. (for petitioners) : The bill authorises the Ecclesiastical Commis- sioners to apply a portion of their funds to the purchase of the advowson of the rectory of Handsworth, and to invest the advowson in the See of Lichfield, and provides for the endowment or augmentation of new districts within the parish of Handsworth. The peti- tioners represent one of four parishes into which the old parish of Handsworth has been divided. When the division was made, the sum of £50 a year out of the parish funds was allocated to the incumbent of the petitioners' parish. The value of land in the parish has greatly increased of late years, and within the last ten years the population of the petitioners' parish has almost doubled itself, having risen from 4,679 to 7,429. Under these circum- stances we submit that, as this is a bill which will alter the existing arrangements in the parish of Handsworth, and particularly as the Commissioners have chosen to come to Parlia- ment, we are entitled to a locus standi. The promoters have recognised our rights by naming us in the bill, and we wish to be before Parliament to see that proper provisions are made for that part of the old parish of Handsworth which we represent. Saunders, Q.C. (for promoters) : The petition does not allege that there was a vestry meeting, and, moreover, the incumbent, if any person at all, is the proper person to raise this question. Pemhroke Stephens : The incumbent is dead, and if he had signed it would now be said that the petition must fall to the ground. The Chairman : Was the incumbent living at the time of the meeting ? Saunders : Yes ; and in fact he was favour- able to the scheme. Mr. Shikess Will : How are the petitioners hurt by this scheme at all? It merely purposes to deal with something they have no concern in, namely, the advowson, which is to be bought, and the income distributed in a certain way, and it also provides that if there is any surplus, the petitioners may have a chance of getting some. Pemhroke Stephens : If the advowson had been bought by a private person we should have been able to bring before him the change that had taken place in our district of late years, and possibly he might have done something for us, whereas now it is proposed to deal with the matter in an Act of Parliament, of which the provisions will be fixed for all time, and we submit that we ought to be allowed to be before the Committee when this matter is gone into. The income is proposed by the bill to be distributed in a way different to what it now is, and we are one of the class interested in such distribution. The Chairman : It would be different if you represented the whole parish, but you only represent one district out of four. Pemhroke Stephens : In the Stoke-upon-Trent Rectory Act, 1889, which was a bill very similar to this, I was for one of the outside parishes, and the House of Lords took our view that it was something to us that there was a distinct re-arrangement of the subject-matter. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : It was not opposed in the House ; it went to a Hybrid Committee. Saunders (in reply) : The difference between the Stoke-upon-Trent case and this is that the actual funds were dealt with and the appoint- ment of them to several parishes by the Act itself. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : There was an accumu- lated fund in the Stoke'-upon-Trent case amount- ing to many thousands, and it was to be apportioned by the bUl between different districts, and one parish said they did not get enough. The Chairman : We need not trouble Mr. Saunders any further. The Locus Standi is Disallorced. Agents for Petitioners, Dyson (C Co. Agents for Bill, liees iC- Frere. Part I.] KEIGtHLEY CORPORATION BiLL. m KEIGHLEY CORPORATION BILL. Petition of The Local Boabd of Health for THE District oe Hamwoeth, in the County OE ToBK. 9th March, 1891.— (Be/ore Mr. Pakkek, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shieess Will, Q.C, M.P.; and The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C.) Extension of Time for Construction of Works — Local Board of Neighhourinp District, having Wataioorks of their own — District within Pro- vwters' Limits of Supply — Provision in Original Act that Promoters should not supply within Petitioners' District without their Consent — Claim of Petitioners to Watershed approjmated hy Promoters under previous Acts — Groioth of Population — Necessity for further Supply to Petitioners' District — S. 0. 134a [Local A uthonties to have Locus Standi against Lighting and Water Bills] inapplicable — Public Health Act, 1875, sect. 52 — Folkestone, c&c, Traimoays Bill, 1891 (supra, p. 102), cited. The bill extended the time for the construction of certain waterworks authorised hy the Keighley Waterworks Extension and Improvement Act, 1869, for a further period of ten years. The petitioners were the sanitary authority of a neighbouring district, and claimed to be heard against the proposed extension of time and the bUl generally. The promoters conceded them a locus standi against the bill, so far as certain additional works proposed by the bill involved interference with their roads and pipes, and also as a sanitary authority against a provision in the bill (clause 18), whereby the promoters sought power to make agreements with mill- owners on a, river and streams flowing through the petitioners' district to give the mill-owners a money compensation, instead of compensation water as provided by the promoters' Act of 1869 ; but they denied the right of the petitioners to be heard against the proposed extension of time for construction of works. The petitioners' district was within the pro- moters' limits of supply ; but the former had obtained the insertion of a clause in the promoters' Act of 1869 prohibiting the latter from supplying water within their district, unless called upon to do so by .them, as they (the petitioners) had waterworks of their own, and in 1869 believed that they could continue to give an adequate supply of water to their own district. Since that date, however, the promoters having in the meantime twice obtained from Parliament an extension of time for construction of works, the petitioners' district had largely increased in population, and they claimed under the altered circumstances to be heard against a further extension of time, in which the promoters might impound streams and appropriate sources of water supply, which the petitioners claimed as naturally belonging to their own district. The promoters pointed out that it would still be competent for the petitioners to demand a supply of w:aterfrom them, the provision in the Act of 1869 being unaffected by the bill, and argued that the petitioners were not entitled to be heard against the proposed extension of time according to previous decisions : Held, however, that under the alteration of circumstances that had taken place since the passing of the promoters' Act of 1869, the petitioners were entitled to be heard generally against the bill. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) no lands, waters, water mains, or works or other property of the petitioners will be taken or interfered with under the powers of the bill, nor will any right or interest of the petitioners be prejudicially affected thereby ; (2) the petitioners do not allege, nor is it the fact, that their district will, or may be, injuriously affected by the provisions of the bill ; (3) the bill does not propose to confer any new or greater powers upon the promoters with reference to the taking and appropriation of streams and waters than they already possess, and in regard to the proposed extension of time for the construction of certain reservoirs and works, your petitioners submit that it is contrary to the practice of Parliament to allow a locus standi on a question of extension of time for the construction of works ; (4) it appears from the petition, that the peti- tioners are entirely independent of the pro- 126 COUET OF EEFEE^Eg. [Vol. 1. meters in regard to the water supply of their district, the promoters being in fact expressly prohibited from supplying water within the petitioners' district without their consent in writing; (5) the promoters deny that the petitioners cannot obtain a further supply of water without taking the streams appropriated to them ; (6) the new works, proposed to be authorised by the bill consist of a deviation of part of the authorised pipe line, and the construction of filter beds, but these will not enable the promoters to take or store any larger quantity of water than they are authorised to take and store, and the construc- tion of such new works will in no way interfere with the petitioners obtaining a suitable supply of water within a reasonable distance ; (7) with regard to the allegation contained in paragraph 18 of the petition, the promoters submit that the petitioners' roads, lanes, pipes and water courses, will be sufficiently protected under the bill and particularly by the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, which is incorporated therewith ; (8) the petition does not disclose any ground of objection to the bill which, according to the practice of Parliament, entitle the petitioners to be heard against the bQl. Balfour Browne, Q.C. (for petitioners) : I claim a locus standi under the decision of the Court in the case of the Nelson Corporation Bill of this Session (Eickards & Saunders, infra, p. 147). Bidder, Q.C. (for promoters) : We concede you a locus standi as far as interference with your roads and pipes are concerned, and against clause 16, which provides for the corporation making agreements with mill- owners on a river and streams flowing through their district in certain events to give them a money compensation in lieu of compensation water from a reservoir to be constructed under the Keighley Waterworks Extension and Improvement Act, 1869. Balfour Browne : The promoters ask for an extension of time to construct their reservoirs, and it would be an extreme hardship upon us if we were not heard against that extension of time. The corporation obtained powers to construct these works in 1869, twenty-two years ago, and these powers have since been twice extended and are now about to expire in 1892. Haworth has since grown rapidly, and some further water scheme for our district is absolutely necessary. The water of Sladen Beck, which would feed these reservoirs is our natural supply, and when the time for the construction of the works by the Keighley corporation expires, there will be no parlia- | mentary powers over that water, and we could go there for our supply. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : Sect. 52 of the Public Health Act applies to private companies ; does it not also apply to Local Boards ? Balfour Browne : Yes, I think it does ; more- over this is the only stream to which we can go. The Chaibman : This is somewhat analogous to the case of the Folkestone, Sandgate and Hi/the Tramways Bill, 1891 (Eickards and Saunders, supra, p. 102). You say new circum- stances have arisen ; let Parliament judge afresh before it extends the existing powers. Bidder : I wish to call attention to the Barrow-in-Furness Corporation Bill, 1881 (3 Clifford & Eickards, 4). Balfour Broione : The difference between that case and the present is that there the local board got a priority of supply as a condition of allowing the reservoirs to be made, whereas we got a, clause put into the Act of the corporation, saying that they were not to supply water within our limits without our consent. The Chaibman : As a matter of fact is your present water supply insufficient for you ? Balfour Browne : Yes, we derive it from a spring which we intercept, and it is insufficient at the present time. Bidder (in reply) : The petitioners are within our limits of supply, andean be supplied with water at the same rates as others in our district of supply the moment they give us notice to supply them. This is a much weaker case than that of the petitioners against the Barrow-in-Furness Corporation Bill. There the petitioners were an outside district, which had a certain claim for a supply, and they came against an extension of time for completing the reservoirs and wanted a locus standi to ask Parliament to let the powers run out in order that they might come and appropriate the watershed; but it was refused, because the question as to extension had nothing to do with them, and was not put in for the benefit of outsiders. This case is not distinguishable from that. The petitioners have no right to a locus standi, merely because they would like this watershed ; the foundation of locus standi is that there is prej udice by something contained in the bill. The Chaibman : The difference between this case and that of the Barrow-in-Furness Corpora- tion Bill, is that the Ulverston local board had secured priority for taking the water, but the petitioners here on the contrary wanted to preserve their independence, and not to be supplied by the corporation of Keighley at aU. Part t] local government PEOvIsioNAt order, etc!,, biLl. l2? Bidder : It is not alleged that anything in this bill infringes on their independence. The Chaibman : They want to do without your water, and their population is growing, and now that an extension of time is being asked for, they say let Parliament consider afresh whether we should not have our natural watershed. Bidder ■ Supposing we were coming for the first time to take this watershed, would you let ia an outside population who have no property rights, upon the plea that they would be likely to want the water, and would like to come themselves to Parliament at some future time ? The Chairman : I should have thought so, if the neighbouring people were naturally depen- dent on the same watershed, and wished to say we will come with a bill to take this water next year. Bidder : I think not. If two townships each came with a bill to take the same water, then you would hear the one against the other, but you would not hear one against the other simply on the ground that their population was growing, and that they would like some day to come with a, bill to take the same water. According to the case of the Romford Canal Bill, 1880 (2 Clifford & Eickards, 305), and the Barroio-in-Furness CorjjO)'atio7s case, the question of extension of time for completion of works is purely a matter between us and Parliament. The Chaikman : You were given the power to take this watershed and make these reservoirs under certain circumstances, and a considerable difference of circumstances may have arisen since that time. Do not the petitioners come under S. O. 134a ? This is a bill relating to the water supply of their district of which they are the local authority, and you have the power to supply them ? Bidder : I think not. S. 0. 134:A says the bill must relate to the water supply of the petitioners' district. The petitioners here are in our district, and this bill does not relate to the water supply of their district. The Chairman : The bill extends the time for making works for the water supply of their district amongst others, if they choose to take it. Mr. Shiress Will : I should not myself give a locus standi upon that ground. Mr. Ohandos-Leigh : I do not think we can stretch the Standing Order quite so far as that. The Chairman: The Locus Standi of the Petitioners in this case is Allowed. Agents for Petitioners, W. & W. M. Bell. Agents for Bill, Sharpe, Parker, Pritchard and Sharpe. LANCASHIRE, DERBYSHIRE AND EAST COAST RAILWAY BILL. Petition of John Prestwioh. 9th March, 1891.— (Be/ore Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman; The Hon. B. Chandos- Leigh, Q.C.; and Mr. Bonham-Carter.) W. M. Bell, parliamentary agent (for promo- ters), stated that clauses were being prepared which might have the effect of satisfying the petitioner, and under these circumstances he asked that the case might be postponed. Harpreaves, parliamentary agent (for peti- tioner), assented to the application. The Chairman: The case is adjourned sine die. Agents for Petitioner, Hargreaves (& Go. Agents for Bill, W. d- W. M. Bell. LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (FOR THE FORMATION OF THE EDMONTON, ENFIELD, SOUTH HORNSEY AND TOTTENHAM JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) CONFIRMA- TION BILL. Petition of (1) The Sohthgate Local Board ; and (2) Thomas James Mann and Others. 2nd March, 1891.— {Before Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shiress Will, Q.C, M.P.; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C. ; and Mr. Bonham-Cartee.) Hospital for Infectious Diseases — Formation of United District — Sanitary Authority of Adjoin- ing District Alleging Injurious Affecting — Owners and Occupiers of Adjacent Property — Objection to Proposed Site of Hospital — Absentee from Order of Provisions relating to Site — Admission of Facts alleged by Petitioners — Application to Parliament Unnecessary — Public Health Act, 1875, sects. 131, 279, 308— S. 0. 5 [Notices to specify limits of Burial Ground, Hospital, dx.] — S. 0. 151, 208a [Proceedings on Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, dc.'\. The bill confirmed a Provisional Order made by the Local Government Board under sect. 279 of the Public Health Act, 1875, for the formation of a united district for the purposes of the provision, maintenance, and management of a hospital for infectious diseases. The petitioners were the sanitary I2g COURT OF REFEREE^. CVOL. 1 authority of a district adjoining that of one of the constituent districts proposed to be united for the purposes of the Order, and they alleged in their petition that the local board of the constituent district adjacent to their own had entered into an agreement for the purchase of a site for the proposed hospital, which was actually on the border of their own district, and that this site had been approved of by the Local Government Board, who had sanctioned a loan to complete its purchase. These facts were admitted by counsel for the under- takers of the Order, who however pointed out that the Order contained no provision or reference to any site for the hospital ; that it would have been competent for the constituent districts under sect. 131 of the Public Health Act, 1875, to have combined in providing a common hospital without any application to Parliament, the only object of the Order being to provide the machinery for the management of the hospital by a joint board, and that a hospital for infectious diseases could have been built on the proposed site by the local board of the district adjoining that of the petitioners, without the latter having any power to raise objections : Held, however, that inasmuch as the under- takers of the Order had elected to apply to Parliament for the powers they desired, and having regard to the facts as to the site admitted by the undertakers, and the size of such a hospital as would be required to accommodate the population of the constituent districts, the petitioners were entitled to be heard before the Committee on the bill confirming the Order to claim protection for their district. The loais standi of the petitioners (1) was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition does not allege or show, nor is it the fact that any land, house, property, right, or interest of the petitioners will be or can be taken or affected under the powers of the bill or of the said Provisional Order ; (2) the fact that land, which may be used for an infectious hospital, adjoins the district of the petitioners does not according to the practice of Parlia- ment entitle the petitioners to be heard against the bill or the Provisional Order ; (3) no powers are contained m the bill or the Provisional Order of purchasing or utilizing the laud at World's End Farm referred to in the petition, or of using the petitioners' roads or sewers. ' The Enfield local board alone or in combination with the other local authorities named in the Provisional Order could under existing law utilize the said land for the purpose of a hospital, and the status and rights of the petitioners are not in any way altered by the bill or by the said Provisional Order ; (4) the petitioners are not entitled to be heard against the formation of a joint board for the manage- ment of infectious hospitals in districts in which they have no jurisdiction ; (5) neither the bill nor the said Provisional Order contains any provision affecting the petitioners ; (6) the petition does not allege nor show that the petitioners have, nor have they in fact any such interests in the objects and provisions of the bill or of the said Provisional Order as entitles them to be heard against it. The locus standi of the petitioners (2) was objected to on the following grounds : (1 and 2) on the same grounds as those contained in objections (1 and 2) to the locus standi of the petitioners (1) {q.v. supra) ; (3) because the formation of a joint board for the management of infectious hospitals within the districts of the various local authorities mentioned in the Provisional Order does not in any way affect the petitioners, and so far as regards any question as to the use of roads and sewers in the district of the Southgate local board, the petitioners are represented by that board who petition against the bill ; (4) because neither the bill nor the Provisional Order contain any provision affecting the petitioners ; (5) because the petition does not allege or show that the petitioners have, nor have they, in fact, any such interest in the objects and provisions of the bill, or of the said Provisional Order as entitles them to be heard against it. Pembroke Stephens, Q.O. (for petitioners (1) ) : This is a bill for the confirmation of an order made by the Local Government Board by virtue of sect. 279 of the Public Health Act, 1875, for the formation of a united district to be called the Edmonton, Enfield, South Hornsey and Tottenham joint hospital district for, as is stated in the Order, " the purposes of the pro- vision, maintenance and management for the use of the inha'bitants of the constituent dis- tricts of a hospital or hospitals for the recep- tion of cases of infectious diseases." The Pro- visional Order is one made under the provisions of the Public Health Act for the formation of a united hospital district consisting of these PaET l.J LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER, ETC., BILL, 129 four authorities. S. O. 5 has been enlarged to include district hospitals for infectious diseases, thereby showing that Parliament considered this to be one of a class of applications which required the clearest and fullest notice. If this were a bill, the limits of the land pro- posed to be used for an infectious disease hospital would have to be set out, and our right to be heard would be undoubted. We are by statute the guardians of the health of the people in our district, and this infectious diseases hospital is intended to be built on the boundary line of our district. The hospital in itself will be a source of danger to our district, and besides that patients suffering from infec- tious diseases will be brought to it along roads in our district, and the only way of draining this hospital is through the sewers of our dis- trict, as the natural slope and fall is in that direction. This is not an Enfield Order, but it is an Order for the establishment of a hospital on a huge scale for the accommodation of a population of about 130,000 entirely outside our district ; and we are informed that it is intended to make arrangements for the recep- tion of pauper patients from portions of the Edmonton union other than the four districts proposed to be created into this hospital dis- trict. We have been informed by the Enfield local board, as stated in paragraph 4 of our petition, that that board has agreed to pur- chase the land on which it is proposed to construct this infectious diseases hospital, which land is on the very border of our dis- trict, after obtaining the approval of the Local Government Board of the site, and has also applied for a loan to that Board, and the loan has been sanctioned. This state of facts is not denied by the undertakers of the Order, and to carry it out by article 14 of the Order, sects. 173 and 174, relating to contracts, and sects. 175, 176, 177, relating to the purchase of lands of the Public Health Act, are incor- porated. WTien Enfield becomes part of this joint district, instead of retaining the lands for its own use, those lands will be made over to the joint district, and the united hospital district will provide its hospital, not on the scale required for Enfield, but on the joint scale, plus the scale involved by the Edmonton union hereafter coming in. We submit that it is unreasonable in the public interests, that such a hot-bed of disease should be established without the health authority of the adjoining district being before the Committee to see that proper protective provision are introduced, if it should be decided by the Committee that this is the proper place to establish such a hospital at all, which we submit it is not. In the Bolton Improvement Bill, 1882 (3 Clifford and Rickards, 184), the corporation, who already had powers to establish a, hospital asked for powers to compel people within their own district to go to that hospital, and the outside sanitary authority who petitioned alleged that this would affect them, and they were allowed to be heard for the purpose of securing proper provisions. Ours is a stronger case, for Bolton actually had authority to provide a hospital, whereas in this case no one has such authority, but a board is proposed to be created for exercising such authority. We are injuriously affected by this Provisional Order, and claim a locus standi under S. 0. 134. Ledgard, Q.C. (for promoters) : The object of the Provisional Order is to provide for the constitution of a united hospital board, and for nothing else, and the object is merely to save expense and inconvenience, so that one hospital should be managed by a joint board, the machinery for which is provided by the Order. Sect. 131 of the Public Health Act says, "two or more local authorities may combine in promoting a common hospital," but there are not sufficient provisions in the Act for joint management, and instead of working under the Public Health Act, the undertakers wished to have the machinery which they would get under this Provisional Order. Mr. Shieess Will : You cannot caU article 14, which enables the united board to exercise some most important powers of the Public Health Act, mere machinery. Ledgard : Certain Acts are incorporated with the Provisional Order for the sake of convenience, but all that it does is to constitute a united board, and the petitioners ask as to a Provisional Order, which does not refer to any site at all, to be heard against a particular site. Although I admit the facts stated in paragraph 4 of the petition as to the site objected to by the petitioners, I say that the Enfield board could erect an infectious diseases hospital on this site, and the petitioners would have no right to object. Their legal status is not altered by this Provisional Order; moreover S. 0. 134 only refers to a private bill. Mr. Shieess Will : Standing Orders 151 and 208a make Standing Orders applicable to a private bill also applicable to a Provisional Order. Mr. Chandos-Leiqh : Though this could have been done without coming to Parhament at all, as you have come to Parliament are not the petitioners entitled to be heard? Ledgard: Not under the circumstances. The whole of the petition comes to this, that they do not object generally to the power to 130 COURT OF EEFEREES. [Vol. I. erect a hospital, and there is no objection to the formation of the board, so that the whole objection is to the particular site. If this order were dropped and the agreement for purchasing the site is carried out, the Enfield board could build a hospital on this site at once. In the case of the Local Government Board Provisional Order (Dawlish) Confirmation Bill, 1878 (2 Clifford and Eickards, 114), it was held that a hospital authority may erect an infectious diseases hospital, but if it is so conducted as to be a nuisance, the proper remedy is by action against the authority. There is nothing in the Provisional Order to override the remedy for damage given by sect. 308 of the Public Health Act. The Chmkman : The petitioners do not want damages ; they want to prevent the risk. The question that arises is this. "When the aid of Parliament is invoked to create a, powerful body of this kind, ought not the same body who create that joint body to see that they are put under limitations to safeguard their neigh- bours. Ledgard: We do not want this Provisional Order except for the convenience of the machinery it provides. Under the existing law, we have an existing right to do what is proposed to be done so far as the matter affects the petitioners. Stephens : Not upon the scale proposed by the bill. Grijjps, Q.C., appeared for petitioners (2), but the promoters agreed to concede their locus standi if that of petitioners (1) was allowed. The Chaiemam : The Locus Standi is Allowed. Locus Standi of Petitioners (2) also Alloioed. Agents for Petitioners CI) and (2), Dyson and Co. Agents for BUI, Rees <£- Frere. LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL GENERAL POWERS BILL. Petition of The Brush Electeicai Engikeeeivg Company and Six othee Eleoikioal Lighting Companies. 6th March, imi.— (Before Mr. Paekee, M.P., Chairman; Sir Geoege Eussell, If./J. ; Mr. Compton, M.P. ; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leioh, Q.C. ; and Mr. Bonham-Cabtee.) Wallace (for petitioners) : We have agreed with the promoters that the following com- panies should be struck out of the petition, viz., the Brush Electrical Engineering company; the Chelsea Electricity Supply company ; the Kensington and Knightsbridge Electric Light- ing company ; the Metropolitan Electric Supply company, and the Notting Hill Electric Light- ing company. Cripps, Q.C. (for promoters) : We admit the locus standi of the London Electric Supply corporation against clauses 18 and 22 of the bill in so far as they relate to the widening of St. George's-place, Knightsbridge, and in so far as they relate to the new street from Evelyn- street to Creek-road, Deptford; and we also admit the locus standi of the Westminster Electric Supply corporation against clauses 18 and 22 in so far as they relate to the widening- of St. George's-place, Knightsbridge. Locus Standi Allowed accordingly. Agent for Petitioners (1-7), A. C. Curtis- Hayn-ard. Agents for Bill, Dyson <& Co. MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD, AND LIN- COLNSHIRE RAILWAY (EXTENSION TO LONDON, fcc.) BILL. Petition of (1) Viscount Poetman. nth April, \%%l.— (^Before Mr. Parkbk, M.P., Chair nian; i/r. Shiehss Will, Q.C, M.P.; Mr. Hbaly, M.P.; The Eon. E. Chandos- Lbigh, Q.C; and Mr. Bonham-Caeteb.) Running Powers over Raihoay Intersecting Pro- perty of Petitioner -Prohibition of Heavy Goods Traffic iy Existing Act—Practicil Repeal of Protective Clause— Injurious Affect- ing—Claim of Petitioner to be heard generally as landowner. The bill empowered the promoters to construct railways between Nottingham and London commencing by a junction with their own railway system near the former place, and thus giving them a through roule between Manchester and other places in the north of England and the metropolis. One of the railways authorised by the bill formed a junction with the Metropolitan railway on the north-west side of London, and clause 47 of the bill gave the promoters running powers, for the purposes of traffic of all kinds, over the Metropolitan railway be- tweea this junction and the Baker-street station of that company Part I.] manchestee, Sheffield, etc., railway bill. 131 The petitioner was the owner of a large estate consisting of house property, which was intersected by this portion of the Metro- politan railway, as well as of property in the neighbourhood of Baker-street and the site of the London terminus of the pro- posed railway. By a provision (sect. 27) of the Metropolitan and St. John's Wood Railway Act, 1873, the Metropolitan company was prohibited from carrying heavy goods on this portion of their railway between the hours of eleven at night and six in the morning, and the petitioner con- tended that the effect of clause 47 of the bill was to allow the promoters to carry heavy goods traffic coming from all parts of the north of England over this portion of the Metropolitan rail- way which that company were them- selves prohibited from doing, and thus to deprive him of the benefit of sect. 27 of the Act of 1873, which had been inserted at the instance of himself and other parties, and for the protection of their property. He claimed tobe heard gei;erally as a landowner against the repeal by the bill of the protective provisions in the Act of 1873, anl also on account of the injury to his property that would result from the admis- sion of the promoters to running powers over this portion of the Metropolitan railway, which running powers he contended were an essential part of the promoters' scheme. The promoters denied that the petitioner had any special or personal rights in respect of the existing prohibition upon heavy goods traffic, and urged that, even if such were the case, he was only entitled to be heard against clause 47 of the bill : Held, however, that the repeal effected by clause 47 of the bill of the protective pro- vision of the Metropolitan and St. John's Wood Eailway Act, 1873, so affected the rights of the petitioner as a landowner that he was entitled to be heard generally against the bill. The locus standi of the petitioner was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition does not allege nor is it the fact that the bill contains any provisions giving power to take any lands or other property of which the petitioner is owner, lessee or occupier ; (3) the paragraphs of the petition numbered 3 to 6 both inclusive, the accuracy of which the pro- moters do not admit, are not such as to entitle the petitioner to be heard against the bill ; (3) the petitioner is not entitled to be heard in respect of any apprehended injury arising from the powers referred to in paragraphs 7 to 14 both inclusive of the petition ; (4) the petition -does not disclose any facts or circumstances which, according to the practice of Parliament, entitle the petitioner to be heard either against the preamble or the clauses of the bill. Cripps, Q.C. (for petitioner) : The bill autho- rises the construction of a new through railway or railways, there being nominally 14 new rail- ways included in clause 5 of the bill, commenc- ing near Nottingham by a junction with a railway of the promoters authorised by the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Act, 1889, and terminating in London. The petitioner is the owner of a large estate com- prising house property in the neighbourhood of Baker-street and St. John's Wood, and he claims a general locits standi as a landowner on two grounds : (1) because the bill indirectly removes certain restrictions upon the carriage of heavy goods traffic over a portion of the Metropolitan railway which passes through his property and (2) becnuse his property, although it is not sought to be taken compulsorily under the powers of the bill, will be injuriouslyaffected to a serious extent, while he will have no remedy at law, the injury being done not by the con- struction of works but by running powers over an existing railway. With regard to ground (1) clause 47 of the bill provides that, " The company," i.e., the Sheffield company, " and all companies lawfully working or using the rail- ways of the company or any part thereof, may run over and use with their engines and cariiages of every description * * * for the purposes of traffic of all kinds * * * the portion of the undertaking of that com- pany," i.e., the Metropolitan railway com- pany, "situate between the commencement of the said Eailway, No. 9, and the station of that company at Baker - street, in the county of London, or some part thereof, together with that station and all other stations, works and conveniences of every description pertaining to or connected with that portion of railway." The effect of that clause will be to introduce over this portion of the Metropolitan railway the goods traffic of a through railway from the north to London, and indirectly to repeal sections 26 and 27 of the I 2 132 COUKT OF REFEREES. rvoL. T. Metropolitan and St. John's Wood Railway Act, 1873, which were inserted at the instance and for the protection of the petitioner and others. Those sections are as follows : sect. 26 : " Sub- ject to the provisions of this Act, sect. 88 of the Metropolitan and St. John's Wood Railway Act, 1864" (which prohibited heavy goods traffic altogether) " is hereby repealed, provided always that it shall not be lawf al for the company to carry heavy goods until the present line is double throughout " ; sect. 27 : " It shall not be lawful for the company to carry heavy goods on the railway of the company between the Swiss Cottage and Baker-street stations between the hours of eleven at night and six in the morning." The Metropolitan railway com- pany has repeatedly attempted to obtain the repeal of those sections, and did so again last year by the Metropolitan Railway Bill, 1890, which was opposed by^ the petitioner (supra, p. 43), and the repeal of these clauses has always, as then, been successfully resisted. I say that these running powers over this por- tion of the Metropolitan railway for goods and other traffic is an essential part of their scheme for a new route to London, and that the petitioner ought to have a general locus to argue that there is no such public necessity for the railways proposed by the bill as would Justify the removal of the statutory protection given to him and his tenants by sections 26 and 27 of the Act of 1873. As regards ground (2), namely, the petitioner's claim to be heard as a landowner whose property, although not taken, will be injuriously affected by the bill, a special instruction has been given to the Committee on the bill which is as follows : " That it be an instruction to the Committee that they have power to take evidence, and to report to the House whether the site of the terminus proposed in the bill is the best which can be devised in the interests of the people of London." The Chaibman : That instruction does not say that parties alleging the contrary should be heard. Cripps : I will first deal with the right of the petitioner to be heard, quite apart from that instruction, and then see how far that right is strengthened by the fact of such an instruction having been given to the Committee on the bill. The principle at first adopted by the Court that a landowner, whose property was injuriously affected, was not entitled to be heard because he could get compensation under sect. 68 of the Lands Clauses Consolida- tion Act, 1845, has been departed from in several instances in which there was a prob- ability of serious injury to property without adequate compensation being obtainable. The use of Baker-street station for the purposes of a through railway will render the neighbour- hood, the houses in which belong very largely to Lord Portman,. unfit for residential purposes, and even if the Committee on the bill should decide that the proposed site for the London terminus of the railway, namely, Boscobel- gardens, is not the best possible, they would very likely recommend another site in the centre of Lord Portman's property, and it would then be useless for him to oppose a bill iutroduced next Session for the acquisition of that site after Parliament had sanctioned the construction of the railway up to London. There have been several cases, in which the owners of property injuriously affected by the provisions of a bill have been granted a locus standi, the first to which I will refer being t hat of the South-Eastern Railway BUI, 1876 (1 Clifford & Rickards, 258). Mr. Shiebss Will : What was about to be done in that case was to damage the light and air of certain business premises. Light and air are incidents of the property in a man's premises, therefore what was beiog damaged, or taken away, was really an appurtenant of the premises. Cripps: The petitioners there could have got compensation, which we could not. Then there is the case of the B'nylalce and Birkenhead Sail and Tramway Bill, 1881 (3 Clifford and Rickards, 65). The Chairman ; In that case the argument was not depreciation of value for residential so much as for prospective commercial purposes. Cripps : It does not matter whether rent is received from business premises or residential property. If it has to be reduced in amount the loss to the owner of the property is the same. Since the decision in the cases of Brand \ V. Hammersmith and City Railway Company (4 H. L. 171), and Rieket v. Metrtpolitan Railway Company (2 H. L. 175), Si'locus standi has been frequently given to a man who could not get adequate, if any, compensation at law. In this case the depreciation of the value of Lord Portman's property owing to tbe carriage of heavy goods coming from the north, and the construction of a large terminal station in the vicinity, will be enormous. Then I call the attention of the Court to tbe cases of the Birkenhead, Chester and North Wales Railway Bill, 1873 (1 Clifford & Rickards, 3), and tbe Metropolitan and St. John's Wood Railway Bills, 1871 and 1873 (2 Clifford & Stephens, 189, and 1 Clifford & Rickards, 46). I pray in aid the instruction to the Committee as to the proposed site of the terminus in London, and I say that PaT^T I.] MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD, ETC., RAILWAY BILL. 133 if they recommend another site, Lord Portman should, as the owner of land upon which such site would probably be recommended, be pre- sent to discuss the question of the site with the Committee. Mr. ChandoS-Lbigh : I do not think that instruction was intended to be a direction to this Court to let in anybody who would not otherwise have had a locus standi. Mr. Shiebss Will : Are not the protective clauses in the Act of 1873 in a sense attached to the land which they protect, and will not the bill therefore take away something belong- ing to the owner ? Cripps : Yes ; and no doubt the tenants have relied on those provisions when taking leases of houses. If this were a covenant running with the land, and a bill were intro- duced interfering with that covenant, there would be a landowner's general loous standi given against the bill. Pemier, Q.C. (for promoters): The peti- tioner is only entitled, if at all, to a limited Jocus standi. This is removing a special statu- tory protection, which is not a proprietary right peculiar to the petitioner, but is for the benefit of all persons owning property or residing in the vicinity of this portion of the Metropolitan rail- way, and moreover the running powers over it given to the promoters by clause 47 are not essential to the scheme of the bill. The petition is throughout directed against the repeal of sections 26 and 27 of the Metropolitan and St. John's Wood Railway Act, 1873 (which do not mention Lord Portman or his estate), until you . come to the last formal paragraphs which con- tain the usual statements that the preamble of the bill is incapable of proof, the engineering bad, and the estimates insufficient. The repeal of those sections is a collateral matter, which can and would be argued quite independently of the question involved in the preamble, namely, the construction of a great new through railway from the north to London. The Chaieman: The petitioner argues that unless he is before the Committee to show that there is no public necessity for the line it is use- less for him to oppose. Pemier : He is not the right party to discuss the great public case. The case of Mdlle. Tietjens against the Metropolitan and St. John's Wood Baihoay Bill, 1871, was stronger than the petitionei-'s case, because she was a purchaser of a house from the railway company, and in the printed conditions of sale it was stated that a copy of the Metropolitan and St. John's Wood Railway Act, 1864, which by sect. 88 prohibi- ted the carriage of heavy goods over this section of railway altogether, would be produced at the time of sale. Mdlle. Tietjens, however, was only allowed a limited locus standi against the repealing clause in that bill, and also in the hill of 1873. Mr. Shiebss Will : This is a proposal for an entirely new railway, and the stream of traffic would be much larger. The ChAiemAN : It might also be said that the owner of a large estate would be a more suitable person to argue the whole case than an individual householder. Lord Portman repre- sents a number of tenants. Mr. Hbalt : You must consider the nature of the bill. This is a bill to make a through route to London, and the argument for the petitioner is that a through route which does not involve in it the taking of heavy goods traffic to Baker- street would be an absurdity. There is no mineral traffic at present. Pemier : The cases cited for the petitioner are not in point. The Soutli-Eastern Pailmay case was one of special injury to commercial interests, . and the Hoylalie and BirltenJiead case was one j of injury to access to a navigable river, and in | oases of injury to access the Court is indulgent to petitioners. Surely because the petitioner is a large landowner the Court will not depart from its usual practice and give a locus standi on the ground of mere injurious afEecting. The other oases cited are all oases of special damage, and not those of an ordinary landowner injuri- . ously affected by a bill. Mr. Shiebss Will : Speaking for myself, I should not be disposed to alter what has gener- ally been the practice here on account of the cases cited on behalf of the petitioners which are capable of being explained by their special circumstances. The real point to my mind is whether the repeal of the \ rotective clauses in the Act of 1873 in the case of a bill involving the bringing of this new stream of traffic into London is sufficient to give the petitioner a general loous standi. Mr. Hbaly : The removal of this restriction appears to be vital to the whole scheme. The Chairman : We think the Petitioner is entitled to a general Loetis Standi. Agents for Petitioner, Byson 3,- Co. Petition of (2) Ownbks, Lessbbs, and Occu- piBBS 01? LANDS, Houses, and Propeety in THE Paeishbs of Saint Maeylbbone, and St John, Hampstbad ; (3) John Woollby Pitt and Thomas John Pitfield and Others. 134 COURT OP REFEREES. [Vol,. Ranning Pomers over Mailway — Proliibition of Heavy Goods Traffic Iry Existing Act— Repeal of, hy Bill— Construction of Terminal Station — Injurious Affecting — Loss of Amenity — Owners, Lessees and Occupiers — Inhabitants — S. 0. 134 {Municipal Authorities and Irihabi- tants of Towns')— Meaning of "District" in S. 0. A general locus standi was also claimed against tlie bill by (1) 1,460 owners, &o., of property (of whom 150 were conceded a locus standi, their property being included within the limits of deviation) and (2) by a compara- tively small number of owners,&c.,of property in the neighbourhood of the portion of the Metropolitan railway proposed to be used by the promoters for traffic of all descriptions, and in the neighbourhood of the London ter- minus of the proposed railway. Both sets of petitioners claimed to be heard on account of the repeal by the bill of sect. 27 of the Metropolitan, &c., Railway Act, 1873, on the same grounds as those taken by (1) Viscount Portman (([.v. supra) ; and also on account of the proposed erection of a terminal station near their property, which they alleged would have the effect of destroying the residential character of their neighbourhood, and so aflEecting the amenity and va'.ue of their property. The pe.itioners (3) claimed to be heard as individual owners, &c., of property, who would be similarly affected as (1) Viscount Portman, and the petitioners (2) claimed to be heard both as owners, &c., and as inhabitants of a district injuriously affected by the bill under S. 0. 134. Counsel for the promo- ters conceded the petitioners a limited locus standi as to the repeal of sect. 10 of the , Metropolitan, &c.. Railway Act, 1873, but I denied their right to be heard generdlly as j landowners on account of loss of amenity, ' their property not being sought to be oom- f pulsorily acquire! under the bill, or as in- habitants of a district injuriously affected by the bill, within the meaning of S. 0. 134 : rield, however, that both petitioners (2) and (3) were entitled to be heard generally against the bill, the former, it appeared, being ad- mitted as inhabitants under S. 0. 134. The locus standi of the petitioners (2) was objected to on the following grounds (1) t!ie petition does not allege nor is it the fact th it the bill contains any provisions giving power to take any lands or other property of which the ^jetitioners are owners, lessees, or occupiers ; (2) the paragraphs of the petition numbered 4 to 8, both inclusive, the accuracy of which the promoters do not admit, are not such as to entitle t!ie petitioners to be heard against the bill ; (3) the petitioners are not entitled to be heard in respect of any apprehended injury arising from the construction of the railway ; (4) the petition does not disclose any facts or circumstances which, according to the practice of Parliament, entitle the petitioners to be heard either against the preamble or the clauses of the bill. The locus standi of the petitioners (3) was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition does not allege nor is it the fact that the bill contains any provisions giving power to take any lands or other property of which the petitioners are owners, lessees, or occupier^. Indeed the petitioners only allege that they are owners, lessees, and occupiers of property in the immediate neighbourhood of the termination of the proposed Railway No. 9 and this does not entitle them to be heard against the bill ; (2) the paragraph of the peti- tion numbered 5, the accuracy of which the promoters do not admit, is u^t such as to entitle the petitioners to be heard against the bill; (3 and 4) on similar grounds to those contained in objections (3 and 4) to the locus standi of petitioners (2), supra. Saunders, Q.C. (for petitioners) : The petition is signed by 1,460 people, of whom 150 are within the limits of deviation, and their locus standi is not objected to, but the remainder are not actually within the limits of deviation, and they seek to appear upon one petition. The piece of land between the St. John's Wood rail- way and R?gent's-park is entirely represented by us, and besides those residing in that par- ticular district there are others residing in the neighbourhood. The petition alleges that this district will be injuriously affected by the con- ■itruction of the railway, turning what is now a residential neighbourhoo I into a commercial one, and turning quiet roads into streebs which would be used by heavy traffic to and from the new railway station, and we contend upon these grounds quite apart from and in addition to, the repeal of clause 27 in the Metropolitan and St, John's "Wood Railway Act, 1873, that we are entitled to appear as representing a class, though our land is not taken. The petition is thoroughly representative, and is signed by con- Part I. MANCHJESTER, SHEFEIELD, ETC., RAir-WAY BILL. 135 siderably more than half of the residents in this district, some of them being also freeholders. In the case of the Metropolitan and St. John's Wood Railway Bill, 1871 (2 Clifford & Stephens, 189), which sought to repeal a protective pro- vision, 250 owners, lessees, and occupiers peti- tioned against the repeal of the provision, and their locus standi was allowed, although they were not within the limits of deviation. Another case was that of the Metropolitan, cS'c , Mailroay Bill, 1873 (1 Clifeord & Rickards, 46), when the same company renewed the attempt to repeal that clause, having failed in 1871. In that case a general loo^is standi was asked for, and the petitioners were given a locals standi to be heard against the repeal of the 'clause. Therefore those cases are a distinct authority in favour of all these people whose land is not taken being heard as regards the repeal of a clause of that trial, and I need not argue that giving powers to a third company to run over this railway is a practical repeal of the clause in the Act of 1873. Pemher, Q.C. (for promoters) : I admit your right to a locals standi to be heard against the repeal of the clause. Saunders : The question then arises whether or not we are not entitled to a general locus standi upon the authority of Lord Portman's case decided yesterday, or as inhabitant under S. 0. 134. Mr. Shieess Will: We decided in Lord Portman's case that if the opposition is to be of any use in a case of this kind the loous standi ought to be against the whole scheme. Saunders : If we got a limited lociis standi from a certain number of the petitioners and a general locus standi for 150, it would be most difficult to distinguish between one set and the other in the conduct of the case. Moreover our interest cannot be said to be unimportant, and if we are to be affected iirst by the practical repeal of the clause by giving running powers, and secondly in the alterna- tive by the construction of a new line of railway close by in a tunnel to do exactly the same thing, I submit we ought to have a general locus standi. If it was a reasonable thing that there should have been a restriction placed upon the old line, it must be also reason- able that those who now have the benefit of that should be heard to ask that a restriction of the same kind be put upon the new railway. The Chaieman : Parliament might say to the promoters, you may have it as a passenger line but not for heavy traflSc. Saunders : This is an entirely new case. The effect of this bill will be to destroy and entirely alter the character of this residential neigh- bourhood, and the bill not only proposes to run a line through a residential neighbour- hood, but it also proposes to erect a large station, for the first time, in the middle of what is entirely a residential neighbourhood. The case of the petitioners cannot properly be repre- sented by those who are included within the limits of deviation, for they will leave the neighbourhood after their property is taken. Parliament would never prevent the enlarge- ment of a station after it was built, merely because it was in a residential neighbourhood, and this makes it therefore most essential that the petitioners should be heard whether there should be a station here or not, more par- ticularly when there is an instruction to the Committee that they shall take into considera- tion whether this is the best site for a station. The Chaieman : If these petitions were taken separately according to the practice of the Court, there might be a difficulty in giving a loctis standi, but it presents rather a new feature when the whole thing is on a vast scale, and when the Committee will certainly have to consider the conflicting interests of the' district and the railway company. Saunders : The case of the Soutlijjort and Cheshire Lines Extension Railway Bill, 1882 (3 Clifford & Rickards, 227), is not quite the same as this, but the principle adopted there may well be adopted here; taking the particular circumstances of that case it was held that within a certain district people had such an interest that the Court gave them a locus standi for loss of amenity, though they were not owners, lessees, or occupiers of property com- pulsorily taken. Thisis a much greater grievance to a large neighbourhood, and in a case like this you cannot limit lbs / 'ns standi to those people who are actually fronting upon the r.iilway. I submit that we are a class en- titled to be heard under S. 0. 134, and that the question of what is a district within the meaning of the Standing Order turns very much on the particular circumstances of each parti- cular case. TheCHAlEMAN: I should construe "district" to mean a district ad hoc. Suppose a line run- ning through two or three miles of the metro- polis, a district would be a reasonable district on either side of it, as against any parochial district. Saunders : There is this further po'nt, that our access will be indirectly affected by this bill, as certain roads will be stopped up, and the traffic now going through those roads will be driven out of those roads into the neighbonr- hood in which our houses ar9 situated. Mr. Shieess Will : You claim a locus standi 136 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. under S. 0. 134. Yon say the 1,300 petitioners petition as the inhabitants of a district ? Saunders : Yes. Mr. Bonham-Caetee : You would say that the superior interests of the 150 petitioners would not entirely cover the lesser interests of the 1,300 petitioners. Saunders : No ; it might be that the people within the limits of deviation might get an agreement from the promoters that their property should be taken, and therefore the whole question of the amenity of the neigh- bourhood, which they might have raised, would be dropped. Crijyps, Q.C. (for petitioners (3) ) : We are owners and lessees of property in the immediate neighbour hoood of the proposed station at the junction of Eoscobel-gardens with Boscobel- place. I do not put our case on S. 0. 134, but we oViject to the bill on the same grounds as the former petitioners. The real question is whether our locus standi is to be limited to the running powers into Baker-street, or whether we are to have a general locus standi. I submit we are entitled to a general locus standi, really being in the same position as Lord Portman, though having a separate and distinct interest. Peniber (in reply) : What the Court are asked to do in this case is a serious departure from the old rule, that unless a landowner's land is taken he has no right to be heard. Suppose the Court gave all these petitioners a general locus standi, and suppose clause 47 is withdrawn, then these landowners would have got a general locu^ standi against a bill for making a railway when not a yard of any of their land was taken. Mr. Shiehss Will: We must decide the case as if the clause was in the bill. Pember : If the alternative line alone had been in the bill the petitioners would not have been entitled according to practice to be heard. The petitioners do not come within S. 0. 134. The Chairman : One question is whether " district " in the Standing Order is not to be interpreted as something different to "parish." Pember : Though you must not interpret the word district too technically, I do not believe the word " district," coming as it does in conti- guity to the word " town," means a mere hap- hazard neighbourhood along the line of railway. The ChAIKMAn: Would you say that the parish of St. Marylebone would be a district in this case ? Pember : That is one of the difficulties, Mr. Shiebss Will : Is there a district of St. John's Wood ? Pember : Technically I deny that there is any such thing. You are here asked for the first time to allow petitioners whose land is not taken a. general loeus standi on the ground of amenity alone. With regard to roads the Court has never allowed a loeus standi to a petitioner on the question of the mere stopping up of a road, unless the access has been p rivate and spe cial t o the petitioneJT'atnr'still less would it give a totiVia Stwiidl where it does not destroy any convenience of his own, but simply makes the use of the roads a little more than hitherto and so inflicts indirect damage on him. The Chaieman : Where you have a large re- presentative body as in this case alleging that the effect of this would be to send a lot of traffic through their streets it is a different matter. Pember : That merely shows that this is not a special and private matter, and that the proper persons to deal with it are the road authority. In this case the London County Council, tlje Vestry of Marylebone, and the Vestry of St. John, Hampstead, all petition, and allege injury by sending traffic through these roads, and it is obvious that the petitioners are represented by these public authorities. The Chairman: The petitioners say that there may be cases in which, the general authority does not represent special interests. Pember : I submit there is no special interest here. The case of the Midland Railway Bill, 1871, on the petition of George Lane Fox (2 Clifford & Stephens, 108), is very similar to the present. There the petitioner's locus standi was refused on the ground that the road trustees were the proper people to appear. Saunders : In the case which has been cited of the llidland Railway Bill, though it is true that Mr. George Lane Fox was not given a locus standi, yet, on the petition of 334 inhabi- tants of Carlton representing the district, a locus standi was allowed. The road authority represent the parish generally, and not only this particular part of it, and as they might be settled with we submit that we are entitled to be heard. The Chairman: The Locus Standi of the Petitioners (2) and (3) is Allowed. Agent for Petitioners (2), Dyson ping up of Level Crossing over Railway — Owners, Lessees, and Oceupiers — Loss of Access, and Depreciation in Value of Property — Alleged Agreement of Railroay Company with JRojd Authority to make new Bead and Foot Bridge — Agreement not Confirmed by Bill — Might of Petitioners to he heard against Bill as deposited — Practice. Clause 18 of the bill empowered the promoters to stop up a level crossing across their railway in the neighbourhood of tho petitioners' property, which they alleged would be injuriously affected and depre- ciated in value by the loss of access occasioned by the closing of the level crossing. The promoters stated to the Court that they had entered into an agree- ment with the road authority to make a new road near the -level crossing, and to provide a foot bridge at the place where the level crossing now was. The peti- tioners objected, (1) that the substituted road would not form so good an access to their property as the level crossing at present afforded ; (2) that the bill did not impose any obligation on the promoters to make a new road or foot-bridge, or confirm the alleged agreement with the road authority, and claimed to be heard against the bill as deposited : Hold, that they were entitled to be heard against clause 18 of the bill, and so much of the preamble as related thereto. The locus standi of the petitioners was ob- jected to on the following grounds : (1) it is not alleged in the petidon, nor is it the fact that any lands or property of the petitioners win or can be taken under the powers of the bill ; (2) the petitioners are not the persons having the control or management ot the road referre 1 to in the petition, of which a portion is proposed to be stopped up under the powers of the bill ; (3) the petition does not allege or disclose any such special estate, right or interest in the said road as entitles the petitioners to be heard against the bill, nor have they any greater or other interest in the said road than the general public using the same, and they are' not entitled to be heard either on their own behalf or as representing the public ; (4) the. said road is a public road under the control of the proper authority of the district, who are the proper parties to be heard against the bill in respect of the said road, and they have not objected to the bill; (5) the apprehended injury to and interference with the property rights or interests of the petitioners alleged in the petition is not, nor is the apprehended incon- venience to the tenants and occupiers mentioned in paragraph 8 of the petition, a ground orl which the petitioners are entitled to be heard against the bill, and the petition discloses no grounds upon which, according to the practice of Parliament, they are entitled to be heard against the bill. Bickards (for petitioners) : The bill involves a serious alteratio n, as regards accessibility, in the conditions upon which the petitioners own or occupy houses, both as private residences and for trade purposes, in the neighbourhood of what is now a level crossing across the North British Railway. Clause 18 of the bill em- powers the promoters to stop up the level crossing, and thereby to interfere with the access to our property, which will seriously affect our interests, anl depreciate the value of the property. Clause 18 is as follows : When and so soon as the bridge now in process of construction by the road authority over the roa'i known as the Dundyvan-road in the parish of Old Monklaud in the county of Lanark has been completed and opened for public use the company may stop up the crossing on the level of such road by the railway, and all rights of way over so much of the said road as lies between the boundaries of the property o£ the company shall thereupon be extinguished and the site and soil of so much of the said road as shall be so stopped up and d soontinued and the fee simple thereof shall be from the time of the stopping up thereof wholly and absolutely vested in the company for the purposes of their undertaking." The bridoe referred to in that clause, which the promoters i.re under no obligation by the bill 152 COURT OF EEFEEEES. [Vol. I. to make, is a considerable distance away and would in no way compensate us for the loss of the local crossing which this bill seeks to stop up. Bidder, Q.C. (for promoters) : We have come to an agreement with the local board as the road authority, to make a new road and also a foot-bridge where the level crossing is now. Ricltards : No such agreement is referred to in or confirmed by the bill, which as it stands contains no provision for providing a foot-bridge at this point. On the contrary, clause 18 pro- vides that all rights of way shall be extin- guished, and we claim to be heard against the bill as deposited. Mr. Chandos-Lbigh : The London and South Western Raihvaij (Various Poicers) Bill, 1883, on the petition of George Burton (3 Clifford and Rickards, 313), seems to be almost on all fours with this case. Bidder : In the face of that case I do not think I ought to occupy the time of the Court in asking them to shut out the petitioners from being heard against clause 18 of the bill. The Chairman : The Locus Standi is Allowed limited to clause 18, and so much of the preamble as relates thereto. Agents for Petitioners, Loch S; Qoodkart. Agents for Bill, Sli em-cod ^- Co. EOTHERHAM, BLYTH AND SUTTON RAILWAY BILL. Petition of The Manchester, Sheffield and LiNCOLNSHIEB RAILWAY COMPANY. 2nd March, l^lil.— {Before Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shiress Will, Q.C, M.P. ; the Hon. E. ChAndos-Leigh, Q. C. ; and Mr. Boxiiam-Caetee.) Bailmay Cmiqianies—Same Land Scheduled under Bill jointly promoted ty Petitioners and Third Railway Company — Limited or General Locus— S. 0. 133 [In what cases Railrvay Companies to ie heard] — Competition. The petitioners claimed to be beard (1) generally on the ground of competition with their own railway, which would arise from the con- struction of the railway proposed by the bill, and from a power conferred upon the promoters of making a working agreement with the Great Northern company ; and (2) specially on the ground that the promoters scheduled for compulsory purchase the same land which they also scheduled in a bill jointly promoted by themselves and the Midland railway company : Ue!d, that they were not entitled to be heard (1) on the ground of competition, but were entitled to be heard as to ground (2) within the meaning of S. 0. 133. The locus standi of the petitioners was ob- jected to on the following grounds : (1) it is not iJleged in thepetitionnorisitthefactthatthe bill contains any provision for taking or using any lands or property of the petitioners orfor running engines or carriages upon or across any railway of the petitioners ; (2) the petitioners are not entitled, according to the practice of Parliament, to be heard against the provisions of tLe bill, authorising the promoters to enter into agree- ments with another company, but only in f o far as it is proposed to authorise agreements wi!h ihe petitioners ; (3) no such competition with or diversion of traflBc from the railways of the petitioners will or can be created under the powers of the bill as to entitle them, according to the practice of Parliament, to be heard against the same ; (4) the petition discloses no grounds upon which, according to the practice of Parlia- ment, the petitic ners are entitled to be heard against the bill. Worsley- Taylor, Q.C. (for petitioners): Wc ask to be heard, first, on the ground of competition. The line proposed by the bill will run from Rotherham to Sutton, where it will join the main line of the Great Northern between Don- caster and Retford. The petitioners' line runs from Rotherham to Sheifield, and thence via Kiverton Park and Worksop to Retford, and Part I.] Sheffield and midland railway, etc., bill. 153 there joins the Great Northern railway. Secondly, we are promoting this year in con- junction with the Midland railway company a coal line, which this proposed line crosses, and it will tap the same coal-field, and instead of this coal going by our line to Retford it will go by the new line. Further, as we allege, they must take the same lands at the point of intersection between their line and ours. Thirdly, the promoters take power to agree with the Great Northern company to work the new line, the effect of which may be to turn it into a Great Northern line and so enable the Great Northern hereafter to come direct into Eotherham, and so take away all the traffic of our line between Rotherham and Retford. Balfour Br&mne, Q.C. (for promoters) : The petitioners are not entitled to be heard against the power given to us in the bill to agree with the Great Northern railway company. The petitioners are promoters with the Midland of a new line, which traverses the country north and south, while ours does it east and west. The promoters of that line are a joint committee of the petitioners and the Midland company, and therefore the petitioners are not entitled to appear here and oppose our line except in con- junction with the Midland, and they do not appear. Mr. Chandos-Lbigh : The Manchester, Shef- field and Lincolnshire company opposed the Rotlierliam and Bamitry Bill by them- selves. Balfour Browne : Yes, because in that case junctions were made with the petitioners' rail- way, but that is not so here. The petition does not allege where the competition arises, or the points between which it will be. We do not deny that they are entitled to a limited locus standi in respect to our crossing their line. The case of the Whitehaven, Cleator amd Egremont Railway Bill, 1877 (2 Clifford and Rickards, 65), decides that they are only entitled to a limited locus standi on that point. We say our own line will develope a totally different district to theirs. Mr. Chandos-Lbigh : In which paragraph of your petition do you allege competition between Eotherham and Retford ? Wursley-Taylor : That is covered by the words at the end of paragraph 5 that they will com- pete with us " for the traffic to and from the works which are now accommodated by the petitioners' railways," that is to say, works in Rotherham, the traffic of which we take by our railway to Retford. The Chaieman : It is mentioned in rather a cursory way. Worsley-Taylor : We are bound by the petition and notices of objection. If the promoters in- tended to take the point that we had not alleged specific termini they ought to have done so in their notices of objection. Balfour Browne : Merely because we happen to have a station in Rotherham does not give a locus standi to everybo ly who has a. station in Eotherham. I say there are no works that would be served by this line that would be served by the petitioners' line. The petitioners say that works on their line and served by them will be accommodated by this new line. No termini are mentioned, the competition is alleged in an exceedingly vague way, and we were not bound to traverse things not mentioned. We submit that there is no competition shown on the petition. The Chairman : The Zocus Standi is Dis- allowed, except as regards the crossing of and interference with land also proposed to be taken under the petitioners' bill of this Session, within the meaning of S. 0. 133. Agents for Petitioners, Wyatt S,- Co. Agents for Bill, Walter Webb S' Co- SHEFFIELD AND MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANIES COMMITTEE BILL. Petition of (1) The Sheffield and South Yokk- SHiBE Navigation Company. 6th March, 1891.— (Be/orc Mr. Pabkee, M.P., Chairman ; Sir Geoege Ecssell, M.P. ; Mr. CoMPTON, M.P.; The Hon. E. Chandos- Leigh, Q.C; fflfid Jtf)-. Bonham-Cabtee.) Railway Company Scheduling Land part of Navi- gation Undertaking— Compulsory Powers of Purchase of Navigation htj Petitioners under existing Act— Claims to be heard as Landowners Notice to Treat — Lands Glauses Consolidation Act, 1845, sect. 16, how far applicable. The bill authorised the construction of certain railways, and for that purpose the taking of land belonging to the river Dun naviga- tion. The petitioners had obtained under the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Naviga- tion Act, 18B9, powers of purchasing by agreement or compulsorUy, upon terms to be settled by arbitration, the naviga- 154 dOUET OP EEP'EBEliS. [Vol. I. tions belonging to the Manchester, Sheffielcl and Lincolnshire railway com- pany, including the river Dun navigation, and the same Act conferred upon them powers for deepening and widening (among others) the river Dun navigation. The petitioners complained that the taking of laud along that navigation, as authorised by the bill, would restrict them in widen- ing and improving it under their Act ; and they claimed that, having given the Sheffield company notice of their inten- tion to purchase the navigation, they were in the position of landowners with reference to it. Counsel for the promoters relied upon certain provisions of the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation Act, 1889 (one of which provided that the com- pulsory taking of the navigations belonging to the Sheffield company should "be deemed a compulsory taking, under the terms and conditions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845," which made the raising of the whole of a company's capital a condition precedent to the exercise of compulsory powers of purchase), as differentiating the petitioners' case from that of an ordinary landowner who had received notice to treat ; Held, however, that the locus standi of the petitioners must be allowed. The locus standi of the petitioners (1) was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petitioners do not allege in their petition, nor is it a fact, that any lands, houses or other property belonging to the petitioners will be taken or interfered with under the powers of the bni. The promoters of the bill are, and the petitioners are not, the owners of the navi- gation of the river Dun and the lands forming part of the undertaking ; (2) the petitioners are not entitled to be heard upon any allegations of injury to or interference with the said navigation and lands, the rights and interests respecting which are vested in and represented by the promoters; (3) the petitioners do not allege any ground in their petition, nor have they any interest which entitles them to be heard on their petition against any of the provisions of the bUl consistently with the ordinary rules and practice of the House of Commons. Coates, parliamentary agent (for petitioners) : The petitioners were incorporated by the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation Act, 1889, for the object of acquiring from the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire railway company the canal undertakings which they possessed, especially the river Dun navigation, and under that Act we obtained compulsory powers to take these canals. The company was formed, and we gave notice to treat under the Act, thus placing ourselves in equity in the possession of owners, and I submit that we have a sufficient interest in this undertaking to give us a locus standi to ask for protection against works authorised by this bill which wiU constrict the navigation and entirely prevent us from exercising one of the most important powers of our Act, namely, the improvement of the navigation by both deepening and widening. The promoters have not the same interest in protecting the interests of the navigation as we have. Parliament having given us express powers to obtain pos- session compulsorily of this navigation. \Balfowr Browne, Q.C. (for petitioners) re- ferred to the case of the London and Eastbourne Railway Bill, 1883, on the Petition of the Oxted and Groomhridge Railway Company (3 Clifford and Eickards, 301), and Mr. Bonham-Caeter referred also to the case of the London and South-Western Railway Bill, 1884, i6., 424.] Worsley-Taylor, Q.C. (for promoters) : The petitioners only claim a locus standi against that part of the bill which would authorise the crossing of the river Dun navigation. The compulsory powers that they have are not only the powers of the Lands Clauses Consolidated Act, 1845. Sect. 25 of the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation Act, 1889, pro- vides that, failing agreement with the Sheffield company, the Navigation company shall give notice within two years of the passing of the Act of 1889, to purchase compulsorily the existing navigations, and sub-sect. 2 of that section provides : (2) "In case the notice under this section is not given, then all the powers in this Act contained for the compulsory taking by the company of the existing navigations shall absolutely cease and determine, and in the meantime and until the completion of the said purchase as aforesaid it shall not be lawful without the consent of the Sheffield company signified under their common seal for the company, notwithstanding anything in this Act contained to enter upon, take, use or interfere with any of the lands, works or property of the Sheffield company." Therefore, tOl the completion of the purchase the land remains ours to deal with as we like. Sub- I»ART I.] SHEFFIELD AND MIDLAND RAILWAY, ETC., BILL. 155 sect. 4 of the same section says: "The sale and purchase of the existing navigation by the Sheffield company (if otherwise than by agreement) shall be deemed a compulsory taking under the terms and conditions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845." The Lands Clauses Act says before you can issue and serve your notice you must have subscribed the whole of your capital. I submit that that clause enabling them to give us notice was really for our protection, and was inserted in order that we might have some security that the thing would be gone on with, and as a condition precedent to the exercise of any of their powers of purchase, they were, under sect. 26 of the same Act, to deposit £20,000 with the Sheffield banking company to the credit of themselves and ourselves. Subject to that extra condition, the powers, which would be vested in them upon the service of the notice upon us, under sub-sect. 4 of sect. 25 of their Act, only come into effect -on the conditions prescribed by the Lands Clauses Act. I submit they have not given notice within the meaning of that section, and they cannot have done it because they have not raised their capital as required by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, and, therefore, they have not given notice to treat within the meaning of the Act. The Chaibman : The Locus Standi is Allowed. Agents for Petitioners (1), Bijson d- Co. Petition of (2) The Great Nomheen Kajlwat Company. Bailways — Competition, Sufficiency of Allegations of Petition — Practice — Alleged Improvement of existing Competition — Competition Jjy Circuitous Route possible, but not effective. The biU authorised the Sheffield and Midland railway companies committee to construct certain railways, forming junctions with the railways of each of the two con- stituent companies, between Worksop and Doncaster, which would, the peti- tioners alleged, compete with their main line between Eetford and Doncaster, and also serve the South Yorkshire coal- field already served by the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners laid special stress upon the competition that would be created by the introduction into this district of the Midland railway company, but on behalf of the promoters an objection was taken that, beyond alleging that the Midland company were jointly promoting the bill, the petition contained no specific allegation of competition by that company : Held, however, that this competition must be inferred from the facts disclosed by the bill and the petition and reference to the map of the district. It was further contended on behalf of the promoters that the bill woiild only improve an existing competition, but their counsel declined to say that the existing com- petition was effective, or that traffic was at present actually sent by the existing route under the control of the promoters : Held, that under these circumstances there could not be said to be existing competition, and that the locus standi of the petitioners must be allowed. The locus standi of the petitioners (2) was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petitioners do not allege in their petition nor is it the fact that any lands, houses, or other pro- perty belonging to the petitioners will be taken or interfered with under the powers of the bill; (2) the railways proposed by the bill would not enable the promoters to compete with or divert traffic from the petitioners' railway to a greater extent than they are able to do at present ; (3) no new competition will be created between the promoters and the petitioners, and if any diversion of traffic can be shown as likely to arise it will not be of such a nature or to such an extent as to give the petitioners a right to be heard on their petition ; (4) the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire railway company, who are joint promoters of the bill, acquired the undertaking of the South Yorkshire railway and river Dun company which accommodates the South Yorkshire coal-field some years after the date of the agreement referred to in paragraph 5 of the petition, and that agreement could not in any way affect the traffic arising from the South Yorkshire coal - field, nor will the making of the proposed railways divert any traffic provided for by that agreement ; (5) the district through which the railways proposed to be authorised by the bill will pass, although part of the South Yorkshire coal-field, is not accommodated by any railway belonging to the petitioners, and they have no right to be heard against the bill on the ground of competition ; (6) the petitioners do not allege any ground in their petition, nor have they any interest, L 2 156 COURT OP REFEREES. [Vol. 1. which entitles them to be heard on their peti- tion against any of the provisions of the bill consistently with the ordinary rules and prac- tice of the House of Commons. Pope, Q.C. (for petitioners) : This is a bill promoted by the joint committee of the ShefiSeld and Midland railway companies in the con- struction of a line practically between Work- sop and Doncaster. The petitioners' main line runs from Doncaster to Eetford, and Retford is mentioned in the petition, because it is the key to the whole of thetraffi.o beyond, and any- thing that diverts traf&c from the line between Doncaster and Retford diverts it beyond Bet- ford. If this line were sanctioned it would give the Midland, for the first time, an inde- pendent access to Doncaster, and will intro- duce a new competition for traffic for Doncaster and places beyond Doncaster, going to the south. We say also that there is an agree- ment between the Sheffield company and our- selves which should in good faith prevent them from diverting any traffic from our main route at Retford, but this line will give them a new interest in combination with the Midland to divert traffic from Betford and hand it over to the Midland company for conveyance to the south, or convey it themselves to the various points of destination. The Sheffield company is also promoting a new line to London this year, and this scheme in combination with that would enable the Sheffield company to divert the whole of this traffic on its own lines to the south. With regard to competition by the introduction of the Midland company, our petition alleges as follows : — (Paragraph 3.) " The bill is promoted by the Sheffield and Midland railway companies committee, which is a joint committee, com- posed of members of the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire and Midland raUway com- panies, and incorporated by the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire BaUway (Additional Powers) Act, 1872." (4.) "By the bill the committee seek power to make five short lines of railway in the South Yorkshire coal-field : — Bailway (No. 1) is to commence by a junction with the Midland raUway, at Worksop, and to join the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire railway, a few miles west of Doncaster; and Bailways (No. 2), (No. 3), (No. 4), and (No. 5) are short branches to connect the Bailway (No. 1) with the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire railway between Betford and Sheffield, and with another portion of the Midland railway from Chesterfield to Ponte- fraot." (5.) " The effect of these railways will be to establish a new railway nearly parallel with your petitioners' railway between Betford and Doncaster, which will create competition with and deprive your petitioners of traffic hitherto carried between those points by the Great Northern route, under an agreement made in 1860 between the Great Northern and the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire companies, and your petitioners ask that a clause similar to sect. 8 inserted in the Great Northern Bailway (Doncaster to Gainsborough) Act, 1864, for the extension of the Great Northern railway from Doncaster to Gains- borough, providing for compensation to the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire rail- way company for any diversion of traffic and for any damage or loss consequent on the con- struction, working and competition of the said railway, may be inserted in the bill for the pro- tection of your petitioners." (6.) " The railway will pass through a district known as part of the South Yorkshire coal-field, and your peti- tioners are large carriers of coal to London from the South Yorkshire coal-field, of which the said district forms a part. Your petitioners have further running powers secured to them by Parliament over the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire railway from Betford to Sheffield, by means of which your petitioners could readily pass to and from the proposed line." I admit that the grounds of competition are not very fully and explicitly disclosed on the face of the petition, yet having regard to the district served by the proposed railway, and the powers of agreement taken by the bill, viz., joint ownership with the Midland company, which would enable the Midland company to acquire a direct route between Doncaster and London which they have not now, I submit that sufficient grounds of competition have been disclosed to show that, on the face of the map and in the facts disclosed by the bill and the petition, there is introduction into the dis- trict of a new competition for traffic to the south, and that therefore a competition will be created which gives us a right to a locus standi. It is not the practice of this Court to require too strict and accurate a description by words of the competition which is feared, if that can be inferred from the bill and from the petition. The Chaikman: It must, at aU events, be sufficient to give notice to the other side that that is the point which they have to answer. Poxie : Yes ; that was the question raised in the JSedford and Peterborough Railway Bill, 1886 (Bickards & Michael, 87). Worsley-Taylor, Q.C. (for promoters) : Ac- cording to the practice of this Court the peti- tioners must be limited to the matters alleged in the petition. The real question arises in paragraph 5, where they say : " The effect of Part I.] SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. 157 the proposed railways will be to establish a new railway nearly parallel with your peti- tioners' railway between Retford and Don- caster which will create competition with and deprive your petitioners of traffic hitherto carried between those points by the Great Northern." The competition with the Midland is only hinted at in the vaguest possible manner. It can only be implied from the statement that the Midland are to be part owners in this line, and that the effect of the construction of this line will be to compete with them. In the Bedford and Peterhoroiigli case, where the allegation was held to be sufficient, certain termini were alleged, one being specific and the other being general. In the Motherham, Blijth and Sutton liailiray Bill, 1891, on the -petition of the Manchester, Sheffield andLincolnshire Railway {supra, p. 152) the Court refused a loc%is standi, because the petition did not contain a sufficiently specific allegation of the competition feared, and I ask you in this case to foUow that decision. The petitioners here allege competition between two points, Doncaster and Retford, and I submit that they are not entitled, to go into anything else but that competition. There is no allegation of Midland competition. Po2}e: We could not before the Committee go beyond the allegations in our petition, but we should ask the Committee to construe the allegations liberally. . The Chaieman : Does not the petition taken altogether amount to this : Here is coal in this coal-field destined for London ; do not give these companies the monopoly, as we are in compe- tition with them for that ? Worsley-Taylor : The question arises as to whether there is such new competition between Retford and Doncaster as to entitle the peti- tioners to a locus standi. The proposed line is about 20 miles more in length than the petitioners' existing one, and besides this we have already got our route by which we can, if we like, carry traffic, by a roundabout route, from Retford to Doncaster, and therefore there is existing competition, and the proposed line would only improve the competition. As a matter of fact, the Midland are now at Doncaster, not with a line of their own it is true, but they have running powers over the Sheffield railway. We can carry on this competition now separately or jointly. Sir Geokge Russell : Do you mean to say that there is practical competition at present ? Can you tell us how many passengers and how many tons of goods are carried by the round- about route you referred to ? Worsley-Taylor : I cannot answer that. The Chairman : As a matter of fact, you are not prepared to say that there is any traffic at present carried by the existing route to which you referred. I do not think you can say there is an improvement of competition when, as a fact, there is none. Worsley-Taylor : I say there is a possibility, by an existing route, of carrying traffic now, and that that possibility would only be improved. Sir Geoege Russell : The map, with the application of -common sense, is in my judg- ment adequate. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : I took no part in the Rotherham, Blyth and Sutton case, and I would rather not take any part in this. The Chairman : The Locus Standi is Alloxoed. Agents for Petitioners (2), I)yhon t& Co. Agents for Bill, Wyatt (H Co. SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. Petition of The London, Chatham and Dover Railway Company. 2nd March, 1891.— (5e/o« Mr. Paekeb, M.P., Cliairman; Mr. Shieess Will, Q.C, M.P.; The Hon. B. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C; and Mr. Bonham-Cartee.) Competing Railway Companies — Power to One Company to Subscribe to Pier, (&c., Undertakings —Alleged Violation of Agreement— Competition, Improvement of Existing. Clause 25 of the bill empowered the promoters to subscribe to and guarantee interest on capital of any pier undertaking at any place on the coast of Kent served by their railway. The petitioners were competitors with the pronioters for traffic throughout the whole of Kent, and more especially for continental traffic from various ports in Kent, and as to this traffic there was an existing agreement (known as the " con- tinental agreement") between the two companies, which the petitioners alleged might be affected if the powers con- ferred upon the promoters by clause 25 of the bill were granted. A locus standi was conceded to the petitioners against clause 28 of the bill, which amended the continental agreement, but the petitioners also claimed 158 COURT OP REFEREES. [Vol. I. to be heard against clause 25 as aifecting the arrangement come to under that agree- ment, and generally on the ground of competition. They more especially relied upon the preponderating influence that a subscription under clause 25 might give to the promoters in the control of Sheerness pier. The promoters replied that as their railway did not actually serve Sheerness it would not fall within the words of clause 25, but, even if it did, they (the promoters) already booked passengers to Sheerness, and that with regard to it and other places on the coast of Kent, clause 25 of the bill would, at the most, improve an existing competition carried on by them with the petitioners : Held, that except as conceded against clause 28 of the bill, the locus standi of the petitioners must be disallowed. The loeus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition does not allege or show, nor is it the fact, that any property of the petitioners is taken or interfered with under the powers of the bill. Paragraphs 1 to 14 (inclusive) of the petition consist of recitals and allegations bearing upon clause 28 of the bill. The pro- moters concede the right of the petitioners to be heard against the bill in respect of the said clause ; (2) the promoters deny that the peti- tioners have any interest in the subject-matter of clause 25 of the bill either in virtue of the said continental agreement or otherwise which entitles them to be heard against the bill in respect thereof ; (3) except as in hereinbefore conceded the petition does not disclose any ground which according to practice entitles the petitioners to be heard upon their petition against the bill. Cripiis, Q.C. (for petitioners): Our locus standi against clause 28 of the bill is conceded, and we therefore only desire in addition to be heard against clause 25, which is as follows : " The company " {i.e., the South-Easteru com- pany) "may, with the authority of three- fourths of the votes of the shareholders present in person or by proxy at a general meeting of the company specially convened for the purpose, from time to time subscribe any sum which they think fit, not exceeding in the whole the sum of £5,000, towards the capital of any undertaking which may be autho- rised for the purpose of erecting a pier, jetty. or landing place, at any place on the coast of Kent served by the company's railway, and the company may take and hold shares in the capital of such undertaking in respect of such subscription. Provided that the company shall not dispose of or transfer any of the shares in such undertaking for which they may sub- scribe. And the company may with the like authority, and in addition to any powers already conferred upon them in that behalf from time to time, guarantee the payment of interest or dividends, or other annual payments on any shares, stock, or loan of such under- taking, not exceeding in the whole £10,000." The peculiarity of this clause, which makes our locus standi not obvious, is its generality. We claim a locus standi for two reasons, first, because it interferes with the terms of the continental agreement providing for pooling the receipts of the South-Eastern and our own company for traf&c between all points between Margate and Hastings and the continent, which comprises a large extent of the Kent coast. There is a provision under which one party or the other may have to pay a larger share of the working expenses. If unnecessary accommodation was provided, increasing the working expenses by the South-Eastern company, that would be in the nature of a tax upon the petitioners. Mr. Shikess Will : It is rather a strong thing to say that by this agreement the two companies have so tied their hands that they could neither of them improve their lines with reference to this continental traffic without the other company opposed them in Parliament. Cripps : I think we should have a right to a locus standi in such a, case, looking to the purview of this agreement. The second reason why I submit we are entitled to a locus standi against the clause is because the promoters could by these powers compete with us at various points, and more particu- larly at Sheerness. We have a port at Queen- borough and a line to Sheerness. The pro- moters run to Port Victoria by the Hundred of Hoo railway, and our belief is that they want this clause to get possession of Sheerness pier, and so be able to open competition with us. The Chairman : I think as the clause is so vague you are entitled to argue any possibility of that kind. Cripps : At the same time the vagueness and generality of this clause does not alter the substance of the matter. It is the same as regards competition whether the promoters put up a new pier or acquired a pier under this clause, Part I.] stourbridge improvement commissioners bill. 159 The Chaikman : Is it admitted that you would have a locus standi if the promoters were intending themselves to put up a new pier at Sheerness ? CHpps : I think that would be unquestionable, and not only at Sheerness, but wherever we have a competitive interest with them. Worsley-Taylor, Q.C. (for promoters) : The case of the Smith-Eastern Railway Bill, 1883 (3 Clifford & Eickards, 346), was a precisely similar case, and the South-Eastern Eailit-ay {Various Poivers) Bill, 1882 {ih., 219), was stiU stronger. Cripps : In the case of the South-Eastern Railway Bill, 1883, the only point raised was the question of continental traffic ; the question as to Sheerness and new traffic was not raised. And in the other case cited, what I now argue, was not then argued and the argument turned upon a very different clause to the present. Mr. Shikess Will : You must show new competition, not an improvement of existing competition. I understand you to say that under this clause they might acquire some pier at Sheerness, and that that would he new competition. Cripps : Yes ; and our case differs from those cited, because under this clause the promoters are empowered to subscribe money, and put the burden of the new capital outlay upon one of the parties to the continental agreement. Worsley-Taylor : No, there is no power to raise money under this Act. We may apply existing corporate funds to the purposes of the Act, limiting it to £5,000. In the case cited we had got the money in hand, and therefore the power there was wider, and that case governs the present. Mr. Shieess Will : The petitioners say this clause being vague might enable you to acquire control over Sheerness pier, and that you will by these means get to a place that is now in the hands of the petitioners, and to which you do not now go, and that' this is new competition. If it is only improved competition the petitioner would not have any locus standi. Worsley-Taylor : There is no power in the bill for us to get exclusive control of Sheerness pier. The power under the bill is to subscribe to and guarantee interest on capital of any pier undertaking to be estalDlished on the coast of Kent served by our railway, but the petitioners say they are in exclusive possession of Sheer- ness by a line of railway, and therefore it follows that we should not come under this clause at all, because we have no railway to Sheerness, and therefore it is not a place served by our railway. We have got our port at Victoria on the opposite side, and we book people every day by through tickets to Sheerness ; therefore we are now carrying on competition with the petitioners in the only way we could carry it on if we got this power to subscribe, and therefore it could only be an improvement of existing competition. The Chairman : The Loms Standi is Bis- alloioed, except as against clause 28, and so much of the preamble as relates thereto. Agents for Petitioners, Martin & Leslie, Agents for Bill, Cooper d- Sons, and C. E. Mortimer. stouebeidge impeovement commissionees bill. Petition of The Stouebeidge Gas Company. 26th February, 18Q1.— {Before Mr. Pakkeb, M.P., Chairman; TheHon. E. Chandos-Leigh, (g.C; and Mr. Bonham-Caetee.) Practice — Deposit of Notices of Objection to Locus Standiafter Time — Application to Waive Ride — " Special Circumstances " Alleged. Cripps, parliamentary agent (for peti- tioners) : I object to the notices of objection being entertained by the Eeferees on the ground that they were not deposited in proper time. Frere (parliamentary agent) : I ask the Court to over-rule the objection. The mistake arose through the death of one of the clerks in the office, whose duty it was to deposit documents, and nobody has been hurt by the notices not being lodged in time. The Chairman : Apart from the question of injury, it is desirable to be strict in these matters. Cripps : If the rule is waived in this case it is equivalent to waiving the rule altogether. If "the special circumstances" under which it is competent for the Court to allow notices to be served after the time for serving them has expired, were applied to eases like the present there would be constant application of this nature. The Chairman: The Court sustains the objection. Locus Standi Alloioed accordingly. Agents for Petitioners, Dyson & Go. Agents for Bill, Rees d~ Frere. 160 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL (No.2). [BRISTOL TRAMWAYS EXTENSION ORDER.] Petition of The Bbistol Watebwokks Company. 14th July, ISSl.— (Before Mr. Paekek, M.P., Chairman ; Mr. Shieess Will, Q.G., M.P. ; The Son. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C. ; and Mr. Bonham-Cabtee.) Construction of Tramioays to be worked by Cable Haulage — Interference with Pipes of Water Comiiany — Dujjlication of Mains alleged to be Necessary — Insertion of Agreed Clause— Tram- ways Act, 1870. The bUl confirmed, amongst others, a Pro- visional Order, authorising the construction of new tramways in extension of existing tram- ways, both of which were to be worked by means of cables passing over wheels and pulleys contained in a trough sunk in the centre of the road, which necessitated a layer of concrete being laid for the whole width between the rails of the tramways. The petitioners alleged that this would prevent their laying their service pipes to houses under the tramway, and that they would, in consequence, be com- pelled to lay duplicate mains on each side of the tramways. They claimed to be heard to obtain the insertion in the bill of special clauses for their protection. The promoters contended that the petitioners were protected by clause 9 of the bill and the provisions of the Tramways , Act, 1870, but the petitioners asked for the insertion of a, clause providing that, if in the opinion of an arbitrator, it became necessary for them to lay duplicate mains, the promoters should bear the expense ; while as to their alleged protection under the Tramways Act, 1870, they argued that when the Act was passed, haulage by cables was not contemplated or provided for, and that the provisions of the Act were quite insufficient to meet their legiti- mate requirements. After discussion, an amendment of clause 9 of the bill, as required by the petitioners, was agreed to, and their petition was withdrawn. . Bidder, Q.C, appeared for the Petitioners ; Meysey -Thompson for the Bill so far as it con- firmed this Order. Agents for Petitioners, Dyson d- Co. Agents for Bill, Walter Webb d: Co. WESTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTH- SHIRE) WATER BILL. Petition of (1) The Monmouthshire County Council. 26thFebruary, 1891.— (Be/ore Mr. Pabkeb, M.P., Chairman; The Hon. E. Chaneos-Leigh, Q.C. ; and Mr. Bonham-Caktee.) The case of these petitioners was part heard when the Chaieiian intimated that as it was a matter of considerable importance it would be more satisfactory that it should be considered by a fuller Court, and it was accordingly adjourned. 27th February, 1891.— (-Bc/or« Mr. Couetney, M.P., Chairman of Ways and Means, in the Chair; il/c. Pabkee, ilf .P. ; Jl/?-. Shieess Will, Q.C, M.P. ; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C. ; and Mr. Bonham Caetee.) Water Bill — General Locus claimed by County Council — S. 0. 134a [Local Authorities to have Locus Standi against Water, dec. Bills} — How far County Council are Local Autlwrity under S. 0. — Interference icithMain Roads by Pi2]es — Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, Bights of County Council tinder — S. 0. 184 [Compen- sation Water] — Local Government Act, 1888, sects. 3, 11, 14, 15. The bill incorporated a water company with power to construct waterworks and supply certain districts in the county of Mon- mouth. The County Council of Mon- mouthshire claimed to be heard against the bill generally as a local authority within the meaning of S. 0. 134a, which gave local authorities a locus standi against bills relating to the water supply of their districts ; and, failing the establishment of their right to be heard generally, they claimed to be heard as to interference with main roads which had been placed under their control by sect. 11 of the Local Government Act, 1888 ; and as the body appointed by Parliament, under sect. 14 of that Act, to enforce the pro- visions of the Rivers Pollution Preven- tion Act, 1876 ; and to ask for the insertion of »■ provision as to compensation water under S. 0. 184 : Held, that the petitioners were not entitled to be heard as a local authority Part I.j western valleys (monmouthshire) water bill, 161 witMn the meaning of S. O. 134a ; or as the body appointed to enforce the provi- sions of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, their powers under that Act being unafieoted by the bill; and that their locus standi must be confined to questions of interference with main roads under the provisions of the bill relating to the laying of mains, &c. [Note. — Subsequently to the hearing of this case a new S. O., 134c, was passed, giving County Councils the right to be heard generally on the allegations of their petition that their county might be in- juriously affected by the provisions of a bill relating to water supply. The S. 0. is as follows : " The council of any admin- istrative county alleging in their petition that such administrative county, or any part thereof, may be injuriously affected by the provisions of any bill relating to the water supply of any town or district, whether situate within or without such county, shall be entitled to be heard against such bill."] The locus standi of the petitioners (1) was ob- jected to on the following grounds : (1) having regard to the objects of the bill the promoters deny the following allegations in paragraph 2 of the petition, (1) that the petitioners are the local authority for the district of the county of Monmouth, (2) that they are injuriously affected by the bill, and (8) that they are the protectors of the interests of the inhabitants of the said county ; (2) the petitioners are under the Local Government Act, 1888, constituted a local authority for certain purposes mentioned in that Act, but such purposes do not include the providing of or any control over a supply of water to the inhabitants ; (3) the petitioners are not entitled to be heard to object to water pipes being laid in a main road, because if Parliament should deem it expedient that the inhabitants should have a better supply of water, and pass the bill, the petitioners will have the protection which Parliament has already provided for all road authorities by the Waterworks Glauses Act, 1847 ; (4) the petition- ers have no jurisdiction with respect to any streams or springs other than putting in force the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, and that Act does not apply to anything the pro- moters intend to do or can do under the pro- visions of the bill ; (5) the matters set forth in the petition are not such as according to the principles and practice of Parliament can be raised by the petitioners before the Committee to whom the bill may be referred ; (6) the bill contains no provision affecting the petitioners. Mr. Pabkee : Having been in the chair on the former hearing, I think it will be con- venient if I state how the case stood when we adjourned. This is certainly a case of import- ance ; it is a new case and a case involving the question of the functions of County Councils and their position as regards the right to be heard in opposition to the bills. The arguments for the petitioner were completed, and counsel for the promoters was being heard. Pembroke Stephens, Q.C. (for petitioners) : Perhaps it would save trouble if I briefly recapitulated what my points were. Balfour Broione, Q.C. (for promoters) : Pro- vided you merely recapitulate and do not attempt to reply upon me, I have no objection. Mr. Pakkek : With that understanding, I think it will be the most convenient course. Pembroke Stephens : The bill proposes to constitute a water company, whose limits shall include the Risca district and extend up the river Sirhowy to the Tredegar district, and comprises, amongst others, parts of the three districts of Risca, Newport, and Bedwelly, all in the county of Monmouth. As transferees of the highways by sect. 11 of the Local Government Act, 1888, our locus standi as to interference with roads is undoubted, and is not objected to by the promoters. The next point is as regards the functions of the County Council under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, as the authority created by sect. 14 of the Act of 1888 to prevent or deal with the pollution of rivers. The Court must remember that the river Sirhowy flows for many miles through the hmits proposed to be created by this bill, and that the waters proposed to be taken by this bill are streams which now flow into the Sirhowy, and it is necessary to con- sider the effect of that withdrawal upon the river, and also whether the County Council, as the rivers pollution authority, will be in the same position to deal effectually with the pollution of the river when so much of the head waters have been taken away under the biU. Mr. Shikess Will : As regards rivers pollu- tion your power comes in when anybody seeks to pollute the river. Pembroke Stephens : In connection with this point another arises in that the bill does not provide any compensation water, and S. 0. 184 162 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. says that water compensation is to be in a continuous flow down the river, and I submit that on both these points we have an undoubted locus standi. It is said that these are questions tliat only affect the local authorities upon the stream, and that you are not to have anybody representing the interests of the inhabitants along the stream as a whole. I submit that there are general interests distinct from particular interests, and that if there are any general interests of the inhabitants of a county as regards a river flowing through it as a whole, as distinct from the particular interests of the people on the banks, then that interest ought to be represented. Mr. Shieess Will : Do you claim to come under S. 0. 134 ? Pemhrolte Stephens : Yes ; we are the proper constituted body for representing the interests of the inhabitants of the county, and we say we shall be injuriously affected by the pro- visions of the bill. We are, in fact, affected, and there is nobody else to raise the points in which we are interested. What Parliament said in the Local Government Act, 1888, as to representing the interests of the county, was this : Sect. 15. " The County Council of an administrative county shall have the same powers of opposing bills in Parliament, and of prosecuting or defending any legal proceedings necessary for the promotion or protection of the interests of the inhabitants of the county," not the inhabitants of a particular district, but the inhabitants of the county, meaning the district as ■■• whole, " as are conferred on the couucU of a municipal borough, by the Act of the 35 and 36 Vict., chap. 91," which, among other things, mentions water supply. " And subject as hereinafter provided, the provisions of that Act shall extend to a County Council, as if such council were included in the expression governing body and the administrative county were the district in the said Act mentioned." The county is made for this purpose a district, and we have used the expression district in our petition. If you create a company for the first time, and arm it with statutory powers, you are creating something which will interfere as long as that company lasts, with the free working of the Rivers Pollution Act ; and you are obliged to look at this question from a public point of view, and to look at the interests of the inhabitants of the district as a whole, and from that point of view I submit there is an interest affected here, which can only be represented through the County Council, who are, for this purpose, the governing body. Mr. Shikess Will : Sect. 15 is not the source of the duty ; it enables them to spend this money in opposing bills in Parliament, which infringe upon some right or duty of theirs as defined in other parts of the Act. Pembroke Stephens : I submit that there is not merely a transfer of powers, but a creation of new powers. Mr. Pabker : It seems to me that the creation of the County Councils is analogous to the creation of the Metropolitan board in the case of London. The Chairman : Let me put the case of a rural sanitary authority within the area of whose district a stream arose and went down to the sea, the whole length of the stream being absolutely included within the area of the district of that authority. Pemhrolte Stephens : Such a case would be extremely rare, but if the interests of the county were overlooked, and there was any mischief to be guarded against, the County Council should ask for a locus standi. What I submit is that I have such an interest in this matter that I am sufftciently within sect. 15, and that sect. 15 was meant for such a case as this. Mr. Shiress Will ; The gist of your petition appears to be this, that the promoters are coming to take away the water of a particular district, and that in that district there are many villages and populous places which ought to have the water. Pembroke Stephens : Whatever is done ought to be done upon a general plan, and we ought to be before the Committee to protect the general interests. Mr. Shiress Will : Where is the interest or duty given to the County Council to look after the water supply of villages and populous places in their district ? Pembroke Stephens : We are put, avowedly and admittedly, in the position of a municipal authority of a town, and it is the duty of a municipal authority in the interest and for the protection of its inhabitants to take steps which shall prevent any withdrawal or limitation of advantages as regards water supply. The Chairman : The municipal authority of a borough is not a body having jurisdiction over a district in which there are subordinate bodies having powers with respect to water. Pembroke Stephens : We have not merely the same power of procedure with respect to our rights and duties, but we have been called into existence for the promotion or the protection of the interests of the inhabitants of the county. We claim a locus standi as to the roads, the rivers pollution, and the general protection of the public. PaET I.] WESTERN VALLEYS (mONMOUTHSHIRe) WATER BILL. 163 Mr. Chandos-Leigh : The real question seems to be whetlier you come under S. O. 134a, as a local authority within a district which is injuriously affected. [Balfour Browne, Q.C., for the promoters, was heard on the previous day, and submitted that the bill interfered with no duty or right in which the County Council were interested, and that County Councils had no duty with regard to water supply under the Act, such duty not being imposed by sect. 3 of the Local Government Act, 1888, or any other section of that Act, and except as the body named in sect. 14 to enforce the Elvers Pollution Prevention Act they had nothing to do with water, and there was nothing in the bill which in any way affected this. In the recent case of the Nelson Corporation Bill, 1891 (supra, p. 147), Padiham and Burnley local boards appeared on the question of water, and such local and sanitary authorities were the right bodies to be heard and not the County Councils.] Without calling upon Balfour Browne to reply again for the promoters, the Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to be heard under S. O. 134a, or except in respect of main roads. Agents for Petitioners (1), Dyson d- Co. Petition of (2) The Vioab and Chuhohwaedens OF THE Pakish of Mynyddislwyn. Water Bill— Vicar and Churchwardens of Parish included ivithin Limits of Supply — Hoio far a Local Authm-ity — Claim to represent Inhabi- tants of District Injuriously Affected— Public Meeting — AutJiority to Sign Petition on behalf of Inhabitants and Ratepayers — S. 0. 134 IJIunicipal Autlwrities and Inhabitants of Toiois'] — S. 0. 134a [Local Authorities to have Locus Standi against Water, die. Bills'] — Public Health Act, 1875, s. 52. A petition was also presented against the bill by the vicar and churchwardens of a parish included within the limits of supply, who claimed to represent the inhabitants and ratepayers of their parish, and to have, to a large extent, the control of the affairs of the parish. On this ground they claimed to be heard under S. O. 134a. The petitioners also claimed to be heard to represent the inhabitants of a district alleged to be injuriously affected by the bill under S. 0. 134, the petition containing an allegation that a public meeting of ratepayers had been held, at which it was resolved to present a petition against the bill, which the petitioners had been authorised to sign on behalf of the rate- payers of the parish : Held, that under these circumstances the petitioners were entitled to be heard under S. O. 134 as representing the inhabitants of their parish. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition does not allege that the bill contains a provision for taking or using any lands, buildings, or other property belonging to, or occupied by, the petitioners ; (2) it is not the fact (as alleged in paragraph 7 of the petition) that the petitioners control or regulate the affairs of the parish of Mynyddislwyn to any extent as regards the supply of water or other sanitary matters, nor is it the fact that the petitioners represent the owners, ratepayers, and inhabitants of that parish, and the promoters deny that the petitioners' property, rights and interests, or the said parish and inhabitants thereof, will, or can be, injuriously affected by the bill; (3) the promoters also deny that the petitioners (as alleged in para- graph 8) are the local authority within the meaning of S. 0. 134a or that their parish or district will be injuriously affected by the pro- visions in the bill ; (4) it is alleged (paragraph 12) that the said parish forms part of the rural sanitary district of Newport, that is to say, the parish is included in the Newport union, the guardians of the poor of which, and not the petitioners, are the rural sanitary and local authority for the district of the said union pursuant to the Pubhc Health Act, 1875 ; (5) it is further alleged (in paragraph 12) that the local affairs, of the said parish are managed by a committee, but such committee does not complain, and the petition does not state that the petitioners claim or have any authority to represent that committee; (6) the promoters admit that for certain purposes (not including the supply of water or other sanitary purpose) the petitioners may claim to represent the vestry of the said parish, that is, the inhabi- tant householders, who are a distmct class and are not necessarily ratepayers. If the rate- payers desired to oppose the bill they could easUy have signed the petition, but there is no power in the bill to impose or levy any rate or tax, and if people do not require the promoters 164 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. to supply them with water they will have no ^ water rent to pay, so that ratepayers are not in any way affected by the bUl otherwise than by having the option of taking and paying for a supply of good water ; (7) the allegation (in paragraph 13) that waterworks have been constructed by the sanitary authority in the Ebbw Valley portion of the said parish (not within the limits of the bill) is a fair admission of the fact that such authority, and not the petitioners, are the proper parties to see that a supply of water is provided for the inhabi- tants ; (8) the bUl contains no provision affecting the petitioners ; (9) the petition does not show that the petitioners have any such interest in the objects and provisions of the bill as entitles them to be heard against the same. Mam (for petitioners) : We ask for a locvs standi on two grounds ; first, as the local authority under S. 0. 134a whose district wUl be injuriously affected by the bill. The roads are to be opened up by the promoters for the purpose of laying mains, and as these roads belong to the parish we are in this way directly affected. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : Where do you say anything about roads in the petition ? Sam : We do not say that they will be interfered with in so many words, but we allege injury to our district generally. The second ground on which we ask for a locus standi is as representing the inhabitants of a parish, the greater part of which is within the water limits of supply in the bill. If this bUl passes, by sect. 62 of the Public Health Act, the local authority will be prohibited from getting a proper water supply hereafter if this supply is not enough. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : We shall insist on a, proviso being inserted to provide for that con- tingency. Sam : Under the Public Health Act, if this water is provided by this company, then the sanitary authority can call upon the inhabitants to take the water and pay whatever rates the company is empowered to charge. The effect therefore of this bill and the Public Health Act will be to impose upon the inhabitants this obligation and the payment of a water rate. Mr. Chandos - Leigh : Is this purely the petition of the vicar and churchwardens ? Sam : No ; it was signed by them at the request of the ratepayers at a duly convened meeting to consider this biU, and the notices of objection do not raise any point as to this. Mr. Shikess Will: Can you refer to any oases where this Court has granted a lociis standi under similar circumstances ? Sam : The Gaterham Spring Water Bill, 1885 (Riokards & Michael, 12). Mr. Chandos-Leigh : There is also the case of the Basingstoke Gas Bill, 1887 (Riokards and Michael, 137). Balfour Browne, Q.C. (for promoters) : The vicar and churchwardens have nothing to do with water supply. This was merely a vestry meeting, and the petition does not purport to come from ratepayers, though there may have been some present at the meeting. The cir- cumstances in the Gas and Water Orders Confir- mation (Thirsk District) Water Order Bill, 1879 (2 Clifford & Rickards, 161) were the same as these, and the locus standi was refused. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : When on the face of the petition we see that a resolution to oppose the bUl was passed at the public meeting at which inhabitants and ratepayers were present, and the vicar and churchwardens in accord- ance with a resolution passed at that meeting, sign on behalf of those who were present, are we to say that they are not entitled to be heard as representiug the inhabitants of a. district injuriously affected ? Balfour Browne : I cite also the case of the Castlewood and Whitwood Gas Bill, 1878 (2 Chfford & Riokards, 78). Mr. Shieess Will : The petition might have been signed by anybody if it was signed on behalf of the public meeting. Balfour Browne : Yes, if it was a public meeting of the inhabitants called for the express purpose. The Chairman : The Locus Standi is Alloioed. Agents for Petitioners (2), Sharpe <& Co. Petition of (8) The Blackwood Gas and Water Company, Limited. Bill to Incorporate Water Company with Parlia- mentary Powers — Petition of Non-Statutory Company — Inclusion within Proposed limits of Supply — Competition. The petitioners were a company incorporated under the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1886, for the purpose of supplying the towns of Blackwood and Argoed with water. Both these towns were included within the promoters' limits of supply as defined by the bill, and ' the petitioners claimed to be heard, on the ground of competition, to ask that these towns Part I.] wfiSTigRi? Valleys (MONMoifTiIsHiRE) Water bill. 165 might be excluded from the proposed limits of supply. Their locus standi was objected to on the ground that they had no parliamentary powers, and could not break up streets to lay mains except by agree- ment with the road authorities, and had no powers to levy water rates, and no defined district of supply : Held, that, on these grounds, they were not entitled to a locus standi against the bill. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petitioners allege that they were incorporated as a limited company so recently as 1890 for the purpose, among' other things, of supplying Blackwood and Argoed with water, and for carrying on the business of a waterworks com- pany ; (2) the petition does not state that the petitioners have, and they in fact have not any authority either by Act of Parliament or Pro- visional Order to construct works, lay pipes, or make charges for the supply of water in any defined district or limits ; (3) it is not alleged that the petitioners have yet constructed any works, laid any pipes, or are supplying, or in a position to supply, water ; nor can they purchase land, construct works, or lay pipes otherwise than by agreement and on sufferance, and any ratepayer or member of the public could restrain and indict them from interfering with any public road ; (4) it is admitted that Blackwood and Argoed are within the limits of supply proposed by the bOl, but the peti- tioners have no property or rights which will, or can be, injuriously affected by the bill ; (5) the petitioners abstain from alleging in paragraph 7 that they are supplying water, but ask that provision should be made for excluding the towns and districts appro- priated by them ; (6) the bill contains no provision affecting the petitioners ; (7) the peti- tion does not show that the petitioners have any such interest in the objects and provisions of the bill, as entitle them to be heard against the same. Ram (for petitioner) : We are a limited company, incorporated in 1890 for the purpose among other things of supplying water to Black- wood and Argoed, which are within the promoters' limits of supply as proposed by the bUl, and though we have not as yet begun our works we claim a locus standi on the ground of competition. This bill seriously affects our property and interests, and will prevent us from carrying on the 'water undertaking for which we were incorporated, and we ask that Blackwood and Argoed should be excluded from the proposed limits of supply. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : In the Tyldesley with Shakesley Local Board Gas iJiW, 1865, referred to in Smethurst, 3rd Ed., 68, the Atherton gas company who had no parUamentary right to break up streets had entered into arrangements to supply the Atherton local board with gas, and their locus standi was refused. Is not that exactly this case ? Ram : "We might enter into arrangements to supply water without breaking up the streets. Balfour Browne, Q.C., appeared for the pro- moters, but was not called upon. The Chaibman : The Locus Standi is Dis- allowed. Agents for Petitioner (4), Sharpe (& Co. Agents for Bill, W. (& W. M. Bell. END OF EEPOETS OF 1891. INDEX. OP BILLS OF THE SESSIONS 1890-91 EEPOETED IN THIS PART. PAGE AlBE AND CalDEK AND ElVEK DuN NAVIGATIONS JUNCTION CanAL BilL, 1891 77 Alexandra (Newpokt and South Wales) Docks and Bailway Bill, 1890 . . . . . . 1 Aye Habboub Bill, 1890 5 Bevekley and East Riding Railway Bill, 1890 10 Bilston CoiiiMissioNEKS Water Bill, 1890 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Bkiton Medical and General Liee Assocution Bill, 1890 11 BuRRY Port and Gwendreath Valley Railway Bill, 1891 . . . . . . . . 81 Bute Docks (Cabdife) Bill, 1890 12 CiLEDONiAN Railway (Additional Powers) Bill, 1891 . . . . . . . . . . 87 Central London Railway Bill, 1891 90 Cork and Ferhoy and Watereord and Wexeoed Railway Bill, 1890 19 Croydon and Crystal Palace Railway Bill, 1890 25 Edineuegh Municipal and Police Bill, 1891 91 Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill (Chatham, Rochester and District Electric Lighting Order), 1890 .. .. .. .. .. .. 26 Folkestone Pier and Lift Bill,. 1890 28 Folkestone, Sandgate and Hythe Tramways Bill, 1891 102 FoKFAR AND Brechin Railway Bill, 1891 104 Gaevb and Ullapool Railway Bill, 1890 30 Glasgow Coepoeation Bill, 1890 31 Glasgow and South-Westeen Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill, 1891 Ill Glasgow South Subueean Railway Bill, 1891 117 Geeat Noeth of Scotland Railway Bill, 1890 34 Gbeat Western Railway Bill, 1891 11'' Handswokth (Staffoed) Rectory Bill, 1891 Highland Railway (New Lines) Bill, 1890 123 35 168 iSdex of BILLi^. Keighley Coepobation Bill, 1891 PAGE 125 Lanaekshike and Dumeaetonshiee Eailway Bill, 1890 . . . . . . . . . . 36 Lanoashibe, Dekbyshiee and East Coast Railway Bill, 1891 . . . . . . . . 127 Local G-oveenment Peovisional Oedee (foe the FOKjLiTioN op the Edmonton, Enfield, South Hobnsey and Tottenham Joint Hospital Disteict) Confiemation Bill, 1891 127 London and South-Western Railway Bill, 1890 36 London, Beighton and South Coast Railway (Vaeious Powees) Bill, 1890 . . . . 39 London County Council Geneeal Powees Bill, 1891 . . . . . . . . . . 130 Manchi^tee, Shefield and Linoolnshiee Railway (Extension to- London) Bill, 1891 130 Manohestee, Sheffield and Lincolnshiee Railway (Vaeious Powees) Bill, 1891 . . 140 Meteopolitan Railway Bill, 1890 Nelson Coepobation Bill, 1891 NOETH BeITISH and GLASGOW AND SoUTH-WeSTEEN RAILWAY COMPANIES BiLL, 1890 NoBTH Beitish Railway Bill, 1891 Paetick, Billhead and Maeyhill Gas and Electricity Bill, 1890 EiBBLE Navigation Bill, 1890 RicHJioND Footbridge (Lock, &c.) Bill, 1890 . . Rhymnby Railway Bill, 1890 Rotheeham, Blythe and Sutton Railway Bill, 1891 Sheffield and Midland Railway Cojipanies Committee Bill, 1891 South-Easteen Railway Bill, 1890 South-Easteen Railway Bill, 1891 South Yoekshiee Junction Railway Bill, 1890 Stoubeeidge Impbotement Commissionees Bill, 1891 Tottenham and Foeest Gate Junction Railway Bill, 1890 Tramways Peovisional Ordees Confiemation Bill (No. 2) (Beistol Tramways Extension Oedee), 1891 Westeen Valleys (Monmouthshire) Water Bill, 1891 Woecestee and Beoom Railway (Extension of Time) Bill, 1890 40 144 50 151 53 56 60 64 152 153 68 157 69 159 71 160 160 75 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. TO OASES CONTAINED IN PART I., VOL. I.) *** Where a Standing Order is Referred to in the Index, the numbering is that of the Standing Orders for 1892. ABANDONMENT {See railway (1) ). ABSTRACTION {See gas, railway (4), teapfic, water). ACCESS {See also obstruction), to harbour interfered with by railway bridge, 20 to ferry interfered with by level crossing, 23 direct to town by construction of railway opposed by owners of toll- bridge, 36 to building estate interfered with by closing of footpath, 89 interference with by construction of Une in front of petitioners' property, 136 to church interfered with by railway, 139 loss of occasioned by closing of level crossing, 151 ACTS, PUBLIC (cited). Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, 58 Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845, s. 17, 91 Public Health Act, 1875, s. 52, 125 ; ss. 131, 279 ; 308, 127 Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, s. 16, 46 Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, s. 16, 153 ; s. 40, 40 ; o. 128, 43 Tramways Act, 1870 ; 160 Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, 160 Local Government Act, 1888, ss. 3, 11, 14, 15, 160 Public Health Act, 1875, s. 52, 163 ADVOWSON, transfer of and re-endowment of rectory opposed by inhabitants and churchwardens of ecclesiastical district formed from parish, 128 AGREEMENT {See also railway (3) ),' how far intention of, considered, 1 alleged fraud in obtaining to supersede protective clause, 144 of railway company with road authority, not confirmed by bill, 151 alleged violation of by power in bill to subscribe to pier, 157 ALLEGATION (See petition, practice). AMALGAMATION {See railway (2) ). AMENITY {See also owners), loss of by construction of line in residential neighbourhood and erection of terminal station, 134, 136 APPEAL to Board of Trade, as to bye-laws dealing with navigation, provided for in bill, 77 APPEARANCE, ^ ^ ^ ... not entered for petitioners, on undertaking by promoters not to re-mstate clauses, 99 170 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. APPROACH (See access). AREA {See also gas, bates, water), lessening the over which taxes can be levied, 91 ASSOCIATION (See landowner, trade). AUTHORITY (See harbour board, local board, sanitary authority), BARGE OWNERS, apprehending introduction of large vessels on canal, 77 BILL (See practice). BOARD OF TRADE, control of works authorised by previous Acts, imposed by bill on , 56 appeal to, as to provisions in bill relating to bye-laws as to navigation, 77 BOARD OF WORKS {See local board). BONDS, petitioner holder of and also a creditor, complaining of alteration of status, 28 BOROUGH (See oorfobation). BRANCH {See railway (3) ), b BREACH OF FAITH {See also agreement, practice), alleged by corporation against railway company seeking to abandon authorised line and to substitute another, 104 BRIDGE, interference by railway with access to harbour, 20 abstraction of traffic by railway from road bridge, 23 owners of toll opposing railway giving direct access to town, 36 construction of and weir with removable sluices opposed bv local authorities, 60 BROOKS (See river). BUILDING ESTATE {See access). BURGH {See corporation). CANAL, construction of forming junction between existing canals, 77 CAPITAL, proposed repeal of clause as to share in previous Act, 28 CARRIERS {See railway (3) ). CHURCH, injury to by disturbance and vibration owing to propinquity of CHURCHWARDENS {See also vicar), and inhabitants of ecclesiastical district formed from parish opnosmc transfer of advowson and re-endowment of rectory, 123 f r 6 CLAUSE (See savins clauses). COMMISSIONERS (See habboue board, navigation, etc.). COMPANY (See gas, railway, etc.). COMPENSATION, money payment in lieu of water, 144 COMPETITION (See corporation, dock, gas, railway (4; ). INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 171 CONSEEVANCY {See also navigation), how far representing the mterests of riparian proprietors, 60 CONSTRUCTION (See pkaotice). CONSUMERS (See gas, water). CONTRACT (See agreement). CORPORATION promoting simultaneous bills for electricity and extension of borough, opposed by company as promoters of bill for electricity in respect of both bills, on ground of competition, 31 opposing construction of u, competing railway on account of injury to trade interest, 34 of Scotch burghs how far representing traders, also petitioning, 50 distinction between of English and Scotch burghs, 50 competing with gas company without statutory powers, promoting bill for conferring statutory powers and prohibiting supply by corporation, 53 promoting bill for additional capital for deep water channel already authorised, opposed by neighbouring alleging injury to tidal flow, 56 of Scotch burgh alleging injury to town by conversion of local into through line, 104 COUNTY COUNCIL (See aUo local board), claiming general U)eus against water bill, how far local authority under S. O. 184a, 160 rights of under Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, 160 COURT OE CHANCERY, petitioner having commenced action in claims right to locus, 144 COURT OF REFEREES (See practice). CROSSINGS (See level crossing, railway (3) ). DESCRIPTION (See petition, practice). DEVIATION (See limits op). DISSENTIENT (See shabeholdee). DISTINCT INTERESTS (See also corporation, owners, representation, traders), of traders arising out of agreement with railway company, 50 DISTRICTS, allegation that territorially belonged to petitioners' railway as ground of competition, 67 meaning of word " district," 72, 134 DIVERSION (See tolls, traffic, etc.). DOCK (See also harbour), and raUway company seeking running powers over petitioners' railway, 1 transfer to competing of powers granted to railway company to construct railway, 12 injury to competing , by diversion of traffic, 17 railway company owners of opposing construction of junction, 81 ELECTRICITY (See aZso tramway), and extension-of-borough bills opposed by promoters of electricity bill on ground of competition, 31 EVIDENCE (See petition, practice). EXEMPTION proposed - — of public buildings from poor rate opposed by parochial boards, 91, and by School Board, 96 M 2 172 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. EXTENSION (See also gas, bailway (3) ), of burgh and electricity bills opposed by promoters of electric bill on ground of competition, 31 bill for of authorised line and making of new line, and same laud scheduled by promoters and petitioners, claim to be heard against both powers, 120 EXTENSION OF TIME BILL {See also gas, haeeodh, bailwav (3), tbamway), for construction of railways, but not for compulspry taking of lands, 17 ■ — railway, petitioning railway claiming laws to obtain clause to interpret existing Act, 75 petitioning company opposing for railway crossing their land, 117 for construction of waterworks opposed by local board of neighbouring district, claiming water-shed appropriated by promoters under previous FACILITIES {See also bailway (3), tbafmo), loss of present to town at present on main line apprehended by corporation of burgh, 104 FAEES, combined railway and sea provided for in railway bill seeking steam- boat powers, 111 FEKRY, invasion of rights by railway bridge and abstraction of traffic, 23 interference with access to — •-, 23 FOOTPATH {See also boad), proposal to close and substitute foot-bridge, opposed by residents, 39 PEEIGHTERS {See tbadeks). FBONTAGE, to houses interfered with by proposed railway, 136 GAS, company without statutory powers, competing with corporation as promoters of bill for electric lighting, and claiming to prohibit corporation from supplying gas within limits of company, opposed by ratepavers and consumers, 53 rights of individual consumers to oppose bill, 53 HARBOUR {See also dock), bUl empowering railway company to subsidise revenues of opposed bv competmg harbour, 5 fi-^oou uj^ diversion of traffic to subsidised by railway, 5 HARBOUR BOARD, °^harbo^ re^veTes!" °^ *° ^'°^°'^^ °^ '^"""^^ '°™^^"^ *° '""^''^'^ interests of interference with, unlimited locus standi allowed as to, 20 apprehendmg diminution of toUs opposing construction of junction, 81 HAULAGE {See teamway). HIGHWAY {See boad). HOSPITAL, for infectious diseases formation of united district for, opposed by sanitary authority of adjoining district alleging injurious affecting, and by owners and occupiers of adjacent property, 127 "wiicib HOUSE {See also landownee), demolition of and diminution of rates during construction of work, 68 HOUSE OF LORDS {See peaciioe). INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 173 ILLUMINATING POWERS {See eleoteioity, gas). INCUMBENT, {See chukch, vioab). INFECTIOUS DISEASES {See hospital). INHABITANTS {See also batepayees), and traders opposing interference with access to harbour, 20 opposing bill for bridge over navigable river on ground of injury to resi- dential property, 60 alleging injurious affecting, how far represented by local authorities, 72 and churchwardens of ecclesiastical district, formed from parish, opposing transfer of advowson and re-endowment of rectory, 123 opposing construction of terminal station as destroying residential character of district, 134 INJUKIOUS AFFECTING {See also access, amenity, land, landowneh, eailway (3) ), of landowners' property, by repeal of protective clause in existing Act pro- hibiting heavy goods traffic, 130 of district by construction of terminal station, 134 INJURY, remoteness of to owners of toll bridges by diversion of traffic, 36 special to traders not adequately represented by corporation, 50 remoteness of how far affecting the right to a locus standi, 60 qtiantiim of how far considered, 68 absence of substantial to petitioners caused by railway bill, 120 to church by disturbance and vibration caused by railway, 139 JOINT OWNERS {See ownees, eailway (3) ). JUNCTION {See eailway (S) ). LAND {See atso landownee, ownees, etc.), interference by formation of junction with ■ of railway company, 14 same scheduled by bills of promoters and petitioners, as ground of locus against making of new railway and extension of authorised railway, 120 same scheduled under a bill jointly promoted by petitioners and another railway company, claim to general locus in respect of, 152 LAND AND WATER CARRIAGE, special clauses in bill relating to , contrary to s. 30 ; 111 LANDING PLACES {See piee). LANDOWNER {See also ownebs), railway company as claiming general locus, 14 not having received notice to treat, opposing bill for extension of time for constructing railway and transfer of powers, 17 adjacent to underground railway, injuriously affected by excavations, 44 claiming general locus on ground that his land is crossed by proposed railway, 67 petitioners served with notice as not alleging that their lands were taken by bill, 87 associations and individual opposing additional taxation for police and sanitary improvements, 100 railway company as claiming general locus, and opposing extension of time for railway crossing petitioners' land, 117 claiming general locus against bill proposing to repeal protection clause under existing Act, prohibiting heavy goods traffic, 130 navigation company as , opposing bill under which lands of navigation undertaking scheduled, 153 LEGAL REMEDY (See peactioe). LEGISLATION, complaint against past , 1 ; 56, 91 ,.„ past , under what circumstances petitioners allowed to re-open, lU^ 1 , bow far alteration of circumstances entitles petitioners to re-open, 125 174 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. LESSEE (See owners). LEVEL CROSSING {See also railway (3) ), stopping up over railway opposed by owners, &o., 151 LIMIT OP DISTANCE, where river affected injury not governs the case, 60 LIMITS OF DEVIATION, special power necessary to stop up road included in , 136 LIS PENDENS, does not give a right to locus standi, 144 LOCAL BOARD AND AUTHORITY (See also corporation, sanitary authority). opposing repeal of Act prohibiting goods traffic by underground railway, 40 how far representing inhabitants of district injuriously affected, 72 as mortgagors of district rate as collateral security for harbour revenues, 81 Scotch parochial boards claiming as ratepayers to oppose proposed exemptions from poor rates of public buildings, and to discuss policy of existing exemptions, 91 of neighbouring district, claiming watershed appropriated by promoters under previous Acts, opposing extension of time bill for construction of works, 125 how far County Council are under S.O. 134a, 160 LOCAL GOVERNMENT (See provisional order). LOCKS (See weirs). LOCOMOTIVE ENGINE MANUFACTURERS alleging special injury by biU arising out of the nature of their business, 50 MAINS, aUeged necessity for duplication of owing to construction of tramwav to be worked by cable haulage, 160 MANUFACTURERS (See traders). MECHANICAL POWERS (See engines, tramways). MEETING (See public meeting). MERCHANTS (See tradjirs). MILL-OWNERS, money payments to in lieu of compensation, water, 144 below point of return of impounded water opposing biU, 147 MORTGAGEES (See shareholders). MUNICIPAL (See corporation). NAVIGATION (See also dock, harbour board, river), commissioners opposing railway bridge, 20 obstruction of on canal and competition by compartment boats 77 provisions in bUl relating to bye-laws as to providing for appeal to Board 01 J.r3iuC) 77 company as landowners opposing bUl where land of navigation undertakinc was scheduled, 153 ^ NOTICES (See objections, owners, petition, pbaotioe). NUISANCE, from disturbance to church services caused by railway, 139 OBJECTIONS (See also petition, practice), application for extension of time for giving notice of 11 notices of , how far promoters bound by, 52 ' notices of deposited after time, 159 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 175 OBSTRUCTION (See also access), competition and of navigation on canal by compartment boats, 77 OCCUPIERS (See owneks). OVERSEERS, petition by against proposed railway in respect of demolition of houses and diminution of rates, 68 OWNERS, LESSEES AND OCCUPIERS {See also railway (3) ), of property adjacent to site for hospital, opposing formation of united district for infectious diseases hospital, 127 opposing running powers over railway and repeal of prohibitions as to heavy goods traffic and construction of station, 134 PARISH (See also vicae), inhabitants and churchwardens of ecclesiastical district formed from , opposing transfer of advowson and re-endowment of rectory, 123 PARTNERS (See katlway (3) ). PETITION (See also petitionees, practice), notices of objection to loeus standi, application for extension of time for serving, 11 sufficiency of allegation in of injury to trade, 34 allegation of injury in , of owners, 71 authority to represent inhabitants not alleged in , 72 absence from - — of landowners, of allegation that their lands were taken by bill, 87 withdrawal of signatures from , 90 joint of traders and corporation of burgh, opposing withdrawal of railway facilities, 104 PETITIONERS (See also petition, practice), promoting bill for electricity claiming a locus against bills for electricity and extension of burgh promoted by corporation, on ground of com- petition, 31 land of crossed by railway, 67 sufficiency of numbers of claiming to represent inhabitants, 72 seeking to obtain interpretation clause as to a matter not in bill, 75 claiming under Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845, as representatives of rate- payers, 91 right of to be heard against clauses of bill as amended for Committee, 98 appearance not entered for , on undertaking by promoters not to reinstate clauses, 99 claiming protective clauses in biU, and power to make railway in default of promoters, 120 status of not affected by bill for transfer of advowson and re-endow- ment of rectory, 123 alleging special injury from temporary inconvenience during construction of line, 136 interference with status of how far entitling to a locus, 28, 140 jointly promoting bill with another railway company opposing scheme under which same land is scheduled, 152 PIER, proposed alteration of status of shareholders in and lift company, 28 power to subscribe to , alleged violation of agreement by, 157 PIPES (See gas, boad, water). and sanitary provisions, proposed additional taxation for, opposed by associations of landowners and individual owners of property, 100 POLLUTION (See bivek, water). POPULATION growth of, necessitating further water supply to petitioners' distric 125 176 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. PORT {See dock, hakboub). " POST CASE," discussed, 14, 19, 117. POWEES (See also railway (6) ), bill for conferring statutory upon gas company opposed by corporation, 53 PEACTICE {See also petition), objection by railway company with running powers over line to admission of another company, 1 notice of objections, application for extension of time for serving, 11 Court unwilling to re-open or decide questions relating to legal rights of petitioners, 11, 12, 136 railway company as landowners claiming general locus against omnibus bill, 14 in oases of competition, 25 applicable to bUls confirming Provisional Orders, 26 where clause agreed in House of Lords, petition with additional signatures but identical interests, how far entitling to locus standi, 89 remedy at law how far affecting right to locus standi, 45 re-hearing after motion to the House to allow all petitioners against amal- gamation bill to be heard, 52 probability of injury, how far a ground of locus standi, 60 petitioners whose bill had been rejected in first House, claiming running powers to be inserted in competing bill in second House, 64 how far necessary for owners to allege that they are within the limits of deviation and to allege specific injury in petition, 71 petitioners against extension of time bill not entitled to re-open question of guarantee, 75 petitioners served with notice as landowners not alleging that their lands were taken under bill, 87 withdrawal of signatures from petition, 90 right of petitioners to be heard against clauses of bill as amended for Committee, 98 appearance not entered by petitioners, on promoters undertaking not to reinstate clauses, 99 how far railway company as landowners entitled under S. 0. 183 to a general or limited locus standi, 117 where insufficiency of allegations in petition, how far promoters bound to consider deposited plan with petition, 120 landowner claiming general locus against repeal of protection clauses in existing Act, 130 special instruction to Committee, how far affecting right to locus standi, 180 landowners alleging loss of amenity of property claiming a right to be heard, 184 road within limits of deviation, whether express powers necessary to divert or stop up, 136 temporary inconvenience during construction of line, how far amounting to special grievance, 136 absence of prima facie evidence of fraud, where proper remedy was at law, 144 right of petitioners to be heard against bill as deposited, 151 competition, sufficiency of allegation in petition, and on face of map, 155 deposit of notices of objection to locus standi after time, 159 authority to sign petition on behalf of inhabitants and ratepayers, 168 PROSPECTIVE BENEFIT, loss of — -, by abandonment of line authorised in previous session, 104 PROTECTIVE CLAUSES {See saving clauses). PROVISIONAL ORDER {See also pbactioe), extending area of supply of electric lighting company, shareholders' petition against, 26 for formation of united district for hospita.1 for infectious diseases, omission of any reference as to site of hospital in, 127 County Council opposing water bill, which proposed to interfere with main roads, 160 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 177 PUBLIC MEETING {See also pb^ctioe, shabbhomeks), insignificance of , how far right of gas consumers to be heard affeoted by, 53 authority given by , to vioar and churchwardens to petition on behalf of ratepayers and inhabitants, 163 QUANTUM OF INJURY, not distance, test of right to locus, 60 RAILWAY (See also Agbbement), (1) Abandonment. (2) Amalgamation. (8) Com- pany. (4) Competition. (5) Junction. . (6) Running Powebs. (7) Station. (8) WOBKING AgBEEMENT. (1) Abandonment, of line and substitution of another opposed by corporation of burgh alleging injury to town, 104 partial and diversion of authorised line opposed by company under an agreement to work same, 108 (2) Amalgamation, alleged virtual by vesting railways of harbour trustees in railway company, 5 affecting traders by removal of competition, 50 motion to the House to allow all petitioners to be heard against , 52 (3) Company, proposing to subsidise harbour revenues opposed by competing harbour, 5 transfer of powers to make railway from to dock company, 12 petition of against transfer of powers to dock and railway company, 14 as landowners, interference with land of by formation of junctions, 14, 19 underground ^ not interfering with surface of street opposed by vestry,40 undergroimd adjacent landowners opposing underpinning clause as to, 44 as owners of portions of railway over which promoters' railway must pass, 47 as joint owners of line with promoters, 49 crossing land of petitioners, general locrts standi claimed against, 67 proposing to pull down houses for widenings, and causing diminution of rates, 68 petition of , forming link in chain of through communication, 69 interested in guarantee to promoters against extension of time bill, 75 as dockowners opposing junction on ground of competition and diversion of traffic, 81 as landowner, how far affected by S. O. 133, 87 seeking to convert local into through line, opposed by corporation of burgh, 104 seeking steamboat powers, opposed by companies working and owning competing line, and also as joint owners of railway with promoters. 111 as landowners whose laud is compulsorily taken claiming general locus, 117 proposing to convert branch goods line into passenger railway, petitioner claiming to extend running powers over promoters' railway to this branch, 117 petitioning opposing extension of time for railway crossing their land, 117 seeking running powers over railway intersecting petitioners' property, asking for practical repeal of protective provisions in existing Act, 130 construction of line by • in front of petitioners' property, causing temporary interference with access, 136 causing injury to church by disturbance and vibration, 139 reference to agreement of with road authority not confirmed by bill, 151 same land scheduled by and under bill jointly promoted by petitioners and another railway company, 152 scheduling of land, part of navigation undertaking, opposed by navigation company, 153 178 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 'RAIL.W AY— Continued. (4) Competition, new or improved , by transfer of powers from railway to dock company, 12 by transfer of power to construct authorised railway to dock and railway company, 16 between local and through railway by means of running powers, 19 where alleged between railways, usual practice, 25, 36, 47, 152 with existing railway, opposed by corporation on account of injury to trade, 34 improvement of existing between toll bridge and railway, 36 railways, 50, 108 removal of by amalgamation, traders affected by, 50 allegation of , status of petitioners unaltered by, 53 absence of in district alleged to belong to petitioners, 67 new caused by construction of line completing link in chain of through communication, 69 junctions with petitioners' railway available for , how far entitling to a general locus, 108 and diversion of through and local traffic, apprehended by railway company, 108 alleged by petitioning companies against railway seeking steamboat powers. 111 local line alleging , with proposed through railway, 140 possibility of by circuitous route, but not effective, 155 allegation of arising from power to one company to subscribe to pier, 157 (5) Junctions, formation of causing interference with land of railway company, 14 and compulsory powers of taking land, 19 construction of — — opposed by harbour commissioners and railway company as dockowners, 81 formation of — - — with petitioners' railway, how far entitling to general loctis, if available for competition, 108 (6) Running Powers, over existing railway company sought by dock and railway company, 1 petitioners having opposing admission of another company to same, 1 causing competition between local and through railway, 19 claimed in second House, by petitioners whose bill has been rejected in first House, against competing bill, 64 claim by petitioners to extend over main line of promoters to branch railway, which promoters proposed to convert from a goods line into a passenger railway, 117 sought over railway intercepting petitioners' property, practical repeal of protective provisions in existing Act, 130 opposed by owners, lessees, occupiers and inhabitants, as being practical repeal of prohibition of goods traffic under existing Act, 134 power of petitioners to compel exchange of , under previous Acts, interfered with by bill, 140 (7) Station, erected on petitioners' land, sought to be altered without his approval, 43 construction of terminal opposed by owners, &c., as affecting amenity, 134 (8) Working Agreement, authorised by bill for construction of junction, 81 _ company having as to authorised line, opposing partial abandonment and diversion of same, 108 proposed to be authorised by bill opposed by competing company, 140 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 179 RATEPAYERS (See also oorpobation, inhabitants), and gas consumers injuriously affected by gas bill removing competition, 53 claim of Scotch parochial board to represent under Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845, 91 RATES (See also extension, harbour board, railway (3) ), diminution of , during construction of proposed works, 68 poor , proposed exemption of public buildings from, opposed by parochial boards 91, and by School Board 96 school , collection of, by parochial boards, 96 RECTORY (See advowson). REFEREES (See practice). RE-HEARING (See practice). REMEDY AT LAW, allegation that agreement was obtained by fraud, subject for , 144 REMOTENESS (See injury). REPEAL of clause in previous Act, for protection of petitioner, 144 REPRESENTATION (See also inhabitants, local boakd), proposed alteration of on conservancy board, 60 by local board of harbour commissioners alleging distinct interests, 81 how far of a trade may be claimed by a trades' association, 115 RESERVOIRS, bUl for extension of time to construct opposed by local board, 124 RESIDENTS (See inhabitants). RES JUDICATA (See legislation, practice). RIGHT OP WAY (See footpath, road). RIPARIAN OWNERS opposing bill for bridge on ground of injury to property, 60 money payments to in lieu of compensation water, 144 below point of return of Impounded water, how far affected, 147 RIVAL SCHEME, of petitioners having been rejected, claim to be heard to ask for running powers over promoters' line, 64 RIVER, construction of bridge and weir, with removable sluices, over navigable opposed by local authorities, 60 water of impounded, how far persons below point of return of compen- sation water affected, 147 ROAD (See also pootpath), vestry as authority opposing underground railway, 40 included in limits of deviation, but no express powers to divert same in bill, 136 authority, reference to agreement by, with railway company, not coniirmed by bUl, 151 interference with main by pipes of water company, 160 ROAD AUTHORITY (See local board, road). RUNNING POWERS (See railway (6) ). RURAL SANITARY AUTHORITY (See sanitary authority). SANITARY AUTHORITY (See also corporation, local board), of adjoining district alleging injurious affecting, opposing the formation of united district for hospital for infectious diseases, 127 below point of return of impounded water opposing bill, 147 180 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. SANITARY, and police provisions, proposed additional taxation for, opposed by association of landowners and by individual owners of property, 100 SAVING AND PROTECTIVE CLAUSES, provisions of bill inconsistent with , 43 claim for — — by telephone company on bill for extension of time for constructing tramways, 102 proposed repeal of , prohibiting heavy goods traffic, opposed by landowner, 130 proposed repeal of — — as to compensation water, agreement to supersede, 144 SCHEDULE (See land). SCHOOL BOARD opposing exemption of public buildings from poor-rate, 96 SERVICE OP NOTICES, &c. (See also petition, pkactioe). SEWERS, interference with by underground railway opposed by vestry, 40 SHAREHOLDER, not having dissented at public meeting, 11 alteration of status proposed, 28 SIGNATURES (See petition, pbactice). SILTING, bill for borrowing additional money for carrying out works opposed by corporation alleging that tidal flow would be injured by , 56 STANDING ORDERS, 5 [Notices to specify limits of burial ground, hospital, &o.] , 127 14 [Notices when it is proposed to abstract water from stream] , 147 43 [Diversion of roads] , 136 62-66 [Meetings of proprietors to approve bills empowering companies to do certain acts] , 26 131 [In what cases shareholders to be heard] , 26 132 [Dissenting shareholders to be heard] , 26 133 [In what cases railway companies to be heard], 1, 14, 87, 108, 117, 152 133a [Chambers of commerce may be heard in relation to rates and fares] , 50 134 [Municipal authorities and inhabitants of towns], 20, 34, 40, 53, 60, 72, 81, 104, 134, 147, 163 134a [Local authorities to have lociis standi against lighting and water bUls], 147,160, 163 151 [Proceedings on bills for confirming Provisional Orders] , 26, 127 156 [Railway company not to acquire lands] , 5. 184 [Compensation water] , 147, 160 208a [Provisional Order Bills to stand referred to committee of selection] , 26, 127 STATION (See railway (7) ). STATUS, alteration of , by postponement of petitioners' claims to mortgagees, 28. alteration of , and diversion of traffic by railway company seeking steamboat powers, 111 alteration of petitioner's , proposed by bill, 140 STATUTORY RIGHTS, telephone company without , opposing bill for extension of time for construction of tramway, 102 water company without , opposing water bill proposing to supply within area supplied by themselves, 164 STEAMBOATS, powers for — — , sought by railway company, opposed by competing railways, 111 powers for , opposed by association of steamship owners and individual steamship owners, 115 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 181 STEAMSHIP OWNERS, joint petition of , and steamship owners' association against bill for conferring steamboat powers on railway company, and claim of association to represent trade interests, 115 STOPPAGE (See access, footpath, road). STREAM (See eiver). STREET (See koad). STRUCTURAL DAMAGE, to church by propinquity of railway, 139 SUBSIDENCE, apprehended injury by caused by underground railway, 40 SUPPLY (See gas, water). TAXATION (See also haebous, rates), additional for police and sanitary improvements, opposed by associa- tion of landowners and by individual owners of property, 100 TELEPHONE company without statutory powers opposing bill for extension of time for constructiag tramway to be worked by electricity, 102 THROUGH-FARES, combined railway and sea proposed by bill. 111 TIDAL FLOW, alleged injury to by corporation opposing bill for making deep water channel, 56 diminution to scour of , alleged by construction of bridge over navigable river, 60 TOLL BRIDGE, abstraction from of traffic by railway, 23 owners of opposing railway giving direct access to town, 36 TOLLS (See also bridge, harbour), harbour commissioners apprehending diminution of — • — by junction, 81 TRADE (See also traders), injury to by construction of competing railway, claim of corporation to locus, 3i right of association representing particular to be heard as distinguished from association representing combination of various trades, 115 TRADERS, and inhabitants opposing interference with access to harbour, 20 affected by removal of competition owing to railway amalgamation, 50 petition of , where corporation of burgh also petitioning, 50 joint petition of and corporation of burgh, against withdrawal of railway facilities, 104 TRAFFIC (See also railway (3), tramway), " Working" goods meaning of, 3 diversion of to harbour subsidised by railway, 5 obstruction of by transfer of powers from railway to dock and railway company, 14 diversion of causing injury to competing docks, 17 abstraction of from existing road bridge by railway bridge, 23 diversion of causing injury to owners of toll bridge, 36 repeal of Act prohibiting goods by underground railway, 4( diversion of owing to proposed combuiation of railways, 46 diversion of apprehended by company as dookowners from construction of railway junction, 81 " i- , i. j diversion of and competition by bill for diversion and partial abandon- ment of authorised line, 108 . alteration of status and diversion of by f ailway company seeking steamboat powers. Ill . . i j! lan clauses prohibiting heavy goods , landowners opposing repeal ot, idO ,40 182 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. TEAMWAY, extension of time for construction of electric opposed by telephone company without statutory powers, 102 construction of to be worked by cable haulage, causing interference with pipes of water company, 160 TURNPIKE, right of owners of ■ to locus against railway discussed, 36 UNDERGROUND {See railway (3), (6) ; watee.) UNDERPINNING, power for and to rebuild sought by underground railway company, 40 VESTRY {See also local authority), as road authority opposing underground railway, 40 VIBRATION {See church, hospital, railway (3) ). VICAR and churchwardens alleging injury to church by construction of railway, 139 opposing water bill on behalf of inhabitants, 163 WATEE, extension of time for construction of works opposed by local board of neighbouring district requiring further supply to their own district, 125 money payment in lieu of compensation to riparian owners, 144 bill to repeal clauses as to compensation water and reservoirs and to impound water, 147 alleged interference with pipes of company by construction of tramway to be worked by cable haulage, 160 interference with main roads by pipes of company, general locus claimed by county councU, 160 bill, opposed by vicar and churchwardens of parish within district of supply, as representing inhabitants, 163 bill, opposed by non-statutory company proposed to be included in limits of supply, 164 WATERSHED, claim by petitioners to appropriated by promoters under previous Acts, 125 WEIRS AND LOOKS, construction of bridge and • — — with removable sluices opposed by local authorities, 60 WHARF {See dock). Part II.] east grinstead gas and water bill. 183 not such as to enable them to supply it. The inhabitants of Forest Row depend for their water supply upon wells, and it is from Broad- stone Warren that the springs issue from the ground which supply these wells. The pro- moters propose to drive an adit into Broadstone Warren, and the result of that will be to tap these springs and so to injuriously affect the water supply of Forest Row. The Chairman : Does this adit interfere directly with any stream above ground ? Rigg : No, the underground water oozes out and flows down the hill, and the adit taps it just before it comes out of the ground. Forest Row is an ecclesiastical district,, and the petitioners are the principal inhabitants in this district. The rural sanitary authority are the guardians of East Grinstead as well as of Forest Row, and Forest Row has distinct interests from East Grinstead in this matter, which distinct interests could not be represented by the board of guardians, and therefore the petitioners, the inhabitants of the district, are the proper persons to be heard. As to the objection that this is underground water which wUl be interfered with, and that following the decision in Chasemore v. Richards (29 L.J. Exch., 81) no lomis standi should be granted, I submit that here there is prima facie a weU-defined channel, and that the promoters are taking away from the petitioners water which is at the present time theirs. The case is distin- guishable from that of the Cambridge University and Town Water Bill, 1886 (Eickards & Michael, 95), and within the decision of the Court in the London and South-Western Spring Water Bill, 1882 (3 Clifford &.Riokards, 179), which latter case is a conclusive authority in favour of a locus standiheing granted to the petitioners. The Chaieman : In that case there was geolo- gical evidence as to the nature of the chalky and as to what was known as to the flow of the water underground. Rigg : In the present case it is obvious where the water comes up, and the promoters propose to take the whole of it by means of this adit. We further allege that the picturesque scenery of the place will be disfigured by the works and erections proposed by the bill, and I cite on this point the case of the North British Railway (No. 2) Bill, 1877 (2 Clifford & Rickards, 52). The Chaibman : I think that is too remote. Rigg : We also claim a locus standi on the ground that the bill proposes to alter our status, because, whereas we can now call upon the company to supply us with water by meter for purposes other than domestic purposes, and the company are under sect. 75 of the East Grinstead Gas and Water Act, 1878, bound to supply it upon a scale of charges set out in the Act, the bill by clause 38 proposes to repeal that section, and to relieve the company from this obligation, whereby we shall be placed in a worse position than we now are. That sect. 75 is as follows : " The company shall, at the request of any consumer of water for purposes other than the purposes for or in respect of which the rates or charges are hereinbefore provided or limited" {i.e., domestic purposes), " or may at their own instance, afford a supply of water by meter, and may charge for such supply not exceeding the following rates per, one thousand gallons (that is to say) : " Then follow the rates. We further say that the promoters will cause great inconvenience to us by the powers in the bill to break up roads in our district. Baggallay (for promoters) : I submit that unless it is established to your satisfaction that there i% prima facie evidence of this water flowing in a defined stream, the petitioners are not entitled to a locus standi. The proposed adit goes inside the hill and takes water from within the hill, and the water flows in the adit at a height considerably above that of the stream in which the petitioners say they are interested. In the London and South-Western Spring Water case, the water flowed through chalk in a well-defined stream, and that fact was estab- lished by evidence, but here it is totally different. This locality is a spongy basin full of water, and has no defined stream. The onus prdbandi is on the petitioners to show not only that the water goes from where the adit taps it to the stream, in which the petitioners say they are interested, but to show that the water comes in a defined stream into the stream itself ; and even then the fact remains that the water from that stream runs away from the so-called district the petitioners claim to represent. With reference to the allegation that we are seeking to relieve ourselves of the obligation to supply the district of the petitioners, we say that these petitioners are not con- sumers at the present time, and do not petition as such. The Chairman: There is something in the point that if the promoters are coming nearer to the petitioners' district, they might then wish to avail themselves of your supply under the conditions of your present Act, and that you are, by clause 38, taking away one of those conditions. Baggallay : I wiU not oppose the locus standi of the petitioners on that point as consumers , but as inhabitants they would be clashing with the authority within whose district they are, and who might have appeared here them- 184 COURT or EEPEREES. [Vol. I. selves, and therefore they are not entitled to appear as representatives of the district. The CHAIE5IAN : We have said nothing to the effect that we regard them as representatives of a district. Baggallay : It would be sufficient for you to say that they are owners and occupiers in a district that is within our limits of supply, and that therefore they might be consumers, and that as consumers, or possible consumers, they bavea right to be heard with regard to so much of the bai as proposes to alter their status on the question of supply by meter, for other than domestic purposes. The Chaibman : The Locus Standi is Disallowed except as against clause 38 of the Bill, and so much of the preamble as relates thereto. Agents for Petitioners, Dyson d- Co. Agents for Bill, Eees rf- Frere. EDINBURGH STREET TRAMWAYS BILL. [H. L.] Petition of The Loed Pkovost, Magistrates and Council of the City of Edinburgh. 20th June, 1892.— {Before Mr. Pabkee, M.P., Chairman; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C; and Mr. Bonham-Cabtee.) Tramway Company and Municipal Corporation- Powers of Agreement with Local Autlwrities as to use of Mechanical Power, Purchase of Tram- ways, dx. — Additional Capital — Power to Com- pany to accept Lease and Work Tramways — Tramways Act, 1870, sect. 43 [Future Purchase of Undertaking by Local Authority] — Resolution of Petitioners to purchase Tramtoays of Pro- moters— S. 0. 134 [Municipal Authorities and Inhabitants, d-c.^— Practice— Sufficiency of Allegation in Petition as to " Injurious Affecting." The bill authorised the Edinburgh street tram- ways company to enter into agreements with the local authorities of the various districts, through which their tramways were laid, with reference to the working of the tramways by mechanical power, the purchase of the tramways or waiver of such purchase by the local authorities, and other matters. It also empowered the tram- ways company to accept a lease from the corporation of Edinburgh of any tramway within the city; and to raise additional capital. The corporation of Edinburgh, within which city the largest part of the promoters' tramways were laid, petitioned against the bill, and alleged as an additional reason for their being heard that the period of 21 years from the date of the passing of the Act authorising the construction of the tramways, at the expiration of which they were entitled by sect. 48 of the Tram- ways Act, 1870, to exercise their option of purchase, expired at the end of the present month, and that they had already passed an unanimous vote in council to exercise their right of purchase. They contended that under the circumstances, no fresh powers of raising additional capital or otherwise should be conferred upon the tramways company, and claimed a general locus standi against the bill. A preliminary objection on the part of the promoters having been overruled, that the petition did not suffi- ciently allege " injurious affecting " : Held, that the petitioners were entitled to be heard generally against the bill with the exception of certain clauses (23 and 24) inserted for the protection of the Post- master-General in the event of the tram- ways being worked by electricity applied in a manner stated in the clauses. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition does not allege or show that the petitioners are the municipal or other authority having the local management of any town or district injuriously affeeted by the bUl, or that any land, house, property, right or interest of the petitioners will be or can be taken or affected under the powers of the bill or in consequence of the execution thereof ; (2) the provisions of the bUl with respect to the raising of additional capital and borrowing of further money merely affect the internal administration of the company, and the petitioners are not affected by the said provisions or entitled to be heard against them ; (8) the provisions of clause 4 are purely permissive, and will not interfere with the exercise of any right or duty to the peti- tioners, and cannot affect them without their consent. The power thereby conferred of entering into agreements with other local authorities does not affect the petitioners or any of their rights, or confer any right of interference Part II.] EDINBURGH STREET TRAMWAYS BILL. 185 with the petitioners upon the company or any other local authority; (4) the provisions of clause 5 are consequential upon those of clause 4, and cannot affect the petitioners without their consent, and do not entitle them to be heard against the bill ; (5) the power proposed to be conferred upon the company by clause 6 of the bUl to accept a lease of tramways affects only the company, and will not confer any preferen- tial right on them to a lease of any tramways which may be acquired by the petitioners, or in any way injuriously affect the petitioners or infringe or restrict their rights ; (6) none of the powers sought by the biU will prejudice the petitioners in the acquisition of any tramways or hinder their freedom of action in leasing any tramways which they may acquire ; (7) the petitioners have no such rights in the tramways of the company as entitle them to be heard against clause 22 or clause 23 of the bill; (8) the bill does not contain any provision affecting the petitioners, nor does the petition allege or show that the petitioners have, nor have they in fact, any such interest in the objects and provisions of the bill as entitles them to be heard -against it. Cripps, Q.C. (for petitioners) : This is a bill promoted by the Edinburgh street tramways company, the largest part of wliose system is within the corporate bounds of Edinburgh, asking for additional powers. The corporation have unanimously resolved to give notice to purchase, under the compulsory powers of purchase conferred on them by sect. 43 of the Tramways Act, 1870, and certain provisions in their private Acts, the tramways within their boundaries as from the 30th June, 1892, and, therefore, the corporation will be the actual owners of these tramways very shortly. I submit that if the Court thinks this is a proper case, we are undoubtedly entitled to be heard under S. O. 134, as we are a corporation who allege reasonably that our interests may be affected. These provisions are partly by agreement and partly by compulsion. The preamble of the biU is inaccurate in stating that "the period of 21 years, within which local authorities are by sect. 43 of the Tramways Act, 1870, entitled to purchase the undertaking of the company within their respective districts wiU, in accordance with the provisions of that Act, and of certain agree- ments scheduled to the Act of 1871 and the Act of 1881, expire on the 29th of June, 1892, as to parts of the undertaking, and at sub- sequent dates as toother parts," because in fact the said power of purchase only begins to be operative on the 30th June, 1892, and does not expire until the lapse of six months thereafter. It is vital to us not to allow an inaccurate statement like that to pass in the preamble just at the very time in which we are seeking to purchase the tramways, and we should be allowed to be heard against it. We specially object to clause 4 of the bill relating to agree- ments by the company with local authorities. That clause is as foUows : — "The company on the one hand and the lord provost, magistrates and council of the royal burgh of Edinburgh aud the provost, magistrates and council of the burgh of Leith and of the burgh of Portobello, and the county council of Midlothian, or any of them (which bodies are hereinafter referred to as ' the local authorities '), on the other hand may, from time to time enter into and carry into effect contracts, agreements, or arrange- ments for or with respect to aU or any of the following matters, that is to say, the working by mechanical power within the district or districts of the respective local authorities, parties to such agreement, of any tramways on which mechanical power is authorised to be used by any Act of ParUament, and subject to the "provisions of such Act, and the repair and ' maintenance of any streets or roads in which such tramways are or may be laid ; the purchase by or transfer to such local authori- ties, or any of them, whether jointly or solely, of all or any portion of the tramways, works property, rights, powers and privileges, for the time being of the company, situate or exer- cisable within their respective districts; the waiver or postponement of any powers of pur- chasing such tramways, which may, at the time of such agreement being entered into, be or be about to become vested in such local authorities, or any of them, under the pro- visions of the Tramways Act, 1870, or any agreement scheduled to any of the hereinbefore recited Acts, and the terms and conditions of such purchase, waiver or postponement; the alteration of rates and fares, provided that the maximum toUs and charges, authorised by the Act of 1871, shall in no case be exceeded. Nothing in this- section shall empower any local authority to place or run carriages upon any tramway, and to demand and take toUs and charges in respect of the use of such carriages." Clause 6 of the biU, which gives the company power to accept a lease of and work any tram- ways from local authorities within their districts, we also object to. By clause 8 of the biU the company ask power to raise additional capital, and we submit that it is not expedient that any further capital powers should be conferred upon the company, or that they should be allowed to borrow further money, just as we are about to purchase their undertaking. N 2 186 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. We also object to clause 22 for the protection of the National telephone company, and to clauses 23 and 24 inserted at the instance of the Postmaster-General, all of which contain very important limitations as regards working by mechanical power, for the reason that we shall so shortly purchase the undertaking, and the whole responsibility wiU then be upon us. If we introduced a bill to work by mechanical power, we should be bound by these Umitations, whereas we are tne proper persons to negotiate on these matters. The Chairman: With regard to the capital powers, besides possibly affecting the purchase- value of the undertaking, you would say that the company would not be able to raise money on such good terms as the corporation could. Cripps : Tes. The promoters further object that we do not allege that we are injuriously affected, but it is not necessary for us to use the exact words, "injuriously affected." We allege in paragraph 18, " that the bill is un- called for, and the powers sought in it are in conflict with and prejudicial to the rights of your petitioners conferred by Parliament." Woi'sley Taylor, Q.C. (for promoters) : The allegation in paragraph 18 of the petition is a mere general allegation, having reference to all that goes before, and is not a suf&cient allega- tion that the petitioners are injuriously affected. The Chaikman : In terms it says the bill is prejudicial not to the district or city, but "to the rights of your petitioners," but then the petitioners represent the city. I do not think the Court has ever insisted upon the precise wording so long as there is a substantial allega- tion that the district will be injuriously affected, and I do not think you can take any distinction between the rights of the people representing the city and the rights of the city itself. Worsley Taylor : As to the recital in the preamble, it is in fact correct, because the additional period of six months in which to give notice to purchase is imported by the Tramways Act, 1870, and even if it was incorrect it would in no way bind the petitioners because it refers to the provisions of the Tramways Act, 1870, which gives the further period of six months for notice. The Chaibman : Do you suppose the Com- mittee on the biU can be expected to pass the preamble as true, which gives six months too little for the purchase ? Worsley Taylor : All the preamble says is, that the period of 21 years mentioned in the Act expires on the 29th June, 1892, and in this the recital is strictly and technically correct. The whole of the petitioners' rights with regard to purchase remain unaffected, and are preserved. The Chaibman : There is also clause 8, the capital clause which fixes the period as the 30th June, 1892. Vornleij Taylor : It does not follow because we get this capital, that it is all to be expended upon tramways in Edinburgh, and that would be the only ground on which the petitioners could claim to be interested in it. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : The corporation, after this date, will be able to give notice to purchase. Is it not fair that they should come to the Committee and say, under the circumstances, it is not necessary nor expedient that you should raise this additional capital ? Vorsley Taylor : That gives no ground of locus standi. Parliament has never said corporations should be heard in the case of Tramioay Bills for raising additional capital. The petitioners claim to be heard under S. 0. 134, as being injuriously affected. The Tramways Act, 1870, sect. 48, enacts that the promoters shall, af-.-r the notice, " sell to them their undertaking, or so much of the same as is within such district, on terms of paying the then value (exclusive of any allow- ance for past or future profits of the undertaking, or any compensation for compulsory sale or other consideration whatever) of the tramway and all lands, buildings, works, materials, and plant of the promoters, suitable to and used by them for the purpose of their undertaking within such district." In tramway under- takings, therefore, unlike gas and water undertakings, it is not the undertaking as a going concern, comprising capital powers, and future profits, but it is merely the physical tramways and effects, without taking the profits or obliga- tions into consideration. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : The petitioners had a locus standi in the House of Lords. Is the biU that comes to this House different to the bill that went to the House of Lords, so far as it affects the question of their locus standi ? Worsley Taylor : Yes, one alteration is that, whereas as the bill originally stood an outside authority would have got compulsory powers to buy the tramways in Edinburgh, there being permissive powers between ourselves and the outside authorities, and between ourselves and Edinburgh, nobody outside can, as the bill now stands, possibly interfere with Edinburgh. The Chairman: The alteration, though it saves the Edinburgh corporation from interference by another authority, may pre- vent them from agreeing with an outside authority. PaET II.] GLASGOW AND SOUTH-WESXERN EAILWAY BILL. 187 Wordey Taylor: Another alteration is that, as the bill originally stood, we had power to agree for the working of any tramways by mechanical power, and the repair and main- tenance of any streets or roads in which such tramways might be laid, whereas the biU, as it now stands, provides for agreements being made as to the working by mechanical power, within the districts of the respective local authorities (who are to be parties to such agreement), of any tramways on which mechanical power is authorised to be used by any Act of Parliament, and subject to the provisions of such Act, as to the repair and maintenance of any streets or roads in which such tramways are or may be laid. Mr. -Chandos-Leigh : The petitioners object to these powers because they are unnecessary and uncalled for, I suppose, because Edinburgh has passed the resolution to purchase the tramways, and a large portion of the tramways are within the corporation of Edinburgh. Worsley Taylor : The question is whether the petitioners are injuriously affected. They can have no locus standi merely because what we propose to do is unnecessary and uncalled for. With regard to the powers of agreement with local authorities conferred on the company by clause 4 of the bUl, they are merely permissive. If the petitioners do not like to enter into an agreement with us they need not do so, and the whole of the provisions become absolutely inoperative. As to clauses Nos. 23 and 24 for the protection of the Postmaster-General, in the event of the tramways being worked by electricity other than electrical power carried along with the carriages, it would be useless for the corporation to discuss them, because they could not resist their application to the tramways if they purchase them. Clause 22 for the protection of the National telephone company has also become a s,tock clause. The Chaibsian: The Locus Standi is Allowed, except against clauses 23 and 24 for the pro- tection of the Postmaster- General. Agent for Petitioners, Beveridge. Agents for Bill, Eees & Frere. GLASGOW AND SOUTH-WESTEBN EAILWAY BILL. [H. L.] Petition of The Pkovost, Maoistbates, akd Council qf the Eoyal Buboh of Ikvine. 17th June, 1S92.— {Before BIr. Pakkeb, M.P., Chairman; The Hon. B. Chandos - Leioh, Q.C. ; and Mr. Bonham-Cabxek.) Construction of Railway across Catchment Area of Meservoir of Petitioners — Local Authority supplying Water to District — Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, sects. 89, 90 [Supply of Water to Burghs, and Purchase of Land, d-c.] — Interference with Streams and Surface Water — Eights of Petitioners as Landowners — Appre- hended Pollution of Streams, dx., by Town Manure brought by Railway — Injurious Affecting — S. 0. 134 [Municipal Authorities and Inhabitants of Towns']. This was a biU for the construction of a railway, and was opposed by the corporation of Irvine on the ground that the proposed railway would cross in cutting the catch- ment area and divert surface waters supplying a reservoir constructed by them for the supply of their district under the powers of a Provisional Order made under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, and confirmed by Parliament in 1876. The petitioners also objected to the railway on the ground that it would be used to convey town manure to lands formin part of the catchment area of this reservoir, and so enable the owners of the land to pollute surface water and streams flowing towards their reservoir. They claimed to be heard (1) as landowners in respect of their reservoir, entitled to an undiminished and unpolluted flow of water thereto, and (2) as a municipal authority of a town injuriously affected by the biU under S. O. 134. The proposed railway was laid out to cross a burn and its tributary, the waters of which the petitioners were empowered by their Act of 1876 to impound, but counsel for the promoters stated that the railway would be carried over these streams without in any way interfering with them, and would interfere with no water flowing in a defined channel, while, 188 COURT OP BEFEREES. [Vol. I. as to the petitioners' apprehension that the railway would bring town manure for jise upon lands forming part of the catch- ment area of their reservoir, it was pointed out that the landowners could at the present time manure their lands in any way they thought fit : Held, however, that the petitioners were entitled to he heard generally against the bill under S. O. 134 as the local authority of a district injuriously aflfected by the bill, the Court however expressing their opinion that the real purpose for which a locus standi was given to the petitioners was to enable them to protect their waterworks rather than to argue against the general object of the biU. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : — (1) the promoters deny that any lands, streams, springs, works, or rights of property of the petitioners, or which they have appropriated or acquired for the purposes of their works or otherwise, will or can be taken or interfered with under the powers of the bUl, and the mere fact of the petitioners being described in the book of reference as owners and occupiers of Mannoch Burn as stated in the petition, does not entitle them to be heard against the biU ; (2) even if the biU conferred any powers (as alleged in the petition) of diverting water from the catch- ment area referred to in the petition or the springs or the underground waters therein mentioned, or of causing or leading to the pollution of any such springs or waters .(which the promoters do not admit) the petitioners are not the owners of the land within the said catchment area or of the waters thereiu or thereon, or of the said springs or underground waters, and have no such rights or interest in such land or such springs or waters as to entitle them, acoordiug to the practice of Parliament, to be heard upon their petition against the bill in respect thereof ; (3) even if the bill would have the effect stated in paragraph 16 of the petition (which the pro- moters do not admit) the petitioners have no such rights or interest in the land within the said catchment area as to entitle them to pro- hibit the use of town manure thereon, or to be heard against the bUl with a view to prohibiting the same; (4) in so far (if at all) as the bill authorises interference with any pipes or works of the petitioners, the petitioners and their said works and their rights of access thereto are sufficiently protected by the pro- visions contained in general Acts incorporated with the bill, and are not prejudiced or affected by clause 19 of the biU, and the petitioners are not entitled according to the practice of Parlia- ment to be heard upon their petition against the bill in respect of a mere easement or right to lay such pipes or works ; (5) the bill is not a bill relating to the water supply of the town or district of which the petitioners are the muni- cipal or local authority, so as to entitle them to be heard against the same under S. 0. 134:A, nor is such water supply in any way affected by the bill, so as to entitle the petitioners to be heard against the same ; (6) the petition discloses no ground upon which the petitioners are entitled to be heard according to practice. Worsley Taylor, Q.C. (for petitioners) : I ask for a locus standi on two grounds : first, as land- owners, and secondly, as a corporation injuriously aflfected under S. O. 134. We have got, under statutory authority, certain waterworks and a reservoir in which we impound the streams that flow to it. Land, according to the definition in the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, includes water. As landowners we have this land upon which we have constructed our reservoir with the right to the flow of water down to it through the gathering ground that drains to the reser- voir. The promoters propose to construct a railway in cutting with a falling gradient in both directions from our gathering ground, and the result will be that the water instead of running into our reservoir as it now does, will be diverted out of the watershed altogether, and we shall lose it. When this bOl was before the House of Lords, Mr. Pope, who appeared for the promoters, admitted that we had an "unquestionable locus standi," and, that they would abstract our water, and that we must be protected by a clause, and now they object to our locus standi. I submit that we are entitled to be heard against the bill as landowners, and we have had notices served upon us as land- owners. The Chaimian : If the locus standi were now disallowed, you have no security even for clauses ? Worsley Taylor : No. I submit we are entitled to a locus standi in the discretion of the Court under S. O. 134. Robert Carstairs Reid was here called, and gave evidence that the area of the ground forming a catchment area, which would be affected by the proposed railway above the cutting, would be about 50 or 60 acres upon which water might, if proper clauses were inserted in the bill, be intercepted on the Part II.] Glasgow and south-wbsteen railway bill. 189 surface by catohment drains, and so led away from the cutting into the reservoir. Worsley Taylor : In the House of Lords, the point taken was that we had no right beyond the reservoir. I showed the Committee that we were landowners, and that we had owners' rights iu all the water which drains down to our reservoir. We built this reservoir at a cost of £90,000 on the faith of having this gathering ground, and we are bound under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, Provisional Order Confirmation (Irvine and Dundonald) Act, 1876, not only to supj)ly the inhabitants, but also to give compensation water. The promoters wUl not only abstract water, but they may pollute the whole of it by having a station on the ground and by bringing down town manure to it, which will be used on the ground. That is injurious affecting within the meaning of S. O. 134. One of the streams in respect of which notices have been served upon is Mannock Burn, which may be diverted or may be polluted. The Chaibihan : Is the Mannock Burn a defined stream ? M'orsleij Taylor : Yes. We are the local authority with a reservoir, and we come here because we are apprehensive that we may be injuriously affected by what the promoters seek to do. Moreover, we should be injuriously affected, not merely by anything done to the water, but by any suspicion that might be cast upon it which would weaken confidence in the purity of it, whereas it is now miles away from any possibility of contamination. The Chaikman : You are entered in the Book of Reference as owners and occupiers at Mannock Burn ; but the promoters deny that you are owners and occupiers in the ordinary sense. Worsley Taylor : I am not owner of the water at that particular point, as no man can be owner of the water above his own land ; but I am owner of it in this sense that I have a right to prevent the owner of it at that point from either abstracting it or injuriously affecting it by polluting it, and the promoters may do both of these things unless they are prevented. The Chaibman : I see the Provisional Order of 1876 distinctly speaks of appropriating the waters of the Maimoch or Caddell Burn, that is at the point where the railway crosses. It provides further that before you take water out of the Mannoch Burn you must put a sufficient quantity into the Mannoch Burn. That is enough to show that it is a definite stream, and, although of course there is a point where it ceases to be a definite stream, I should take the evidence of the Ordnance map with regard to that. Worsleij Taylor: The burn may be passed over by the promoters, and the question is not what they may do if proper - provisions are inserted, but what they may have the right to do, if no protective provisions are inserted in the bin. At that point they may pollute the stream. I submit that we are landowners entitled of right to the flow of this water which flows on the surface, and to a certain extent in a defined pljannel, and that we are owners in this sense of the water falling on to the 50 acres and flowing along the surface to the reservoir, and as landowners entitled to a locus standi. I further submit that we are so injuriously affected by the bOl that you should, in the exercise of your discretion, allow us to be heard to protect our interests under S. 0. 134. Pope, Q.C. (for promoters) : The Court has decided in a number of cases that an allegation of interference with underground water which has not acquired a definite channel does not give a locus standi, and I submit there can be no distinction in principle between surface water and water which percolates through the land, and that there is no riparian ownership until water has, so to speak, become riparian in character. A riparian owner has a right to the unpolluted flow of water in a stream when it has reached the stream, but no riparian owner could prevent a proprietor above him putting a water butt upon the land and collecting water from the heavens. The legal rights of the peti- tioners with regard to this watershed area are limited by the Provisional Order, which gives them no right except that of constructing the reservoirs, and, if necessary, compulsorUy taking lands for this purpose, and it is only by the Public Health (Scotland) Act, sect. 89, that they are entitled, if at all, to the water, which they propose to collect before it reaches the reservoirs. The effect of this pro- vision is that the local authority by giving notice under the Lands Clauses Act to those who are entitled to the water in any lake, river, or stream, as therein mentioned, may, without going for an additional Act of Parliament, put in force those powers. But here the petitioners have not availed themselves of the provisions of this statute, and they have made no com- pensation, they have given no notices, and they have taken no proceedings under sect. 89 of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, and therefore they have no right at aU in that catchment area. They own the reservoirs, and may have riparian rights upon any burn which flows into them, but that is not ma.terial because we do not intercept or interfere with 190 COURT OF REPEUEES. [Vol. L any stream, the Mannoch Burn, or any other. The Chaibman : The plans show that you are going to interfere with a small tributary as well as with the Mannoch Burn. Pope : We cross both, but we do not interfere with or intercept either of them. The peti- tioners' grievance is that we are going to cut ofif 50 acres of his catchment area before the water has got into Mannoch Burn. The Chairman: The petitioners' counsel argued that he was entitled to be heard under S. O. 134 as being injuriously affected. To my mind the question of surface water would go a good deal along with the question of injurious affecting under the Standing Order, because I do not suppose the Court would give a locus standi to a private owner where there was a risk of a less quantity of water running into a burn that was not proposed to be used for any public purpose, but when you come to the injurious affecting of a large population by interference with the catchment area that supplies them, I think that has some weight in addition. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : We have carried S. 0. 134 very far in several instances. The next Standing Order is absolutely mandatory, and would have applied if this had been a water company coming for a biU instead of a railway company. I also feel that the Corporation of Irvine did appear in the House of Lords, when their locus standi was not objected to, and they now take their stand upon S. O. 134. Pope : I do feel somewhat pressed with the wide character of S. 0. 134, and I submit that if, in the exercise of your discretion, you should think it fair that the petitioners should be heard with regard to any injury to their water- works, you should not stretch that Standing Order so far as to give them a locus standi against the preamble for the construction of the railway. The Ohaikman : The Court are unanimously of opinion that the Locus Standi should be Allowed, and that it should not be Umited to clauses, but they think it fair to express their opinion that the real purpose for which it should be given should be to protect the water- works rather than to argue against the general object of the biU. Agent for Petitioners, Beveridge. Agents for BiU, Sherwood c& Co. GLASGOW AND SOUTH-WESTERN EAiL'WAY (No. 2) BILL. Petition of The Lanakkshikb and Atrshiee RAmwAY Company and the Akdkossan Hab- BOtiB Company. 11th April, 1892.~{Before Mr. Pakkek, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shiress Will, Q.C, M.P.; Mr. Healy, M.P.; The Hon. E. Chandos- Leigh, Q.C. ; and Mr. Bonham-Cakteb.) Competition — Railways and Harbour Company^ This was a biU for vesting the undertaking of the Ayrshire and Wigtownshire railway company in the Glasgow and South- Western railway company. It was opposed by the Lanarkshire and Ayrshire railway company (who were worked in perpetuity by the Cale- donian railway company) and the Ardrossan harbour company on the ground of competition, inasmuch as it would make the Glasgow and South-Western company the owners of a through route between Glasgow and Stranraer and Portpatrick, vi& KUmarnock and Girvan, with the result that they would be able to compete at Stranraer and Portpatrick with the petitioners for Irish traffic at present sent over the Lanarkshire and Ayrshire railway to Ardrossan harbour for shipment to Ireland. The promoters themselves had a railway from Glasgow to Ardrossan, which formed a com- petitive route to Ardrossan with that of the Lanarkshire and Ayrshire company, and also a railway from Glasgow to Portpatrick and Stranraer, via Kilmarnock, Dumfries, and Castle Douglas, to Stranraer and Portpatrick, but the petitioners contended that the route by the latter railway was so circuitous that no considerable traffic was sent by it, and that therefore the new route to Stranraer and Port- patrick, which the promoters would acquire in their own hands under the bOl, would in effect create a new competition with the petitioners for Irish traffic. The petitioners urged as an additional argument for their being heard that the bOl was one for the amalgamation of two railway companies, and that the Court was accustomed to regard with favour the claims of petitioners to be heard against such bills. Contra, it was argued on behalf of the pro- moters that there was an existing competition between the Lanarkshire and Ayrshire com- pany and the promoters for traffic between Glasgow and Ardrossan; that the promoters already possessed a route of their own between Glasgow and Stranraer and Portpatrick ; and that they already worked the Ayrshire and Part II.] Glasgow, yoker and Clydebank railway bill. 191 Wigtownshire railway under. a. lease for 999 years, entered into with the sanction of Parlia- ment ; and that therefore the bill would have no material affect upon the present position of the petitioners. In the result the Court Disallowed'the Locus Standi of both Petitioners. The case involved a consideration of a number of circumstances connected with the past history and relations of the different com- panies concerned, and was of no practical value as a precedent. Worsley Taylor, Q.C., appeared for the petitioners ; Balfour Browne, Q.C., for the promoters. Agents for Petitioners, Martin ct Leslie. Agents for Bill, Sherwood <£• Co. GLASGOW GORPOEATION WATER BILL. Petition of The Caleeonian Railway Company. 31st May, 1S%2.— (Before Mr. Pabkee, M.P., Chairman, cf-c, (£'c.) The objections to the locus standi of the petitioners were withdrawn. Locus Standi Allowed. Agents for Petitioners, Grahames, Currey £ Sjiens. Agents for Bill, Martin Board might have been different, and the Board might have refused to allow the corporation to raise the necessary money for the purchase of the land. Mr. Healy : Have you any case to refer us to upon this point ? Rees : I am not aware of any. The question here is whether people coming even in good faith to purchase land whilst compulsory powers are already existing, and whilst an application for an extension of time is actually pending, causing an entirely new state of things by that purchase, are entitled to come before the Committee and put themselves practically in a much higher position than the original landowner. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : I must say I do not think that the West Ham corporation have got really much case upon merits. What I feel is this, that at the time they came to get the consent of the Local Government Board, notice ought to have expressly been given to the Local Government Board, that this very land was under compulsory powers. Mr. Healy: I quite agree in that. My difficulty with regard to taking any action in respect of, I will not say the suppression, but Pabt II.] regent's canal, city and docks railway. 227 the non-communication of that fact to the Local Government Board is this, that no matter in what way the consent of the Local Government Board has been obtained, it has been obtained, and the conveyances have been completed, and the money has been paid, and I know of no way in which the transaction could be rescinded. The Chairman : I think the fact that the land was subject to compulsory powers should have been stated to the Local Government Board ; on the other hand, 1 think if the company had been wide-awake, and intending immediately to make their railway, they ought to have been warned by the local notices. ReeK : We are not landowners within the parish, and we could not be expected to see the notices in the local newspapers, because we do not take them in ; and we should have had no locits standi at the local enquiry. The Chairman: The Loms Standiia Allo^ved. Of course the Committee will look carefully iuto the circumstances that will be brought before them. Agent for Petitioners, Hilleary. Petition of (2) The Vestby op St. Panckab. Extension of Time for Constniction of Railway and Canal — Local Authority of District through which Railway was to he made — Provision in Original Act for Reconstruction by Promoters of Bridge over Canal in Petitioners' District — Injurious Affecting of District, by delay in Reconstruction of Bridge — S. 0. 134 [Municipal Authorities and Inhabitants of Towns} . The extension of time for the construction of railways proposed by the biU was also objected to by the vestry of St. Pancras, whose district was intersected by a portion of the railways and canals belonging to the, promoters. Sect. 139 of the Eggent's Canal, City and Dock EaUway Act, 1882, had provided for the reconstruc- tion to the satisfaction of the vestry of a bridge which carried a road called the King's-road, situate within the district 6f the vestry, over the Eegent's canal, and in certain events for the reconstruction of other bridges across the canal. The petitioners complained that the proposed extension of time would further postpone the reconstruction of the said bridges by the promoters in accordance with sect. 139 of the Act of 1882, and would otherwise injuriously affect their district within' the meaning of S. O. 134 r Held, that the petitioners were entitled to be heard against the proposed extension of time, under that Standing Order. The locus standi of the petitioners (2) was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petitioners are not entitled to object to the ex- tension of time proposed by the bill, all questions between the promoters and the petitioners, including the matters referred to in paragraphs 3, 5, and 7 of the petition having been settled and determined by sect. 139 of the Regent's Canal, City and Dock Railway Act, 1882, which section was inserted at the instance of, and for the protection of the petitioners, and is stiU in force ; (2) the fact that the ratable value of land within the parish of St. Pancras has been, or may be, injuriously affected for the reason alleged in paragraph 6 of the petition does not, according to the practice of Parhament, entitle the petitioners to be heard against the proposed extension of time; (3) as regards paragraph 8 of the petition the petitioners have no right to be heard in respect of any such injury to the parish as is alleged in paragraph 8 of the petition, even if the allegation of such injury were well founded, which the promoters deny ; (4) as regards paragraph 9 of the petition, sect. 139 of the Act of 1882 therein referred to, is in no way affected by the biU, and will remain obligatory upon the promoters if the bill be passed ; (5) in paragraph 10 of the petition the petitioners are in effect complain- ing of bygone legislation, and there is nothiag in the bill which in any way affects the matters referred to in that paragraph ; (6) the bill does not contain any provision affecting the peti- tioners ; (7) the petition does not allege or show that the petitioners have, nor have they in fact any such interest in the objects and provisions of the bUl as entitles them to be heard against it. Castle, Q.C. (for petitioners (2) ) : This is a bill for extension of time, and I submit that the petitioners, who are the vestry of St Pancras, are entitled to be heard on two grounds : first, if this extension of time is granted the time will be enlarged within which the promoters are bound to rebuild a certain bridge, called King's bridge, by an agreement entered into with the vestry in 1882, When the Eegent's 228 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. canal was constructed, the roads were carried over it by very inconvenient bridges, amongst them being King's bridge, over which a vast amount of traf5c now passes ; with reference to this bridge, a clause was inserted by agree- ment in the Regent's Canal, City and Dock Act, 1882, to the following effect : Sect. 139. " The company shall to the satisfaction of the vestry reconstruct the bridge which carries King's road over the canal to the widths, and according to the lines shown on a plan signed by the engineer to the promoters and the chief sur- veyor of the vestry. In the event of the company at any future time reconstructing or substantially altering the structure of the bridges which carries Regent's Park-road, Kentish Town-road, Camden-road and Great College-street, respectively over the canal, the company shall reconstruct such bridges to the widths and according to the lines shown ou a plan signed by the engineer of the company and the chief surveyor of the vestry." Rees (parliamentary agent for promoters) : No time was mentioned in that clause. Castle : If that clause was necessary ten years ago, it is still more necessary now, as to the fact that no time is mentioned, that argu- ment was disposed of in the case of the Great Northern Railway (Various Pouers) Bill, 1885 (Rickards & Michael 27). Looking at sect. 139, I submit that it was the intention of the parties that this bridge should be built within the five or six years that were allowed in 1882 for the completion of the works. The Chaikman : That might a httle strengthen your case, but it is nearly the same if you have been hung up all this lime under the arrangement under which the bridge was to be rebuilt, and then the company come asking Parliament to lengthen the time. Castle : They obtained their bill in 1882 ; they asked for an extension of time in 1887, and again in 1890, and they now seek to extend the time to 1896. The promoters say that all matters we now complain of were settled and determined by sect. 139. The Chaikman : I think the obvious answer to that is that it is settled for a limited time. Castle: In support of my contention that time is an element in these contracts, I cite the case of the East and West Junction Eaihoay Bill, 1871 (2 Clifford & Stephens, 141), and I submit that we ought to be heard against this proposed extension of time. The second ground on which I claim a locus standi is that the effect of the extension of time would be to retard the development of St. Pancras by pre- venting us from improving the bridges over the canal, which the increased traf&c necessitates. With reference to this point we allege in para- graph 10 of our petition as follows : (10) " The bridges carrying certain of the public highways of the parish over the canal are insufficient for the traffic, but your petitioners are unable to alter these bridges should they so desire with- out the consent of the company, and the company as a condition of giving their consent insist on your petitioners widening the water- way of the canal under the bridge and con- structing the bridge of a corresponding length. This extra cost it is as your petitioners submit unfair they should be put to, and they humbly submit that provisions should be inserted in the bill enabling your petitioner to adapt the bridges to the requirements of the traffic with- out being subjected to this burthen." We believe that this new railway wiU never be made, and we claim, under S. O. 134, to be heard as the local authority whose district is affected by the biU. I cite in my favour the case of the London and South-ll'estern and Metro- politan District Bailiray Conqyanies Bill, 1884, on the petition of the Surbiton Improvement Com- missioners (3 Clifford & Rickards, 422). Mr. Healy : Your case appears to be a good deal stronger, for the Commissioners were simply a public body through whose district the railway passed. Mr. Chandos-Leioh : The petitioners are a local body and allege that they are injuriously affected by the bill, and object thereto, and under S. 0. 134 we can give them a locus standi if we think right, against this extension of time bill. Bees (in reply) : The material words of S. 0. 134 are " alleged to be injuriously affected by a bill to be heard against such bill if they shall think fit." The petitioners cannot here show anything in the bill that affects them, and it is essential that they should do this, it is not enough that they should merely say in the petition they are injuriously affected by the bill. Mr. Healy : They not only say they are injuriously affected, but they go further and say how they are injuriously affected. Bees : But they do not say they are injuriously affected by the bill; what they want is something introduced into the bill. The Chaibman : They say they object to the extension of time for the further reason that it will defer the reconstruction of the said bridges. Bees : The petitionersmight have endeavoured to get some protection for these bridges in 1882, but they did not do so. This extension of time will not alter our powers or their rights, Part II.] saint baenabas church Liverpool bill. 229 and they cannot now ask for anything which is not within the four corners of the bill. The Chaikman : An extension of time is practically a re-enactment of all these clauses, and the petitioners also allege that they cannot alter certain bridges without the promoters' consent. Rees : The promoters would, I submit, have to come to Parliament for any alteration of these bridges ; such powers could not be given to them by this bill. The case of the Great Northern Railway Company cited by the pro- moters was decided on a totally different point, and the other case cited, that of The London and South-Western and Metropolitan District Railiraii Companies, was entirely under S. 0. 134, under which it must be shown that there is something in the bill itself that injuriously affects the local authority, which the petitioners in this case do not show. Regent's Canal, City and Doclis Baihvay Bill, 1887, on the petition of Commissioners of Seirers {City of London) (Bickards & Michael, 107). Mr. Chandos-Leigh : In the case of the London & South-Western and Metropolitan District railway the bill was for an extension of time for the construction of a railway and com- pulsory purchase of land. The railway passed through the district of the Commissioners, and they alleged that the proposed extension of time would prejudicially affect their district by postponing' the carrying out of certain street improvements. In the present case the corpora- tion say that this biU wiU have the effect of postponing certain bridges improvements, and to hinder the growth and development of the district. Rees : I submit that the allegation in the petition, so far as it relates to these bridges, is not sufficient to entitle the petitioners to a locus standi, the difficulty as to these bridges having nothing to do with the present biU, which is merely for an extension of time. The Chaieman : Suppose we do not give a locus standi against the extension of time on this point, why are we not to give it upon the rest of the petition ? Rees ; With reference to the point made by the promoters as to sect. 139 of the Act of 1882, aU these matters were dealt with and settled by the agreement embodied in that section. The Chaibman : AU matters in dispute between them ten years ago. Rees : They are the same now, and we do not interfere with, or in any way modify, that section ; there is no time hmited within which these works are to be done. Mr. Healy : That section is affected just as much as the rest of the Act by the extension of time. The Chaikman: The Loc^ts Standi of the Petitioners is Alloired. Agents for Petitioners, Dyson (C Co. Agents for BiU, Rca <£■ Frere. SAINT BAENABAS CHUECH LIVEE- POOL bill. [H. L.] Petition of Inhabitants of the Ecclesiastical DisTKicT OP St. Babnabas. 13th June, 1892. — {Before the Right Hon. Leonard H. Courtney, C/ia(V)HrT)i; The Hon. E. Chandob-Leigh, Q.C; and Mr. Bonham- Cabteb.) Sale and Removal of Church — Petition of Non~ Resident Members of Congregation — One Petitioner only Resident in Ecclesiastical District — Authm'ity to Represent Congregation and Officers of Church — Lisitficiency of Repre- sentation. The bUl authorised the sale and removal of a church. The petition was signed by eleven persons, members of the congregation, but not residing, with one exception, in the ecclesiastical district assigned to the church. One of the petitioners, not being himself a resident in the ecclesiastical district, appeared in support of the petition and claimed a locus standi against the biU as representing a committee, which in- cluded the sidesmen of the church, annuaUy elected to assist the vicar of the church in matters connected with the church and the management of the parish. It appeared, however, that this committee had not been appointed or authorised to represent the congregation of the church in opposing the bUl, and that, as a matter of fact, only six out of a total of sixteen or seventeen members of the comndittee had signed the petition, the remainder of the signatories to it being sidesmen of the church ; and the Court declined to receive the petition as that of a committee entitled -to -represent the congregation. As. an 230 COUBT OF EEFEREES. rVoL. L additional ground for being heard against the bill, the petitioner who appeared in person to support the locus standi of the persons signing the petition, produced a written authority from the churchwardens of the church to oppose the bOl, but the Court decided that neither this petitioner Hor the other petitioners, who did not reside within the ecclesiastical district assigned to the church, had any right to appear on behalf of the inhabitants of that district ; and that the only petitioner whose claim to bo heard was worthy of consideration was the one petitioner resident in the ecclesiastical district : Held, however, that, as a single individual, he was under the circumstances of the case not entitled to be heard to represent the interests of the members of the congrega- tion objecting to the removal of the church. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition is signed only by eleven persons, none of whom, with the exception of J. C. Norcliffe, are inhabitants of the ecclesiastical district of St. Barnabas ; (2) the petitioners do not claim to represent, nor do they in fact represent, nor are they entitled to represent, the inhabitants of the said district (either under S. O. 134 or otherwise), or the congregation of St. Barnabas church, and the promoters deny that the promotion of the bUl is against the wishes of a large majority, or, in fact, of any considerable portion of the inhabitants or congregation ; (3) it does not appear from the petition that any of the petitioners attend the church of St. Barnabas, or have any interest therein which will be in any way affected by the bill, so as to entitle them to be heard against the same; (4) the petition discloses no grounds upon which, according to the practice of Parhament, the petitioners, or any of them, are entitled to be heard against the bill. Thomas Parle, one of the petitioners, appearing in person : I am a member of the congregation of St. Barnabas, the sale and removal of which is authorised by the bill, and am one of the school managers, and one of a committee for assisting the vicar in church matters, which committee comprise the sidesmen of the church ; and I produce an authority from the church- wardens empowering me to appear here on their behalf. The authority is in the following terms : To the honourable the Coraiaons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled. " We, the church- wardens of St. Barnabas church, in the parish of Liverpool, do hereby appoint and authorise Thomas Park, of 15, Chaloner-sti;eet, Liverpool, and J. C. Norcliffe, of 28, Great George-place, Liverpool, to vote for, and represent, us in opposing the bill now in Parliament for removing the said church. — John Saunders, warden ; James Miller, churchwarden. June 11th, 1892." There is a petition to the House, not praying to be heard, on the same grounds, signed by over 400 persons, but this petition is signed by a committee of eleven persons. For some years past there has been an average attendance at the church of 200 persons. Pembroke Stephens, Q.G. (for petitioners) : Only one of the petitioners is a resident in the district of St. Barnabas. Park : The committeemen are appointed by the congregation at the ordinary Easter vestry, and the committee is elected for the conduct of church business. Mr. Chanbos-Leigh : The petition is signed by six committeemen and five sidesmen. How many does the committee consist of ? Park : Sixteen or seventeen. I will call one of the churchwardens who is here. J. C. horcliffe (examined by Thomas Park) : I am one of the petitioners, and live in the district. I am an ex-ohurch warden, and a member of the church committee. All the petitioners, although non-resident in the district, regularly attend the church. The committee are chosen from the congregation by the minister and churchwardens, and assist the minister. The CHArRMAN : The weakness of the case is that only one of the petitioners resides in the district. Pembroke Stephens ; They are not a committee for opposing this bill, but merely a consultative body to discuss church matters with the vicar, and they have no legal status. Mr. Norcliffe cannot, as one individual, claim to represent the inhabitants of St. Barnabas church district. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : In some cases not con- nected with church matters individuals have been heard, as for example, against the Basing- stoke Gas Bill, 1887 (Riokards & Michael, 137). Pembroke Stephens : The petitioner was there the chairman of a committee of ratepayers and consumers who were specially appointed to oppose the bUl. Mr. Norcliffe does not repre- sent any committee appointed in a similar way to oppose this bill, but is one of a consultative committee who have nothing to do with this bill. Part IT.] swinton and pendlebury local board bill. 231 Mr. Bonham-Cabteb ; Was there any meeting of this committee at which it was resolved to oppose this bill ? Pemhroke Stephens : No. The only meeting was one at which a majority, including the churchwardens, and the whole of the residents in the district present, voted in favour of the biU, and the non-resident minority, who are the petitioners, voted against it. The Chaikman : Then the question is whether the one resident petitioner, who is a sidesman of the church, has a right to appear. The Court is of opinion that he has not sufficient representative authority to be heard. Locns Standi Disallotced. Agents for BiU, Sherwood d- Co. SWINTON AND PENDLEBURY LOCAL BOARD BILL. Petition of (1) The Cokpoeation of SALroED. 25th May, ISdi. —(Before Mr. Pakkek, M.P., Chairman: Sir. Shieess Will, Q.C, M.P.; Sir GrEOBGE Rdssell, M.P. ; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q. C. ; and Mr. Bonham- Caetee.) Agreement by Petitionei's embodied in Act of previons Session, not to oppose Bill if contain- ing certain Provisions — Bill introduced by Promoters accordingly in first JSouse — Altei'a- tion of Provisions hy House of Lords — Claim of Petitioners to be heard against Bill as Altered — Alleged Breach of Agreement by Petitioners — Practice. The promoters of the bOl had themselves opposed a, bill promoted in the previous Session by the petitioners, the corporation of Salford, but had withdrawn their opposi- tion to the bill on an undertaking being given by the corporation that they (the corporation) would not oppose a bill intro- duced within two years by the promoters of the present bill to enable the taker to acquire compulsorily certain portions of the gas undertaking of the corporation. This undertaking had been embodied in a section of the Act obtained by the cor- poration in the previous Session, and in accordance with it the promoters of the present bill had introduced it iato Parlia- ment in the first instance in the form agreed to with the corporation, but the Committee of the House of Lords to whom the bill had been referred, had considerably modified and amended it. The corporation now claimed to be heard against the bill as amended by the House of Lords, but were met by the objection that they were estopped by their agree- ment with the promoters of the previous Session. That agreement, so far as the promoters of the present bill were con- cerned, had been to " apply to Parliament " for a bill on the lines of their agreement with the corporation, and the promoters contended that they had strictly carried out their part of the agreement by the introduction of the present bill in its original form, and pointed out that they were in no way responsible for the alterations made in the bill by the Com- mittee of the House of Lords, and had in fact strongly objected thereto : Held, however, that as the bill was no longer in the form to which the petitioners had agreed not to object and as it proposed to deprive the petitioners of part of their district of gas supply, they were entitled to be heard against it. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) by sect. 2 of the Local Government Provisional Orders Confirmation {No. 14) Act, 1891 (herein- after called the Act of 1891) it is, inter alia, enacted as follows: "If at any time within two years from the passing of this Act the local board for the district of 'Swinton and Pendle- bury and the local board for the district of Barton, Eccles, Winton and Monton, in the County of Lancaster (hereinafter in this section called 'the local boards') jointly, or either of such boards separately shaU apply to Parliament for power to supply the said districts and the other districts within the hmits of gas supply of the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the borough of Salford (in this section referred to as the corporation), except the borough of Salford and the town- ship of Prestwich with gas, and to purchase such portion of the gas undertaking of the cor- poration as is situate within such districts then it shall not be lawful for the corporation to oppose such application, except in so far as may be necessary in order to secure the 232 COURT OF REFEBEES. [Vol. I. insertion in any Act of clauses to protect their interests with respect to such purchase ; " (6) the said sect. 2 of the Act of 1891, was inserted in the bill for that Act by agi-eement between the corporation and the Swinton board and the Barton, Eccles, Wintou, and Montou local board (hereinafter called " the Barton board "), and in consideration thereof tlio Swinton board and the Barton board withdrew from all opposition to the bill for the Act of 1891 ; (c) the bill as originally introduced into Parliament sought power to enable the Swinton board to supply their district, and the districts of Barton, Eccles, Winton, and Monton, and the other districts within the limits of gas supply of the corporation, except the borough of Salford and the township of Prestwich, with gas and to purchase such portion of the gas undertaking of the corporation as is situate within such districts ; {d) the bill was opposed before the committee of the House of Lords by the corporation and other opponents ; (r) tho loons stmidi of the corporation was objected to before the Lords Committee and disallowed ; (/) the bill was passed by the Lords Committee in its present shape, and was by them re- stricted against the will of the Swinton board to the Swinton portion only of the existing gas undertaking of the corporation ; (p) the corporation having received the consideration for their agreement to the said sect. 2 of the Act of 1891, and the bill having been promoted by the Swinton board, in compliance with the terms of that section, the corporation are not entitled to be heard against the pre- amble of the bill ; (2) the construction by the Swinton board of the proposed new works, and the raising and expenditure of capital therefor, and the illuminating power of the gas to be supplied by them are matters which do not affect the corporation and with which they have no concern, and they are not entitled to be heard against the bill in regard to any of them ; (3) the petitioners have not, and their petition does not aUege or show that they have any such interest in the objects of the bill as, according to the practice of Parliament, entitles them to be heard against it on any of the grounds specified in their petition except in so far as may be necessary in order to ensure the insertion in the bill of clauses to protect their interest with respect to the proposed purchase. Balfour Browne, Q.C. (for petitioners (1) ) : The petitioners, the corporation of Salford, are at the present time the gas authority, not only in their own borough, but in several outside districts also, including that of the local boards of Swinton and Pendlebury. Last year (1891) the corporation came to Parliament for the confirmation of a Provisional Order, and then made an agreement with the local board of Swinton and Pendlebury and the local board for the district of Barton, I'^ccles, Winton, and Monton, which agreement is embodied in sect. 2 of the Local Govcnimeiit Boanl's Pro- I'isioiial Orihrx Goiijinnatioii {Xo. 14) Bill, 1891, and is as follows :—" If at any time within two years from the passing of this Act tho local board for the district of Swinton and Pendlebury, and the local board for the district of Barton, Eccles, Winton, and Monton, in the county of Lancaster (hereinafter in this section called ' the local boards ') jointly or either of such boards separately shall apply to Varlia- ment for power to supply the said district, and the other districts within the limits of gas supply of the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the borough of Salford (in this section referred to as ' the corporation '), except the borough of Salford and tlie township of Prestwich, with gas, and to purchase such portion of the gas undertaking of the corpora- tion as is situate within such districts, then it shall not be lawful for the corporation to oppose such application except in so far as may be necessary in order to secure tho inser- tion in any Act of cisjiaBs- tu protect tlieir interests with respect to such purchase, and if such powers of purchase be granted the cor- poration shall sell and the local boards shall purchase such portion of the gas undertaldng of the corporation within the said districts at such price as shall in default of agreement be fixed by arbitration imder the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act." The Court will observe that the agreement contained in that section only amounts to an agreement not to oppose a bill for acquiring the whole of the dis- tricts supplied by the corporation witla gas other than the borough of Solford and the township of Prestwich, whereas this bill as it now stands merely empowers the local board of Swinton and Pendlebury to acquire so much of the gas undertaking of the corporation as lies within their district, which would deprive the corporation of a remunera- tive portion of their district of supply, and leave them saddled with an obligation to supply the sparsely populated and unremunera- tive portions. We could not oppose in the House of Lords because the bill as there intro- duced was for the acquisition by the promoters of the whole of our gas district outside Salford and Prestwich. The bill as it comes before this House is an entirely different bill, and not within the agreement embodied in sect. 2 of the Order of last year. It is true that the Part II.] swinton and pendlebury local board bill. 233 alteration was made by the Committee of the House of Lords, to whom the bill was referred, but it none the less takes the bill out of the operation of the agreement of last year, and we are entitled to be heard against it in the form in which it is introduced into this House. Didder, Q.C. (for promoters) : The petitioners are estopped by the agreement in sect. 2 of the Order of 1891 from opposing the bill. We have strictly performed our part of that agree- ment, viz., to apply to Parliament, either jointly with the local board of Eccles or without their co-operation, for powers to supply the districts outside Salford and Prest- wioh now supplied with gas by the corporation, we therefore ask you to insist upon the cor- poration fulfilling their part of the agreement by not opposing us in Parliament. The bill has no doubt been altered from the form in which it was introduced by us in the House of Lords, but without any collusion on our part and against our wish. Mr. SnniEss Will ; Tou are not obliged to proceed with the bill in its present form. The petitioners can rightly say that this is not the bill they agree not to oppose. Bidder : Then they ought in the first instance to have guarded against any alteration in the bill by either House of Parliament by adding a proviso to sect. 2 of the Order of 1891 dealing with such a contingency. The Chairman : The Locus Standi of the petitioners is Allowed. Agents for Petitioners, Dyson dt Co. Petition of (2) The Local Boabd op Little HULTON. Gas — Abstraction of Part of District of Supply — Purchase of Mains tised for Supply of Local Board Distinct — Necessity of Laying New Mains by Circuitous Route — Increased Expense of Supply — Apprehended liaising of Gas Rates to Consumers. A locus standi against the bill was also claimed by the local board of Little Hulton, between whose district and the borough of Salford the district of Swinton and Pendlebury intervened, on the ground that if the promoters purchased the mains in their own district, as they were by the bill authorised to do, they would be purchasing the mains through which the district of the petitioners also received its supply of gas from the corporation of Salford, and it would be necessary for the corporation to lay new mains by a circuitous route for the supply of the peti- tioners' district, to meet the expense of which the corporation would impose the maxi- mum authorised gas rate instead of, as at present, supplying the petitioners' district at a rate considerably below the maximum. The promoters contended that the question of supply by new mains was one for the corporation of Salford, and not for the consumers in the petitioners' district : Held, however, that the petitioners were entitled to be heard against the bill. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) (a) the acquisition by the promoters of the mains, pipes, and effects mentioned in clause 7, sub-clause 3 of the bill will not cut off the petitioners' district from the gasworks of the Salford corporation, and if it would it would not confer on the petitioners the right to be heard against the bill; (6) none of such mains, pipes, and effects belong to the petitioners, but to the Salford corporation, and if they are acquired by the promoters the Salford corporation will receive full compensation for them, and if any new pipes or mains are necessary to secure the continuance of the supply of gas to the peti- tioners' district they will have to be provided by the Salford corporation and not by the petitioners, and any sums expended on account of new pipes and mains will not cause any increase in the price of gas supplied in the petitioners' district by the Salford corporation ; (2) the petitioners' district can, if the Salford corporation so think fit, be supplied by mains and pipes other than those in the Swinton district, and proposed to be purchased under the powers of the bill ; (3) if, as alleged in their petition, the petitioners' district is within the gas limits of gas supply of the Salford corpora- tion the Salford corporation can be compelled to supply the district with gas, and the manner of affording such supply is a question for the Salford corporation and not for the petitioners ; (4) the Salford corporation are petitioners against the bill, and in their petition the corporation raise the same objection as the petitioners raise in their petition, and so far as regards this gi'ound of opposition to the bill the locus standi of the corporation of Salford is conceded; (5) the petitioners have not, and Q 2 234 COUBT OP REFEREES. [Vol I. their petition does not, allege or show that they have any such interest in the objects of the bill as, according to the practice of Parliament, entitles them to be heard against it on any of the grounds specified in the petition. Batten (for petitioners) : The district of the Swinton and Pendlebury local board inter- venes between the gasworks of the corporation at Salford and the district of Little Hulton, and if the bill is passed in its present form, the corporation of Salford wiU say that they are put to the expense of laying new and circuitous mains outside the Swinton and Pendlebury district to oiir district, and will charge us a different rate to what they charge in Salford, and will, no doubt, raise our gas rates to the authorised maximum of 5s., whereas they only now charge us 3s. 2d., and have promised to further reduce that charge to 2s. 9d. Bidder, Q.C. (for promoters) : It is true that the mains which supply the district of Little Hulton from Salford pass through the district of the Swinton and Pendlebury local board ; but they also pass through the Barton rural sanitary district after leaving the Swinton district, and before reaching that of Little Hulton, so that not only that district will be affected. The question, however, is one for the suppliers of gas, namely, the corporation of Salford, to whom the mains belong, and not for the consumers ; and I submit that the prospect of injury to the Little Hulton district is too remote to entitle its local board to be heard against the bill. The Chairman : The Locus Standi of the Petitioners is Allowed. Agents for Petitioners (2), Batten, Proffltt d- Scott. Agent for BUI, Ball. WEAK VALLEY EXTENSION RAILWAY BILL [H. L.] Petition of The Cumbeeland Oountt Council. 13th June, 1892.— (Bc/orc Mr. Pabkeh, M.P., Chairman; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C; (M!(Z Jl/?-. Bonham-Carteb.) County Council — Proposed Baihoay outside County — Claim to be heard to impose conditions on Promoters for Extension of Railway — Alleged Block Line — Literference with Road outside, but leading into Petitioners' County — S. 0. 1B4b [County Council alleged to be Injuriously Affected by Bill} —Local Government Act, 1888, sect. 15. The biU authorised the construction of a short railway in the county of Durham, and was opposed by the county councU of the adjoining county of Cumberland on the ground that it was not the best railway that could be made under the circumstances, being incapable owing to its levels and engineering features from being subse- quently extended into their county, while it would serve as a block Une to prevent any other and more desirable railway being constructed. A biU for a competing railway simultaneously introduced into the House of Lords had been rejected by that House, but that bill had not been pro- moted or even supported by the petitioners. The petitioners further objected to the railway as proposed to be constructed as involving serious interference with and alteration of levels in a road, leading from the county of Durham into their own county, and forming an important means of communication between the two counties, and generally claimed to be heard under S. 0. 134b and sect. 15 of the Local Government Act, 1888 : Held, however, that as no part of the railway was to be constructed within the petitioners' county, and the interference with the road was eight miles beyond the boundary of their county, the petitioners were not entitled to be heard against the biU. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petitioners do not allege, nor is it the fact, that any of their land, property, or rights will be taken or interfered with under the bUl ; (2) the bill is for making a short branch railway wholly within the county of Durham from the North- Eastern railway system at Stanhope to Wear- head, a place some miles distant, and separated by a high mountainous range from the county of Cumberland, and the petitioners have no interest in the subject-matter of the bill which entitles them to be heard against it ; (3) the petitioners do not allege or disclose in their f ART II.] WEAK YALLEY EXTENSION RAILWAY BILL. 235 petition any injury to the administrative county of Cumberland which entitles them to be heard against the bill, according to the practice of Parliament. Their complaint virtually is, that another rival bUl, which they did not promote or support, and which has been rejected by the House of Lords, would be more beneficial to their county, but this gives them no ground for opposing the bUl ; (4) the objection that the proposed raUway is incapable of being extended to Alston, and is intended as a block line, and other statements in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the petition, have no foundation, and are inconsistent with the evidence given before the Select Committee of the House of Lords, by whom the two bills were considered ; (5) the petitioners are not the county or road authority which has jurisdiction over the roads and bridge referred to in paragraph 8 of their petition, which will be crossed on the level or otherwise interfered with by the proposed railway ; (6) the petitioners show no ground in their petition which entitles them to be heard against the biU. Pembrohe Stephens, Q.C. (for petitioners) : The railway authorised by the bOl, is from Stanhope to Wearhead, which it is true, as the objections to the locus standi point out, are in the county of Durham, and not in Cumberland, but the construction of the railway as proposed will injuriously affect the county of Cumber- land. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : Do you rely upon S. O. 134b? Pembroke Stexitiens : Yes, and upon the priaciple laid down by 134c, with regard to water, which admits county cotincils to be heard, although the supply is not drawn from their county. Between Stanhope in Durham, where the proposed line begins, and Alston in Cumberland, there is a break in the raUway comnaunioation of 21 miles, the intervening district, containing collieries and works, is very hOly, and every- thing has to be carried across it by road, although there is a considerable interchange of traffic. There was a competing bill in the House of Lords, called the St. John's Chapel railway, which stopped two miles short of Wearhead, but higher up the hillside, and, therefore, much more capable of being extended to Alston. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : Did you oppose in the House of Lords ? Pembroke Stephens : No, we preferred to leave the two rival companies to fight it out, rather than go to the expense of opposing ourselves. If this line is authorised, it cannot be extended to Alston, and wUl serve as a block line to prevent another railway, which would accommodate Cumberland as well as Durham, being made. The proposed railway is also laid out so as to seriously interfere with the road which forms the highway between the two counties, and will cause a series of acclivities and declivities in the road which is now level. We ask to be heard, that an undertaking may be obtained from the promoters, to extend this raUway hereafter into our county, as a condition of their obtaining the bUl. The Chaieman : WUl this interference with the road be in your county ? Stephens: No; but the continuation of this road is in our county. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : If we admitted the petitioners to be heard we should open the door to this, that a number of local authorities having control over a road might agree to a thing being done to the road, but an outside authority might interfere and object. Richards, as amicus curim, called the attention of the Court to the London and North-Western Bailway Bill, on the petition of the Wallasey Local Board (Rickards & Michael, 266). The Chaieman : The stopping up of a foot- path is a different thing from putting two or three bridges across a road and altering the levels of it. Pembroke Stephens : I also claim to be heard on the broad ground that sect. 15 of the Local Government Act, 1888, constituted county councUs the representatives of the inhabitants of their counties' in aU matters of public im- portance. When the Court disaUowed the locus standi of the Monmouthshire county counoU against the Western Valleys {Monmouthshire) Water Bill, 1891 (Rickards & Saunders, 160), the House of Commons passed a special Standing Order to admit county councUs against such bUIs in future. Gripps, Q.C. (for promoters) : No part of the raUway is in the petitioners' county, and no part of the road within 8 mUes of their county wUl be interfered with. The Chaieman : We do not think the peti- tioners have shown that any injury would be done to their county by this raUway ; and, as regards injury to the roads at a distance from the county, it is the business of those who are in charge of the roads to protect the interests of those who use the roads. With regard to the decision in the Western Valleys (Monmouth- shire) Water Bill, the House of Commons did not say that the construction put upon S. O. 134a by this Court was too narrow or wrong in any way, but only that looking to the merits and the importance of questions connected with water supply, they determined in 236 COURT OP RBFBBEES. [Vol. I. future to make a Standing Order that should admit county councils in such cases. The Court are unanimously of opinion that in this case there is not sufficient injury shown to entitle the Cumberland county council to a Locus Standi. Agents for Petitioners, W. <& W. M. Bell. Agents for BiU, Duniford (£ Co. WHITLAKD, CEONWARE AND PENDlNE RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL. Petition of Thomas John Ebowick. 10th May, 1892.— {Before Mr. Pabkbk, M.P., Chairman; (&c., (&c., dc.) No person appearing for the Petitioner, the Locus Standi was Disallowed, Agent for Bill, Ball. END OF EEPORTS OF 1892. INDEX OF CASES (BILLS AND PETITIONS) OF THE SESSIONS 1890-91-92, BEPORTED IN PART I. OF THIS VOLUME OF REPORTS AND IN THIS PART. Aire and Caldek and Eivee Dun Navigations Junction Canal Bill, 1891 (H.L.). Petition of Owners and Masters or Kiveb Craft plying on the Eiveks Humbeb AND Trent and the Skeitield and South Yorkshire Navigation, commonly called the Sheffield and Keadbt Canal, between Hull and Sheffield and Intermbdute Places on the said ErvEBS AND Navigation, and the Amalgamated SociETy of LiGHTEBMEN AND WATERMEN OF THE ElVEE HuMBEE . . . . 77 Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Eailway Bill, 1890 (H.L.). Petition of (l) The Ehymney Eailway Company 1 ,, (2) The Taff Vale Eailway Company 3 Ayr Habboue Bill, 1890. Petition of (1) The Aedrossan Harbour Company ; and (2) The Duke of Portland Beverley and Bast Elding Eailway Bill, 1890. Petition of The Scarborough, Bridlington, and West Eiding Railway Company 10 Bilston Commissioners Water Bill, 1890. Petition of The Guardians of the Poor of the Seisdon Union 11 Blackpool Impeovement Bill, 1892. Petition of The National Telephone Company 167 Bradford Cobpobation Wateb Bill, 1892. Petition of The Liveesedge Local Boaed . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Beiton Medical and Geneeal Life Association Bill, 1890. Petition of (1) Geoege Moeley 11 ,, (2) BeBNABD BOALER .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11 Burey Poet and Gwendeeath Valley Eailway Bill, 1891 (H.L.). Petition of (1) The Local Boaed of Health foe the Disteict of the Boeough OF Llanelly . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • 81 The Llanelly Harbour and Bueey Navigation Commissionious 81 The Geeat Western Eailway Company 81 Bute Docks (Cardiff) Bill, 1890 (H.L.). Petition of (1) The Barry Docks and Eailways Company 12 „ (2) The Aj.exandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Eailway Company, and of the Newport (Alexandra) Dock Company, Limited . . . . . . . ■ • • ■ ■ • • • • ■ ^^ (3) The Geeat Westeen Eailway . 1* ,, (4) The Pontypridd, Caerphilly AND Newport Eailway Company .. 16 ,, (5) Lord Tredegar ^'^ 238 INDEX OP CASES, BrxTON Local Board Bill, 1892. Petition of (11 Samuel Hyde and Willum Blackwood . . 171 ,, (2) The Leek AND MooKLANDS Building Society .. .. .. 171 Caledonian Railway (Additional Powebs) Bill, 1891. Petition of The Nokth Beitish Eailway Company . . . . . . . , . . 87 Central London Railway Bill, 1891 . . . . 90 Cork and Fermoy and Wateefobd and Wexiokd Railway Bill, 1890. Petition of {!) The Great Southern and Western Railway Company . . . , 19 ,, (2) The New Ross Harbour Commissioners and Merch^vnts, Inhabi- tants, tSrc, of New Ross .. .. .. .. .. .. 20 ,, (3) The Watekford Bridge Commissioners .. .. .. .. 23 Croydon and Cryst^vl Palace Railway Bill, 1890. Petition of The Soui8-Eastern Railway Company 25 Dundee Extension, Police, Improvement and Tramways Bill, 1892. Petition of Bdichebs and Fleshers in Dundee and Lochee and others . . . . 174 Dundee Harbour Bill, 1892 (H.L.). Pt'tition of (11 The Harbour Trustees of Aberbkothwick . . . . . . 1 70 „ (2) The Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of Abebbbothwick, or Arbboath, as such, and as Creditobs of the Habbour Trustees of Abebbbothwick, and of the Persons hereto Subscribing being also Creditors of the said Trustees . . 173 li! East Grinstead Gas and Watee Bill, 1892. Petition of Owners, Lessees and Occupiers in the District op Forest Row in THE Parish of East Grinstead ' Edinburgh Municip^vl and Police Bill, 1891. Petition of (1) The Paeochial Board of St. Cuthbeet's Combination, Edinburgh and Andrew Feerieb, Inspector of Poor, foe and on behalf of THE SAID Combination . . ,, (2) The Paeochial Board of the City Parish of Edinburgh (3) The School Board of Edinburgh (4j The Edinbuegh Street Tramways Company .'. .. The Cobpoeation of Leith . . . . . . \\ The Edinburgh and Leith Heritable Property Association The Edinburgh and Leith Masteb Builder's Association ' The Edinburgh and Leith House Factors' Association, and op INDIWDUAL Owners of Property, Ratepayers and others in THE City of Edinburgh Edinburgh Steeet Tramways Bill, 1892 (H.L.). Petition of The Lobd Peovost, Magistrates, and Council of the City n„ Edinbuegh ' Electric Lighting Peovision^u, Obdees (No. U) Confirmation Bill, (Chatham n X- ■ ■ „. Rochester, and District, Electric Lighting Order) 1890 ' Petition of Walter Richabd Solman Folkestone Pieb and Lift Bill, 1890. Petition of Richahd Hammeesley Heenan Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Teamways Bill 1891 Petition of I'BE South of England Telephone Company, Limited 181 91 91 96 98 99 99 184 26 28 102 INDEX OF CASES. 289 ^ PAGE FOBFAK AND Bbechin Bailway Bill, 1891. Petition of (1) The Pkovost, Magistrates and Town Council op Foefak, The Bakl OF Strathmobe, James Tayloe, and Manufactubebs and Tbadebs IN FOBFAE 104 „ (2) The Caledonian Eailw AY CoMPAHV 108 Gaeve and Ullapool Railway Bill, 1890. Petition of The Gbeat Nobth of Scotland Railway Company 30 Glasgow Coepobation Bill, 1890. Petition of The Paetick, Hillhead and Mabyhill Gas Company, Limited . . 31 Glasgow and South- Westeen Railway (Steam-Vessels) Bill, 1891 {H.L.). Petition of (1) The Lanakkshiee and Ayeshike Railway Company . . . . . . Ill ,, (2) The Caledonian Railway Company .. Ill ,, (3) The Clyde Steamship Ownees' Assocution and othees . . . . 115 Glasgow and South-Westeen Railway Bill, 1892 (H.L.). Petition o/The Pkovost, Magistrates .\nd Council of the Royal Bueoh of Ievxns 187 Glasgow and Soxjth-Westebn Railway (No. 2) Bill, 1892. Petition of The Lanakkshiee and Ayeshiee Railway Company and the Abdeossan Hakboue Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Glasgow Coepobation Wateb Bill, 1892. Petition of The Caledonian Railway Company 191 Glasgow South Sueueban Railway Bill, 1891 117 Glasgow, Yokee and Clydebank Bailw.\y Bill, 1892. Petition of (1) The Lanaekshiee and Dumbaktonshiee Railway Company . . . . 191 „ (2) The Caledonian Railway Company 191 „ (8) The Magistbates and Police Commissioness of the Buegh of Clydebank 193 Gbeat Nobth of Scotland Railway Bill, 1890. Petition of (1) Ownees, &c., IN THE vicinity OF Elgin 34 „ (2) James Simpson 34 ,, (3) The Coepobation OF Inveeness 34 Gbeat Westeen EvUlway Bill, 1891. Petition of (1) The Taff Vale Railway Company 117 „ (2) The Babby Docks and Railway Company 120 Handswoeth (Staffobd) Rectoey Bill, 1891 (H.L.). Petition of Inhabitants and Chubchwaedens of Holy Teiniiy, Handswoeth . . 123 Highland Railway (New Lines) Bill, 1890. Petition of William Young 35 Keighley Coepobation Bill, 1891. Petition of The Local Board of Health foe the Disteict of Hamwoeth, in the County op York 125 Lanaekshiee and Dumbaetonshieb Railway Bill, 1890. Petition of The West Highland Railway Company 36 Lancashiee, Derbyshire and East Coast Railway Bill, 1891. Petition of John Peestwioh 127 Lancashire and Yoekshiee and London and Nobth- Western Railways (Steam- Vessels) Bill, 1892. Petitio)i of II] The Belfast STEAJrsniP Company 195 „ (2) The Glasgow, Dublin and Londonderry Steam Packet Company.. 195 240 INDEX OP CASES. PAGE Lancashike and Yoekshibe Eailway (Steam- Vessels) Bill, 1892. Petition of (1) The City of Dublin Steam Packet Company 197 „ (2) The Glasgow, Dublin, and Londondeeby Steam Packet Company 197 „ (3) The Steamship Owners' Association and the Ibish Steamship Association 199 Lea Valley Dbainage Bill, 1892. Fetition of The London County Council 202 Local Govebnment Peovisional Oedek (i-ob the Foemation or the Edmonton, Enpield, South Hoensey and Tottenham Joint Hospital Disteiot) Con- FiEMATioN Bill, 1891. Petition of (1) The Southgate Local Boabd 127 ,, (2) Thomas James Mann AND othebs 127 Local Govebnment Peovisional Oedeb No. 10. (Halifax Oeder) Confiemation Bill, 1892. Petition of The Cobpoeation of Beadfobd . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 London and South-Westeen Baii,way Bill, 1890. Petition of The Poole Bridge Company 36 London, Brighton and South Coast Railway (Vaeious Poweeb) Bill, 1890 (H.L.). Petition of William Duke and othebs 39 London County Council (Genebal Powees) Bill, 1891. Petition of The Brush Electrical Engineering Company and six other Electrical Lighting Companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 London County Council (General Powebs) Bill, 1892. Petition of The Gas Light and Coke Company . . . , . . . . . . . . 204 London County Council (Money) Bill, 1892. Petition of The Cobpoeation op West Ham 208 London County Council (Subways) Bill, 1892. Petition of The Boabd of Woeks fob the St. Giles's Disieict 210 Manchesteb, Sheffield, and Lincolnshiee Eailway (Extension to London, &c.) Bill, 1891. Petition of (1) Viscount Pobtman 130 ,, (2) OwNEBS, Lessees, and Occupiebs of lands, houses, and peopeety in the Parishes of St. Marylebone and St. John, Hampbtead. . 133 „ iS\ John Wooley Pitt and Thomas John Pitfield and Others . . 133 ,, (4) OwNEBS, Lessees, and Occupiers in Bboadhubst Gardens, in the Parish of St. John, Hampstead . . . . 136 „ (5) Geoege Boultby and Others, Owners, &o., of Property in Nottingham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 ,, (6) The Vicar and Churchwardens of the Parish Church of St. Mary, Leicester . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . 139 ,, (7) The TowcEBTEB AND Buckingham Eailway Company 140 Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshiee Eailway (Extension to London, &c ) Bill, 1892. ' Petition of W. G. Chapman and Company . . . . 212 Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshiee Eailway (Various Powees) Bill, 1891. Petition of The Great Western Eailway Company . . 149 Metropolitan Eailway Bill, 1890. Petition of {V\ The Vestry of Marylebone 49 ,, (2) The Vestry of St. Panceas '. '.*. *_' 49 ,, (3) The Viscount Portman \ \\ " 43 ,, (4) The Eevebend H. S. Eyre .. .. " " \\ " 44 iS) The London, Brighton and South Coast Eailway Company" '. '. 46 (6) The Great Eastern Eailway Company . . . . " 45 '7) The Midland Eailway Company . . . . 4g The Great Northern Eailway Company . . .\ ,', " 46 The London, Chatham and Doveb Eailway Company' 46 (10) The Great Westeen Eailway Company . . . . " ' " 4e (11) The Meteopomtan Disteiot Eailway Company .. " " 49 INDEX OP CASES. 241 PAGE Midland Eaiuvay Bill, 1892. Petition of James Addy 213 Nelson Coepobation Bill, 1891. Petition of II] John BAEEOwcLoreH 1^4 „ (2) Messks. Henky Haetley and Sons 147 „ h) OWNEES AND OoODPIEES OE MiLLS ON THE ElVEE CaLDEK . . . . 147 ,, (41 Paddiham and Hapton Local Boaed . . 147 „ (5) The Coepobation op Buenley 147 Newcastle-upon-Tyne Impeovement Bill, 1892. Petition of The Walkee Local Boaed 215 NoETH Beiiish and Glasgow and South-Westeen Railway Companies Bill, 1890. Petition of (1) Sharp, Stewaei and Company 50 „ (2J Wabehousemen in Glasgow 50 „ (31 The Lanaekshieb and Ayeshiee Railway Company 53 „ (4) The Solway Junction Railway Company 53 Nobth Beitish Railway Bill, 1891. Petition of Peopbietoes, Feuabs, &c., in Dundyvan Road, Coatbeidge . . . . 151 Nobth-Easteen Railway (Hull Docks) Bill (H.L.), 1892. Petition of (1) The South Yorkshiee Coal Ownees' Assubance Society . . . . 217 „ (2) Ownees of Whabves and Waeehouses, and Othees, at Kingsion- upon-hull "1 ' Nobth-Easteen Railway Bill, 1892. Petition of The South Yoekshiee Coal Ownees' Assueance Sooieiy . . . . ^i-i Paetick, Billhead and Maeyhill Gas and Elecieicity Bill, 1890. Petition of Committee of Batepayees, Gas Cohsumees, and Feuass in Kelvinside AND Othees °** PoNTYPBiDD BuELiL Boaed Bill, 1892. „ ^ t.„, ooi Petition of Batepayees and Othebs within the Distbioi Affected by the Bill . . zii Regent's Canal, City and Docks Railway Bill, 1892. Petition of (1) The Coepobation of West Ham "* „ (2) The Vestby OF St. Pancbas ^^' Ribble Navigation Bill, 1890. -c Petition of The Coepobation of Southpobt 60 60 60 Richmond Footbbidoe (Lock, &c.) Bill, 1890. Petition of 11) The Vestby op Hammebsmith . . . • • • °" (2) The Boaed op Wobks foe the Wandswobth Distbict . . . . bo " (3) The Chiswick Local Boaed • • ■ • " (4) Inhabitants AND Ratepayees op Moetlake AND EiPAEiAN- Ownees. (5) The Duke of Devonshibej PfiTHFRHAM Blyth, AND Sutton Railway Bill, 1891. „ ,-, iko Son 0/ The Manchestee, Sheffield, and Lincolnshiee Railway Company . . 152 Rhymney Railway Bn,L, 1890 (H.L.). „ r'„„„.,„v .. 64 Pcfifiwi 0/ (1) The Baeey Dock AND Railways Company " (21 The Tape Vale Railway Company . . . . • ■ • • • • " 3 The PoNTYPEiDD, Caebphilly AND Newpoet Railway Company .. 67 ;; (4) The Makquess of Bute and the Tbustees op the Will op thl Late Mabquess of Bute 67 Saint Babnadas Ohuech Liveepool Bill, 1892 (^••'^•)- g Baenabas . . . . 229 Petition of Inhabitants op the Ecclesiastical Disieici oi &i. cAUNAiiAo 242 INDEX 0F„ CASES. Shefeeeld and Midland Eailway Companies' Committee Bill, 1891. Petition of (1) The SHErFiELD and South Yoeksheke Navigation Company . . 153 „ (2) The Great Northekn Railway Company 155 South-Eastekn Railway Bill, 1890 (H.L.). Petition of The Ovekseees oe the Pook eok the Parish of St. Saviocb's, southwark 68 Sodih-Eastehn Railway Bill, 1891. Petition of The London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company 157 South Yoekshiee Junction Railway Bill, 1890. Petition of The Nokth-BasIeen Railway Company 69 Stouebeidge Impeovement Commissioners Bill, 1891. Petition of The Stouebeidge Gas Company . . . . . . . . , . . . 159 SwiNTON and Pendlebuey Looal Boaed Bill, 1892. ' (1) The Coepoeation of Salfokd (2) The Local Board of Little Hulion 233 Petition of (1) The Coepoeation of Salfokd . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 ■2)~ - - Tottenham and Forest Gate Junction Railway Bill, 1890. Petition of (1) Ownees, Lessees and Ococpiees, along the Line op the Proposed Railway 71 ,, (2) Inhabitants of Leyton, Wanstead, and West Ham . . . . 72 Tea'mways Provisional Oedees Oonfiemation Bill (No. 2) (Bristol Tramways Exten- sion Oedee), 1891. Petition of The Beistol Waterworks Company 160 Weak Valley Extension Railway Bill (H.L.), 1892. Petition of The Cumberland County Council . . . . . . . . . . 234 Westbbn- Valleys' (Monmouthshire) Watee Bill, 1891. Petition of (ij The Monmouthshire County Council . . . . . . . . 161 „ (2) The Vicae and Churchwardens of the Parish of Mynyt>dislwyn 163 „ (3)" The Blackwood Gas and Water Company, Limited . . . . 164 Whitland, Ceonwaee and Pending Railway (Abandonment) Bill, 1892. Petition of Thomas John Beowiok . . 236 Worcester and Broom Railway (Extension of Time) Bill, 1890. , Petition of The Stratford-on-Avon, Towcester and Midland Junction Railway Company 75 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. TO CASES RBPOETED IN THIS PART. *,' Where u. Standing Order is Referred to in the Index, the numbering is that of the Standing Orders for 1893. ABSTRACTION {See gas, wateb). ACCESS (See also obstkuotion) , bill prohibiting interference with to subways of county council, opposed by local board as road authority, 210 interference with to docks by construction of tramways, 215 partial interference with , when sufficient to confer a locus standi, 212, 215 ACTS, PUBLIC (See statutes). AMBIGUITY (See practice). AGREEMENT (See also teamway, etc.) , not to oppose, how far binding when bill altered in the first House, 231 ALLEGATION {See practice). AMALGAMATION (See railway (1) ). APPEAL, right of , under general law, affected by bill, 174 APPROACH (See access). AREA {See also gas, water), construction of railway across catchment of reservoir of corporation supplying water to their district, 187 ASSOCIATION {See steamship owners, trade). AUTHORITY (See local boaed, petitionees, practice). BILL (See practice). BOARD OF WORKS {See local board). BOROUGH (See corporation). BREACH OE FAITH (See also agreement, practice). question of not entertained by Court, 191 BRIDGE, ^ ^ ... construction of by county council, opposed by gas company claimmg a landowner's locus for interference with pipes, 204 widening of railway by construction of over road, mterfermg with light and air, 218 , • j oorr injurious affecting of district by delay in reconstruction ot , z^l 244 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. BUEGH (See also ookpokation), extension of and application of Acts relating to existing burgh to added area, opposed by traders, 174 town council of Eoyal in Scotland claiming to represent trade, 178 communication between different parts of affected by construction of railways, 193 BUEIAL BOAED, constitution of opposed by ratepayers and individual inhabitants within district affected by bill, 221 CANAL, extension of time bOl for construction of railway 'and opposed by local authority as delaying reconstruction of bridge provided for in the original Act, 227 CAPITAL, tramway bill for additional — - opposed by corporation as future purchasers of tramways, 184 CHUECH, bill for sale and removal of opposed by inhabitants of ecclesiastical district with authority of churchwardens, 229 CHUECHWAEDENS {See chubch). CLAUSE (See pkactioe, saving clauses). COMMISSIONEES {See dbainage, harbour, police). COMPANY {See gas, railway (2), etc.). COMPETITION {See corporation, dock, gas, harbour, railway (3) ). CONSEEVANCY, county councU, represented on board, claiming representation on Drainage commission, 202 CONSTEUCTION OF ACT (See practice). CONSUMEES {See gas, water). CONTEACT {See agreement). COEPOEATION {See also burgh). purchase of and power to work electrical tramway by opposed by telephone company claiming protective clauses, 167 promoting bill for additional water works opposed by local board of district supplied by promoters, 169 of Eoyal burgh, claiming to represent trade, 178 opposing tramway bill conferring powers of agreement with local authorities as to mechanical power, purchase and lease of tramways, *c,, on tramway company, 184 construction of railway across catchment area of reservoir of supplvine water to district, 187 ±-r j s opposition of to bill of London County Council allocating sums to works already authorised, 208 construction of tramways by partly outside borough, opposed by local board of district, 215 as landowners, having acquired land since original Act conferring compulsory powers of purchase, opposing a bill for extension of time for purchase of lands, 224 agreement by not to oppose bill, how far binding when bill altered in first House, 231 COUNTY COUNCIL {See also corporation, local board), London , apprehending injury to river inside county, opposing drainage bill where drainage area and proposed works outside county, 202 London claiming representation on Drainage commission, 202 construction of bridge by London opposed by gas company having pipes in streets within limits of deviation, and claiming to be heard as landowners, 204 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 245 COUNTY COVSGlIj-Continued. London seeking to impose improvement (" Betterment ") rate opposed by ratepayers, 204 money bill of , allooatiug sums to works already authorised, opposed by corporation, 208 subways bill of opposed by Board of Works as road authority, 210 seeking to compel promoters of railway outside county to extend same into county, 234 COURT OP EEPEREES {See peactioe). CREDITORS {See also moktoagees), and mortgagees of harbour rates opposing reduction of same by bill, 178 DESCRIPTION {See petitionees, pkaotice). DEVIATION {See limits of). DISSENTIENT (See katepayek, shaeeholdek) . DISTINCT INTERESTS (See ookpoeation, ownee, eepeesentation, teadebs). DRAINAGE, scheme opposed by county council apprehending, injury to river in their county, 202 claim for representation by county council on commission, 202 DOCK {See also haeboue), interference with access to by construction of tramways, 215 alleged injurious affect upon existing competition by amalgamation of with railway, 217 EASEMENT, gas company having in roads to lay pipes, claiming landowners' locus standi, 204 interference with of light and air, how far entitling to a locus standi, 213 ELECTRICITY (See teahway). EVIDENCE (See peactioe). EXTENSION (See also bueoh), of burgh, and application thereto of Acts relating to existing burgh, opposed by traders, 174 EXTENSION OP TIME BILL (See also coepoeation, landownee, eailway (2), ), for purchase of lands opposed by corporation as landowners, they having acquired land since the original Act conferring compulsory powers, 224 for construction of railway and canal opposed by local authority as delaying recongtruotion of bridge provided for in original Act, 227 FREIGHTERS (See teadebs). company, claiming to be heard as landowners, against construction of bridge, 204 , . • j * abstraction of part of district of supply and purchase of mains used tor supply of to local board, opposed by local board, apprehendmg the raising of gas rate to consumers, 233 HARBOUR (See aZso dock), , . ,. „ , „ , „„^ 1,0 reduction of rates at one opposed by trustees of competing harbour, 178 HIGHWAY. (See eoad). HOUSE (See ownees, &c.). 246 INDEX TO SUBJECTS- INHABITANTS (See also eatepayeks), of ecclesiastical district opposing bUl for sale and removal of church, 229 INJUBIOUS APPECTING (See also access, landowner, railway (3) ), of telephone company by tramway propelled by electricity, 167 of hydropathic establishment by conveyance of mineral springs and pump- room to local board, with power to sell water, 171 of water supply of local authority, how far entitling to a locus standi under S. 0. 134a, 169 of town by reduction of rates at competing harbour, 178 of district by abstraction of water by water company, 181 of streams and surface water by construction of railway across catchment area of reservoir, 187 general of burgh by construction of railway, 193 how far must be alleged in the petition, 202 caused by interference with access, when entitling to a locus standi, 212 mere of property, when entitling to a locus standi, 213 of district alleged, by delay in reconstruction of bridge under extension of time bill, 227 INJURY {See injurious apfectino). LAND (See also landowner, owners, etc.), suppression of facts at Local Government enquiry as to , a question for Committee on bill, 224 LANDOWNER (See also owners), corporation as opposing construction of railway across catchment area of their reservoir, 187 gas company claiming to be heard as against bill for construction of bridge, 204 locus claimed by corporation as , in respect of land purchased since the Act conferring compulsory powers of purchase over it, against bill for extension of time, 224 LEGISLATION, past , telephone companies affected by development of electrical science claiming to discuss, 167 complaint against existing . where non-opposition was alleged to be owing to misapprehension, 174 complaint against existing , by corporation opposing money bill of county council, 208 LESSEE (See owners, &c). LIGHT AND AIR (See easement). LIMITS OF DEVIATION, gas company with pipes within claiming to be heard as landowners against construction of bridge, 204 LOCAL BOARD, AND AUTHORITY (See also corporation, county council), conveyance of mineral springs and pump-room to opposed by owner and lessee and mortgagees of hydropathic establishment, 171 supplied with water by promoters opposing bill for additional water works, 169 tramway bill containing powers of agreement with as to use of mechanical power, and purchase of tramways, opposed by corporation, 184 opposition of outside metropolis to money bUl of London County Council allocating sums to works already authorised, 208 as road authority opposing subways bill of county council, 210 claim of to represent traders, 212 allegmg interference with access to docks and consequent injury to trade, opposing construction of tramway, 215 aUeging injury to district by delay in the construction of bridge provided for in original Act, on petition against an extension of time bill, 227 opposition of • to purchase of mains supplying gas to district on ground of increased rates to consumers, 233 LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (S'ee county council). INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 247 MORTGAGEES (See also oeeditoeb), of hydropathic establishment opposing conveyance to local board of mineral springs and pump-room, 171 and creditors of harbour rates opposing reduction of same, 178 MANUPACTUREES (See ibadeeb). MECHANICAL POWERS (See ieamway). MERCHANTS (See iradess). MINERAL SPRINGS (See speings). MUNICIPAL (See coepoeation). NAVIGATION (See dock, haeboue). OBJECTIONS (See pbaotioe). OBSTRUCTION (See also access), of access to business premises by stopping up of streets by construction of railway, 212 OCCUPIERS (See ownbes, &c.). OWNERS, LESSEES, AND OCCUPIERS (See aUo bailway (2) ), and mortgagees of hydropathic establishment opposing conveyance to local board of mineral springs and pump-room, 171 not being consumers within district of supply opposing biU of water company for additional works, 181 PETITION (See petitionees, peaoiioe). PETITIONERS (See also pbaotiob), alleged interference with mineral springs used by , 171 legal proceedings by against promoters, and withdrawal of appeal on settlement of terms, 174 resolution by as local authority to purchase tramways of promotmg company, 184 . • ■,- • j i steamship owners' associations as claiming to represent their mdividual agreement not to oppose by how far bindmg when bill altered in first House, 231 PIPES (See gas, egad, watee). practice of Committee on and sanitary bills, as affecting question of locus standi, 174 . , j.- c -t interference with roads and sewers of burgh by construction ot railway opposed by Commissioners of burgh, 193 POLLUTION (See eivee, watee). PORT (See dock, haeboue). powFim transfer of of electrical tramway company to corporation, opposed by telephone company, 167 i , „f to local board to sell water from mineral springs opposed by owner of hydropathic establishment, 171 PRACTICE (See also petition), _ . . , ambiguity of definition of "mineral springs" in biU as ground of locus standi of owners of hydropathic establishment, 171 of Committee on police and sanitary bills as affecting question ot locus standi, 174 « i. j i. i,-ii iha where constituents of member of Court are affected by bill, 174 limited locus standi allowed to discuss alleged conflict between local Act and general law, 174 248 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. PRACTICE— Co?rfmM«d. sufficiency of allegation in petition, as to "injurious affecting," 184, 202 the Court will not consider an allegation as to breach of faith, 191 the construction of a statute is not a question for the Court, 191 where a large trade association petitions jointly with individual traders, 199 how far the Court wiU consider the question of general public pohcy, 199 where clause conceded, locus standi allowed for the purpose of seeing that clause is inserted in bill, 204 what constitutes a landowner's lociis standi, 204 a single ratepayer not entitled to be heard in his individual capacity as a ratepayer, 221 alleged suppression of facts at Local Government enquiry, a question for Committee, 224 agreement not to oppose, how far binding when bill altered in first House, 231 PEOTECTIVE CLAUSES (See saving clauses). PUBLIC MEETING (See ratepatees). PUMP-EOOM, extinguishment of rights in , by conveyance to local board, with power to sell water, opposed by owners of hydropathic establishment, 171 RAILWAY. (1) Amalgamation. (2) Company. (3) Competition. (1) Amalgamation, between railway and docks causing injury to traders by removal of com- petition, 217 (2) Company, proposing to construct a railway across catchment area of reservoir of corporation supplying water to the district, 187 extension of railway opposed by a , whose lands were scheduled, claiming landowners' locus standi, 191 construction of railway on embankment in burgh by , opposed by Police Commissioners of burgh, 193 asking for steamboat powers, opposed by independent steamboat companies, 195, 197 stopping up streets by, by construction of railway, opposed bv manufacturers, 212 widening of line by , causing interference with light and air of peti- tioners' premises, 213 extension of time bill for purchase of lands by , opposed by corporation as landowners, they having acquired the land since the original Act conferring compulsory powers, 224 extension of time bill for construction of railway and canal by , opposed by local authority as delaying, reconstruction of bridge provided for in original Act, 227 county councU opposing promotion by of railway outside county on , ground of interference with road leading into county, 284 (3) Competition, alleged by independent steamboat companies against railway company seeking steamboat powers, 195, 197 ~ ~ alleged by steamship owners' associations against railway seeking to acquire steamboat powers, 199 alleged injurious affect upon existing by amalgamation bill, 217 RATEPAYERS (See also cobpokation, inhabitaots), board 171 "°* dissenting at statutory meeting, represented by local gas company as opposing construction of bridge, 204 °Tount®yc3cSo4°' '^^'°''^^'''' ("Betterment") rate by London insufficiency in numbers of and inhabitants opposing bill for con- stitution of burial board, 221 i i- s ^"^ i-un single not entitled to be heard in individual capacity as ratepayers, 221 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 249 BATES (See also habeoub, railway (2) ), . reduction of , at one harbour, opposed by trustees of competing harbour, 178 cost of construction of bridge by county council to be borne by local and by improvement , 204 coUeotor of not petitioning as such, but signing petition of ratepayers, not entitled to be heard, 221 REPEEEES (See pbactioe). EEPEAD, by water company of section in former Act, as ground for limited locus standi of owners, &c., 181 REPRESENTATION (See also inhabitants, local boabd, ratepayers, &o.), of ratepayers by local board, 171 of trade by town council of Royal Scotch burgh, 178 claim of county council outside drainage area to on Drainage commission, 202 alleged of gas company as ratepayers by county councU, 204 alleged of ratepayers and inhabitants of district, insufficient in number, by local authority, 221 sufficiency of of inhabitants of an ecclesiastical district petitioning against church removal bill, 229 insufficiency of of members of congregation by a single individual, 229 RESERVOIR, construction of railway across catchment area of of corporation, and apprehended interference with streams, 187 RESIDENTS {See inhabitants). RES JUDICATA (See legislation). RIGHT OF WAY (SeeBOAc). RIVER, apprehended affecting of by abstraction of underground water by water company, 181 apprehended interference with, and pollution of , by construction of railway across catchment area of reservoir, 187 proposed diversion and widening of , under drainage bill, opposed by county council outside the drainage area, 202 ROAD, interference with by water company, opposed by owners, &o., 181 in burgh, interference with, by construction of railway, opposed by Police Commissioners of burgh, 193 alteration of levels of , and disturbance of gas pipes by construction of bridge, opposed by gas company, 204 corporation petitioning against money bill of county council, allocating sums to works already authorised, as causing interference with , 208 stopping up of , by bill for construction of railway, opposed by manufacturers, 212 blocking of by tramway, causing interference with access to docks, 215 interference with outside coimty, no ground for loeus standi to county counoU as road authority, 234 ROAD AUTHORITY {See local board, roat). SANITARY AUTHORITY (See corporation, local board). SAVING AND PROTECTIVE CLAUSES, telephone company claiming , on transfer of electrical tramway to corporation, 167 SEWERS, , u T, V in burgh, interference with, by construction of railway, opposed by i'olioe Commissioners of burgh, 193 B 2 250 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. SPRINGS, mineral and pump-room, extinguishment of rights in, by conveyance to local board, with power to sell water, 171 mineral , ambiguity in meaning of, as ground for owner of hydropathic establishment to oppose biU, 171 STANDING OEDEBS, 171 [No powers to be given to local authorities to work, &o., tramways] , 167 134a [Local authorities to have locus standi against lighting and water bills], 169 134 [Municipal authorities and inhabitants of towns] , 178, 181, 184, 187, 198, 208, 215, 221, 227 156 [Railway companies not to acquire canals, docks, steam-vessels, f the Commissioners, and, also, by a resolution of u, town's meeting, part of the foreshore was granted to me for the purpose of erecting a pier, subject to a ground rent, and on the completion of the pier works this fore- shore, on which they are constructed, becomes absolutely vested in me. I, therefore, ask to have a voice in the framing of these bye-laws to see that my rights are protected and to see that the Commissioners do not have the power to allow any user of the sands which might have the effect of causing my pier and winter garden to be less frequented than it otherwise would be. The Chaikman : You must trust your muni- cipal authority to do what is right. You cannot as pier owner have a voice in the framing of bye-laws by that authority. Bidder, Q.G. (for promoters) : The petitioners' rights are expressly saved by clause 64 of the bill, which is as follows: "Nothing in this part of this Act shall be deemed or taken to prejudice, diminish, alter, or affect any estates, rights, titles, privileges, powers or authorities in, over or under the foreshore or sands within or in front of the district or any part thereof of the owners or owner for the time being of such foreshore or sands, or of any persons claiming under them or him." Mr. Hkaly: Is there anything in that clause which would enable bye-laws to be made which would interfere with the user of your pier by the petitioners ? Edmondson : Not as to the superstructure, but it would enable the Commissioners to make bye-laws interfering with that portion of the foreshore upon which the pier stands, and they might permit the user of the foreshore in such a way as to be an annoyance to persons using my pier, and I submit that where there is an apprehended nuisance, the Court will grant a locus standi. The Chairman : I do not think we need hear the promoters on the second point raised by the petitioner, viz., as to the bye-laws under clause 58 of the bill. Bidder (in reply) : I will deal with the petitioner's claim to a locus standi against clause 20 of the bill. He bases it on competi- tion, and that being so, it is discretionary for the Court to grant it, or not, taking into consideration whether the competition is substantial or the reverse, or a new competi- tion, or the mere development of existing competition. We are taking powers for the purpose of improving ferry accommodation, which already exists. There are on both sides of the river landing-places, now used for the purpose of ferrying people across the river. On the Fleetwood side upon which this pro- posed pier is to be constructed, we have a ferry- slip, and on the other side there is a break- water, belonging to and under the control of two railway companies, named in clause 58 of the bill, who are also the conservators of the river Wyre, and the bill empowers the Com- missioners to make a road alongside this breakwater and that is all, by arrangement with the railway companies. The access on the Fleetwood side will, as a matter of fact, be improved by making a ferry dock, accessible at high tide, where we have at present a ferry- slip, but this is not dealt with by the bill. At the present time we allow boats to land and embark passengers at our ferry-slip, and on the other side the railway companies allow the owners of boats to land passengers on their breakwater, and by clause 20, we merely take powers to authorise the Commissioners to do in respect of their new works that which is actually being done at the present time, inasmuch as at present we have the power, which we are exercising, of authorising boats, Part III.] great north of Scotland railway bill. 269 under licence from us, to land and embark passengers on the Fleetwood side, and we are constructing no ferry works on the Fleetwood side, and the only effect of the bill will be to ^ improve the access to the railway companies' landing stage on the far side of the river. The Chairman : We need not hear you any further, we think no grounds for a loms standi have been disclosed. Loms Standi Disallowed. Agent for the Petitioner, Walker. Agent for the BiU, Ball. GLASGOW, YOKER AND CLYDEBANK RAILWAY BILL. Petition of The Cobpokation ov Glasgow. 9th March; iS93.— [Before Mr. Shikess Will, Q.C., M.P., Chairman., etc., etc.) The petition agaiast the bill was withdrawn. Agent for Petitioners, Malcolm. Agents for Bill, Wm. Eobertson ds Go. GREAT NORTH OF SCOTLAND RAILWAY BILL. Petition of The Cokpokation of Aberdeen. 2nd March, 1893.— (-Be/ore Mr. Shibess Will, Q.C., M.P. ; Mr. Roundell, M.P. ; Mr. Healt, M.P.; The Hon. E. Ohandos Leigh, Q.G. ; and Mr. Bonham-Oakteb.) Eailicay Company — Construction of Meservoir and Aqueduct — Impounding of Stream — Supply to Joint Railway Station—Municipal Corporation Supplying Water to Burgh — Invasion of District of Supply. Clauses 5 and 15 of the bill empowered the promoters, the Great North of Scotland railway company, to construct a reservoir and an aquaduct therefrom to a point on their railway and to impound the waters of the Elriok burn. The promoters, besides having a station of their own at Aberdeen, were the joint owners with the Caledonian railway company of a large station there, to which the North British railway company also were, by agreement, to be shortly admitted ; and although the bill conferred no powers to supply or charge for water, the promoters admitted that they contemplated giving a supply of water to the joint station. The corporation of Aberdeen claimed to be heard against the bill as being an infringement of their rights and authorising an invasion of their district, inasmuch as the water under- taking of the city was vested in them and they supplied its inhabitants with water for both domestic and trade purposes, including the railway companies using the joint station : Held, that as the bill conferred parliamentary powers upon the promoters, which would enable tbem to supply water within the petitioners' district of supply, the peti- tioners were entitled to be heard against it. ■ The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds, viz.: (1) the petition does not allege, nor is it the fact, that any lands or property of the petitioners can be taken under the powers of the bill ; (2) those provisions of the bill which are referred to in the petition would authorise only the construc- tion of a reservoir and aqueduct for bringing water to and along the railway of the pro- moters and to their station, and do not confer on the promoters any general powers for the supply of water, or to charge for the supply of water ; (3) the bill does not authorise the sale by the company of water to any other com- panies or persons, and in so far as it may enable them to use the water or permit the water to be used on the station and railway premises, it does not involve any interference with any rights of the petitioners to such an extent as to entitle them to be heard .against the bill ; (4) the petition does not disclose, nor is it the fact, that the petitioners have any such interest in the subject matter, or that their property or rights will be interfered with by the powers proposed to be conferred in such manner as to entitle them, according to the practice of Parliament, to be heard on their said petition. Pemher, Q.C. (for the petitioners): Clause 5 of the biU proposes to give the railway company power to construct a reservoir and to bring an aqueduct or line of pipes up to a point on their railway embankment, and by clause 15 to im- 270 COURT OF EEPBREBS. [Vol. I. pound the waters of the Elriok burn. The town of Aberdeen is at present served by three or four railway companies, including the rail- way of the promoters and the Caledonian rail- way company. These two companies have a joint station, which they own and use equally between them, and to which they are shortly about to admit the North British rail- way company, and in addition there is a station belonging exclusively to the Great North of Scotland company. The manager of the Great North of Scotland company has admitted in correspondence with the town clerk that the company means to supply this joint station, where there is at present a very large consump- tion of water, which will be increased by the admission of the North British company to the station, and therefore the value of their custom to the Aberdeen corporation, who are owners of the waterworks that supply the town, is very considerable. The obvious intention of the promoters of this bill is to bring the water along the embankment to their stations at Aberdeen, and there make use of it for themselves and for the other railway companies. The petitioners therefore submit that they are entitled as the local authority supplying water in the district to be heard against this competition and invasion of their district of supply. Even if the promoters intended to supply themselves alone we submit that we should be entitled to a locus standi in order to ask the Committee not to allow a railway company to get statutory powers to do what would damage us, and what they could not do without statutory powers ; but as this water is for the use of other railway companies, as well as for the use of the promoters, we submit that we are clearly entitled to be heard against the principle of the bill. The Chaikman : "We will now hear the promoters. Cripps, Q.C. (for promoters) : We take powers under this bill to get water but not to supply it, and therefore we do not infringe the statutory lights of the corporation. We do not ask for any power to supply the Caledonian company, although I do not deny that we hope to supply them. The Chairman : You are coming to ask Parlia- ment to enable you to do something which you are not entitled to do, namely, to construct a reservoir and aqueduct, and to impound certain waters. I take it the strong point in your argument would be that the Great North of Scotland company could at present supply themselves by sinking a well, and the corpora- tion could not hinder them doing that. The answer to that is this, that the company are not doing something which they are at present entitled to do, but are coming to Parliament to enable them to do something which they are not entitled as a railway company to do, and that makes all the difference. The company are coming to ask the assistance of Parliament, in fact, to invade the district of the corporation. Cripps : If that is the view you take I will not argue it any longer. The Chairman : We think the corporation of Aberdeen have a locus standi. Locus Standi Allowed. Agents for Petitioners, Mai'tin <£ Leslie. Agents for Bill, Dyson tO Co. GREENOCK CORPORATION BILL. Petition of (1) The Clyde Navigation Tkusiees ; AND (2) The Cokpoeation of Glasgow. 5th May, 1893.— {Before Mr. Shikess Will Q.G.,M.P., Chairman; Sir Geoege Russell, M.P. ; Mr. Roundell, M.P.; Mr. Healy, M.P. ; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C. ; and Mr. Bonham-Caktee.) Burgh Improvement — Abatement of Smoke Nuisance within Port — Navigation Trustees and Municipal Corporation — Board of Police — Infectious Cases on Board Ships within Port — Bx2)enses of Treatment as Affecting Shipping Interests — Establishment of Cattle Depot — Competition — Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, ss. 52, 54 — Contagious Diseases {Animals) Act, 1878, s. 3d— Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, ». 384— S. 0. 134 [Municipal Authorities and Inhabitants of Tozons] . This was a bill to extend the boundaries of the burgh of Greenock and to confer farther powers on the corporation acting for municipal purposes, and as the board of police of the burgh. Clause 37 of the bill provided for the prevention of nuisance arising from smoke within the burgh, and its operation was by the latter part of the clause extended so as to apply to any person in charge of a steamer lying at any of the quays, piers, or wharves, or in any of the harbours or docks of the ports and harbours of Greenock, or plying in the Firth of Clyde, within one mile of any of the said quays, piers, wharves, docks, Part III.] GREENOCK CORPORATION BILL. 271 harbours, or of any house or building within the burgh . B oth petitioners (1 and 2) claimed to be heard against the clause, the Clyde Navigation trustees objecting that as the fairway, along which large steamers passed in coming to Glasgow up the Clyde, was within the limit (one mile) prescribed by the clause, the enforcement of the pro- visions of the clause against such steamers might result in hindering their passage, and thereby injure the trade of the Clyde and their own interests as trustees of the navigation ; while the corporation of Glasgow objected to the clause as inter- fering with their police jurisdiction over the Clyde, which had been specially reserved by the Greenock Police Act, 1877, under which the corporation of Greenock exercised their present police jurisdiction over the Clyde. Contra, the promoters contended that they had, under sect. 384 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, similar powers for police purposes and for the prevention of smoke nuisance within their limits, which limits were, by the Greenock Police Act, 1877, defined to extend 1,700 yards into the Clyde, and that the alteration effected by clause 37 was too trifling to entitle the petitioners to be heard against it : Held, however, that both the petitioners (1 and 2) were entitled to be heard against the clause. Clause 70 of the bill contained provisions for dealing with persons affected with infectious diseases on board any ship lying within or opposite to the burgh of Greenock in the Firth of Clyde, and sub- section 4 of the clause provided for the recovery of the expenses incurred by the board of police in dealing with such cases from the master or officer in charge of such ship. A locus standi against this clause, and clause 71 (as to contribution towards hospitals for such oases from various local authorities) was conceded to (2) the corporation of Glasgow as a sanitary authority, but (1) the Clyde trustees also claimed to be heard against the former clause (70), on the ground that it imposed a charge upon ships frequenting the Clyde, which might injuriously affect the trade fre- quenting the ports on the Clyde, and so affect their interest and revenue. The pro- moters contended that the powers they already possessed under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867 (sects. 52 and 54) with reference to ships having on board persons affected with infectious diseases were practically the same as those contained in clause 70 of the bill, and that the Clyde trustees were not entitled to be heard to represent the interests of shipowners, even if they should be affected by the provisions of clause 70 : Held, however, that inasmuch as clause 70 varied and extended the provisions of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, relating to the same matter, the Clyde trustees were entitled to be heard against it. Clause 87 of the bill empowered the board of poUce of Greenock to establish a dep6t for cattle within the burgh of Greenock. A locus standi was claimed against the clause by both petitioners (1 and 2) on the ground of competition with an existing cattle depot at Glasgow which had been erected at the joint expense and co-opera- tion of the Clyde trustees and the cor- poration of Glasgow, who were both interested in their respective capacities in the trade and revenue derived from it. On behalf of the promoters it was pointed out that the object of the clause was to enable the corporation to construct the cattle dep6t in their capacity as the board of police, and to enable them to raise the money for the purpose on the security of the police rate, which would also be charged with its maintenance instead of the local rates, which would be the case if they (the corporation) were to construct the depot in their municipal capacity, which they were fully empowered to do by the provi- sions of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878. Held that, as clause 87 of the bill only con- ferred upon the corporation as the board of police the same powers to erect a cattle dep6t as they already possessed in their capacity as a sanitary authority under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878, T 2 272 COURT OF RKPEEEES. [Vol. I. the interests of the petitioners in respect of the existing cattle dep6t at Glasgow were not affected in such a manner as to entitle either of them to be heard against the clause. The locus standi of (1) the Clyde Trustees was objected to on the following grounds : (1) no lauds, rights, or property of the peti- tioners are proposed to be taken, interfered with, or affected by the bill ; (2) the petitioners are a statutory body, and their jurisdiction under the Clyde Navigation Acts is limited to the harbour of Glasgow and that portion of the river Clyde defined by the Clyde Navigation Consolidation Act, 1858, none of which is included in the portion of the Clyde affected by the bill ; (3) the petitioners have no legal right in that portion of the river affected by the bill which is vested in the trustees of the Clyde lighthouses and in the Greenock harbour trustees, and over which the board of police of Greenock have jurisdic- tion under the Greenock Police Act, 1877 ; (4) even if the petitioners would have been entitled, had not the Clyde Lighthouses Act, 1871, been passed to be heard in connection with any interference with the portion of the Clyde below the limits of their jurisdiction, they are as constituents since the passing of that Act represented by the trustees of the Clyde lighthouses, and are not entitled to be heard against the bill which the trustees do not oppose ; (5) the petitioners have no right to be heard as regards the proposed contribu- tion to the expenses incurred by the promoters in connection with the treatment of infectious cases on board vessels or any hospitals estab- lished or provided by the promoters for the treatment of such cases from the local authorities of certain burghs and places, and, inter alia, of Glasgow, Partiok, Govan, Dalmuir, and Bowling, as the petitioners are represented by the local authorities of those burghs and places; (6) theproposed cattle depot, mentioned in paragraph 13 of the petition, is a dep6t in which the petitioners have no interest what- ever, being intended to accommodate local requirements and serve public wants ; (7) the petitioners have no such interest in the objects of the bill as entitle them to be heard. The locus standi of (2) the corporation of Glasgow was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition does not allege, nor is it the fact, that any lands or property of the petitioners can be taken compulsorily under the powers of the bill ; (2) the promoters admit the right of the petitioners to be heard against clauses 70 and 71 of the bill, but they deny the right of the petitioners to be heard against any other provisions of, or powers sought by, the bill; (3) the paragraphs of the petition numbered 10 and 11, the accuracy of which the petitioners do not admit, are not such as entitle the petitioners to be heard against clause 87 of the bill. The alleged competition for the foreign cattle trafdc of the Firth of Clyde is too remote, and is not of a character to entitle them to be heard against the estab- lishment by the promoters of the proposed depot for cattle ; (4) the promoters make no admission in regard to any claim by the peti- tioners of a right to manage and control the police or to guard the navigation of the portion of the river Clyde referred to in paragraph 13 of i^e petition, but allege that the bill contains no provisions altering or in any way affecting such right, and that the petitioners are not entitled in respect of such claims to be heard against clauses 37 and 77 of the bill ; (5) the petition does not disclose any facts or circum- stances which, according to practice, entitle the petitioners to .be heard (except as herein- before admitted) either against the preamble or the clauses of the bill. Cripps, Q.C. (for petitioners (1) ) : The peti- tioners, as trustees of the Clyde navigation are responsible for the navigation to Glasgow, and have spent an enormous sum within the limits of their jurisdiction, and they ask first for a locus standi against clause 37 of the bill, which is as follows : " Every person who so uses or causes, or permits or suffers to be used, any furnace or fire (except a household fire) as that smoke issues therefrom, unless he proves that he uses the best practical means for pre- venting smoke, and has carefully attended to and managed the said furnace or fire so as to prevent, as far as possible, the escape of smoke therefrom, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings in respect of any such act or omission, and to a further penalty not exceeding five pounds in respect of every day or part of a day during which such act or omission continues after the imposition of the first-mentioned penalty, or in respect of every act or omission of a like nature which occurs within one month after such imposition. This enactment shall apply to any person in charge of u, steamer lying at any of the quays, piers, or wharves, or in any of the harbours or docks of the ports and harbours of Greenock, or plying in the Firth of Clyde within one mile of any of the said quays, piers, wharves, docks, harbours, or of any house or building within the burgh.'' Our objection to this clause is, that within the limit therein named lies the Part III.] GREENOCK CORPORATION BILL. 273 fairway up which all the large steamers go, and we allege that an obstruction may be caused by this clause if steamers are liable to be detained on their way up the Clyde on account of it, and it might be a most serious thing as regards competition between rival ports, and so cause great injury to a navigation such as the Clyde when the chief object in carrying on competition is despatch. We also ask to be heard against clause 70, which deals with ships having on board persons suspected of being affected with infectious diseases, and the particular part which affects us is sub- sect. 4, which provides that " All expenses incurred by the board in removing, treating, or maintaining any such person as aforesaid (including a reasonable allowance in respect of the up keep and management of any hospital belonging to or provided by the board for the treatment of infectious or contagious diseases) , or in disinfecting any such ship, shall be paid by the owner or master of such ship or other of&cer having charge of the same, and may be recovered from such owner, master, or other officer in a summary manner in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction." The shipowners are represented by us, nine of our members being elected by the shipowners, and this is a pro- posal for the first time to put a charge of this character upon shipowners, and the effect of it would be that a shipowner of a vessel coming to Glasgow would be subjected to a particular charge which is not made in any other port. The Chairman. : This clause does not seem to apply to ships passing up and down the channel, but only to ships lying within the bounds of the burgh. Cripps : Yes ; but all ships coming into the Clyde having infectious diseases on board have to stop and lie opposite Greenock under the quarantine regulations, and therefore every vessel entering the Clyde, which may have a case of infectious disease on board would come under this sect. 70, and as this sub-sect. 4 imposes a new liability upon ships navigating the Clyde we, as the navigation trustees, are entitled to be heard against it. The next clause against which we ask to be heard is clause 87, which empowers the board of police of Greenock to establish a cattle depot in the burgh near the harbour at Greenock. This would very much injure the cattle depot, which has been established in the Clyde, and towards which we have very largely contri- buted. The corporation of Greenock has already applied to the Privy Council for per- mission to erect sheds for landing foreign cattle, but their appUcation was refused. We say, therefore, that they ought not to be allowed to establish a dep6t at Greenock, which must cause competition, when there is a proper cattle dep6t under our jurisdiction on the Clyde. Mr. Healy: Does not this clause dispense with the necessity for the promoters going to the Privy Council for a licence ? Cripps : No, they would have to repeat their application, but under different circum- stances, for if the application is repeated after Parliament has sanctioned in principle the reasonableness of the application by giving permissive power, then the application is granted unless something extraordinary is shewn against it. We also claim to be heard against clause 77 of the bill, which is a clause for amending and extending sect. 128 of the Greenock Police Act, 1877, relating to explosives. J. D. Fitzgerald (for promoters) : I undertake to strike clause 77 out of the bill, but admit the technical right of both the petitioners (1 and 2) to go before the Committee on the bill to see that it is struck out. Balfour Browne, Q.C. (for J)etitioners (2) ) : We also ask for a locus standi against clause 37. In 1882 the Greenock corporation came to Parliament for an extension of the burgh for municipal purposes and we were refused a locus standi on the ground that it did not affect us, but in the course of that case it appeared that when in 1877 the promoters asked Parliament for police jurisdiction over the 1,700 yards, we had a locus standi and obtained a clause in the Greenock Police Act, 1877, reserving all our rights of police supervision over the river. Under a charter of Charles I., dated 1636, our jurisdiction for police purposes extends from Glasgow to the clock lighthouse, which includes the portion of the river opposite Greenock. We should have, therefore, con- current jurisdiction with the promoters within the limit of a mile as specified in clause 37 of the bUl, and we submit that we are entitled to a locus standi to see that the reservation as regards police purposes given to us in 1877 is added to this clause, and, moreover, there is clearly a discretion in the Court to grant us a locus standi under S. 0> 184. It is obvious that anything which injures the navigation of the Clyde would injuriously affect Glasgow, and, therefore, we ought to be heard under S. O. 134. Our locus standi is conceded against clauses 70 and 71 of the bill, but we ask also for a locus standi against clause 87, and we are practically in the same position as petitioners (1). They have provided the land for the dep&t and we have erected it ; they receive the whole of the river dues with reference to this traffic, and we receive all the sums paid for the 274 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. cattle wharf. We are, therefore, practically partners in this business. The promoters say that the competition we allege for the foreign cattle traffic is too remote, but they are in fact twenty-three miles nearer the entrance from the sea, and therefore the competition with our dep&t of the cattle depot proposed to be constructed at Greenock under clause 87 of the bill will be especially severe. J. D. Fitzgerald (for promoters) : With regard to (1) the Clyde Navigation Trustees, these petitioners have no jurisdiction over this part of the river at all, but it is vested in the Clyde Lighthouse board, who raise no objection to the bill; Greenock Corporation, d:c., Bill, 1882 (3 Clifford and Rickards, 167). As to the objection to clause 37 under our existing Acts for police purposes, our jurisdiction extends into the river 1,700 yards, and clause 37 therefore win only extend it 60 yards. Under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, we have jurisdiction with regard to smoke anywhere within our limit for police purposes. The object of clause 37 is to include within our jurisdiction vessels sending forth great volumes of smoke, which has become a very great nuisance, and causes the town of Greenock to be constantly obscured -by it. The words of sect. 384 of the Burgh Police Act, so far as defining a smoke nuisance are the same as in clause 37 of the bill, and the words extending the effect of the clause to smoke coming from a steamer are almost the same as in clause 37. The only difference being that sect. 384 provides that " this enactment shall apply to any person in charge of a steamer plying on a river or estuary of the sea within the jurisdiction of the magistrates of the burgh." The Chairman : By clause 37 you extend the application oi sect. 384 of the general Act to the case of steamers "lying at any of the quays, piers, or wharves, or in any of the harbours or docks of the ports and harbours of Greenock," and you extend the limit of your jurisdiction by 60 yards. The difference be- tween the case of the Greenock Corporation, d-c.. Bill, 1882, that you have cited and this case is that the question of hindering the navigation arises in this, and it is suggested that the promoters may make bye-laws which may hinder the passage of ships. Fitzgerald : Practically the only thing the promoters can do under this bill, which they cannot do under the general Act, is to inter- fere with the steamer 60 yards further off, and I submit that so slight an alteration cannot be a ground of locvs standi for the petitioners. The only way in which it is suggested they could be interfered with is by the possibility of delay caused to steamers in their passage to Glasgow, but as a matter of fact all these steamers stop opposite Greenock, as it is the Customs port, and this is the place where the Custom-house of&cers board all the steamers coming into the Clyde. Mr. Heait : How far from Greenock is the track of the steamers ? Fitzgerald : The navigable channel is close to the shore within the 1,700 yards. With regard to clause 70, I submit thfl,t the Clyde trustees are not entitled to a locus standi against the clause, for we have already under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, sect. 52, juris- diction for all sanitary purposes over any ship coming opposite the port of Greenock, and this clause is only intended to deal w;ith ships lying opposite Greenock, and by sect. 54 of the same Act there is power in cases of infectious disease to make the shipowner liable for medical expenses incurred by persons suffering from infectious disease. The Chairman: The words "up keep and management of any hospital " in sub-sect. 4 of clause 70 of the bill are new. Fitzgerald : Yes ; but at the present moment we have no power to disinfect, and if it is done it must be done at the expense of the person who does it. The Chaieman : The only question is whether the great public trust charged with the duties of maintaining the navigation and protecting its interests ought not to be heard. Fitzgerald : The locus standi of (2) the corpora- tion of Glasgow against clauses 70 and 71 is admitted, because they allege that they have jurisdiction opposite Greenock, and the interests of Glasgow will therefore be considered, but the jurisdiction of the petitioners is not interfered with in any way, as it ends at a point a mile and a-half away. The petitioners do not allege in their petition that they represent the individual interests of the shipowners, and we merely by this clause make the jurisdiction we already possess more effective. With regard to the claim of the corporation of Glasgow to be heard against clause 37 of the bill, they are not entitled to be heard because the clause does not in anyway affect their jurisdiction, all the clause proposes to do is to fine the owner of a steamer improperly emitting smoke within a mile of Greenock, and the petitioners have no jurisdiction under the general Act or any special Act with regard to smoke, they have only jurisdiction for the prevention of offences down the river on ships. The Chairman : If they have police jurisdiction are they not in a position to adopt the smoke clause of the Act of 1892 ? Part III.l GREENOCK CORPORATION BILL. 275 Fitzgerald : No ; their jurisdiction does not extend to steamers emitting smoke. Mr. Healt : Would they have a jurisdiction to make hye-laws ? Fitzgerald : No. They have no power to deal with any question of smoke on this part of the river, and if they have we do not propose to take it away. All they can allege is that if they have such a power we would have con- current jurisdiction within this area, but that is no ground for a locns standi. Neither of the petitioners (1) or (2) are entitled to be heard against clause 87 for it in no way affects them. There is nothing in this bill to dispense with an order of the Privy Council, and if at any time the corporation of Greenock apply to the Erivy Council for an order to land foreign cattle the petitioners will be entitled to repre- sent that some other place upon the Clyde should be adopted for the landing of foreign cattle, and that there is already a cattle depot at -Glasgow in which they are interested. The harbour trustees of Greenock, and not the Greenock corporation, as has been stated, made an application to the Privy Council, which was refused, and represen- tations were then received from Glasgow. Sect. 36 of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878, provides that the Privy Council shall prescribe the ports at which foreign cattle may be landed, and it is enacted by sect. 39 that " a local authority may provide, erect, and fit up wharves, stations, lairs, sheds, and other places for the landing, reception, keeping, sale, slaughter, or disposal of foreign animals, &o.;" and by a subsequent Act, this is extended to animals coming from any port in the United Kingdom besides foreign cattle. The local authority, therefore, has at present power to establish a depot for cattle, but that cannot be used without the order of the Privy Council. Mr. Chandos-Ijeigh : "What do you want this special clause for ? Fitzgerald : The local authority in this case is the corporation of Greenock, and the corpora- tion has two capacities— it is the municipal corporation and it is the board of police— and for financial reasons it is thought desirable to give the power which actually exists at the present time in the corporation, as the local authority, to the board of police, and to charge the expense to the police assessment, and by clause 103 of the bill, power is given to the board of police to borrow a sum of £10,000 for the purpose of establishing a cattle depot. In other words, the corporation of Greenock have power to do what is proposed by this bill qua corporation, and they want powers to do it qua board of police. Sir Geoege Russell : What is the advantage of obtaining power to establish this cattle dep&t through the board of police ? Fitzgerald : It is this that the cost is charged then on the police assessment. What we want is better financial arrangements with regard to borrowing powers, and this has nothing what- ever to do with the corporation of Glasgow. The Chaikman: If the corporation of Greenock as the municipal authority had exercised the powers they possess under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, 1878, would not they have been entitled to levy some rate for the purpose of maintaining the dep6t and carrying out their duty under the Act ? Fitzgerald : Yes, by sect. 46 of the Act, it is provided that the expenses of the Ipcal authority shall be defrayed out of the local rates, and such sums as may be necessary to defray these expenses shall be levied as part of the lo3al rate. Sir Geobge Russell : The object of con- structing depots and wharves under the Contagious Diseases Acts was distinct from the object with which the proposed cattle depot would be established, which moreover will be in competition with the existing cattle dep6t at Glasgow. Fitzgerald : The great object under the Act was this, to enable the local authority to establish a depot for cattle. No doubt the effect of it is to limit the area in which disease can break out, and though no doubt that is not our object, if we establish a depot in Greenock it will limit it in the same way. The petitioners' allegations as to competition does not extend to home cattle, it is directed solely against the importation of foreign cattle, and there is no provision in the bill by which a single head of foreign cattle can be landed at Greenock. Mr. Healt: It is plain that you have power at present to establish a dep6t for home cattle and to support that depot out of the rates. Fitzgerald : Yes, we ask for these powers in clause 87 in order to make fresh financial arrangements and neither directly or indirectly does the bill affect the competition as regards foreign cattle. The Chaibman : As regards petitioners (1) we think that their Locus Standi must be limited to clauses 37, 70, and 77, and so much of the preamble as relates thereto ; and that the Locus Standi of petitioners (2) must be limited to clauses 37, 70, 71, 77, and so much of the preamble as relates thereto. Agents for Petitioners (1) and (2), Martin and Leslie. Agents for the Bill, Durnford & Co. 276 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. HOENSEY LOCAL BOARD BILL. Petition of (1) Owners and Lessees or Lands, Houses, and othbb Property Situate in THE Urban Sanitary District or Hornsey, IN THE County of Middlesex. 28th April, 1893.— {Before Mr. Shiress Will, Q.C., M.P., Chairman; Sir George Russell, M.P.; Mr. Eoundell, M.P.; Mr. Healy, M.P.; Tftc JTon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.G. ; and Mr. Bonham-Carxer.) Local Authority — Bill for Special Powers of Local Government— Sewers and Drains, Streets and Buildings, dv. — Owners and Occnpiers of Lands and Houses within District — liepresenta- Hon by Local Authority— Dinners, d-c, as dis- tinguished from Ratepayers — Injurious Affecting of Property — Increase of Rates — Exceptional Legislation — Public Health Acts, 1875 and 1890. The bill was one to confer powers on the Hornsey Local Board of Health with re- gard to local government within their district. It was opposed by certain owners and occupiers of lands and houses within the district, who objected to the bill as providing exceptional legislation with respect to various sanitary and other mat- ters affecting them as owners and occu- piers of property, more especially by Parts II. and III. of the bill relating to sewerage and drainage, and building, and the laying out of streets, as to which the petitioners alleged that the bill altered the existing general law provided by the Public Health Acts, and would injuriously affect their property by increased rates and alteration of the incidence of taxation. It was ob- jected on behalf of the promoters (1) that the petitioners were represented by them as the local authority of the district, and could not be heard against a bOl pro- moted by them; 12) that many of the signatories to the petition were not, in fact, owners or occupiers of property ; (3) that in any case the petitioners were only entitled to be heard against those pro- visions of the bill which would specially affect them as owners and occupiers of property injuriously affected by such pro- visions : Held, however, that the petitioners were en- titled to be heard generally upon their petition against the bill. The locus standi of the petitioners (1) was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition does not allege or show, nor is it the fact, that any land, house property, right, or interest of the petitioners will be or can be taken, or so affected under the powers of the bill or in consequence of the exercise thereof, as to entitle the petitioners to be heard against the bill ; (2) the petitioners are not entitled to be heard against the common seal of the local board for the district of Hornsey, whom they elect, and who are the promoters of the bill, and the petitioners are represented by the said local board ; (3) the petitioners do not represent any particular class of persons or ratepayers affected by the bill, nor have they any interest apart from those of the general body of owners and ratepayers of the district of Hornsey ; (4) the bill was duly approved at the statutory meeting of owners and ratepayers held in pur- suance of the Borough Funds Act, 1872 ; (5) the following petitioners have signed another peti- tion against the bill, and are not entitled to be heard, if at all, upon this petition : — William Parker, Alfred L. Sargood, Alfred Putt, Samuel Honey, A. Pox, W. J. Keen, William Piercy, Alfred Faning, John Davis, Charles Peak, Fredk. Read, Andrew Morton, and James H. Wilson ; (6) the petition does not allege or show that the petitioners have, nor have they in fact any such interest in the objects and provisions of the bill as entitles them to be heard against it. Freeman (for petitioners (1) ) : The petitioners are about 200 owners and lessees of lands and houses in Hornsey, and they petition against the bill which deals with, amongst other things, in Part II., sewers and drains, in Part III., sanitary provisions, in Part IV., streets, &c., and in Part V., buildings, and in almost every case will affect lands and buildings of which the petitioners are owners and occupiers in a way which is opposed to the existing law, con- tained in the Public Health Act, 1875, and the Public Health Acts (Amendment Act), 1890, and it proposes to place the petitioners as owners, under pecuniary and other obligations which at the present time they are not liable to. As to nearly every clause in these parts of the bill the petitioners have a personal interest in the matter. We make amongst others the following allegations in our petition : (5) " the property of your petitioners in the district is of considerable extent and value, and comprises Part III.] HORNSEY LOCAL BOARD BILL. 277 and inohides private residences, shops, building land in course of development, and other land available for building purposes, and represents a considerable rateable value ; (6) the provisions of the bill, if allowed to become law, will seriously and prejudicially nffeot the lands, houses, and property of your petitioners in the district, and by imposing on the property or rendering it liable to additional and increased charges and burdens, and interfering with the free dealing therewith and enjoyment thereof, and varying existing legislation relating thereto, will depreciate the value of the property and inflict loss and injury upon your petitioners, for which no adequate compensation is proposed to be or can be afforded under the bill ; (7) some of the powers contained in the bill which affect your petitioners' property are in excess of the general law, and your petitioners respectfully submit that no sufficient reasons exist or can be shown for the granting of such powers. Other powers which are sought by the bill are, as your petitioners are advised, either already conferred on the local board by existing legislation or can be obtained by means of bye-laws, and are therefore unnecessary and nndesu-able and ought not to be granted ; (8) amongst other provisions in the bill which will be injurious to your petitioners and impose additional charges, burdens, and restrictions upon them in the enjoyment of and dealing with their property and to which the above objections apply, they beg leave to specify the following — Part II., sewers and drains, clauses G, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 13 ; Part III., sanitary provisions, clauses 18 and 20 ; Part IV., streets, &c., clauses 21, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, and 32 ; Part v., buildings, &c., clauses 40, 47, 52, 55, 57, and 58 ; (9) under some of the provisions of the bill above referred to your petitioners wiU be compelled to incur the expense of altering existing sewers and drains connected with their property although such sewers and drains have been constructed in accordance with the bye-laws and requirements of the local board, and have been approved by their surveyor. Your petitioners will also be prevented from making sewers or drains in connection with their property as they have done hitherto and compelled to pay the local board the cost of making them, and in some instances before they are actually required ; (10) other pro- visions of the bill above referred to will greatly hamper your petitioners in the laying out of new streets in their property, and may seriously interfere with, if not prevent, the development of their building land ; (13) the power sought by the bUl of appointing six building inspectors and charging the costs thereof on persons constructing buildings, would injuriously affect your petitioners and other owners of property in the district, and is as your petitioners submit unnecessary, and the fees to be paid to the local board in the case of construction and alterations of buildings are excessive and ought not to be sanctioned." The main objection to our locim staiidi is that as the promoters are the local authority for the district and are proposing measures for dealing with the management of their district, we have no right to be heard against the common seal of our authority. I submit that the practice. of the Court is that where a local authority is pro- posing to do anything which affects the district at large, as the local authority is elected by the ratepayers, the ratepayers have no right to be heard against the common seal, but whenever anything is proposed by that authority which affects particular members or a particular class in respect of their property, they are entitled to a Incus standi ; Edinburgh Municipal and Folice Bill, 1879, on the petition of John Hope (2 Clifford * Bickards, 149). The Chairman ; Do you mean u class of ratepayers ? Freeman: No. The case I am putting is a case of owners and occupiers. The Chairman : The principle is quite clear, and settled by many decisions, that owners stand in a different position from ordinary ratepayers, and if they allege that their rights are interfered with by what is proposed to be done, they have been allowed a loctis standi. Freeman : In the London County Cmmcil [General Pourrs] mil, 1893 {infra p. 290), it was proposed to impose restrictions upon low lying lands, so as to prevent persons building upon those lands except with the consent of the county council. Certain bodies petitioned against the bill on the ground that they were the owners of lands which would be affected. The petitioners were all ratepayers within the district but their locus standi as owners was allowed. We do not ask for a locus standi under S. 0. 134, but to be heard as owners of property which will be injuriously affected by these clauses. The objection to individuals appearing as ratepayers against a bill promoted by a local board, is that they are bound by the seal of their authority, but we, as owners of the land, are affected indi- vidually, and not as ratepayers. This bill proposes in many respects to alter the existing law in such a manner as to cause great domage to the petitioners, and we are therefore entitled to a locus standi. The Chaibman : If the substance of the bill is correctly stated in the petition, I do not 278 COURT OP REFEREES. rVoL. I. think we need trouble you further, we will hear the promoters. Pembroke Stephens, Q.O. (for promoters) : The point raised in this case is a very important one. In the petition no individual case of injury is alleged, but merely injury to a class, and, therefore, if these petitioners are allowed a locus standi then any number of owners who simply refer to certain clauses in a bill, and allege generally that they will be injured without alleging specific injury, wiU have a right to a locus standi. The contention of the petitioners is far too wide. The distinction drawn by the Court between the cases of owners and rate- payer is this, that a ratepayer, who elects the corporation, is represented by the corporation for all purposes, and therefore cannot be heard to complain of the act of the corporation, but an owner who does not elect the corporation, not being represented by it, has a right to be heard if that body proposes to do anything to his injury. The distinction between the case of a corporation and a local .board is that a corporation is elected by the ratepayers and a local board is elected by owners as well as ratepayers, and therefore owners are as much represented by a local board as ratepayers. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : This bill proposes an alteration of the general law, amongst other alterations, by thro^ving the expense of altering sewers upon owners instead of upon the general district rate, and the question is whether, under the circumstances, the owners have not a right to be heard. Stephens : I admit if the petition alleged specific injury to a particular man by a certain clause, then he would have a right to be heard. If the petition alleges that owners are affected by this bill in a different capacity from the general body of ratepayers they are heard, but not merely because they are owners. The other reason why I submit that the petitioners are not entitled to be heard is that since this bill was promoted there has" been a. meeting of owners and ratepayers, at which they could have attended and voted, and they are therefore bound by the result of that meeting. The Chaieman : That meeting was called in pursuance ,of Leeman's Act (35 and 36 Vict., c. 91) relating to the application of borough funds, the purpose of that Act being to authorise a corporation or local board to promote a bill and expend the rates in pro- moting a bill. An owner is not prevented in any way by this meeting having been held from petitioning against a bill and alleging that by the increased taxation the value of his property will be diminished. Stephens : I agree, but what 1 submit is that a number of petitioners allege that they are prejudicially affected by the clauses generally of a bill, and without specifying which par- ticular clauses affect particular petitioners, are not entitled to be heard against the preamble. There is no decided case in which owners alleging generally that they will be injuriously affected have been granted a locus standi against a local board. The petitioners do not show how they are individually affected, and I submit are not, according to the practice of this Court, entitled to be heard. The Chairman : The locus standi is allowed. The! petitioners are not admitted qufi rate- payers, but because they are owners, some of them as occupiers being owners of leasehold property. Locus Standi Allowed. Agent for Petitioners, J. C. Ball. Petition of (2) The London Codntt Council. Local Board District adjoining Metropolis — Bill for Special Powers as to Local Government — London County Council — Claim for Uniformity of Legislation — District discharging Sewage into County Council's Sewers— Hornsey Local Board Act, 1871 — Internal Administration — Separate Jurisdiction — S. 0. 134i). (County Council alleged to he- injuriously affected by Bill) — Metropolis Managements Acts — Public Health Act, 1875 — Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876— Poor Laio Act, 1879. The London County Council by their petition alleged that they and the inhabitants of their county would be injuriously affected by the bill, and claimed to be heard under S. O. 134b. After reciting some of their powers under the Metropolis Management Acts as to streets, they in effect objected to the provisions of the bill as being different from what was the law as to local government in the administrative county of London, pointing out that not only did the Hornsey district adjoin the boundary of the county, but that a portion of it projected into the county. They urged that this was an additional reason for uniformity of legislation in the adjoining parts of the two districts, and as a further Part III.] HORNSEY LOCAL BOAED BILL. 279 argament stated that the sewage of Hornsey was in part dealt with by them (the petitioners) in the main drainage system of London and that the bill might affect the existing arrangement as to it between them- selves and the Hornsey local board. They further stated that an urgent necessity existed^ or the rectification of the boundary of the county of Loudon so as , amongst other alterations of local areas, to include por- tions of Hornsey within it. It appeared however that the purposes of the bill were entirely for internal arrangement, and made no alteration in the existing arrange- ment between the county council and the local board as to sewerage and drainage, and that, as stated in the notice of objec- tions, the London County Council had no interest or jurisdiction within the area of the Hornsey local board : Held, that under these circumstances the pe- titioners were not entitled to be heard against the bill. The locus standi of petitioners (2) was ob- jected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition does not allege or show, nor is it the fact that any land, house property, right or interest of the petitioners wiU be or can be taken or affected under the powers of the bUl or in consequence of the execution thereof ; (2) the bill relates only to the local govern- ment district of Hornsey, and the petitioners have no jurisdiction or interest therein, and neither the petitioners nor the inhabitants of the county of London wiU be affected by the provisions of the bill ; (3) the allegations contained in the petition as to the transfer of portions of the parish of Hornsey to the county of London, and as to the rectification of boundaries and re-arrangement of areas relate to matters outside the scope of the bill, and the petitioners are not entitled to be heard in relation thereto; (4) the position of the petitioners with regard to dealing with the sewage of the Hornsey district is not altered by the bill, and none of the provisions of Part II. or of Part IV. of the bill in any way affect the petitioners, nor can such provisions be exercised so as to injuriously affect the in. habitants of their district ; (5) the bill does not contain any provision affecting the petitioners ; (6) the petition does not allege or show that the petitioners have, nor have they, in fact, any such interest in the objects and provisions of the bill as entitles them to be heard against it. Freeman (for petitioners (2) ) ; The bill pro- vides new legislation for Hornsey on many matters, amongst others, street regulation, sewerage and sanitary provisions, entirely in- consistent with the legislation under the county council, which, owing to the fact that the Hornsey district projects into the county of London, is applicable to parts of the same property, and even houses, as well as to parts of the same streets, and the petitioners therefore ask, as a matter of public convenience, that they should be allowed a locus standi, so that they may point out to the Committee the desirability of uniformity in legislation with regard to these two districts, which are not divided by any natural boundary, but by a purely artificial line passing in- some cases through the middle of houses and buildings. There is now an application before the Local Gov- ernment board to rectify the frontier of the district of the administrative county of London, by separating from Hornsey part of the district to which the provisions of this bill will apply, and therefore we ask for a locus standi in order that we may have some voice in the regulation of a district which may shortly be included in the administrative county of London. Another reason the peti- tioners ask to be heard is that the main sewers of London are constructed to take a certain quantity of sewage, and we are by arrangement bound to take part of the sewage of the Hornsey district, and under this bill the sewage which is to come into those main sewers might be largely increased. Under the Hornsey Local Board Act, 1871, part of the sewage of Hornsey goes into the high level sewers, in respect of which clause 20 applies and limits the amount of sewage to be discharged, but a very large portion of the Hornsey sewage goes to the Hackney sewers, not under that Act, and as to that portion of the sewage there is absolutely no limit, and under the bill I contend that the proportion of sewage sent via Hackney and Islington into the metro- politan sewers might be greatly increased. These are matters in which we are vitally interested, and the bill proposes to create different legislation on one side' of this artificial boundary from what there is onthe other, and not only does it impose new restrictions as to many matters, but in many instances the bill seeks to vary the Public Health Acts. Mr. Healy : Can you refer the Court to any decision in a similar case ? Freeman : No, I base my case on the ground of general convenience. There are a great 280 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. number of details in the bill, and it is as regards those details that we ask to be allowed to be heard to advise the Committee, and leave them to deal with the matter. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : You seem to claim a locus standi under S. O. 134b, which gives the Court discretion to grant a locus. In the Lea Valley Drainage Bill, 1892 (Rickards and Saunders, 202), the county council were granted a locus standi, but that was rather a stronger case than the present. Freeman : It is in the discretion of the Court to grant us a locus standi if it considers that it is for the general interests that we should be heard. Mr. Healy: This bill does not affect the sewage communication between London and Hornsey. It only relates to sewage in Hornsey itself, as to connecting the houses with the drains in Hornsey. Freeman: Everything done in these sewers in Hornsey would affect the petitioners, because they receive the contents. Pembroke Stephens, Q.C. (for promoters) : The only reason on which the petitioners ask to be heard is because they desire uniformity, but the legislature has itself created an absence of uniformity in the two districts, for the Public Health Act operates in Hornsey, whereas it does not operate in the metropolis. Every- thing we seek to do under this bill and all the jurisdiction we shall exercise is entirely within our own area, and the petitioners have no right to interfere with matters which are outside the area, over which they have juris- diction. We are doing nothing by this bill which will in any way change the status of the London County Council. The rectification of our district would not be made under this bill, but under the Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876, and the Poor Law Act, 1879. Then, on the question of drainage, the petitioners are in no way injuriously affected. This matter, so far as the petitioners are concerned, was settled by sects. 17 and 20 of the Hornsey Local Board Act, 1871, and we are in no way whatever disturbing the arrangement then arrived at. The Chairman : At the present time a certain low lying portion of Hornsey drains into the sewers at Islington. In this case we are dealing with important sanitary questions in the interests of the public, and if under the Standing Order the county council takes the responsibility of asserting that the interests of their area would wholly or in part be pre- . judicially affected, unless they are allowed to be heard, then unless this petition is frivolous, or they have no possible reasonable ground on which they can say that they will be injured, prima facie they ought to be heard. Stephens : I submit their remedy is elsewhere. We either have a right to drain through Islington or we have not, and this bill in no way affects this matter. The Hornsey local board by this bill are merely asking for provisions for improving the house drains within their own district, and there is nothing in the bill which alters the status of Hornsey as against the outside districts, and this is merely an attempt by the petitioners to obtain an alteration of the Hornsey Local Board Act, 1871, to which they were parties. The Lea Valley Drainage Bill, 1892, was a very different bUl to the present. It proposed, amongst other things, to constitute a body of Commissioners, with powers to divert and widen portions of the Lea and for other purposes. The county council in that case alleged that the effect of the carrying out of these works might be to affect the lower portion of the river Lea within the county, and they contended that the management and preservation of the Lea above London was a matter of such vital importance to the inhabitants of London that they ought to be represented on the commission proposed to be constituted by the bill, and they were under those circumstances allowed a locus standi. In the present case the provisions as to drainage affect only the house drainage in the district of Hornsey. Mr. Bonham-Cakteh : As I understand the sewage of Hornsey is connected with the main drainage system, and its sewage in bulk is taken into the main drainage system of London. Stephens : And in respect of that we make a payment, and we are limited in quantity. The Chairman : As regards the claim of the petitioners to a locus standi based on the ground that there should be uniformity of legislation in these adjoining districts we are not disposed, as at present advised, to consider that to be a ground of locus standi ; but as to the main drainage of London, which it is of vital impor- tance should not be interfered with, the petitioners claim that the powers as to sewers and drains among other matters should not be exercised in any manner which may injuriously affect the inhabitants of the county of London, and they allege that their district will be pre- judicially affected unless they are heard. It is to that limited point we would ask you to address yourself. Stephens : Part II., of the bill deals with this matter and begins with clause 6, which is only a slight variation of the PubUc Health Act, 1875, and throws upon the individual owner the onus, at his own expense, of making the Part III.] 281 alteration to the drainage therein provided. This does not affect any persons outside the Hornsey district. Clause 7 is only an extension of the same idea under the Hornsey Local Board Act, 1871. The petitioners are to take the sewage and we are to keep out our storm water, and the provision enables us effectually to carry out what we are now under an obliga- tion to do. Sir Geokge Eussell : I, at all events, and I think some other members of the Court, look upon the county council as being, in the matter of drainage, the central authority. It would probably be prejudicial to the interests of London at lajrge that the system of sewage should be dealt with sectionaUy, and therefore it is a matter of importance that the petitioners as guardians of the entire area should have a voice as. to the sewage arrangements of one particular district being so laid out as to fit in with the general system of drainage for the entire metropolis. Stephens : We are not within the county of London, and this is not a bOl for the purpose of making any change in the system of sewage at all. If we proposed to alter the existing arrangement by making a new sewer, and to make a junction for the first time with the London sewers, the petitioners might have a right to be heard. The Chaikman : Is it not the fact that in Hornsey it is proposed under this bill to do something which is not done at present, viz., to separate the surface drainage from the sewage proper ? Stephens : No, we are already under obliga- tions to do this by the Act of 1871, and Under the provisions of the Public Health Act we have constructed a duplicate system of drains so as to keep separate sewage and surface waters. This bill only provides for an alteration of the connections between houses and the existing dupKcate drains. Mr. EoDNDELL : Ton are only seeking to regulate in a better way the existing system without interfering with the main drainage system ? Stephens : Yes, that is so. The remaining clauses are merely machinery clauses, and do not provide for the re-arrangement of sewage matters with the county councO, and they have no right to be heard against the bOl. The Chaibman: If we were satisfied that there was anything in the bill which would prejudicially affect the area of the county council we would be disposed to be very liberal in considering their right to a locus standi, but the Court is satisfied that what is proposed to be done is reaUy for the purpose of enabliog the local board the better to perform their duty within its domestic area. The locus standi is therefore disallowed. Locus Standi Disallowed accordingly. Agent for Petitioners, H. L. Crijips. Agents for Bill, liccs d: Frcre. LEEDS CORPOEATION (CONSOLIDA- TION AND IMPEOVEMENT) BILL. Petition of The National Telephone Company, Limited. 9th March, 1893.— (.Be/ore 2Ir. Shikess Will, Q.C., M.P., Chairman; Mr. P-ABKek-Smith, J/.P. ; J/r. EouNDELL, J/.P. ; Mr. Healy, M.P. ; and The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C.) Consolidation Bill for Borcmgh Improvement — Additional Proviaion Enabling Corporation to Work Tramways — S. 0. 171 {No Powers to be Given to Local Authorities to Place oi- Run Carriages upon Tramways'] — Telephone Company — Injurious Affecting by Induction and Leakage of Electrical Currents — Tramways Already Worked by Electricity by Lessees of Corporation — Electrical Poioer Authorised by Existing Acts. The bill was one for the consolidation of the local Acts in force within the borough of Leeds, but it was proposed, on a petition for additional provisions, to insert in it a clause empowering the corporation themselves to work certain tramways constructed by them within the borough, under powers conferred upon them by the Leeds Corpora- tion Tramways Order, 1888, upon similar conditions to those required by Standing Order 171. Sect. 16 of the Tramways Order of 1888 had authorised the use of electricity as a motive power upon the tramways constructed under the Order, and some of the tramways were at the present time worked by electricity by the lessees of the corporation, to the injury, as alleged, of the telephones belonging to the petitioners, who now claimed to be heard in respect of the provisions of the bill which would authorise the corporation in certain events themselves to work the tramways by electricity. On behalf of 282 COURT OP REFEREES. [Vol. I. the promoters it was urged that the petitioners would be in no worse position in the event of the corporation themselves working the tramways by electricity than they were at the present time When the tramways were so worked by the lessees of the corporation, and that the complaint of the petitioners was really a complaint against the use of electricity on the tramways which had been authorised by the Tramways Order of 1888 : Held, however, that the petitioners were entitled to be heard against the additional clause empowering the corporation under certain circumstances to work the tram- ways themselves. [Blackpool Im^irovement Bill, 1892 {Richards & Saunders, 167), cited and followed.] The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following gromids ; (1) no lands or property of the petitioners will be taken or interfered with under the powers of the bill, nor will any right or interest of the petitioners be prejudicially afifected thereby ; (2) the petitioners are not incorporated by Act of Parliament and have no public duties to perform, nor have they any right to erect and place wires over, along, or across public streets, and are only permitted to do so by sufferance or agreement ;' (3) the bill does not authorise the construction of any new or extended tram- ways, but merely authorises the corporation to work tramways for the time being vested in them in certain events ; (4) the bOl does not seek to alter the existing powers of the corpora- tion or their lessees in regard to motive power ; (5) in regard to paragraph 5 of the petition the promoters allege that the injury complained of in regard to their lines might have been obviated by the formation of a complete metallic circuit or some other method; (6) moreover the matters set forth in paragraph 5 have been adjudicated upon by the High Court, and it would be unjust if the position of the litigants were altered by any amendment of the law by local Act of Parliament ; (7) the promoters deny the truth of the aUegatiou contained in paragraph 6 of the petition, and allege that at the time the bill for confirming the Order of 1888 was pending in Parliament, the general state of knowledge in regard to the effect on telephone communications from electricity produced as a motive power was fully understood, and that the petitioners ought to have made their complaint when that bill was before Parliament. Their present complaint is therefore a complaint in regard to past legislation, upon which they are not entitled to be heard ; (8) the petition does not disclose any ground of objection to the biU which, according to the practice of Parliament, entitles the petitioners to be heard against the bUl. Cripps, Q.C. (for petitioners) : This is a bill to consolidate with amendments the local Acts in force within the county borough of Leeds, but the promoters propose to insert certain new clauses on a petition for additional provisions. Of the new clauses clause A empowers the corporation, under certain circumstances, to themselves work tramways constructed by them under the Leeds Corporation Tramways Order, 1888. Sub-sects. 1 and 2 of clause A are as follows : (1) " If at any time the corporation are unable to demise the tramways for the time being vested in them or any of such tramways upon such terms as in the opinion of the Board of Trade will yield to the corporation an adequate rent therefor, the Board of Trade may grant a licence to the corporation to work such tramways, and the corporation may thereupon work the same and may provide such plant, materials, and things as may be requisite or convenient therefor, and in such case the several provisions herein- before contained relating to the working of the said tramways and the taking of tolls and charges therefor, shall extend and apply mutatis mutandis to and in relation to the corporation ; (2) provided that if at any time, during such working by the corporation, any company or person make to the corporation a tender in writing to take a lease of and to work the said tramways for such period (not being less than seven years, unless the corporation shall otherwise agree) at such rent and upon such terms and conditions as shall, in the opinion of the Board of Trade be adequate and proper, and such company or person at the same time offer to purchase the horses, cars, engines, machines, and fixed and moveable tramway plant of the corporation, not included in such lease, at a price to be fixed, unless otherwise agreed on, between such company or person and the corporation by a competent valuer to be appointed by the Board of Trade, then upon payment of such price the corpora- tion shall demise the said tramways to such company or person at such rent and upon such terms and conditions, and during the con- tinuance of that demise the powers of the corporation to work the said tramways shall Part III.] LEEDS OOTil'ORATION, ETC., RIIJ, 283 ooaso." 'riioii Hiib-soots. 8 aud 4 of ^tlio olaiiao ompowor the oorporiitiou to lun-row tlio iioooasary_ mouoy foi' tlio pui'ohaso of laiulsi, buildings, and plant, for tlio piivposo of tho tramways, and to apply the roooipta from the tramways, aftor payment of intci'uHt on tho money bovrowod, and the ciroatiim of a HinUing finul, to tho (,i\|)onso8 of worliiiiR and mainlauiiug the tramways. In our politiou wo allo^o that, " By ohiiiso 10 of the Leeds Oorporalion Tramways Order, IHHS, which was iHinlirmod by Parliament, it is pro- vidod that tho carriages on tho tramways autlioriaod by that Order to bo ooustnioted by tho corporation may bo moved by moans of haulage with wire, ropes or other appliances placed underground, or by moans of electrical power, pnoiimatic power, steam power, or any mcohauioal power. The Order contains duo lirovisiou for tho protection of the tolegraphie lines oi' the Postmaster-General in the event of any tramways of the eorporation being worked by olootricity, but the Order contains no provisions for the protection of the electric liiioH iiiul works of other companies or persons. The polilionera are a company carrying on a lar^e and iiioreaaiug business under licence from the Postmastor-Goueral for a long term of yearn, in supplying telephonic oommunioa- lion to tho publio by means of tho telephone oxelianf,'e system, and also by means of private lines in an area inoliiding the said county borough of Leeds. The said tramways lie entirely within the said area. Your petitioners are the owiums of many electric lines and works in tho immediate neighbourhood of the said tramways most of which lines are con- nected with their said exehango system. Certain of tho tramways constructed under the powers of the said Order as aforesaid have been worked by the lessees of the eorporation by electrical power, and have been so worked without proper precautions to pre- vent induction and leakage, and as a rosult of this improper mode of working, the powerful electric currents employed have most seriously interfered with the oleotrio currents used in >cnir petitioners' telephone circuits, and with the communication through tho wires. This cfl'ect has been produoeil not only in wires in immediate proximity to the oirouita used for the purpose of worldng the said tramways, but also in wires at a con- siderable distance. Your petitioners have thereby been put to serious expense and in- convenionoe, and have been and are unable to give to the publio the facilities of telephonic communication whioli are required, and which they oonld otherwise have afforded, and have thus been ham|H!, Q.C. (for promoters) ; The petitioners are certainly not entitled to a general lociia staitiU enabling them to go into the question as to tho effect of electric power upon their telephones, for the additional pro- vision does not seek to alter present legislation as to the use of electrical power already authorised by tho thdcr of 18SS upon the corporation's tramways with regard to tho corporation's lessees, and moreover it is only in the event, which nuiy never happen, of the corporation working tho tramways themselves that this question can ever arise. Mr. CnANDOs-LisiGu : This same provision was inserted in the Blackpool bill last year, and wo allowed the petitioners a locus standi 284 COURT OF REPEEEES. [Vol. I. against it. It was inserted for the first time in the Huddersfield Corporation Bill, 1882. Stephens : In the Blackpool case clauses 56 and 57 empowered the corporation of Blackpool to purchase the buildings, carriages and plant used in working certain tramways as if the corporation were a new company, but there is no such provision in the present case. The petitioners found their right to be heard on clause A of the additional provision, but- it contains nothing which wiU in any way alter their position for the worse. It merely provides that the cor- poration, instead of being lessors of tramways may become their own lessees, and may do pre- cisely the same things that the lessees may now do, and if the event provided for does not arise, and the matter is left as it is now with power to the lessees to work the tramways by electricity, the position of the petitioners will remain the same as fixed by existing legisla- tion, against which they cannot now be heard. I submit that there is nothing in this bill which affects the petitioners, and that at any rate they are not entitled, even on the assumption that the corporation m9.y be going to work these tramways themselves, to any wider locus standi than the Court has always given in cases of this nature. The Chaieman: The locus standi is allowed against clause A of the clauses proposed to be inserted by way of additional provision. Agents for Petitioner, Martin (& Leslie. Agents for Bill, Sharpe t£- Co. way Company — Railways Clauses Consolida- tion Act, 1845, s. 77 [Working of Mines\. LONDON AND NOBTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. Petition of The Salt Union, Limited. 17th April, 1893.— (Sc/orc Mr. Shieess Will, Q.C., M.P.; Si/- Geoege Russell, Jl/.P. ; Mr. EouNDELL, M.P. ; Mr. Paekee-Smith, 3I.P. ; and the Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C.) Railway Sidings and Widening — Acquisition of Lands — Trade Association — Salt Union — Re- strictive Covenants with Owners of Lands against Salt Working — Interests of Petitioners in Land — Alleged Interference with Covenants by Bill — Protective Clause inOnginal Act for Construction of Railway — Claim for Extension of Clause to proposed Widening — Exception of Minerals from Conveyance of Land to Rail- Clause 19 of the bill empowered the promoters to acquire compulsorily (among other lands) certain lands adjoining a portion of their railway, originally constructed and known as the Grand Junction railway, which ran through the salt districts of Cheshire. The petitioners were the Salt Union, con- sisting, as they alleged in their petition, of the largest manufacturers of salt and users of rook salt and brine in the kingdom, and owning works for the manufacture of brine in various parts of Cheshire. They stated that it was the practice of the Salt Union to enter into agreements with owners of land in the proximity of their works, by which the owners covenanted not to erect salt works upon, or let for that purpose, land in the proximity of the works and pumping shafts of members of the Salt Union, and further covenanted that in the event of an offer being made for the purchase of such lands for salt works, they would give notice of such offer to the members of the Salt Union interested in the lands, who would have a prior option of purchase of the lauds on the terms offered. The petitioners alleged that some of the lands sought to be acquired under clause 19. of the bill for railway sidings and widening were subject to agreements containing those restrictive covenants, which would however, they con- tended, be rendered inoperative if the lands were compulsorily acquired by the promoters, and they further contended that clause 19 was in violation of a clause inserted in the original Act (3 Will. IV., i;. 34) for the construction of the Grand Junction railway now sought to be widened by the promoters under the bill, which Act contained a section for the protection of the salt workers expressly prohibiting the railway company from getting or removing brine or rook salt in or under any of thS lands ac- quired by them for the purposes of their railway ; and the petitioners urged that the protection afforded them by that Part III.] London and north-western railway bill. 285 section should be extended to the additional lands scheduled under the bill. Contra, it was objected by the promoters that the petitioners had no such interest in the lands scheduled under the bill as to entitle them to be heard, and that in any case they were protected by sect. 77 of the Railways Clauses ConsoUdation Act", 1845, which excepted all minerals from a conveyance of land to a railway company, unless the same should have been expressly pur- chased : Held, that the petitioners had such an interest in the lands sought to be compnlsorily acquired under clause 19 of the bill as to entitle them to be heard against that clause, and so much of the preamble as related to it. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) it is not alleged in the petition, nor is it the fact, that any lands belonging to the petitioners will or can be taken or acquired under the powers of the bill ; (2) the petitioners have not any such interest in any of the lauds to be acquired under the powers of the bill as to entitle them, according to the practice of Parliament, to be heard against the bill ; (3) the bill does not confer upon the promoters any such powers as stated in paragraph 6 of the petition, and even if the petitioners have any rights or interests in any salt or brine under the lands referred to in the petition (which the promoters do not admit) the petitioners are not entitled, according to the practice of Parliament, to be heard in respect thereof against the bUl, inasmuch as the rights of the petitioners are amply protected by the provisions of the Railways Clauses Consolida- tion Act, 1845, with respect to mines and minerals which are incorporated with the biU ; (4) the petitioners are not entitled to be heard in respect of the matters referred to in para- graph 7 of the petition, which are matters of past legislation and are in no way affected by the bill, and the bill confers no powers, and contains no provisions empowering the pro- moters to remove brine to other districts or to work salt or brine under the lands to be acquired by them, or to lay pipes or to construct ducts or other works for conveying brine into other districts ; (5) the petition discloses no grounds upon which, according to the practice of Parliament, the petitioners are entitled to be heard against the bOl. Freeman (for petitioners) : This is an omnibus bOl. The petition is headed: "The humble petition of the Salt Union, Limited, of Salters' Hall-court, Cannon-street, in the City of London." The petitioners are the largest manu- facturers of salt and users of rock salt and brine in the kingdom, and have expended very large sums of money in acquiring lands and easements and rights to acquire lands and get and use rock salt and brine, and in erecting works for the manufacture of brine in various parts of the county of Chester, and they object to that portion of clause 19 which gives the promoters power for the widening of their railway to acquire, " in the county of •Chester, certain lands in the townships of Wharton and Moulton, in the parish of Davenham, lying on the north-east side of and adjoining the company's Grand Junction railway between a point 420 yards or there- abouts south-east of Winsford junction, and the public road which passes under the said railway at the Newbridge salt works." We are owners of very large salt works in this district, and in other parts. The system by which salt is obtained is this : the rain-water percolates through the surface of the land on to the rook salt below, and the brine thereby formed, which runs in channels underneath, is tapped by shafts sunk in the ground and pumped up and allowed to evaporate and then sold, and therefore it is necessary to acquire rights in respect of a very large portion of land so as to draw salt from underneath. We have a system of what is called protecting fields, that is to say, we agree with the landowner to pay him for a number of years a rental in order that we may' have the first option of taking the land for salt working. In respect of the lands in question there are two agreements with the landowner — by the first he agrees for 28 years not to let the land or permit any person to work salt there^trom, and by the second he agrees with the Salt Union that if he has any offer for the land for salt working he will communicate to the Salt Union the terms of such offer, and that if they are willing he will let it to them on the same terms, in priority of anybody else. For this agreement we pay the landowner a substantial sum of money. Some of the lands scheduled to the bill are subject to these restrictive covenants. The Chairman: Are these covenants on the part of the landowner, which run with the land, so as to bind his successor ? Freeman : That is my contention. Our first objection is that it will be possible for the promoters to obtain the salt under the lands they propose to take for widening their railway, 286 COUET OF EEFEREES. [Vol. I. although under the Bailway Clauses Act, 1845, a railway company does not acquire minerals with land unless they expressly purchase them, as the method of obtaining salt is by sinking shafts and thereby pumping up water charged with salt, which is not " minerals " within the meaning of the Act. The railway company would be entitled to do this. Further, should some of these lands become superfluous lands the promoters could sell them free from any restrictions that they are now under, and the person who bought them would be entitled to work the salt lying beneath them, he having acquired the rights over the surface, whereas at the present time the agreements between ourselves and the landowner prevent this from being done. We submit that we have, therefore, on this ground, such an interest in this land as entitles us to a landowner's locus standi. The second ground on which we ask to be heard is in order that we may get a protective clause inserted in the bill similar to that which has always been inserted in bills on former occasions by which a railway company obtained powers to take lands for constructing a railway through this salt district. The land which is now required by the promoters is for widening and enlarging a railway formerly known as the Grand Junction railway, which is now the property of the London and North-Western railway com- pany. Sect. 157 of the Act of 1833 (3 Will. IV., cap. 34), by which the Grand Junction railway was authorised, saves the rights of salt owners by the following provi- sion: " Provided also, and be it enacted, that the said company hereby established, their successors or assigns, or their agents or servants, or any other person by them authorised or employed, shall not sink for, raise or get any brine or rock salt in or out of any of the lands or grounds which shall have been or shall be set out and ascertained for the purposes of the said railway, except what may be necessarily raised or gotten in the making and maintaining of the said railway and works nor carry nor convey in pipes, troughs or soughs to be laid in upon or under any part of the said lands or grounds any brine for the making of salv or permit any other person or persons so to do or erect or make any buildings for the making or manufacture of salt in or upon such lands or grounds, but shall be and are herebv restrained from doing any of the acts, matters or things aforesaid." A similar clause was nserted in the Act whereby the West Cheshire railway was authorised in 1861. In 1884 the promoters endeavoured to repeal this clause and to substitute for it a less stringent one, but the bill was opposed by the salt workers and rejected by Parliament. The promoters seek by this bill to extend the same line as was authorised by the Grand Junction Bailway Act, 1833, by a widening, but they do not propose to extend the protective clause to these lands, and, therefore, the protection given us by Parliament as regards the original line will be valueless, because the promoters could put down a pipe in the additional land ac- quired by them under this bill and convey the brine away. If the promoters had sought by this bill to repeal the protective clause given us in respect of the piece of line they now seek to widen, we should have had an un- doubted right to a locus standi ; and they now seek by not extending the clause to the lands they propose to take for the widening of their line to effect the same purpose by rendering nugatory the protective clause, which Parlia- ment has given us. We submit that we are, therefore, entitled to be heard to ask for the same protection in respect of these lands as Parliament has on two former occasions granted us under like circumstances. Pope, Q.C. (for promoters) : The petitioners do not allege in the petition that they are landowners, but merely that they are interested in portions of the lands proposed to be taken, having acquired valuable rights over and under the same in respect of their business as manu- facturers of salt under agreements with the freeholders of such lands. The petitioners have not the smallest surface right over any of this land. (The petitioners here produced a copy of the conveyance, and called evidence to prove that it was a true copy of the original, the same was admitted by the promoters and read.) Poj)e .- This conveyance merely contains a covenant restraining the freeholder from parting with his land to someone else for the purpose of salt making without first giving the petitioners the option of purchasing it, which option is only to be given if the application of the land has reference to the salt which is under it, but it does not give the petitioners any right over the surface. Under this bill we propose to acquire a strip of land for the purpose of a railway siding and for widening the line, and this land not now being subject to the restrictive clause contained in former Acts we do not propose to make it subject thereto, but we do not interfere at all with the bperation of that restrictive clause over every other part of the line. We only get the conveyance of the land subject to the obligation, and we can only use this land for railway purposes, and if we have to sell any of it as surplus lands we could not convey more than we got, and we Part IIT.] London and- souTif-WESi'ERN railway bill. 287 could only convey subject to the rights, if any, of other people not inconsistent with the pur- poses of a railway, for which we acquire the land. The sale would be subject to the rights existing at the time of our purchase of the land. The Chaikman : The petitioners allege that you may sell this land as surplus land to the adjoining owner, and that he may then use it for any purpose. Pope : We purchase the laud but we do not purchase the salt or minerals, and our sale of surplus lands must comprise only the sale of that which it conveyed to us under our com- pulsory powers. A railway company does not acquire any minerals in a conveyance of land for railway purposes except by an express pro- vision in the conveyance. That is dealt with by sect. 77 of the Railways Clauses Act, 1845, which is as follows : — " The company shall not be entitled to any mines of coal, u-onstone, slate, or any other minerals under any land purchased by them, except only such parts thereof as shall be necessary to be dug or carried away or used in the construction of the works, unless the same shall have been expressly purchased ; and all such mines, excepting as aforesaid, shall be deemed to be excepted out of the conveyance of such lands, unless they shall have been expressly named therein and conveyed thereby." Freeman : The railway company would have compulsory power under this bill to purchase the land, and the restriction would, therefore, be absolutely gone. Pope : We only purchase it subject to exist- ing interests, or subject to our compensating them. Mr. Chakdos-Leigh : The petitioners contend that the promoters could sell this land as sur- "plus land, and that the purchaser would have the right to make salt works upon it. Pope : We buy this land subject to the res- trictive covenant as to salt works being erected upon it. If our user of the land were incon- sistent with that covenant then we should have to compensate the petitioners, but if it is not inconsistent, then their covenant remains for what it is worth, though we may acquire the land. The Chairman : When a railway company take land they take it absolutely, except the minerals, which are reserved unless they ex- pressly purchase them, and they have to com- pensate every interest in that land, and having had to compensate every interest, they take the land subject to no restriction whatever. Pope : We cannot, by buying the land for railway pm'poses annihilate the restrictive covenant made with the original owner of the land that he will not let his land for salt works, although I contend this is not a covenant which runs with the land. The Chairman : It is an agreement with the landowner who binds himself, his heirs, or assigns, and in consideration of which he receives a sum of money. It seems, therefore, to me, that it is a covenant which runs with the laud. Pope ; Then it must bind us, so far as it is not inconsistent with the pm-poses for which we acquire this land. The Chaikman : No, for the company wipe it out by compensation, and the question arises whether the petitioners have an interest in that. Pope : If they have an interest in a covenant running with the land that does not entitle them to a landowner's locus standi ; for they do not allege in their petition that they claim as landowners. If the Court is against me on this point I need not argue the other points taken by the petitioners. The Chatkman : Everyonewhohas an interest in land has a landowner's locus standi; and the petitioners allege that they have acquired valuable rights over and under this land. The Court are of opinion that the locus standi of the petitioners should be disallowed, except as re- gards the particular paragraph of clause 19, which takes power to acquire these lauds, against which they are entitled to be heard to ask for protection. Locus Standi Disallowed except as against clause 19, and so much of the preamble as relates thereto. Agents for Petitioners, Bush & Go. Agents for BiU, Shenoood cO Co. LONDON & SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. Petition of Ratepayeks or Southampton. 17th April, 1893.— (Be/ore 21r. Shikbss Will, Q.C., M.P., Chairman; Sir Geokge Russell, M.P. ; Mr. Paekee - Smith, M.P. ; Mr. RouNDELL, M.P. ; and the Hon. E. Chaneos- Leigh, Q.C.) Construction of Dock by Railway Compamj— Sale of Mud-lands on Foreshore by Municipal Corporation to Company — Individual Rate- payers and Burgesses — Representation — Con- struction of Footpath for Promenade on Sea-Front of Dock under previous Act — Bill u 2 288 COURT Of RBFEBEES. [Vol. I. alleged to he in violation of Act — Kxpiry of Powers of Act. The bill, iHtcr aZia, empowered the promoters to construct a dock with quays and an em- bankment, and for that purpose to pur- chase from the corporation of Southampton certain mud-lands forming part of the bed and shore of Southampton water, an agree- ment for the purchase of which lands had been already entered into by the promoters and the corporation, and was given effect to by the bill. A clause in this agreement pro- vided that the railway company should not on any portion of the mud-lands construct, or permit to be constructed, any public promenade. The petitioners, who were a number of individuals petitioning as ratepayers and bur- gesses of Southampton, objected that the above clause in the agreement pro- hibiting the construction of a promenade was in violation of an obhgation created by an Act obtained by the Southampton docks company in 1843 (6 cfe 7 Vict., cap. 65), and preserved by the Southampton Docks Act, 1871, that the Southampton docks company should construct a, free promenade for the public along the sea- front of the docks authorised by those Acts, and they claimed to be heard against the bUl as confirming the agreement already entered into by the corporation with the pro- moters. It appeared however that the powers of the Acts of 1843 and 1871 had subsequently lapsed, and that the lands sought to be acquired by the promoters under the bill were not the same as those to which the obligations to construct a public promenade had been attached, and that the petitioners had no rights or interests as owners or in any way distinct from those of the body of ratepayers of the borough, who were, in the absence of such rights, according to practice of the Court, repre- sented by the corporation, and on the above grounds the locus standi of the petitioners was disallowed. The locus standi of the petitioners was ob- jected to on the following grounds : (1) as regards the matters referred to in paragraphs 9, 10, 11, and 16 of the petition, the petitioners have not, nor have any of them, any individual interest, and only claim to be interested as several burgesses and ratepayers of the town and county of the town of Southampton ; (2) the petitioners do not allege that they are in- habitants of the town and county of the town of Southampton, nor do they sufficiently repre- sent the general body of such inhabitants as, according to the practice of Parliament, to entitle them to be heard against the bill ; (3) the petitioners have not, nor have any of them, such an interest in the lauds referred to in the said paragraphs 9, 10, 11, and 16 of the petition as to entitle them to be heard against the bill ; (4) as regards paragraphs 12, 13, 14, and 15, any right that the petitioners may have in respect of the construction or non-construction of the public sea-wall or promenade referred to in those paragraphs is a right which they possess in common only with the other bur- gesses and ratepayers of the town and county of the town of Southampton, and they do not sufficiently represent that body to entitle them, according to the practice of Parliament, to be heard against the bill ; (5) as regards all the allegations in the petition, the petitioners are represented by the mayor, aldermen, and bur- gesses of the town and county of the town of Southampton ; (6) the bill does not contain any provision affecting the petitioners ; (7) the peti- tion does not allege or show that the petitioners have, nor have they in fact any such interest in the objects and provisions of the bill as en- titles them to be heard against it. Killbij (solicitor and parliamentary agent, for petitioners) : The petition is signed by about 70 persons, the great majority of whom are ratepayers of the borough of Southampton, and the petitioners object to an agreement dated 19th November, 1892, which has been entered into between the corporation and the promoters, which is sought to be given effect to by the bill, and which they allege will in- juriously affect their interests. Clause 5 of the bni authorises the construction of the following works : " (1) A graving dock in the parish of St. Mary, in the town and county of the town of Southampton, on the foreshore ormud-lands of Southampton water, and of the rivers Itchin and Test, or one of them, together with an entrance into the said graving dock from and out of the Empress dock; (2) a quay or re- taining wall in the said parish of St. Mary, commencing at or near the South pierhead of the Empress dock, and extending thence in a south-eastern direction for about 110 yards, thence in a southerly direction (along the Part III. J London and south-western railway bill. 289 western side of the river Itchin), for about 520 yards, thence in a westerly direction for about 65 yards, and thence in a north-westerly direc- tion (along the eastern side of the river Test) for about 500 yards and there terminating ; (3) an embankment in the said parish of St. Mary, commencing at or near the termination of the quay or retaining wall above described, and terminating by a junction with the existing embankment lately belonging to the South- ampton Dock company, and now to the com- pany, on the western side of the Empress dock." By clause 17 of the bill the railway company are empowered to acquire the lands shown on the deposited lands, which are mud-lands forming part of the bed and shore of Southampton water, and vested in the com- pany for the construction of the works authorised by clause 5 of the bill, and by clause 19 it is provided: " The company and the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the town and county of the town of Southampton may from time to time enter into and carry into effect, vary or rescind contracts, agreements or arrangements in relation to the purchase, leasing or exchange of lands." The petitioners are several burgesses and ratepayers of the town and county of the town of Southampton. In an Act obtained by the Southampton Dock company in 1843 a clause was inserted, which became sect. 43 of the Act, providing that a promenade should be constructed along the sea-front of the outer dock, to which the public should have free access for ever, and in each successive Act this clause has been retained, the interests of the public- being assured thereby. By the Southampton Docks Act, 1892, the promoters obtained an Act empowering them to purchase the works of the dock company and they purchased the works under that Act, and the promoters then purchased from the dock company about fifty acres of mud-lands, and the agreement of the 19th November, 1892, was entered into, which expressly provides that the railway company shall not on any portion of the mud-land construct or permit any public promenade, and the corporation have therefore by this agree- ment, to which they are parties, deprived the ratepayers of the right they possessed under the dock company's previous Acts. The Chaibman : Is this agreenlent proposed to be confirmed by the bill ? Pemher, Q.C. (for promoters) : Yes, it is not, at present, in the bill, but it will be scheduled to the bill. The facts are these : In the year 1843, the Southampton Dock Company's Act was passed, enabling the dock company to carry out certain dock works, and for this purpose to take certain lands of the corpora- tion, and a clause was inserted in that Act for the benefit of the corporation to the effect that the dock company should make a promenade round the outside of the land they proposed to enclose along the top of the sea-wall, but those works were not carried out. In the year 1871, the Southampton Docks Act, 1871, was passed, and it is true that that particular clause was preserved, but there was a clause put into that Act which provided that if the works were not carried out within 21 years, the land should revert to the corporation. The works were never carried out, and the laud has now reverted, i.e , in 1892, after the expiration of 21 years, to the corporation. In 1892 the pro- moters purchased the dock undertaking, and they are now not going to carry out those works. This bill has nothing to do with those works or the lands then proposed to be acquired. The promoters have purchased some more land from the corporation of Southampton for the purpose of inaking a graving dock, and the corporation have stipu- lated that on this land the promoters shall not make any promenade. The land which the promoters now purchase is not the land which was subject to the obligations imposed by the Acts of 1843 and 1871, though the approach to the new land will be across a small part of the land which belonged to the dock company in 1843. Mr. -CHANDOS-LEiaH : Before 1871 was there any public right there ? Pemher : No. I shall, if necessary, as a second ground for disallowing the locus standi of the petitioners, also argue that this petition is signed by only a very small number of persons, some of whom are not even ratepayers, out of a population of 65,000, none of whom have any special reasons giving them as individuals a right to appear against the common seal. Killby : The corporation I contend neglected to discharge their duties to the ratepayers by enforcing the provisions of the Dock Acts, which provided for a promenade round the docks, and I submit that we are entitled to a locus standi in order that we may inform Parlia- ment how the corporation have neglected their duty, and to insist that the London and South- western railway company shall not have the powers which they seek to obtain by, the bill, unless due provision is made for preserving the rights of the ratepayers in respect of this promenade. Sect. 7 of the agreement of 19th November, 1892, provides that the com- pany shall not on any portion of the mud-land construct or permit any public promenade, and was inserted for the express purpose of 290 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. T. annulling the provisions of the Dock Acts which compel the construction of a promenade. Sir Geoeoe Russell : If you admit the state- ment of facts made on behalf of the pro- moters, you are in effect seeking to revive an extinct right, and to apply it to land to which it at no time attached. Killby ; It is immaterial whether this is the particular land or not. It formed part of the whole of the land on which the dock was con- structed. The dock has in fact been enlarged at different times. Sir Geobse Russell : The dock must have been made in accordance with the powers they got by their Acts of 1843 and 1871. Killby : I submit that they were bound to buUd an external dock wall to any dock they constructed under either of the Acts of 1843 or 1871, and to any dock that might be constructed during the 20 years referred to in the Act of 1871. I also submit that it is within the right of any number of ratepayers to come and ask Parliament not to allow the corporation to act in a manner which is inconsistent with the fair and reasonable discharge of their duties, and to oppose the power proposed to be con- ferred on the promoters by this bill. The Chaibman : Is this merely a ratepayer's petition, or does it set up au owner's case ? Pember : The petition is merely that of ratepayers. The Ohaikman : The Locus Standi is Dis- allowed on both the grounds put forward on behalf of the petitioners. Agents for Petitioners, Speechley, Mumford, Landon, & Rodgers. Agents for Bill, Bees (& Frere. LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL [GENERAL POWERS] BILL. Petition (1) of The Goveknodr and Company or THE New Riveb, beought feom Chadwell AND Amwell to London ; the East London Wateewoeks Company ; the Company of Pbopbietoes of Lambeth Wateewoeks ; the Company op Pbopbietoes of the West Middlesex Wateewoeks ; the Geand Junc- tion Wateewoeks Company; the Goveenoub and CoiUPANY op the Chelsea Watebwoeks ; and the Southwabk and Vauxhall Watee Company ; (2) the East London Wateewoeks Company ; and (3) the Kent Wateewoeks Company. 11th April, 1898.— (i?e/ore Mr. Shieess Wilt,, Q.G., M.P., Chairman; Mr. Paekee-Sjiith, M.P. ; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C. ; and Mr. Bonham Cabiee.) London County Council— Metropolitan Water Companies— Conservancy Board of Rivers Thames and Lee— Alteration of Constitution of Boards — Increased Representation of London County Council— Companies taking Water from Thames and Lee— Preservation of Purity of Rivers— Annual Contribution to Conservancy Funds — Petitions of Conservancy Boards against Bill — Representation — Election of Members of Lee Conservancy by Water Companies — Water Enquiries by County Council — Unlimited Power to expend County Rates— Repeal of Existing Acts limiting Expenditure. The bill, inter alia, provided for increasing the number of members of the Thames and Lee conservancy boards, by the election by the London County Council of seven addi- tional members to the Thames conservancy board, and of two additional members to the Lee conservancy board ; and clause 15 of the bill repealed certain sections of the London County Council [General Powers] Act, 1890, and the London Water Act, 1892, whereby the council were empowered to hold enquiries and make investigations relative to metropolitan water supply, but were limited in their expenditure thereon to a total sum of £15,000, and the clause (15) empowered them to make such inves- tigations ' ' as they may consider desirable in the public interest," without limiting their expenditure thereon, and, by clause 30, to defray the cost of such investigation out of the county rates. The petitioners (1) were seven out of the eight metropolitan water companies, the only company who did not join in the petition being (3) the Kent waterworks company, who petitioned separately. The East London waterworks company (petitioners (2) ), in addition to joining in petition (1), also petitioned separately, alleging as the reason that they were more largely interested in the river Lee than any of the other com- panies. All the petitioners (1, 2, and 3) claimed to be heard, first, against the Part III.] London county council (general powers) bill. 291 clauses of the bill altering the present constitution of the Thames and Lee conservancy boards, alleging that the proposed addition of members elected by the London County Council would destroy the present balance of power upon those boards, and would enable the county council, who were notoriously hostile to the water companies and had in view the object of themselves supplying water to the Metropolis in competition with the water companies, to exert an influence unfavourable to the companies ou the conservancy boards. The peti- tioners, in the second place, claimed to be heard against clauses 15 and 30 of the bill, which would enable the county council to expend an unlimited amount upon inves- tigations relating to metropolitan water supply, both in their capacity of water companies against whose interest (as they alleged) these investigations .were directed, and as large ratepayers interested in the necessary increase of the county rate to meet the expenses of the Investigations. It was objected that as to the first ground of locus standi the petitioners were all aUke represented by the Thames and Lee conservancy boards, who were petitioners against the bill and whose locus standi was admitted, two of the companies directly electing members of the Lee conservancy board; and that the interests of the county council and the petitioners in the purity of the rivers was identical ; and that, as to the second ground, the petitioners had no other interest than as ratepayers, in which capacity they were represented by the county council : Held, that the locus standi of the petitioners (1 and 2) should be allowed against clauses 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the bill, which altered the existing constitutions of the Thames and Lee conservancy boards, but not against the clauses of the bill for defraying the costs of water enquiries by the county council out of the county rate without limiting the amount ; and that the locus standi of petitioners (3), who were not interested in the rivers Thames and Lee, must be disallowed. The locus standi of the petitioners (1) was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition does not allege nor is it the fact that any lands or property of the petitioners can be taken under the powers of the bill ; (2) the petition seems to be mainly based on allegations that the petitioners as ratepayers may have to pay more rates, and the promoters, the London County Council, contend that the extent to which they should have power to make expenditure out of money raised annually by rates is a matter between them- selves and the ratepayers of London by whom they are elected ; (3) the petitioners are not concerned in this matter, except as ratepayers, and are represented by the London County Council ; (4) paragraphs 3 to 16 inclusive of the petition refer to those clauses of the bill under which the promoters seek repre- sentation on the conservancy boards of the rivers Thames and Lee. The relations stated in the petition to subsist between the petitioners, or some of them, and the Thames conservancy board, appear to be those of parties to agree- ments with the Thames conservancy board, but there is nothing in the bill which will in any way prejudice or affect the legal position of the petitioners under those agreements ; (5) the Thames conservancy board are the proper ppjrty to be heard against this part of the bm : (6) in so far as the bill proposes to alter the constitution of the Lee conservancy board, on which the New River and East Lon- don companies are represented, the proper body to deal with this subject are the Lee con- servancy board, who have presented a petition and who represent the petitioners ; (7) as re- gards the facts stated in paragraphs 17 to 25 of the petition, the promoters deny that they are material. The limitations upon the expen- diture of the council imposed in the sections to which the petitioners refer are not limitations imposed for the protection of the petitioners in their capacity of a commercial company, and those limitations were not designed to affect, and do not affect the company in any other manner than as ratepayers within the county ; (8) the petition does not disclose, nor is it the fact that the petitioners have any such interest in the subject matter or that their property or rights will be interfered with by the powers proposed to be conferred in such manner as to entitle them, according to the practice of Parliament, to be heard on their said petition. The locus standi of the petitioners (2) was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition does not allege, nor is it the fact, thai any lands or property of the petitioners can be 292 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. taken under the powers of the bill ; (2) as re- gards clause 3 of the bill there is nothing in the petition to show in what way the petitioners are interested in the matter, or how the powers sought by that clause could be prejudicial to the petitioners. The promoters deny that the peti- tioners are entitled to be heard with respect to this matter, which concerns the Thames conserv- ancy board; (3) as regards clauses 5, 6, and 7 of the bill and so much of the preamble as relates thereto, the promoters object to the locus standi of the petitioners, on the ground that the peti- tioners are represented by the Lee conservancy board, who have presented a petition against the bill. The petitioners have under the Acts of 1868 and 1874, referred to in the 8th paragraph of the petition, the right of electing members of the Lee conservancy board ; (4) as regards the allegations of the petition against clause 15 of the bill the promoters contend that the limita- tions upon the expenditure of the council in the sections to which they refer, are not limitations imposed for the protection of the petitioners in their capacity of a commercial company, and these limitations were not designed to affect and do not affect the company in any other manner than as ratepayers within the coimty ; (5) the petitioners are not entitled to be heard against the bill in their capacity of ratepayers, and are represented by the London County Council ; and the extent to which the London County Council should have power to make expenditure out of money raised annually by rates is a matter between themselves and the ratepayers of London, by whom they are elected ; (6) the petition does not disclose nor is it the fact that the petitioners have any such interest in the subject matter, or that their ^property or rights will be interfered with by the powers proposed to be conferred in such manner as to entitle them, according to the practice of Parliament, to be heard on their said petition. The locus standi of the petitioners (3) was objected to on similar grounds to those taken against the locus standi of the petitioners (2). Pember, Q.C. (for petitioners (1 and 2) ) : Petitioners (1) are the Associated Metropolitan water companies, consisting of seven out of the eight water companies, as the Kent water- works does not sign the joint petition, and the petitioners (2) are the East London water company, who join in the Associated petition, but have also petitioned separately. Freeman (for the promoters) : We agree that the petition of the Associated water companies raises the whole of the points, and we therefore consent to the decision being taken as governing the oases of petitioners (1 and 2) and of petitioners (3), so far as they object to clause 15 of the bill repealing the limits of expenditure on water and other enquiries by the London County Council, imposed by the London County Council [General Powers] Act; 1890, and the London Water Act, 1892. Obviously, the petitioners (3), who are the Kent waterworks company, have no interest in the constitution of the Thames or Lee conservancy boards, as they do not take any water from either of those rivers. Pemher, Q.C. : I prefer to take the case of petitioners (2) separately as there are some matters peculiar to it, but many of my observations are common to both petitioners (1) and (2). We have two grounds of opposition to this bill : first, we object to the proposed change in the constitution of the conservancy boards of the Thames and the Lee, and, secondly, we object to the unlimited powers of spending money proposed to be granted by this bill on water investigations. Clause 3 of the bill provides that " from and after the passing of this Act the number of the con- servators of the river Thames shall be thirty instead of twenty-three, and the additional conservators may be elected as hereinafter provided. (1) It shall be lawful for the council to elect seven persons out of their own body to be conservators, and the several persons so elected shall hold ofdoe as conservators only so long as they continue to be members of the councU." The remainder of the clause and clause 4 relate to administrative matters connected with the new members of the board. By clause 5 of the bill it is provided that (1) " from and after the passing of this Act the council may appoint three persons out of their own body to be members of the Lee conservancy board instead of one, and the number of the Lee conservators shall be fifteen instead of thirteen," the remainder of the clause and clauses 6 and 7 being merely administrative. We ask to be heard on all these clauses which deal with the alteration of the constitution of the two boards by the addition of the county council members to them. The petitioners other than the New River company own waterworks on the Thames between Kingston and Sunbury, and take water for supply within their districts, and we are obliged by statute to pay annually large sums of money amounting to £18,000 to the con. servancy board in consideration of our taking such water, and of the board being obliged to preserve the flow and purity of the river, in which we are very much interested. Out of twenty-three members Part IU.] London county council (general powers) bill. 293 of the Thames conservancy board seven at present represent the county of London, being elected by the corporation of the city of London, whilst only four represent authorities interested in the river above the points where we take water. The proposed alteration would give to the county of London 14 representa- tives in all, out of a total of 30, and the balance of power would be seriously altered, and our interests would be prejudicially affected thereby , and we submit that no alteration of the consti- tution of the board should be made unless the whole question of its constitution is reviewed and provision made for due representation of all parties interested in the conservancy of the Thames. The other petitioners, the New River company and the East London water- works company own waterworks on the Lee, and they each appoint two members on the Lee conservancy board, and the county of London also appoint two members, one of whom is appointed by the corporation and the other by the county council, and these petitioners object to the proposed alteration in the constitution of the Lee conservancy board on similar grounds to those on which the other petitioners object to the alteration of the constitution of the Thames conservancy board. This is a proposal to alter the constitution of the Lee and Thames conservancy boards to the prejudice of the petitioners by altering the balance of power. The East London water company take considerably more water from the Lee than they do from the Thames, but they take water from both rivers, and with regard to the Lee, the water of the Lee absolutely belongs to the water companies, except such an amount as is necessary for the navigation ; and as the East London water company are interested more largely than any of the other companies in the Lee, they have besides joining the Associated companies' petition, also peti- tioned separately. The second ground on which we ask to be heard is against the powers proposed to be conferred by this bill to spend an unlimited amount of money in water inves- tigations. By clause 15 of the bill it is provided that " Sect. 38 of the London Council [General Powers] Act, 1890, sect. 70 of the- London Council [General Powers] Act, 1891, and sect. 3 of the London Water Act, 1892, are hereby repealed, and from and after the passing of this Act, the council shall have power to obtain such advice and assistance, to make such investigations, and to carry on such negotiations on any subject as they may con- sider desirable in the public interest," By clause 28 it is provided that " (1) the council may expend on capital account for carrying out the purposes by this Act authorised such money as they may from time to time think fit, not exceeding ten thousand pounds ; " but that is limited to capital expenditure, and the council evidently intend to spend what they choose on water enquiries out of their county rates, for by clause 30 it is provided that " all costs and expenses of the council in the execution of this Act (except in so far as they may be otherwise provided for by this or any other Act) shall be defrayed as payments for general county purposes within the meaning of the Local Government Act, 1888." Sect. 38 of the London County Council [General Powers] Act, 1890, and sect. 3 of the London Water Act, 1892, which it is proposed to repeal by clause 15, gave the council power to spend by the former Act £5,000, and by the latter Act £10,000, i.e., in all £15,000, upon making enquiries and investigations as to the water supply of London. But clause 30, together with clause 15, confers upon the council unlimited power of defraying any expense, however great it may be, on water investiga- tions in London, instead of the very limited power granted by the Acts of 1890 and 1892, and we submit that we are entitled to be heard on the question - of money for making these enquiries. We opposed the London Water Bill, 1892, as originally introduced, and only withdrew our opposition when we were sa,ti3- fied that the sum was limited, and in the belief that such limitation was an important protection to our respective properties and interests, but it is now proposed by this bill to grant powers to the council which are abso- lutely unlimited, and inasmuch as we had a locus standi when the council sought to expend £10,000 upon these investigations, we submit we are entitled to be heard now when they seek to obtain unlimited powers of spending money on investigations and to charge the expenses they incur on the county rate. It is notorious that these enquiries are for the pur- pose of the council taking the water supply into their own hands and competing with the water companies. There is another reason why we should be allowed to be heard. The question of the legaUty of the agreements under which the water companies pay a sum to the conserva- tors has been raised, and though the arbitrator has decided in favour of the validity of the agree- ments, they are still challenged by the council, and we submit that if the council obtain the balance of power in their hands they would be in ". position to upset these agreements, and thereby seriously affect our interests. On these grounds, therefore, we submit that we are entitled to a locus standi against that portion 294 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. of the bill wMcli deals with the question of water supply. Freeman (in reply) : The bill merely proposes to carry one step further the action which Par- liament has for many years declared to be the proper course in relation to the conservancy board. Taking first those parts of the petitions which deal with the proposed alteration of the conservancy board, as regards the Thames con- servancy and that portion of the Associated petition which deals with it, we submit that the petitioners show no grounds why they should be heard, and further, we say that inasmuch as the Thames conservancy them- selves appear with a petition which traverses the whole ground relating to the proposed alteration of the conservancy board, they are the proper persons to be heard and not the petitioners, who fail to show that they have any divergent interests from the Thames conser- vancy. Originally the conservancy of the Thames was in the corporation of London who represented the whole of London ; then the traders and others were given some representa- tion upon the hoard, and afterwards some representation was given to the upper Thames, and now it has become necessary to carry the representation a step further, by giving to the county council, which represents all that part of London outside the corporation itself, the same , representation as Parliament gave the corpora- tion when it represented the whole of London. We submit that the fact of our asking for certain representation upon the board gives no right to companies who purchase water from the con- servators to be heard against any alteration of the constitution of the body, and if any body should be heard on the question it is the body which it is proposed to alter, and they have petitioned against the bill. The petitioners allege that they are interested in having the water kept pure, but one of the chief objects we have in wishing to come on the board is to preserve the purity of the water. Moreover, the conservancy are petitioning against the bill, and will in their own interests see that nothing is done to injure the water companies upon whose funds they chiefly rely. The Chairman : The position you have to deal with is this ; the companies who are primarily interested in keeping the Thames pure, say that the constitution of the board ought not to be altered in their absence, and the promoters say that the conservancy board are the only persons entitled to be heard, but it seems to me that the companies who are primarily interested and whose of&cers the conservancy board are, as well as being officers of the public, ought to have a voice in the matter. Freeman : We submit that this is wholly a question between the public as represented by the county council and the conservancy board, whose constitution it is proposed to affect by adding seven members of the body most interested in the purity of the Thames. The petitioners, in order to obtain a locus standi, must show that the bill in some way injuriously affects their rights or interests, and this they have failed to do. As regards the Lee conser- vancy, it isnecessary to strengthen the position of the London County Council in order to preserve the balance of power upon that conservancy. At present the two municipal bodies of the district affected by the Lee, that is, the corporation of London and the London County Council, have only one member each on the conservancy board, whereas the New Eiver and past London water companies together, have four members, and it is therefore most essential that the bodies interested in the sanitary questions should have greater representation, and this is what the bill proposes to effect. The two companies in the Associated petition, viz., the New Kiver and the East London companies, who alone take water from the river Lee, are themselves represented by two members each on the Lee conservancy board, whose locus standi against the bill is admitted, and therefore those two companies will appear to oppose the bill by their authorised and proper representatives, the Lee conservancy board. The Chairman : But the proposal is to change the constitution. Freeman : I submit that the general practice of this Court is that there shall not be duplicate representation in opposition to a bill, if the parties are properly represented by the one central authority opposing the bill, and that there is nothing in the petition of the water companies which will entitle them to be heard. I will now deal with the second ground on which the petitioners claim a locus standi, which is that the bill proposes to revoke certain clauses in former Acts, and proposes to confer on us powers to make investigations into subjects which we may deem it necessary to enquire into. The petitioners allege that they have on former occasions petitioned against bills of a similar character promoted by the council, and they say that there is no reason, why if that is so, they should not be entitled to be heard against this bill, but as a matter of fact their' locus standi was never objected to, and therefore the fact that they did petition in no way forms any precedent which can affect the present case. It is true that in the Acts of 1890 and 1892, a certain limitation was placed upon the amount that was then to be expended Part III. J london county council (general powers) bill. 295 on investigations, but such limitation was in no way due to the action of the water companies, but it was on our showing by our estimate that a certain sum would be suf&cient for the purposes for which it was required. The promoters, as the responsible authority representing the Metropolis, now find it necessary to ask for powers to make investiga- tion of a wider character. As regards our position under clause 30 of the bill, it is this : if we require to raise money in respect of capital account we must do so by separate money bills introduced each year, but as regards matters, the expense of which we can defray out of the rates, and this would cover the expenses of these investigations, we are given a right to throw it upon the rates, and we should be restricted in spending too large a sum, because the rates would then be materially raised, and we should have to account to the ratepayers by whom we are elected. The CHArRiLAN : Do you admit that the effect of the construction of your bill will be, by repealing clause 3 of the Act of 1892, to give you power to make roving in- vestigations and to charge them upon the county rates ? Freeman : Yes. The bill enables us to spend such sum as we may think necessary. The petitioners claim to be heard as ratepayers, and we submit that they are in no different posi- tion from any other ratepayers in the Metro- pohs , and the ratepayers are directly represented upon the London County Council, who are the authority for spending and dealing with the rates. It is the practice of this Court not to allow a ratepayer to appear against his rating authority, and the petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to be heard as ratepayers, as they are distinctly represented as such by the county council. The Chaibman : We do not think it worth while to distinguish between those of the Asso- ciated water companies who are respectively interested in the Thames and the Lee, and allow the locus standi of both the petitioners (1 and 2) as regards the alteration of the con- stitution of the Thames conservancy and the Lee conservancy boards, and disallow it as regards the question of investigations and spending money upon them dealt with by clauses 15, 28, and 30 of the bill. Freeman : That wUI exclude (3) the Kent waterworks company, who are not interested in the Thames or the Lee from being heard altogether. The Chairman : Yes. Locus Standi of Petitioners (1 and 2) Dis- allowed except as regards clauses 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, and so much of the preamble as relates thereto. Locus Standi of Petitioners (3) Disallowed. Agents for Petitioners (1), Rees (£ Frere. Agents for Petitioners (2), Bircham c& Co. Agents for Petitioners (3), JI/ai-((« i6 Leslie. Petition of (4) The Cokporation of West Ham and other looal authorities ; (5) the Essex County Council ; (6) the Berkshire County Council ; and (7) the Surrey County Council. London County Council — Alteration of Constitu- tion of Conservancy Board of Rivers — Additional Members —County Councils and Municipal Cor- poration — Riparian Districts — Disturhance of Balance of Power on Conservancy Boards — Claim of Petitioners for Additional Representa- tion on Board — S, 0. 134 [Municipal Authonties and Inhahitantsof Towns]— S. 0. 184h [County Council alleged to be Injuriously Affected hy Bill] . The alteration of the constitution of the Thames and Lee conservancy boards by the addition of members, to be elected by the London County Council under clauses 8 — 7 of the bill was also objected to by (4) the corpora- tion of the county borough of West Ham, and by (5, 6 and 7) the county councils of Essex, Berkshire, and Surrey. All the petitioners objected generally to the ad- dition of members representing the Lon- don County Council upon the respective conservancy boards as disturbing the present balance of power upon the boards, and urged that if the county of London was to be directly represented upon them, they should be heard to advance before the Committee on the bill similar claims to representation on the part of their respec- tive districts, which were as much inter- ested in the proper management of the rivers Lee and Thames as the county of London itself. It was objected on behalf of the promoters that the petitioners had failed to point out any- thing in the bill which would injuriously affect their districts ; and that their proper course, if they desired real direct represen- 296 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. T. tation on the conservancy boards was to introduce a, bill into Parliament for the purpose ; Held, however, that the petitioners were entitled to be heard against the clauses of the bill, by which it was sought to alter the constitution of the conservancy boards, so far as they were respectively interested in one or both of the rivers Thames and Lee. The loms standi of the petitioners (4) was objected to on the following grounds: (1) the petition does not allege nor is it the fact that any lands or property of the petitioners can be taken under the provisions of the bill ; (2) the petition refers to those parts of the bill under which it is proposed to provide for the repre- sentation of the promoters on the Thames and Lee conservancy boards ; as regards these provisions the promoters contend that the conservancy boards are the proper parties to be heard before the Committee on the bill ; (3) as regards the Lee conservancy board the peti- tioners are directly represented on the board ; (4) the petition does not disclose nor is it the fact that the petitioners have any such interest in the subject matter or that their property or rights will be interfered with by the powers proposed to be conferred in such manner as to entitle them, according to the practice of Parliament, to be heard on their said petition ; (5) if the petitioners are entitled to be heard the promoters submit that they ought to be limited to the clauses relating to the constitution of those boards. The lociis standi of the petitioners (.5) was objected to on the following grounds: (1) the petition does not allege nor is it the fact that any lands or property of the petitioners can be taken under the powers of the bill ; (2) the petitioners apparently rest their claim to be heard on the ground that the whole of their county will be injuriously affected by the bill, but the promoters (the London County Council) contend that the petition does not show in what way the petitioners' county will be injuriously affected, and that their county will not be in- juriously affected by anything contained in the bill in such a manner as to entitle the petitioners to be heard on their petition against it ; (3) if the petition discloses any right to be heard the promoters submit that the peti- tioners ought to be limited to the question of whether or not, in the event of the promoters obtaining representation on the conservancy boards or either of them, the petitioners should also be represented upon such boards ; (4) the powers of the Thames conservancy board do not affect the county ; or, if they do affect the county at all, it is only a limited part of the county, and it is not alleged in the petition that the bUl will affect injuriously any particular part of the petitioners' county, and the promoters contend that no part of the petitioners' county is or can be so affected ; (5) the petition does not disclose nor is it the fact that the petitioners have any such interest in the subject matter or that their property or rights will be interfered with by the powers proposed to be conferred in such manner as to entitle them, according to the practice of Par- liament, to be heard on their said petition. The locus standi of the petitioners (6 and 7) was objected to on similar grounds to those taken to the locus standi of petitioners (5). Balfour Browne, Q.G. (for petitioners (4)): The decision of the Court on the case of the petitioners (1 and 2) appears to govern also that of the corporation of West Ham for whom I appear, that is as regards the Lee conser- vancy, at all events, on which board we are at the present time represented by one member chosen jointly by ourselves and the other local authorities who sign the petition. The Chairman : The opinion of the Court is that those petitioners who are at present in- terested in the constitution of these boards have a right to be heard when it is proposed to change the constitution. Balfour Browne : At the present time we are not represented on the Thames conservancy. The promoters seek to have representatives on the Thames conservancy because that river runs through their district, but the Thames as well as the Lee runs through our district, and we therefore submit that we should be heard to say that if the promoters are to be given representatives on the conservancy board we should have representatives also. liichards (for petitioners (5 and 6) ) : The petitioners claim a locus standi under S. 0. 134o which provides that a county council, alleging that they are injuriously affected, shall have a locus standi against a water bill. The Thames runs for about 40 miles along the coast of Essex. At present the petitioners (5) have no representative upon the Thames conservancy board, and are content with the constitution of the board, but they submit that it the promo- ters are to have increased representation on the board then they who have a, much larger river board than the promoters ought to be heard against any alteration in the constitution of the board. About 18 mUes of the river Lee is within the Essex County Council's district, Part III.] London county council (general powers) bill. 297 and tlie petitioners submit that, as the pro- moters are seeking to increase their representa- tion on the Lee conservancy from one totln-ee, and as a large proportion of the river Lee is within the district of the petitioners, tliey are therefore entitled to be heard to ask for some representation on that board. The Chairman : This is not a bill for dealing with the water supply of your district. Richards : No, and I do not therefore base my argument entirely upon S. O. 134o. I also claim to be heard under S. O. 134b. In the Lee Valley Drainage Bill, 1892, on the petition of the London County Council (Kick- ards & Saunders, 202) the same objections which are now taken by the promoters were then made, but the petitioners were allowed a locus standi under S. O. 134b, which empowers the Court to give a Zoois standi to a county council alleging its district to be injuriously affected by any bill. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : That was a question of drainage. All that is objected to in this case is the alteration of the constitution of the conservancy board. The Chaikman : The petitioners' case is that if it is right that the London County Council should be represented on the Thames conser- vancy board, there is no reason why they also should not be represented. Richards : The case of the petitioners (6) is nearly identical with that of the petitioners (5), the only distinction being that the Berkshire County Council have about a hundred mUes of river under the Thames conservancy, but are not interested in the river Lee. Although they have not any direct representation on the Thames conservancy, nevertheless the four members who represent the upper Thames are all Berkshire men. Pembroke Stephens, Q.C. (for petitioners (7)) : I adopt the argument of the petitioners (5 and 6), but I say in addition that no change of the constitution of the conservancy board is desirable. The promoters at present have no representation upon the Thames conservancy, which consists of 23 members, representing various interests, and it is now proposed to give the promoters seven representatives, or nearly one-fourth of theboard, which will then become 80. These seven are asked for dis- tinctly in the London interest. The preamble sets out that because the Thames runs through London the promoters have a certain interest in it, and yet they object to the locus standi of the various county councils through whose dis- tricts the river flows, with the exception of the Middlesex County Council, which the promoters have not objected to, and I submit therefore that this is an attempt to obtain for London a special and distinct influence upon the Thames conservancy. Freeman (for promoters) ; We wore too late to lodge the objections to the locus standi of the Middlesex County Council ; that is the reason they are not objected to. Pembroke Stephens ; We wish to be heard in order that we may submit that there should be no change in the constitution of the board. The decisions of the Court show that peti- tioners have under similar circumstances been allowed a locus standi. Not only in cases where there has been a disturbance of the existing interests of the people, who are represented on the board, but also where others outside have sought to be represented. The Chairman : At present you need not refer to any cases. Freeman (m reply) : I submit that none of these petitioners are entitled to be heard, as they fail to show that there is anything con- tained in this bill which will injuriously affect them, and that it is not suffioient for the - petitioners merely to allege that they will be injuriously affected, but they must satisfy the Court that their allegation is prima facie likely to be true. The Chairman : Do the promoters suggest any reason why the Loudon County Council should be represented which does not apply to the neighbouriag county councils ? Freeman : Because Parliament has already given to us statutory powers in reference to dealing with the Thames, e.i/., for the prevention of floods, whereas that is not so with these other counties ; and, moreover, they do not show in their petitions how they would be damnified. The Chairman : Why are you disturbing the ' balance of power? Freeman : They might wish to argue that they should have some representation, and if the Court are of opinion that they should, they would grant them a limited locus standi to ask for clauses for this purpose, but this will give them no right to be heard against the bill generally. The Chairman : The petitioners are content with the present representation, and the pro- moters desire to disturb the present balance of power on the conservancy boards, and alter their constitution, and they ask to be heard to say that you should not alter the balance, and if it is right that you should have direct representation on the board, then that they should be allowed to ask for similar represen- tation. 298 COURT OP REFEREES. [Vol. I. Freeman : Their proper course is to introduce a bill to give them representation on the Board, as we are doing by this bill. They must show that they would be damnified by this hill, and it is not sufficient for them to say they are content with things as they are now, and I submit that such an allegation gives them no right to be heard against the bUl generally, and at most all they are entitled to is a limited locus standi , to ask for representation. The Chaihman : The Locus Standi of the Petitioners on the question of the alteration of the constitution of the conservancy boards is Alloioed, distinguishing however between the petitioners who are interested in both the Thames and the Lee, and those who are interested in the Thames only. The Locus Standi of Petitioners (4 and 5) is Disallowed except as to clauses 3 to 7 inclusive, and so much of the preamble as relates thereto. The Locus Standi of Petitioners (6 and 7) is Disallowed, except as to clauses 3 and 4, and so much of the preamble as relates thereto. Agents for Petitioners (4), Hillearys. Agents for Petitioners (5), Sherwood <& Co. Agents for Petitioners (6), Sherwood <£■ Go. Agents for Petitioners (7), Wyatt & Co. Petition of (8) The Uppee Thames Association. Elver Conservancy Board — Proposed Alterations in Constitution — Voluntary Association/or Election of Conservators to represent Particular District — Claim to represent Electors — Absence of Autho- rity to Petition Parliament. The petitioners were a voluntary association formed for the purpose of promoting the efficient representation on the Thames conservancy board of persons entitled to elect conservators to represent the upper Thames, and they claimed to be heard against the provisions of the bill for altering the constitution of the Thames conservancy board as the representatives of the electors of the upper Thatnes districts. It did not appear, however, that the objects of the association included the presentation of petitions to Parliament, or that the peti- tioners had any special authority from the electors to oppose the present bill : Held, that under these circumstances the locus standi of the petitioners must be disallowed. The locus standi of petitioners (8) was ob- jected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition does not allege, nor is it the fact, that any lands or property of the petitioners can be taken under the powers of the bill ; (2) it ap- pears that the petitioners are a voluntary association comprising a certain number of members, but not having any legal status or right to represent the general body of electors of the conservators ; (3) as regards the consti- tution of the conservancy board the promoters contend that the board are the proper party to be heard before the Select Committee, and that the present petitioners are neither them- selves affected by the bill in any manner en- titling them to be heard or representative of any interest entitled to be heard ; (4) the peti- tioners are represented on the conservancy board ; (5) the petition does not disclose, nor is it the fact, that the petitioners have any such interest in the subject matter, or that their property or rights will be interfered with by the powers proposed to be conferred in such manner as to entitle them, according to the practice of Parliament, to be heard on their said petition. Witherington (solicitor and secretary to the upper Thames association) : The petitioners are a voluntary association formed two months ago to promote the efficient representation on the conservancy board of persons entitled under the Thames Navigation Act, 1860, to elect conservators and to represent the upper Thames on the board, and already one-third of the electors of the upper Thames have joined this association. The Chairman : But you are not entitled to represent them for the purpose of petitioning Parliament, not having any legal status or authority to do so. Witherington : "We are ratepayers. The Chaikman : You do not petition as rate- payers but as an association, and you do not represent the ratepayers for the purpose of petitioning. The locus standi must, therefore, be disallowed. Locus Standi of Petitioners (8) Disallowed. Agents for Petitioners (8), Lewin, Gregory, and Anderson. Petition of (9) The Thames Ripaeian Owners' Association, and Sib Gilbekt Clayton East, Baet. Practice — Joint Petition of Association of Riparian Owners, and Individual Owner— Objections to Locus Standi limited to claim of Association to Part IIT.] London county council (general powers) bill. 299 be ]ieard — Rights of Individual Owner as Joint Petitioner. The petition, which was directed against clauses 3 and 4 of the bill relating to the constitution of the Thames conservancy board, was signed by Sir Gilbert Clayton East, a riparian owner on the Thames, in his capacity as president of the Thames Riparian Owners' association, and also as an individual riparian owner, his signature being subscribed twice at the end of the petition. The objections to locns standi lodged by the petitioners referred only to the claim of the Riparian Owners' asso- ciation to be heard, and did not deal with the claim of Sir Gilbert Clayton East to be heard as an individual riparian owner : Held, that under these circumstances the locus standi of the petitioner in his in- dividual capacity must be considered as not objected to, and that he was therefore entitled to be heard on his petition against the bUl. The hciis standi of the petitioners (9) was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition does not allege, nor is it the fact, that any lands or property of the petitioners can be taken under the powers of the bill ; (2) it ap- pears that the petitioners are a voluntary association comprising a certain number of members, but the petition is not signed by the members, nor does it appear that the signature was authorised by the members of the association ; (3) as regards the constitu- tion of the conservancy board the promoters contend that the board are the proper party to be heard before the Select Committee, and that the present petitioners are not affected by the bUl in any manner entitling them to be heard ; (4) the petition does not disclose, nor is it the fact that the petitioners have any such interest in the subject matter, or that their property or rights will be interfered with by the powers proposed to be conferred in such manner as to entitle them, according to the practice of. Parliament, to be heard on their said petition. Baker (parliamentary agent for peti- tioners (9) ) : I appear for the Thames Riparian Owners' association whose locus standi has been objected to by the promoters, and, after your decision against the locus standi of the upper Thames association, I do not seek to press the petitioners' claim to be heard, but I appear also for Sir Gilbert Clayton Bast to whose locus standi the promoters have not objected, and he claims to be heard therefore on the ground that he is not objected to. Sir Gilbert East is a riparian owner and president of the association and a conservator, and alleges that the balance of power of the present conservancy board ought not to be altered. The petition is headed " The humble petition of the Thames Riparian Owners' association, and of Sir Gilbert Augustus Clayton East, of Hall -place. Maidenhead, in the county of Berks., Bart." At the end of the petition the subscription is ' ' Signed on behalf of the Thames Riparian Owners' association by Gilbert A. Clayton East, president," and then follows the signature, for the second time, and separately from the first' signature, " Gilbert A. Clayton East," and the printed petition is endorsed, "Petition of the Thames Riparian Owners' association and Sir Gilbert Clayton East, Bart.," and I submit that Sir Gilbert East, not having been objected to by the promoters, is entitled to be heard. Freeman (for the promoters) : I submit that paragraphs 1 and 4 of the objections, where the word "petitioners" is used, relates not only to the association, but also to Sir Gilbert East. Moreover, Sir Gilbert East does not allege that he is injured in any way by the bill. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : He alleges that he is a riparian owner, and the petitioner objects to the alteration of the Thames conservancy board by the addition of new members. Freeman : The objection I submit must correspond with the heading of the petition as put in the votes. This is a purely technical objection, and I will therefore ask Mr. Cripps, parliamentary agent to the promoters, to explain. Cripps (parliamentary agent to the promoters) : The universal practice in lodging objections to locus standi is to refer in the notice of objections to the petitioners as entered on the votes of the day, and the petition was there entered as " The Thames Riparian association," Charles E.' Baker. The Chairman : We must take it that the person who prepared the objections to locus standi had the petition before him, and therefore must have also seen that it was also signed by Sir Gilbert East, and as his locus standi has not been objected to therefore the technical objection must prevail, and his locus standi must be allowed, and the locus standi of the Thames Riparian association disallowed. 300 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. Locus Standi of the Thames Riparian Owners' association Disallowed. Locus Standi of Sir Gilbert East, Bart., AUoieed. Agent for petitioners (9), Charles B. Baker. Petition of (10) The Mayob, Aldeehen, and Commons of the City of London. London County Council — Power to Regulate Erec- tion ofDioclling Houses on Loio-Lying Land- Sky Signs — Corporation as Owners of Property — Prevention of Epidemic Diseases — Corpora- tion as Port Sanitary Authority— Re-arrange- ment of Wards within City — Power to County Council to expend County Rate on Enquiries relating to Water Supply and Markets — Rate- payers — Repi-esentation. The locus standi of the corporation of the city of London was conceded against clauses 3 to 7 (inclusive) of the bill, which altered the constitution of the Thames and Lee conservancy boards. The corporation also claimed to be heard against clauses 8 to 12 (inclusive) of the bill, which prohibited the erection of dwelling-houses on low-lying lands, except in accordance with regulations to be framed by the county council ; against clauses 16 and 17 of the bill relating to epidemic diseases ; against clause 19, em- powering the county council to re-arrange the wards of any parish within the county of Loudon ; and against clause 21 which amended the London Sky Signs Act, 1891. After some discussion the locus standi of the petitioners was conceded against clauses 8 to 12, and clause 21 of the bill in so far as those clauses affected property belonging to the corporation* and a locus standi was also conceded to the petitioners as the port sanitary authority of London. With regard to clause 19 (re-arrangement of wards) counsel for the promoters con- tended that the area to which it applied, namely, "the county of London," and not the administrative county, did not include the city of London, and therefore the petitioners were not affected by it ; but the Court allowed the petitioners a locus standi against the clause to ask the Com- mittee on the bill to make it clear, if they thought fit to do so, that the city of London was excluded from the operation of the clause. The petitioners further claimed to be heard against clause 15 of the bill, which repealed certain sections of existing Acts, and which, taken with clauses 28 and 30, gave the council power to expend an unlimited amount upon investigations relating to water supply and markets, the corporation (with reference to the latter) claiming a special right to be heard as the market authority of London. It was objected as in the case of (1, 2 and 3) the petitioning water companies that the corporation were only interested as ratepayers of the administrative county of London, in the expenditure of the county rate authorised by these clauses, in which capacity they were represented by county council : Held, that the petitioners were entitled to a locus standi as claimed, except as against clauses 15, 28, and 30 of the bill. The locus standi of the petitioners (10) was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition does not allege, nor is it the fact that any lands or property of the petitioners can be taken under the powers of the bill ; (2) the earlier parts of the petition refer to the pro- posals of clause 3 of the bill as to increasing the number of the conservators of the river Thames, but the petitioners are repre- sented on the Thames conservancy board, and the Thames conservancy board are the proper party to be heard with respect to this matter and not the corporation ; (3) the London County Council, the promoters, object on similar grounds to the claim of the petitioners to be heard against clause 5, the proper party to be heard against this clause is the Lee conservancy board ; (4) in so far as the petitioners allege that they or the citizens of the city of London are injuri- ously affected by the bill, the London County Council contend that (except as hereafter mentioned) the peljitioners are affected in no different manner to that in which other ratepayers and inhabitants of the adminis- trative county of London are affected, who are the constituents electing the London County Council and are thus represented by the London County Council; (5) there is nothing in the bill which affects or is alleged Part III.] London county council (general powers) bill. 301 to affect the mayor, aldermen and commons of the city of London otherwise than in the same manner as other inhabitants and ratepayers of the administrative county ; (6) as regards para- graphs 6 and 7 of the petition it is not alleged, nor is it the fact that the powers stated to have been refused by Parliament were refused on account of the opposition of the petitioners, on the contrary, these powers were granted by a Select Committee of the House of Commons but were afterwards omitted on discussion in the House ; (7) as regards clauses 8 to 12 of the biU, the London County Council deny that these clauses affect any lands of the petitioners, and the petition does not state where any lands alleged to be affected by this part of the bUl are situate or in what way they will be affected ; (8) as regards clause 15 of the bill, which is dealt with in the petition in paragraphs 11 to 18, the promoters do not admit the accuracy of the statements of the petitioners, but even if they are accurate, the promoters contend that the limitations of these clauses are limitations in the interests of the general ratepayers of the administrative county, that the petitioners are in no way concerned in them, and that tf they are concerned in them it is in the capacity of ratepayers, in which capacity they are represented by the London County CounoO ; (9) as regards paragraphs 19 and 20 of the petition the promoters object on similar grounds, namely, that the petitioners are not entitled to be heard in respect of clauses limiting or authorising expenditure out of the county rate ; (10) as regards clauses 16 and 17 of the bill and paragraphs 21 to 24 of the petition, the promoters deny that the peti- tioners are affected as suggested, but if it can be shown that in the capacity of port sanitary authority their powers are limited or affected by anything contained in clauses 16 or 17 the promoters admit their locus standi in relation thereto ; (11) the petitioners are not affected by clause 19 of the bUl ; (12) as regards clause 21 and paragraph 27 of the petition the promoters admit that the petitioners are entitled to be heard as regards the effect of the clause upon any laud or buildings belonging to them, but they are not entitled to be heard generally as against the London County Council in respect of the rights of private individuals in matters of taste and decoration or in respect to the use to which owners of property (other than the petitioners) may put that property ; (13) the petition does not disclose nor is it the fact that the petitioners have any such interest in the subject matter, or that their property or rights wOl be interfered with by the powers proposed to be conferred in such manner as to entitle them, according to the practice of Parliament, to be heard on their said petition. Griffiths (for petitioners (10) ) : The locus standi of the petitioners is allowed as regards represen- tation on the conservancy boards of the Thames and Lee, that is against clauses 3 to 7 of the bill, but it is objected to as regards several other matters. The promoters say that we are injuriously affected by the bill in no different manner to that in which other rate- payers and inhabitants of the administrative county of London are affected, who are the constituents electing the London County Council and are therefore represented by the London County Council. We ask for a locus standi against clauses 8 to 12 of the bill, which prohibit the- erection of dwelling houses on low -lying land, i.e., land below the level of Trinity high-water mark, or which is subject to flooding, except in accordance with regulations to be framed by the county council, and also against clauses 16 and 17, which provide that the council shall hold enquiries in relation to epidemic diseases with a view to the framing of regulations for their prevention, and against clause 21 which amends the London Sky Signs Act, 1891. Freeman (for promoters) : We believe that clauses 8 to 12 of the biU do not apply to any of Iflie petitioners' property, but if they have any property affected by these clauses, we concede them a limited locus standi as owners and not as representing the city of London. As regard's clauses 16 and 17 we will allow the petitioners a locus standi as the port sanitary authority, and, with reference to clause 21 dealing with sky signs, we are willing that as regards their own property they should be heard, but we object to their being heard on the general question as to the effect on the public of the proposed alteration of the deiiuition of " sky signs." Griffiths : The other clauses against which we ask to be heard are clauses 15, 28, and 30, which provide for the repeal of certain sections in former Acts, and the making of investigations, the raising of money on capital account, and power to pay the costs of inquiries under the bUl out of the county rate, and clause 19, which gives the council power to re-arrange wards in parishes. Clause 15, after enacting that three sections of former Acts shall be repealed, provides "that from and after the passing of this Act the council shall have power to obtain such advice and assistance to make such investigations and to carry on such nego- tiations on any subject as they may consider de- sirable in the public interest." The sections it is proposed to repeal, are, first, sect. 38 of 302 COURT OF EEFEEEES. [Vol. I. the London Council [General Powers] Act, 1890, which section was opposed by the corporation, and an agreement was come to that £5,000 should be allowed to be expended by the county council in making investigations with regard to water. The second section proposed to be repealed by this bill is sect. 70 of the London Council [General Powers] Act, 1891, which provided that " it shall be lawful for the council from time to time to prosecute and conduct enquiries and negotiations relative to such existing markets and market rights as are not the property of or under the control of the mayor, aldermen, and commons of the city of Loudon, and the expediency of establishing new markets in or near the administrative county of London, and any matters relative or incidental thereto, and to pay out of the county fund the costs and expenses of such inquiries not exceeding £1,000." That clause was agreed between the promoters and ourselves, and the Loudon County Council now propose' to repeal it, and to give themselves a general power of enquiry, and we submit that we, who are the market authority for the city and seven miles round, ought to be allowed to be heard against it. The Chaieman : The promoters wish to make investigations with regard to markets in the city as well as elsewhere, but this is not a biU to take away any of the rights of the corpora- tion of London. The question is, therefore, whether it is not time enough for the petitioners to be heard when the promoters come after making investigations, and seek to disturb the existing state of things. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : Are you in a different position as regards enquiries with respect to markets to that of the water companies as re- gards enquiries with respect to water ? Griffiths : Yes, for one reason, because we are the market authority of London. I sub- mit further that the promoters were going outside the powers given them by statute in proposing clause 70 of the Act of 1891, because market enquiries are not within the purview of the Metropolis Local Management Act, 1855, and therefore we had a locus standi to oppose that clause, and that we have a right to oppose the repeal of it by the present bill. We repre- sent the ratepayers of the city of London, and we submit that if the Loudon County Council promote a bill which goes outside the powers given them by statute we are entitled to be heard against the bill. The third section which it is proposed to repeal by this bill is sect. 3 of the London Water Act, 1892. That Act was promoted jointly by the promoters and ourselves, and we had the con- trol of the bill and have in fact paid the costs of it. The provision of sect. 3 and the sum of money to be expended thereunder were a matter of agreement between the petitioners and the London County Council, and were in- serted solely for our protection as owners of property. This clause enables the promoters to carry on such investigations into our mar- kets as they may consider desirable, and the whole question of our title to our markets might be raised in those investigations, and I submit that we, representing ratepayers who contri- bute an eighth of the rates are entitled to be heard against it. As regards clause 28 that has been amended by limiting the power to spend £1,000 to electric lighting, and I do not there- fore now press my locus standi against that clause. As to clause 30, I adopt the argument urged by petitioners (1 and 2) that this clause, together with clause 15, gives the promoters an unlimited power to spend money on these negotiations and investigations and obtaining assistance, and I submit that we are entitled therefore to a locns standi against it. Freeman (in reply) : As regards sect. 70 of the Act of 1891, which it is proposed by clause 15 to repeal, when the clause was proposed we did not desire to enquire into the city markets and we inserted words in the clause excluding city markets, but it was not an agreed clause in the sense of its being a concession made by us in order to obtain our bill. The question must therefore now be considered as if now for the first time this proposal was made by us to en- quire into markets including city markets. There is nothing I submit in the proposal to enquire into markets generally which entitles the petitioners to be heard merely because they are interested in some of those markets. When we seek to interfere with the markets will be the time for them to be heard and not at the present. The corporation have no locus standi as ratepayers to object to money being spent upon an enquiry into the market question, for they are interested only in the same way as other ratepayers in the administrative county of London, and the county council is the responsible body entrusted with the adminis- tration of the rates. As regards the London Water Act, 1892, a clause of which it is now proposed to repeal, that bOl, as intro- duced jointly by the petitioners and the promoters, proposed that an authority should be created to deal with the water question, consisting partly of the corporation and partly of the county council. The Committee during the hearing of the bill decided that the county council were the proper authority, and struck out of the biU all reference to the corporation. The corporation thereupon retired and the bill PaET III.] LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (gENEEAL POWERs) BILL, 303 was proceeded with by tile county council, with the consent of the corporation, and passed, clause 3, which it is now proposed to repeal, being in it. The costs of the bill were paid by the corporation in the first instance, but the county council are ready at any time to repay those costs. This question as to water enquiries must be treated, therefore, on the footing that there was no agreement of any kind between the petitioners and ourselves as to the amount to be expended on investigations as to water ; this limitation as to amount being in no sense a limitation for the protection of the corporation, but having been inserted by the Committee in accordance with our estimate of the cost of the enquiries for the protection of the ratepayers. The Chairman : That is a point upon which I lay great stress. Freeman : We are the body solely responsible for the administration of the rates, and we propose to spend some of the money in making these investigations, and the petitioners as ratepayers are represented by the promoters, the London County Council, and I submit, therefore, have no right whatever to be heard. The Chairmak : The Locus Standi of the peti- tioners is Disallowed as to clauses 15, 28, and 30. Griffiths : We ask for a locus standi against clause 19 for this purpose. By this clause the promoters seek powers to rearrange the wards in any parish "within the county of Loudon," and to make new provisions as to the election rotation and retirement of vestry- men in such parishes. The comity of London is a county formed by the Local Government Act, 1888, sect. 40, sub-sect. 2, which provides that "such portion of the administrative county of London as forms part of the counties of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent shall on and after the appointed day be severed from those counties, and form a separate county for all non-administrative purposes by the name of the county of Loudon." The promoters make use of the term " county of London " in clause 19, and we wish to obtain a definition as to whether or not these words include the administrative county. The term " comity of London " is the county of London for purely non-administrative, that is, judicial purposes, but the promoters, who are the administrative body in this clause, say that over part of the area over which they exercise jurisdiction certain things shall be done, and the county for which the county council are elected is the administrative county. The Chairman : This clause is for adminis- trative purposes. Why, then, is the area of it confined to the non-administrative county ? Freeman : So as not to include what is within the area of the corporation, the petitioners. There are two terms in the Act — and " the administrative county " includes the corporation area, and the term the " county of London " does not. The Chairman : We Alloio the Petitioners a Locus Standi against clause 19 for the purpose solely of asking the Committee if they think it necessary to make it clear that the city of London is excluded therefrom, and against the other clauses as claimed, except clauses 15, 28, and 30. Agent for Petitioners (10), The City Bememhrancer. Petition of (11) The Commissioners oi" Sewers OF THE City ob London. London County Council — Potoer to Regulate Erection of Dwelling-houses on Low-Lying Lands — Commissioners of Sewers as Local, Rating and Sanitary Authority — Invasion of District — Ahsence of Jurisdiction of Petitioners over matters dealt with by Bill. The petitioners were the local, rating, sanitary, and street authority of the city of London, and as such their locus' standi was conceded against clauses 16 and 17 (relative to epidemic diseases) , clause 18 (council may require copies of accounts), and clause 21 (as to sky signs) of the bill ; but they also claimed to be heard against clauses 8 to 12 of the bill, which gave the county council power to control and regulate the erection of dwelling-houses upon certain low-lying lands within the administrative county, which included the city, of London. The petitioners claimed to be heard on the ground that the powers conferred by the clauses constituted an invasion of their district and interfered with their rights and powers as the sanitary authority of the city, with reference to buildings and drainage and the construction of sewers, other than the main sewers vested in the county council. The promoters contended that as the petitioners had no powers in respect X 2 304 COUET OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. of the matters dealt with by clauses 8 to 12, there could be no interference with their rights or jurisdiction, in carrying out the provisions contained in those clauses : Held, however, that as the local and sanitary authority of the city of London, the petitioners had such an interest in clauses 8 to 12 as to entitle them to be heard upon them before the Committee on the biU. The locus staiidi of the petitioners (11) was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition does not allege, nor is it the fact, that any lands or property of the petitioners can be taken under the powers of the bill ; (2) as re- gards the objections of the petitioners to clauses 15, 28, and 30, the promoters deny that the petitioners have any right to be heard against them. The provisions of these clauses affect the ratepayers within the administrative county of London by whom the promoters are elected, and who are represented by the pro- moters ; (3) as regards clauses 8 to 12, it does not appear from the petition where any lands are situate belonging to the petitioners which would be affected as alleged, but if and so far as the petitioners own any lauds to which those clauses would apply the promoters admit that the petitioners are entitled to be heard with reference to their own property ; (4) the petition does not disclose, nor is it the fact, that the petitioners have any such interest in the sub- ject matter, or that their property or rights will be interfered with by the powers proposed to be conferred in such manner as to entitle them, according to the practice of Parliament, to be heard on their said petition. Griffiths (for petitioners (11) ) : We are the local sanitary rating and street authority of the city of London which is included in the administrative county of London, and as such authority we are responsible for the buildings and drainage in the city. We ask for a locus standi against clauses 8 to 12 of the bill, which confers upon the promoters, the London County Council, powers with reference to the erection and regulation of buildings intended to be used wholly or in part as dwelling-houses, erected or to be erected upon land in the county of London below the level of Trinity high-water mark, or subject to flooding, or situate so as not to admit of being drained into the existing main sewerage system of the London County Council. The only powers that the promoters have at the present time over drainage within the city are limited to the main sewers vested in them. We petition as the local authority who have the control of the drainage, and not, like the corporation, as owners. Clause 8, sub-sect. 3, enables the promoters to take the whole question of drainage from any house, before the sewage comes to the main sewer, into their own hands, and to give directions as to the manner in which the drainage is to be carried out. At the present time they are unable to do this, and by the City of London Sewers' Act, 1848, all houses existing at that date are to be properly drained under the control and supervision of the Commissioners of Sewers, and by a subsequent Act of 1862 it is enacted that no house within the city of London is to be built without drains constructed to the satisfaction of the Commissioners. We submit, therefore, that as the local authority who have the control of the drainage and whose district the promoters now seek to invade — we are entitled to be heard against these clauses. I also claim to be heard against - clauses 16, 17, 18, and 21, and the petitioners do not object to our locus standi as regards these. With reference to clauses 15, 28, and 30, against which we have also claimed a, locus standi in our petition, after the ruling of the Court in the case of the petitioners (10), we do not desire to press our claim. Freeman (for promoters) : Clauses 8 to 12 relating to the erection of dwelling-houses on low-lying lands are matters which are not regulated by law at all in the administrative county of London, that is to say, neither in the city of London, nor in the county of London outside the city, and we submit that there should be a uniform system of treating this matter. The owner of the property is the only person it affects by limiting his use of the land in certain ways, and by requiring him to deal with his property in a manner to be pre- scribed by the county council. We do not propose to invade or clash with any powers the petitioners possess at the present time, for they have no powers whatever to deal with this matter, and they cannot prohibit houses being built in such a way as we seek to prohibit them being built under this clause. The Chaikman : The petitioners in that view of the case might reasonably ask to be before the Committee to say that they should be the persons that should be entrusted with this new power. The locus standi of the petitioners against clauses 8 to 12 is allowed, in addition to the locus standi conceded to them against clauses 16, 17, 18, and 21 of the bill. Locus Standi of Petitioners (11) Disallowed, except as against clauses 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, Paet iir.] LONDON OPEN SPACES BILL. 305 18, and 21, and so much of the preamble as relates thereto. Agent for Petitioners (11), The City Remem- brancer. Agents for Bill, Dyson cC Co. LONDON OPEN SPACES BILL. Petition of The Gas Light and Coke CoMPANy. 2nd March, 1893.— {Before the Eight Hon. J. W. Mellok, Q.C, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shieess Will, Q.C, M.P. ; Mr. Eoundell, M.P. ; Mr. Pakkek-Smith, M.P. ; Mr. Healy, M.P. ; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C. ; and Mr. BoNHAM-CiRTEB.) London County Council — Acquisition of Lands used as a Pnvate Garden fw Public Recreation Grotmd — Power to erect Ornamental Buildings on Lands — Gas Company having Pipes laid round Lands in question — Alleged Injury to Mains and Pipes. The bill provided for the acquisition by the London County Council of various open spaces in London and the neighbourhood, and among others the garden of Lincoln's- Inn-Fields, and for the management and maintenance of the same for the benefit of the public, and contained powers for the erection of ornamental buildings for refreshment rooms, band-stands, and conveniences thereon. The petitioners, the Gas Light and Coke company, alleged possible injury to their pipes and mains in close proximity to the garden, and claimed protective clauses. It did not appear, however, that any pipes belonging to the petitioners were laid in or under ' the garden, but only in the streets sur- rounding it, and the bill gave the promoters no power to interfere with any street : Held, that under these circumstances the petitioners had no locus standi against the bill. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds ; (1) the petition does not allege nor is it the fact that any lands or property of the petitioners can be taken under the powers of the bill ; (2) the petitioners after setting out at length a long extract from the preamble and copies of clauses 16, 27, 28, and 29 of the bill, state (paragraph 8) that it appears from the deposited plans that the promoters intend to interfere with mains, pipes, and other property of the peti- tioners, but the petition does not explain what mains or pipes of the petitioners are referred to, and does not even allege that the bill con- tains any power to interfere with any such property, mains, or pipes of the petitioners, and it is not the fact that the bill gives any such power; (3) the petitioners appear to object generally to the acquisition by the pro- moters of the garden in Lincoln's-Inn-Fields, and vaguely suggest that such acquisition would injuriously afiect them, but the petition does not disclose or allege how or in what way any injury could result therefrom to the peti- tioners ; (4) the petition does not disclose, nor is it the fact, that the petitioners have any such iu1;erest in the subject matter, or that their property and rights will be interfered with by the powers proposed to be conferred in such manner as to entitle them, according to the practice of Parliament, to be heard upon their said petition. Pope, Q.C. (for petitioners) : Clause 16 of the bill transfers the garden in Lincoln's-Iun-Eields to the Loudon County Council, who are to maintain it as an open space and public garden, it being at present vested in and managed by trustees for the use of inhabitants and house- holders in Lincoln's-Inn-Eields ; and clause 28 of the bill provides, " That, subject to the pro- visions of this Act, any of the lands which may be acquired or managed by the CouncU under the powers of this Act shall be deemed to be included among the parks, gardens, and open spaces to which the provisions of the London Council [General Powers] Act, 1890, with respect to bye-laws (Parks and Open Spaces) are applicable. The couucU may place upon any parts of the said lands any such buildings or erections as they may think desirable, with a view to the utilisation thereof for the recrea- tion and enjoyment of the public." This clause gives the promoters power to erect anywhere at their discretion buildings that may interfere with our mains and pipes. We do not claim any right under the soil of Linooln's-Inn-Fields garden itself, but we say that if the promoters exercise the powers given by this bill by erecting buildings on the margin of the garden, those buildings might interfere with our mains in the street on that margin. 306 COUBT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I, Mr. Ohandos-Leigh : In your petition you claim a locus standi against the whole bill. Pope : We do not wish to oppose the main- tenance of open spaces by the council, we only ask for a locus standi to protect our mains and pipes. The petitioners have been granted a locus standi to protect their pipes and mains against the London Streets Bemoval of Gates Bill of this Session {infra, p. 307) for the removal of obstructions in streets, including certain walls, and we submit that we should be allowed a locus standi to ask for similar protection against any injury that may be caused to our mains and pipes by digging foundations for the buildings proposed to be authorised by this bill. Cripps, Q.C. (for promoters) : I submit that the petitioners are not entitled to even a limited locus standi against this bill which cannot in any way affect them. All the bill proposes to do is to transfer private property from the Linooln's-Iun-Fields trustees to us, and the powers taken are to erect buildings in the garden, where the petitioners have no mains or pipes, nor any right to place them. In no instance has any authority owning gas or water pipes been allowed a locus standi against an Open Spaces Bill on the ground of appre- hended injury to pipes or mains. Mr. Shihess Will : Might not the promoters by building operations interfere with the pipes of the petitioners, and if there is any prospect of that, are they not entitled to go before the Committee and ask to be protected? Other- wise the promoters might plead the sanction of Parliament for what they did, though they might injure the petitioners' pipes. CHpps : No. We do not affect the common law or statutory rights of the petitioners. Mr. Bonham-Caetek : What protection has the gas company against any damage which may arise by the ordinary alteration of a road by the road authority ? Pope : None, provided the statutory powers conferred upon the authority are used without negligence, but if a private owner did anything without statutory authority which caused damage to the pipes, damages would be recoverable against him. Cripps : We do not seek to put the petitioners in a worse position than they are in at present ; and if we attempted to interfere with their statu- tory rights we could be restrained from doing so. I submit the petitioners are not entitled to a locus standi merely because there may be a possibility of injury. Against the Vauxhall Parle Bill, 1888 (Rickards & Michael, 229) on this same point the petitioners were not allowed to be heard. The Chaieman : This bill proposes to give the promoters certain statutory rights. If the promoters exercise these rights without negli- gence, would not the statute be an answer to an action for damages ? Popie : Yes, if the powers given by a statute are exercised without negligence the possessor of those powers is protected against actions to which anyone doing the same thing without statute might be liable. Cripps : If a private owner acting within his legal rights and not interfering with any statutory right of the gas company, in carrying out some work, injured the company in any way, he would only be hable if negligent. In the same way if we, acting negligently, injured the gas company, or if we interfered with their statutory rights, we should be liable. There is no difference in the two cases. The Chairman : Does not the principle laid down in the case of Brand v. The Hammersmith, and City Railwatj Comimny (4 H.L. 171) apply here ? If in the exercise of these powers to erect buildings and do such things as may be necessary for the buildings you injured the mains of the petitioners without acting negli- gently, do you suggest that the statute would not be an answer ? Cripps : It would not be an answer if we acted negligently. The object of the bill is merely to enable us to use the public money to do an act which otherwise we could not do, but the legal position of the authority that does the work, whether it is a private owner or the county council, is the same as between such authority and the petitioners. In order to give the petitioners a locus standi they must show some interference with these statutory or other rights by the powers proposed to be conferred by the bill. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : In the case of the London County Council [General Poncers'] Bill, 1892 (Rickards & Saunders, 204), providing for the construction of the Cromwell-road bridge, a locus standi was allowed to the petitioners on the ground that there might be an alteration in the levels of the streets. Here there might be an interference consequent on the erection of these buUdings. Cripps : That was a street improvement bUl, and in such bills the petitioners are entitled to ask for protection, because powers are taken to interfere with the streets, which powers may be inconsistent with the right vested in the petitioners. There is no such interference here ; this is a simple transfer of the power now vested in the trustees to the promoters. The Chaiujian : At present the trustees in whom the gardens are vested cannot build upon Part III.] london streets (removal of gates, etc.) bill. 307 Linooln's-Irm-Eields. The bill would enable the promoters to do so. Pemher, Q.O. (amicus airice): That Is so under the lease, and under their Acts the trustees are prevented from building on the gardens. Cripps : I am not aware of any such restric- tion. I admit that if we take powers which may interfere with the statutory rights of water or gas companies they are entitled to clauses, but there is no suggestion here of any special injury. There is only a suggestion that because Liucoln's-Inn-Fields, which is proposed to be made an open sf)ace, borders upon streets in which mains and pipes are laid, therefore, a loms standi is to be given to the owners of those pipes. Mr. Paekee- Smith : If a building is put up in one corner of Lincoln's-Inn-Fields and damage is done to the mains thereby, would the petitioners be in exactly the same position if the injury was done by a private owner and if it was done by the promoters under this bill ? Cripps : Certainly. The petitioners have statutory rights to lay pipes in the streets with which we do not interfere, and at common law we shall be liable for negligence in the same way as any private owner. All this bill seeks to do is to enable us to expend money on acts, which otherwise would be ultra vires, as regards our general powers. We are not in any way seeking to extend our powers against the petitioners. The Chaihman : The Locus Standi of the Petitioners is Disallowed. Agents for the Petitioners, Wijatt & Co. Agents for Bill, Dyson & Co. LONDON STREETS (REMOVAL OP GATES, ETC.) BILL. Petition of The Gas Light and Coke Company. 2nd March, 1S93.— (Before the Right Hon. J. W. Melloe, Q.C, M.P., Chairman ; Mr. Shikess Will, Q.C.,M.P.; Mr. Eoundell, M.P.; Mr. Pakkee-Smith, M.P. ; Mr. Healt, M.P. ; The Hon. E. Ciiandos-Leigh, Q.C; and Mr. Bonham-Caktee.) London County Council — Removal of Gates and other Obstructions from Streets — Gas Company — Disturbance of and Dijury to Gas Pipes under Streets — Claim for Protective Clauses. The object of the bill was the removal of obstructions to traffic in London streets, and clauses 3, 4, and 5 empowered the London County Council to enter into agreements with the owners of gates, bars, rails, posts, or other obstructions men- tioned in the schedule to the bill, for their removal, and failing agreement to remove the same themselves. The petitioners were a gas company having pipes laid in the streets close to many of the obstruc- tions set out in the schedule to the bill, and they alleged that the removal of the obstructions might cause serious injury to their pipes, and claimed to be heard to procure the insertion of protective clauses in the bill. The promoters contended that it would not be possible for them to interfere with the petitioners by the removal of obstructions above ground : Held, however, that the petitioners were entitled to be heard against clauses 3, 4, and 5 of the bill, and so much of the preamble as related thereto. The locus standi ot the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds ; (1) the petition does not allege nor is it the fact that any property of the petitioners can be taken under the powers of the bill ; (2) the petitioners' claim to be heard appears to be based on allegations that their mains and pipes and services for the supply of gas under or contiguous to gates, bars, posts, rails and obstructions proposed to be removed under the bill may be damaged in the course of the works proposed by the bill ; but the bill contains no power to take, remove, alter, or interfere with any such main, pipe, or service ; (3) the petition does not disclose nor is it the fact that the petitioners have any such interest in the subject matter or that their property or rights will be interfered with by the powers proposed to be conferred in such manner as to entitle them, according to the practice of Parliament, to be heard on their said petition. Pope, Q.C. (for petitioners) : This is a bill for the removal of gates and other obstructions in certain streets of London. We do not object to the general principle of this bill, but we wish to be heard to ask for clauses to compel the pro- moters to conduct their work, where there is a risk of interfering with our mains and pipes, in such a manner as to prevent any risk of injury to us. By clause 8 of the bill it is proposed to enact that at any time after the passing of this Act it shall be lawful for the 308 COUBT OP EEFEREES. [Vol. I. council, oa the one hand, and the owner of each of the gates, bars, rails, posts, or other obstruc- tions mentioned in the schedule to the bill, on the other hand, to enter into and carry into effect an agreement as to the removal of such gate, bar, rail, post, or other obstruction, and for opening the street in which the same is situate to the free and unrestricted use, either of traffic of all descriptions at all times, or of such classes of traffic and at such times as may be defined in such agreement. By clause 4 it is proposed to enact (inter alia) that if the council and the owner of any such gate, bar, rail, post, or other obstruction fail to make such agreement, then it shall be lawful for the council at any time to serve notice in writing upon the owner of the gate, bar, rail, post, or obstruction with respect to which he shall have failed to agree with the council requiring him within a time therein stated (not to be less than three months after the date of the notice) to take down and remove the gate, bar, rail, post, and other obstruction to which the notice relates, and to restore and make good the site thereof so that the same shall form part of the footway or roadway of the street. If at the expiration of the time stated in the notice the owner shall have failed to comply therewith it shall be lawful for the council, by their officers and servants, to take down and remove every gate, bar, rail, post, and other ohstruction to which any such notice relates, and to restore and make good the site thereof. The removal of gates may mean, and in many oases must mean, the removal of the building connected with the bar, the foundations of which pass beneath the street, involving the breaking up of the street for this purpose. The injury we apprehend is this : if that removal is not conducted under the safeguard of such protective clauses as the Committee may think necessary, carelessness in doing that work may result in injury to our mains and pipes. We desire, therefore, to obtain clauses for the pro- tection of our mains and pipes, in case works below the surface of the road should be necessary. The Chaikman ; You say it is possible that buildings would have to be taken down ? Pope : Yes. There is a gate near Gloucester- square, for instance, which has a toll-house connected with two bars at each side, and it must be contemplated to remove the central building as well as the bars. Mr. Healy : To see if it will be necessary to remove any buildings, we must look at the schedule to the bill. Poju : In the schedule relating to the parish of St. George's, Hanover-square, in many oases there are " gates and posts across street," and in the parish of St. Luke, under Christopher- street, Pinsbury-square, there appears " posts, rails, and wall across entrance from Wilson- street." In the parish of Chelsea, under Lincoln-street, "rails and wall across the northern end," and in respect of this the pro- moters have served us with notice. The owners of the soil could remove these gates if they liked, and if they did injury to our mains and pipes, they would have to pay damages; but if this Act were passed, and they were removed under agreement with the owners and injury ensued, unless there was negligence, the promoters would contend that we were entitled to no compensation. As a matter of fact, our mains and pipes lie within a foot of the founda- tion of the structure which would require to be removed. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : There was the case of the London Counly Council Bill, 1892 (Bickards and Saunders, 204), against which the Gaa, Light, and Coke company were given a land- owners' locus standi, Mr. Healy : Are the petitioners landowners qua any of the localities specified in the schedule? Pope : Yes, as to all of those localities, and our mains and pipes are below the streets in which the obstructions exist, and I submit that the statutory authority given to us to lay our mains and pipes below the surface of the land affected by this bill gives us the right of land- owners for the purpose of locus standi. The Chaibman : We will hear what the pro- moters have to say. Freeman (for promoters) : This is a bill for the removal of certain gates, posts,-^and obstruc- tions set out in the schedule to the bill, all of which, with the exception of one, are on the surface of the ground. We were justified in objecting to the locus standi of the petitioners because they asked for a general locus standi to argue against the principle of the bill. This, however, they do not now contend for, but we submit that the petitioners are not even entitled to a limited locus standi, for none of their property is sought to be taken by this bill, and it is not possible for the promoters to even interfere with their property, for the bill proposes merely to remove certain gates and posts standing on the ground. The Chaikiun : There are three cases of the removal of walls. Freeman : Those are only little walls upon which the iron railings stand. As to the notice given to the petitioners in the case of Lincoln- street there is a difference of level between the two streets, and certain works might be Part III.] rhondda and Swansea bay railway bill. 309 thought to be necessary, and therefore this notice was served. I submit that the peti- tioners are not entitled to be heard against this bill. The Chairman : The Locus Standi of the peti- tioners is Allowed on clauses to enable them to ask for protection for their mains and pipes. Locus Standi Allowed against clauses 3, 4, and 5, and so much of the preamble as relates thereto. Agents for Petitioners, Wyatt <& Co. Agents for Bill, Dyson d- Go. RHONDDA AND SWANSEA BAY RAILWAY BILL. [H. L.] Petition of The Gkeat Western Railway Company. 12th May, 1S9S.— {Before Mr. Shieess Will, Q.G., M.P., Chairman; Mr. Rocndell, M.P. ; Mr, Healy, M.F.; The Hon. E. Chandos- Leigh, Q.C; and If)-. Bonham-Oaeter.) Eailway Companies — Poii-er to Construct Addi- tional Maikoays — Interference with Arrange- ment as to Running Powers, dec, under previous Act — Competition — Introduction of Passenger Traffic ore Mineral Eailway — Interference with Punning Powers of Peti- tioners — Complaint against Existing Legisla- tion. Clause 4 of the bill authorised the promoters to construct two railways, No. 1 and No. 3. The petitioners claimed to be heard against the construction of both railways, but upon different grounds. With regard to railway No. 1 they alleged that its construction would enable the promoters to evade the provisions of an arrangement come to in the previous Session between themselves and the promoters, and em- bodied in sect. 17 of the Rhondda and Swansea Bay Railway Act, 1892, which arrangement they had regarded as a final settlement of the matters in dispute ; that railway No. 1 proposed by the bill was an alternative railway to railway No. 1 authorised by the Rhondda and Swansea Bay Railway Act, 1891, by the construc- tion of which the petitioners would largely benefit in accordance with their arrange- ments with the petitioners, whereas if railway No. 1 proposed by the bill were constructed, the promoters would have no object in constructing railway No. 1 of the Act of 1891. The petitioners also alleged that the construction of railway No. 1 would create a new local competition between themselves and the promoters : Held, that the existing status of the petitioners would be so affected by the construction of railway No. 1 as to entitle them to be heard in relation thereto. The petitioners also claimed to be heard against the construction of railway No. 3 authorised by the bill, on the ground that the object and effect of its construction would be to introduce for the first time passenger traf&c from the promoters' rail- way upon certain railways belonging to the Swansea harbour trustees, over which the petitioners had running powers, and of the mineral trafiSc upon which they contributed the larger portion. It appeared, however, that the promoters had already power under sect. 30 of the Rhondda and Swansea Bay Railway Act, 1892, to run over and use the railways belonging to the Swansea harbour trustees for traf&c of every description, i.e., passenger as well as goods traffic, and the Court Disallowed the Locus Standi of the petitioners as to railway No. 3. . Pemher, Q.C, appeared for the petitioners; Littler, Q.C, for the promoters of the bill. [The arguments turned upon the construc- tion of sect. 17 of the Rhondda and Swansea Bay Railway Act, 1892, and other provisions affecting the existing arrangements between the promoters and the petitioners, and the case was of no value as a precedent.] Agents for Petitioners, Mains. Agents for Bill, Rees & Frere. 310 COUET OF EEFEREES. [Vol. I. SOUTH-EASTEEN RAILWAY BILL. Petition of The Vestkt op Beemondsey. 9th June, 1893.— {Before Mr. Shiress "Will, Q.C., M.P., Chairman, d-c, dc.) No person appeared for the petitioners, and their Locus Standi was accordingly Disallowed. Worsley Taylor, Q.C., appeared for the promoters of the bill. Agents for Bill, Cooper d Sons. TEAMWAYS OEDEE CONFIEMATION (SOMERTON, KEINTON-MANDEVILLE AND CASTLE GARY TRAMWAYS OEDEE) (No. 2) BILL. [H. L.] Petition of J. Huntley Thring. 3rd March, 1893.— (Before The Ripht Hon. J. W. Mellor, Q.C, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shiress Will, Q.C, M.P. ; Sir George Eussell, M.P. ; Mr. Eoundell, 3I.P. ; Mr. Parker- Smith, M.P.; Mr. Healy, M.P.; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C; and J)/r. Bonham- Carter.) Construction of Steam Tramway along Country lioad — Owner of Houses in Village, and Mesideiice approached from Boad, as Frontager — Injurious Affecting of Property — S. O. 135 [Petitions against Tramway Bills'] — Meaning of " Street " in Standing Order. This was a bill to confirm a Provisional Order authorising the construction of certain tramways, upon which steam and other mechanical power was to be used, one of which tramways passed through the village of A., in which the houses on both sides of the road (twelve in number), with one excep- tion, were the property of the petitioner. The tramway, which passed for two miles along public roads through the petitioner's property, also passed close to the entrance gate to the petitioner's residence, and was to be laid as a double tramway at this point and through the village of A. The petitioner claimed to be heard (1) as a frontager under S. 0. 135, both in respect of his residence and the cottages occupied by his tenants in the village of A., and (2) as an owner of property which would be injuriously affected by the construction of the tramways and the use of steam and other mechanical power upon them. It was objected that he could not be heard (1) under S. O. 135, because the road where it passed his residence and through the village of A. was not a street within the meaning of the Standing Order, nor (2) as a landowner because it was not proposed to take any of his property for the construction of the tramways, which would be laid along public roads under the control of the county council : Held, however, that S. O. 135 and the meaning of the word " street " in it must be liberally interpreted in cases like the present, and that the petitioner was entitled to a locJis standi under the Standing Order. The locus standi of the petitioner was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition does not allege nor is it the fact that any house, shop, warehouse, land, premises or other property of the petitioner is proposed to be compulsorily or otherwise taken or interfered with under the powers of the bUl or of the above- named Order; (2) the road from Keinton- Mandeville to Castle Cary is not, nor is any part of itj the property of the petitioner or under his control, but belongs to and is under the control of the public authorities, whose consents have been duly obtained, nor does the tramway pass through the petitioner's property ; (3) the said road is not a street within the meaning of S. 0. 135 of the House of Commons ; (4) the petitioner does not allege that he is the owner, lessee or occupier of any house, shop or warehouse in any street through which it is proposed to construct the tramways or any of them proposed to be authorised by the above- named Order ; (5) the petitioner does not allege that the construction or use of the tramways proposed to be authorised by the above-named Order wUl injuriously affect him in the use or enjoyment of his premises or in the conduct of his trade or business ; (6) the residence referred to in paragraph 4 of the petition is not situated on the high road leading from Keinton- MandeviUe to Castle Cary, on which the tramways are proposed to belaid, but is situated on a road which ultimately joins the said high road some distance from such residence and is not a private approach drive ; (7) the petitioner does not represent the public and is not entitled to appear on their behalf, the local and road Part III.] tramways order confirmation, etc. (no. 2) bill. 311 authorities of the district having consented to the construction of the tramways ; (8) no rights or interests of tlie petitioner are interfered with under or affected by tlie powers of the bill or of the above-named Order, and the petitioner has not and his petition does not allege or show that he has any such interests in the objects of the bill or of the above-named Order as will, according to the practice of Parliament, entitle him to be heard upon any of the grounds of objection contained in his petition. G. A. E. Fitzgerald {for petitioner) : This Provisional Order proposes to authorise the construction of certain tramways, amongst others of a tramway described therein as tramway No 5, which passes through the village of Alford. The petitioner is the owner of the mansion house of Alford and the whole of the parish and village of Alford with the exception of one house. The tramway is pro- posed to be constructed as a double line, and will go through the village street and also pass directly by the petitioner's gate, by which his house, in which he resides, communicates with the high road, and which, moreover, is the only means of access to his house. The petitioner claims a locus standi as a landowner on the ground that this tramway runs along^ the -road for two miles through his property in the sense that he is owner of the subsoil of the highway, and he also claims a locus standi under S. O. 135. The tramway runs through Alford village street, which consists of 12 houses, and is, I submit, a street within the Standing Order. In the Brentford, Isleworth, and Tivickenham Tramways Bill, 1879, on the petition of Benjamin B. Reed and Francis T. Bircham (2 Clifford & Eickards, 140), the locus standi was allowed. There the tramway came opposite the end of a wall which formed a portion of a stable, and the present is therefore a much stronger case, for this tramway will interfere with the only means of access to the petitioner's house. In the Tramways Orders Confirmation {No. S) (Bm-y and District, tt-c.) Bill, 1881, on thepetition of the Earl of Derby (3 Clifford and Bickards, 1 ), the petitioner was allowed a locus standi ou the allegation that his property would be damaged by the tramway, and in this present case the petitioner shows that there is a risk of substantial injury to his property, and on this ground is therefore entitled, according to practice, to a locus standi. I also cite in my favour the Tramways Provisional Orders (lYo. 3) Confirmation (London South District Tramways Orders) Bill, 1882, on the petition of Owners, c&c. (3 Clifford & Eickards, 242). This is more of a street than was the case in the Brentford and District Tramways Bill, 1885 (Eickards & Michael, 8). Balfour Browne, Q.C. (for promoters) : The petitioner is not entitled to a landowner's locus standi, because no land of his is taken by the bill. It is true that he is the owner of the property on both sides of the road, but the roads are vested in the county council, who have given their consent to the tramways. The petitioner has, moreover, failed to bring his case within S. O. 185, because he must first show that this is a street, and this he has not done. The case of the Lea Bridge, Leyton and Walthamstow Tramways Bill, 1881, on the petition of (3) John Griffin and others (3 Clifford & Eickards, 73) is directly opposed to his contention. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : What do you say to Mr. Eickards' remark in the Brentford, Isleworth and Twickenham Tramways' case which has been cited, " This is not a ' street,' but we must take street to include ' road,' I suppose." Balfour Browne : When there is a road with a large number of houses close to a large town that may be a continuation of the street, and if it is the tailing out of what is clearly u street, that would be a street, but here there are 12 houses situated along a road in a country district, and I -submit that is not a " street " within the Standing Order, and that, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to a locus standi. The Chaikman : We are indebted to counsel on both sides for having drawn our attention to the cases in which this Court has interpreted the meaning of the word "street" in the Standing Order. No doubt at the time the Standing Order was originally framed tram- ways were for the most part confined to towns. We are, however, disposed to view the Standing Order as being capable of a more liberal construction, and we are disposed to give that construction to it in the present case, and we, therefore, allow the locus standi. Locus Standi of the Petitioner Allowid. Agents for Petitioner, Sherwood db Co. Agents for the Provisional Order, Haryraves and Co. 312 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. WEAVER NAVIGATION BILL. Petiticn of Messes. Bkunnek, Mond & Co. 9th June, 1893.— (Be/ore Mr. Shibess Will, Q.C., M.P., Chairman; t&c, (&c., dec.) Cripps, Q.C., stated, on behalf of the peti- tioners, that he did not now propose to argue their case for a locus standi, as a motion was to be made in the House itself, which, if successful, would necessarily give the petitioners a locus standi. Pember, Q.C. (for the promoters), agreed that that would be the effect of the motion being agreed to. Mr. CHANDos-LBiaH remarked that if the motion were unsuccessful, it would be open to the petitioners to take what course they might think necessary, and the Court allowed the matter to stand over without pronouncing for or against the locus standi of the petitioners. Agents for Petitioners, Taylor, Hoare (& Box. Agents for Bill, Dyson (& Co. END OF EEPORTS OF 1893. INDEX OF CASES (BILLS AND PETITIONS) OF THE SESSIONS 1890-91-92-98, EEPORTED IN PARTS I. AND II. OF THIS YOLUME OF REPORTS AND IN THIS PART. AmE AND Caldbb and Eitee Dun Navigations Jxinotion Canaij Bill, 1891 (H.L.). Petition of Owners axd Mastebs of Rivek Ckapt plying on the Eiveks Humbee AND Teent and the Sheffield and South Yoekshiee Navigation, COMMONLY CALLED THE SHEFFIELD AND KeADBY CaNAL, BETWEEN Hull and Sheffield and Inteemediate Places on the said EivEES AND Navigation, and the Amalgamated Society of Lighteemen and Wateemen op the ErvEE Humbee . . . . 77 Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Eailway Bill, 1890 (H.L.). PctiJion o/ (1) The Ehymney Eail WAY Company 1 „ (2) The Taff Vale Eailway Company . . . . . . . . . . 3 Ashton-undeb-Lyne Coeporation Bill, 1893. Petition of (1) The Audenshaw Local Boaed of Health 237 ,, (2) The Cheshire County Council .. .. , 237 Atb Harbour Bill, 1890. Petition of (1) The Ardrossan Harbour Company ; and (2) The Duke of Portland 5 Baeey Eailway Bill, 1893. Petition of (1) The Geeat Westeen Eailway Company 240 ,, (2) The National Telephone Company .. .. .. .. ., 242 Bevebley and East Eiding Eailway Bill, 1890. Petition of The Scaeboeough, Beidlingion, and West Eiding Eailway Company 10 BiLSTON CoMMissioNEES Water Bill, 1890. Petition of The Guardians of the Poor of the Seisdon Union . . , . . . 11 Blackpool Improvement Bill, 1892. PctiJjore 0/ The National Telephone Company .. .» 167 Beadfoed Corporation Water Bill, 1892. Petition of The Liversedgb Local Board 169 Briton Medical and General Life Association Bill, 1890. Petition of (1) Geoege Morley 11 „ (2) Bernard BoaijEe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Bueey Poet and Gwendeeath Valley Eailway Bill, 1891 (H.L.). Petition of (1) The Local Board of Health foe the District of the Borough OF Llanelly 81 (2) The Llanelly Harbour and Burey Navigation Commissioners 81 The Great Western Eailway Company 81 i 314 INDEX OF CASES. Bute Docks (Cakdipf) Bill, 1890 (H.L.). Petition of (1) The Babey Docks and Railways Company . . . . . . . . 12 „ (2) The Alexandra (Newpoet and South Wales) Docks and Railway Company, and oe the Newpoet (Alexandra) Dock Company, Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ,, (3) The Geeat Westekn Railway . .. .. 14 „ (4) The Pontypeidd, Caeephllly and Newport Railway Company . . 16 ,, (5) LoED Teedegae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Buxton Local Board Bill, 1892. (1) Samuel Hyd (2) The Leek and Mooelands Building Society . . . . . . 171 Petition of (1) Samuel Hyde and William Blackwood 171 (2- " - Caledonian Railway (Additional Powers) Bill, 1891. Petition of The North British Railway Company 87 Central London Railway Bill, 1891 90 Cork and Fermoy and Waterfoed and Wexeoed Railway Bill, 1890. Petition of (i) The Geeat Southern and Western Railway Company . . . . 19 ,, (2) The New Ross Harboue Commissionees and Merchants, Inhabi- tants, &c., oe New Ross ., .. .. .. .. .. 20 , , (3) The Waterfoed Bridge Commissioners . . . . . . . . 23 Croydon and Crystal Palace Railway Bill, 1890. Petition of The South-Easteen Railway Company . . . , . . . . . . 25 Dublin Southern District Tramways Bill, 1893 (H.L.). Petition of The Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Company . . . . 242 Dundee Extension, Police, Improvement and Tramways Bill, 1892. Petition of Butchees and Fleshees in Dundee and Lochee and others . . . . 174 Dundee Haeboue Bill, 1892 (H.L.). Petition of (1) The Harbour Trustees of Aberbrothwick . . . . . . . . 178 „ (2) The Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of Aberbrothwick, OE Aeeeoath, as such, and as Creditors op the "Harbour Trustees or Abeebeothwick, and of the Persons hereto Subscribing being also Creditors op the said Trustees . . 178 East Geinstead Gas and Water Bill, 1892. Petition of Ownees, Lessees and Occupiers in the District op Forest Row, in THE Parish op East Geinsiead . . . . . . . . . . 181 East Sionehouse Watee Bill, 1893. Petition of (1) The Devonport Water Company . . . . . . . . . . 246 „ (2) The Coepoeation op Plymouth 248 Edinburgh Corporation Tramways Bill, 1893. Petition of (1) The Edinburgh Street Tramways Company 250 The County Council of Midlothian . . . . . . . . . . 254 The Caledonian Railway Company . . . . . . . . . . 256 Edinburgh Improvement Bill, 1893. Petition of The National Telephone Company 259 Edinburgh Municipal and Police Bill, 1891. Petition of (1) The Parochial Board op St. Cutheert's Combination, Edinburgh, AND Andrew Ferrier, Inspector of Poor, foe and on behalf op the said Cojibination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 ,, (2) The Parochial Board of the City Parish of Edinburgh . . . . 91 ,, (3J The School Board OF Edinburgh .. .. .. ' .. .. 96 ,, (4) The Edinburgh Street Tramways Company 98 ,, (5) The Corporation op Leith . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 ,, (6) The Edinburgh and Leith Heritable Property Association, The Edinburgh and Leith Master Builders' Assocution, The Edinburgh aud Leith House Factors' Association, and op Individual Owners op Property, Ratepayers and othees in the City of Edinburgh . . . . . , . . . . . . 99 INDEX OF CASES. 315 PAdE Edinburgh Street Tramways Bill, 1892 (H.L.). Petition of The Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Council or the Oit-v of Edinburgh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • 184 Edinburgh Street Tramways Bill, 1893. Petition of (1) The Edinburgh and District Water Trust 202 „ (2) The Edinburgh and Leith Corpokation Gas Commissionurs . . 262 Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (Nq. 11) Confirmation Bill (Chatham, Koohester, and District, Electric Lighting Order) 1890. Petition of Walter Richard Solman 26 Fishguard Bay Railway and Piek Bill, 1893 (H.L.). Petition of James Okell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 Fleetwood Improvement Bill, 1893. Petition of Richard Edmondson 266 Folkestone Pier and Lift Bill, 1890. Petition of Richard Hammeksley Heenan . . . . 28 Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Tramways Bill, 1891. Petition of The South of England Telephone Company, Limited . . . . . . 102 Forfar and Brechin Railway Bell, 1891. Petition of (1) The Provost, Magistrates and Town Council of Forfar, The Earl OF Steathmore, James Taylor, and Manufacturers and Traders in forfab ^ 104 ,, (2) The Caledonian Railway Company 108 Garvb and Ullapool Railway Bill, 1890. Petition of The Great North op Scotland Railway Company 30 Glasgow and South- Western Railway (Steam- Vessels) Bill, 1891 (H.L.). Petition of (1) The Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway Company . . . . . . Ill ,, (2) The Caledonun Railway Company Ill ,, (3) The Clyde Steamship Owners' Association and others .. .. 115 Glasgow and South- Western Railway Bill, 1892 (H.L.). Petition of The Provost, Magistrates and Council op the Royal Burgh op Irvine 187 Glasgow and South- Western Railway (No. 2) Bill, 1892. Petition of The Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway Company and the Ardeossan Harbour Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Glasgow Corporation Bill, 1890. Petition of The Partick, Hillhead and Maeyhill Gas Company, Limited . . . . 31 Glasgow Coepoeation Water Bill, 1892. Petition of The Caledonian Railway Company . . . . . . 191 Glasgow South Suburban Railway Bill, 1891 . . . . 117 Glasgow, Yokbr and Clydebank Railway Bill, 1892. Petition of (1) The Lanarkshire and Dumbartonshire Railway Company . . . . 191 „ (2) The Caledonian Railway Company 191 ,, (3) The Magistrates and Police Commissioners of the Burgh op Clydebank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Glasgow, Yoker and Clydebank Railway Bill, 1893. Petition of The Corporation op Glasgow 269 Great North of Scotland Railway Bill, 1890. Petition of (1) Owners, &o., inthe vicinity of Elgin 34 „ (2) James Simpson 34 „ (3) The Corporation of Inverness 34 316 INDEX OF CASES. PAGE Geeat Nokth of Scotland Kailway Bill, 1893. Petition of The Cokpokation of Abekdeen 269 Gbbat Western Bailwat Bill, 1891. Petition- of (1) The Tafp Vale Eailway Company 117 ,, (2) The Bakey Docks and Railway Company . .' 120 Geeenock Cokpokation Bill, 1893. Petition of (1) The Clyde Navigation Trustees . . , 270 „ (2) The CoEPOEATioN OE Glasgow 270 Handswohth (Stapfoed) Rectoky Bill, 1891 (H.L.). Petition of Inhabitants and Chukchwakdens of Holy Tkinity, Handswoeth . . 123 Highland Eailway (New Lines) Bill, 1890. Petition of William Young . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Hoensey Local Boaed Bill, 1893. Petition of (1) Owners and Lessees op Lands, &c., in the Urban Sanitary District of Hornsey, in the County of Middlesex . . . . 276 ,, (2) The London County Council .. .. .. .. .. .. 278 Keighley Coepoeation Bill, 1891. Petition of The Local Boaed of Health for the District of Hamwoeih, in the County of York . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Lancashire and Dumbartonshire Railway Bill, 1890. Petition of The West Highland Railway Company 36 Lancashire, Deebyshiee and East Coast Railway Bill, 1891. Petition of John Peestwich . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . 127 Lancashire and Yorkshire and London and North- Western Railways (Steam- Vessels) Bill, 1892. Petition of (1) The Belfast Steamship Company . . . . . . . . . . 195 „ (2) The Glasgow, Dublin and Londonderry Steam Packet Company. . 195 Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Steam- Vessels) Bill, 1892. Petition of (1) The City of Dublin Steam Packet Company 197 „ (2) The Glasgow, Dublin, and Londonderry Steam Packet Company 197 ,, (3) The Steamship Owners' Association and the Irish Steamship Association 199 Lea Valley Drainage Bill, 1892. Petition of The London County Council . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 Leeds Corporation (Consolidation and Improvement) Bill, 1893 [H.L.] Petition of The National Telephone Company 281 Local GovEEiiiiiENT Peovisional Order (for the Formation of the Edmonton, Enfield, South Hornsey and Tottenham Joint Hospital District) Con- firmation Bill, 1891. Petition of (1) The Southgate Local Board . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 „ (2) Thomas James Mann AND others .. .. 127 Local Goveen'ment Peovisional Order No. 10 (Halifax Obdee) Confirmation Bill, 1892. Petition of The Corporation of Bb-adford . . . . . . . . . , . . 204 London and North-Western Railway Bill, 1893. Petition of The Salt Union, Limited . . . . . . . . . . . , . , 284 London and South- Western Railway Bill, 1890. Petition of The Poole Bridge Company 35 INDEX OF CASES. 317 PAOB London and South-Western Eailway Bill, 1893. Fetition of Eatepatees of Southampton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 London, Bkiohton, and South Coast Railway (Various Powers) Bill, 1890 (H.L.). Petition of William Duke and othees 39 London County Council (General Powees) Bill, 1891. Petition of The Brush Electrical Engineering Company and six other Electrical Lighting Companies .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 130 London County Council (General Powers) Bill, 1892. Petition of The Gas Light and Coke Company 204 London County Council (Monet) Bill, 1892. Petition of The Corporation of West Ham 208 London County Council (Subways) Bill, 1892. Petition of The Board of Works for the St. Giles's District 210 London County Council (General Powers) Bill, 1893. Petition of (1) The Govehnour and Company of the New Eivee, brought from Chadwell and Amwell to London ; the East London Water- works Company; the Company of Proprietors of Lambeth Waterworks ; the Company of Proprietors of the West Middlesex Waterworks; the Grand Junction Waterworks Company ; the Goveenour and Company of the Chelsea Waterworks; and the Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 290 The East London Waterworks Company 290 The Kent Waterworks Company . . . . . . . . . . 290 (4) The Corporation of West Ham and other Local Authorities . . 295 „ (5l The Essex County Council . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 „ (6) The Berkshire County Council . . . . . . . . . . 295 „ (7J The Surrey County Council 295 „ (8) The Upper Thames Association . . . . . . . . . . 298 „ (9) The Thames Riparian Owners' Association, and Sir Gilbert Clayton East, Bart 298 ,, (10) The Mayor, Aldermen, AND Commons of THE City of London .. 300 „ (ll) The Commissioners of Sewers of the City of London . . . . 803 London Open Spaces Bill, 1893. Petition of The Gas Light and Coke Company 305 London Streets (Removal of Gates, &c.) Bill, 1893. Petition of The Gas Light and Coke Company 307 Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway (Extension to London, &c.) Bill, 1891. Petieiom 0/ ^1) Viscount PoRTMAN 130 (2) Owners, Lessees, and Occupiers of lands, houses and property in the Parishes of St. Marylebone and St. John, Hampstead. . 133 John Wooley Pitt and Thomas John Pitfield and Others . . 133 Owners, Lessees, and Occupiers in Broadhurst Gardens, in the Parish of St. John, Hampstead 136 (5) George Boultby and Others, Owners, &o., of Property in Nottingham . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 (6) The Vicar and Churchwardens of the Parish Church of St. Mary, Leicester 139 (7) The Towcester and Buckingham Railway Company 140 Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Eailway (Extension to London, &c.) - Bill, 1892. Petition of W. G. Chapman and Company 212 Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway (Various Powers) Bill, 1891. Petition of The Great Western Railway Company 140 318 INDEX OP CASES. Metropolitan Eailwat Bill, 1890. Petition of {1) The Vestry of Marylebone The Vestry OF St. Pancbas The Viscount Pobtman . . The Eeveeend H. S. Eyre The London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company The Great Eastern Railway Company . . The Midland Railway Company . . The Great Northern Railway Company The London, Chatham and Dover Railway Company The Great Western Railway Company The Metropolitan District Railway Company !2) 3) 4) (6) (7) (8) 10 (11) Midland Railway Bill, 1892. Petition of James Addy 40 40 43 44 46 46 46 46 46 46 49 213 Nelson Corporation Bill, 1891. Petition of John Babrowolough Messrs. Henry Hartley and Sons Owners and Occupiers oe Mills on the River Calder Paddiham and Hapton Local Board The Corporation op Burnley Newcastle-upon-Tyne Improvement Bill, 1892. Petition of The Walker Local Board . . North British and Glasgow and South-Westeen Railway Companies Bill, 1890, Petition of (1) Sharp, Stewart and Company . . ,, (2) Warehousemen in Glasgow The Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway Company . . The Solway Junction Railway Company North British Railway Bill, 1891. Petition of Proprietors, Feuars, &a., in Dundyvan Road, Coatbridge Noeth-Eabtern Railway (Hull Docks) Bill, 1892 (H.L.). Petition of 11) The South Yoreshike Coal Owners' Assurance Society . . . . ,, (2) Owners oe Wharves and Warehouses, and Others, at Kingston- upon-hull . . Norih-Bastern Railway Bill, 1892. Petition of The South Yorkshire Coal Owners' Assurance Society 144 147 147 147 147 215 50 50 53 53 151 217 217 217 Paeiick, Hillhead and Maryhill Gas and Electricity Bill, 1890. Petition of Committee op Ratepayers, Gas Consumers, and Feuars in Kelvinside AND Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Pontypridd Burial Board Bill, 1892. Petition of Ratepayers and Others within the Disteict Affected by the Bill . . 221 Regent's Canal, City and Docks Railway Bill, 1892. Petition of (1) The Coepoeation of West Ham . . . . . . . . . . 224 ,, (2) The Vestey op St. Pancras 227 Rhondda and Swansea Bay Railway Bill, 1893 (H.L.). Petition of The Great Western Railway Company . . . . . . . . , . 309 RiEBLE Navigation Bill, 1890. Petition of The Corporation of Southport . . . . . . . . , . . , 5(5 Richmond Footereidge (Lock, &c.) Bill, 1890. Petition of (1) The Vestey of Hammeesmiih 60 ,, (2) The Boaed op Works poe the Wandsworth District . . , . 60 „ (8) The Chiswiok Local Boaed 60 „ (4) Inhabitants and Ratepayees op Moetlake and Riparian Owners . . 60 „ (5) The Duke of Devonshire , ,. 60 INDEX or CASES. 319 PAOB BOTHEEHAM, BlYTH, AND SuiTON EaiLWAY BiLL, 1891. Petition of The Manchesteb, Sheffield, and Lincolnshibe Railway Company . . 152 Khymney Eailway Bill, 1890 (H.L.). Petition of 11) The Babry Dock and Railways Company 64 ,, (2) The Taff Vale Railway Company 64 „ (3) The Pontypeidd, Caebphilly, and Newpoei Railway Company . . 67 ,, (4) The Mabqhess of Bute and the Tkustees of the Will of the Late Maequess of Bute 67 Saint Barnabas Chueoh Livebpool Bill, 1892 (H.L.). Petition of Inhabitants of the Ecclesiastical District of St. Barnabas . . . . 229 Sheffield and Midland Railway Companies' Committee Bill, 1891. Petition of II) The Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation Company . . 153 ,, (2) The Great Northern Railway Company 155 South-Easteen Railway Bill, 1890 (H.L.). Petition of The Oveeseees of the Poor fob the Paeish of St. Saviour's, Southwaek 68 South-Easteen Railway Bill, 1891. Petition of The London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company 157 South-Easteen Railway Bill, 1893. Petition of The Yebtey of Beemondsey 310 South Torkshiee Junction Railway Bill, 1890. Petition of The Nobth-Eastern Railway Company 69 Stourbridge Improvement Commissioners Bill, 1891. Petition of The Stourbridge Gas Company 159 SwiNTON AND Pendlebcey Local Board Bill, 1892. Petition of (1) The Corporation of Salfoed 231 „ (2) The Local Board of Little Hulton 233 Tottenham and Poeest Gate Junction Railway Bill, 1890. Petition of (1) Owners, Lessees and Occupiers, along the Line of the Proposed Railway 71 ,, (2) Inhabitants of Leyton, Wanstead, and West Ham .. .. 72 Tramways Peovisional Orders Confirmation Bill (No. 2) (Bristol Tbamways Exten- sion Order), 1891. Petition of The Bristol Waterworks Company 160 Tramways Order Confirmation (Someeion, Keinton-Mandeville, and Castle Gary Tramways Order) (No. 2) Bill, 1893 (H.L.). Petition of J. Huntley Thring 310 Wear Valley Extension Railway Bill 1892 (H.L.). Petition of The Cumbeeland County Council 234 Weavee Navigation Bill, 1893. Petition of Brunner, Mond and Co °'-'' Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Water Bill, 1891. Petition of (1 The Monmouthshire County Council . . . . . . . . Ibl (2) The Vicar and Churohwaedens of the Parish of Mynyddislwyn Ibd ", (3) The Blackwood Gas and Watee Company, Limited . . . . 164 Whitland, Ceonware and Pendine Railway (Abandonment) Bill, 1892. Petition of Thomas John Beowick 286 Woecesteb and Broom Railway (Extension of Time) Bill, 1890. Petition of The Sibatfoed-on-Avon, Towcesteb and Midland Junction Railway Company '^^ INDEX TO SUBJECTS, TO CASES REPORTED IN THIS PART. ',* Where a Standing Order is Referred to in the Index, the numbering is that of the Standing Orders [House of Commons'] for 1894. ABSTRACTION (See wateb). ACCESS (SeeEOAD). ACTS, PUBLIC (See statutes). AGREEMENT (See bailway (2), tbamway). ALLEGATION (See peactice). AMALGAMATION (See railway (1), tbamway). AMBIGUITY (See pbactioe). AQUEDUCT (See beseevoib, water). AREA (See gas, wateb). ASSOCIATION (See aZso tbade), voluntary for election of river conservators opposing proposed alterations in constitution of conservancy board, 298 AUTHORITY (See looai, boabd, pbactioe). BOARD OF TRADE, corporation seeking powers to purchase tramways by agreement, and to work and lease same to third parties, by bill containing no provision for approval of lease by , 250 BOROUGH (See cobpobation). BRIDGE, provisions for works for electrical power on tramway carried over railway , opposed by railway company apprehending injury to , 256 BUEGH (See ooepoeation). CATTLE, provision in burgh improvement bill for dep&t, opposed by navigation trustees and corporation alleging competition, 270 CLAUSE (See ebaciiob, saving clauses), COMPANY (See gas, railway (2) ). 322 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. COMPETITION {See also cobpobation, railway (2) ), amalgamation of tramways and use of electricity thereon, how far an improvement of existing , 242 improvement of-existing , by bill for additional water works, opposed by company supplying district, 246 pier owner opposing establishment of ferry with powers to owners of boats to use landing stage on ground of , 266 establishment of cattle dep6t in burgh improvement bill, opposed by navigation trustees and corporation alleging , 270 CONSERVANCY, alteration of constitution of board, by London County Council, opposed by water companies, 290 ; by county councils and corporation, 295 proposed alterations in constitution of , opposed by voluntary association for election of conservators, 298 CORPORATION (See also county council, local boaed), promotion of sewerage scheme by , opposed by county council alleging " iajurious affecting," 237 claiming a landowner's locus in respect of leat crossed by pipes of water company, 248 powers to purchase tramways by agreement, and to work and lease same to third parties sought by , without provision for approval of lease by Board of Trade, 250 purchase of tramways by beyond district of county council, who alleged injurious affecting of tramways within district, 254 powers sought by to puU down houses and interfere with overhead wires, opposed by telephone company as licensees of owners and occupiers of houses, 259 railway company seeking powers to supply water within the district of supply of , 269 bill of for burgh improvement providing for prevention of smoke nuisance within burgh and port, opposed by navigation trustees and neighbouring corporation, 270 burgh improvement bill of providing for establishment of cattle dep6t, opposed by navigation trustees and corporation, alleging competition, 270 consolidation bill enabling to work tramways, already worked by electricity, opposed by telephone company, 281. COUNTY COUNCIL {See also cobpoeation, local boaed), purchase of tramways by corporation beyond district of , alleged to injuriously affect tramways within district, 254 local authority seeking special powers as to local government, opposed by London , claiming uniformity of legislation, and alleging possibility of main sewerage system being affected, 278 alteration -of conservancy board by London , opposed by water companies, 290, by county councils and corporation, 295 corporation as market authority opposing bill of authorising expenditure of county rate on inquiries as to water supply and markets, 300 power to regulate erection of dwelling-houses on low-lying lands by , opposed by commissioners of sewers, 303 acquisition of private garden by for public recreation ground, opposed by gas company alleging interference with mains in street, 305 bill of for removal of gates and obstructions from streets, opposed by gas company, 307 COVENANT, salt union having restrictive with owners, claiming an interest in lands sought to be acquired for railway sidings, 284 DISTINCT INTERESTS {See cobpobation, inteeests, owners, bepresentaiion). DISTRICT {See gas, local boaed, tramway, water). DOCK, construction of by railway company opposed by ratepayers, 287 DRAINAGE, London County Council aUeging possibility of main system beina affected, opposmg bill of local authority, 278 ^ INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 323 KLEOTEICITY (See meohakioaii poweb, thamway). FEERY, establishment of and power to owners of boats to use landing-stage, opposed by pier owner, 266 FOBE SHORE, alleged interference with rights of pier-owner by bill for eatablisliment of ferry, 266 sale of mudlands on by corporation to railway for construction of dock, opposed by ratepayers, 287 FEONTAGEB, railway company as opposing amalgamation of tramways and use of electricity thereon, 242 owner of houses in village as opposing construction of steam tramway on country road, 310 GAS, powers to construct works for cable haulage of tramways opposed by company apprehending injury to pipes, 262 company, alleging injury to mains, opposing powers for acquisition of land by county council, 305 company, claiming protective clauses in bill of county council for removal of gates and obstructions in streets, 307 HAKBOUE {See dock). HOUSES, power to London County Council to regulate erection of upon low- lying lands opposed by Commissioners of Sewers, 803 INJUBIOUS AFFECTING, sufficiency of allegations of by county council, opposing bill of corpora- tion for sewerage scheme, 237 alleged of tramways within district of county council, by purchase of tramways by corporation beyond district, 254 telephone company alleging by removal of overhead wires in street improvement bill of corporatipn, 259 contractor of authorised railway with contuigeut interest "therein alleging by exercise of running powers over same, 264 bill of local authority for special powers of local government opposed by owner.T and occupiers alleging of property by increased rates, 276 of telephone company by provisions enabling corporation to work tramways already worked by electricity, 281 alleged of houses in vUlage, by construction of steam tramway on country road, 310 INJURY {See injumods apfectinq). INTEREST, running powers sought over authorised line opposed by contractor with a contingent therein, 264 provision in burgh improvement bill for expenses of treatment of infectious oases within port opposed by navigation trustees as affecting shipping , 270 salt union having restrictive covenants with owners of land sought to be acquired by railway claiming in laud, 284 LAND {See also landowneb, owners, etc.), acquisition of by corporation for sewerage purposes alleged to " injuriously affect " county council and neighbouring local board, 237 acqaisition of rights over and under , how far entitling to & locus, 284 324 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. LANDOWNER (See also land, ownebs), water company as adjoining owners claiming a locus standi as in respect of road in which promoters sought to lay pipes, 246 corporation claiming a locus as in respect of land proposed to be crossed by pipes of water company, 248 LEASE, corporation seeking power to purchase tramways and to work and same to third, parties, by bill containing no provision for approval of by Board of Trade, 250 LEGISLATION, complaint of railway company against existing , 240 claim for uniformity of by London County Council when opposing bill of neighbouring local authority, 278 LESSEE (See owners). LOCAL BOAED AND AUTHORITY (See also cobpobation, county council), sufficiency of allegations of "injurious affecting" by opposing sewerage scheme of corporation, 237 additional works sought by supplying water to a district also included in limits of a water company, 246 corporation claiming landowner's locus as owners of leat proposed to be crossed by pipes of , 248 bill of for special purposes of local government opposed by owners and occupiers within district injuriously affected by increased rates and alteration of taxation, 276 bill of for special powers as to local government opposed by London County Council claiming uniformity of legislation, 278 LOCAL GOVERNMENT, special powers of sought by local authority, opposed by owners and occupiers as injuriously affected by increased rates and alteration of taxation, 276 bill of local authority for special powers as to opposed by London County Council claiming uniformity of legislation, 278 LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (Sec county council). MARKET, corporation as authority opposing bill authorising expenditure of county rate upon enquiries as to water supply and markets, 300 MECHANICAL POWER (See also teamway), bill for construction of tramway to be propelled by opposed by telephone company, promoters conceding that term included electricity, 242 NAVIGATION (See also dock, port), trustees opposing provisions for abatement of smoke nuisance in burgh improvement bill of corporation, 270 provision for cattle dep6t in burgh improvement bill opposed by trustees on ground of competition, 270 NUISANCE, provisions for abatement of smoke within port in burgh improvement bill, opposed by navigation trustees, 270 OBJECTIONS (See pbaotice), OCCUPIERS (See ownees). INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 325 OWNERS, LESSEES, AND OCOUPIEES (See also eailway (2) ), adjoining owners, water company aa, claiming a landowner's locus standi in respect of road in which promoters sought to lay pipes, 246 telephone company as licensees of of houses opposing street improve- ment bill of corporation, on around of interference with overhead wires, 259 local authority seeking special powers of local government opposed by injuriously affected by increased rates, 276 as distinguished from ratepayers, opposing bill of local authority, 276 salt union having restrictive covenants with of lands sought to be acquired for sidings, opposing railway bill, 284 construction of steam tramway on country road opposed by of houses in village, as frontager, 310 PIPES (See gas, koad, wateb). PIER owner of opposing establishment of ferry with power to owners of boats to use lan(£ng-stage, 266 PORT (See also dock), provision in burgh improvement bill for abatement of smoke nuisance within , opposed by navigation trustees, 270 provision relating to infectious cases on board ships within in burgh improvement bill, opposed by corporation as sanitary authority, 270 provision for expenses of treatment of infectious cases within in burgh improvement bill, opposed by navigation trustees as affecting shipping interests, 270 PRACTICE, right of petitioners to be heard where locus standi of other petitioners raising similar objections is conceded, 237 locus standi granted against main clauses authorising use of electrical power, how far entitling to locus against subsidiary clauses, 242 as to joint petitioners when objections refer to only one petitioner, 298 petitioners allowed locus against a particular clause to ask Committee to make meaning clear, 300 PROTECTIVE CLAUSES (See saving clauses). RAILWAY (See also Comeetition). (1) Amalgamation. (2) Company. (1) Amalgamation, alleged virtual by agreement for transfer of railway to working company, 240 (2) Company, agreement for transfer of railway to working , 240 opposition of having traffic arrangements with railway proposed to be transferred by bill, 240 alleging competition and " injurious affecting " as frontagers, 242 opposing use of electricity on tramways forming continuous route, 242 seeking protective clauses for telegraph wires and signals in bill authorising the use of electricity on tramways, 242, 256 provisions for works for electrical power on tramways carried across railway bridges, opposed by apprehending injury to bridges, 256 running powers sought by proposed railway over authorised railway, opposed by contractor with a contingent interest therein, 264 powers sought by to construct reservoir and make aqueduct and impound stream, opposed by corporation supplying water to district, 269 acquisition of lands by for sidings, opposed by salt union having restrictive covenants against salt working with owners of lands sought to be acquired, 284 construction of dock by opposed by ratepayers, 287 326 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. EATEPATERS {See also cokpoeation, kepkesentation), owners and occupiers, as distinguished from , opposing bill 01 local authority, 276 opposing construction of dock, how far represented by corporation, 287 BATES (See also bailwa^ (2) ), local authority seeking special powers of local government opposed by owners and occupiers alleging " injurious affecting" by increased , 276 KEPEESENTATION (See also inhabitants, eatepayebs, &c.), county councils and corporation opposing bill for alteration of constitution of conservancy board and claiming additional , 295 claim of voluntary association, for promoting efficient representation on conservancy board, to oppose bill altering constitution of board, 298 alleged of corporation as ratepayers by county council seeking powers to expend county rate on enquiries as to water supply and markets, 300 EESEEVOIR (See also watee), powers sought by railway company to construct and aqueduct opposed by corporation supplying water to burgh, 269 , EBSIDENTS (See batepayees). EES JUDICATA (See legislation). EIGHT OF WAY (Sec eoad). EIVEE (See conseevancy). EOAD, water company as adjoining owners claiming a landowner's locus standi in respect of a ■ in which promoters sought to lay pipes, 246 gas and water companies apprehending injury to pipes in by construc- tion of works for cable haulage of tramways, 262 bill for removal of gates and obstructions from opposed by gas company, 307 construction of steam tramway on country opposed by owner of houses in village as frontager, 810 EOAD AUTHOEITY (See local eoaed, eoad). SANITAEY AUTHOEITY (See coepoeation, county council, local boaed). SAVING AND PEOTECTIYE CLAUSES, telephone company claiming in bill authorising construction of tram- ways and useof mechanical power, 242 SEWEEAGE, scheme for promoted by corporation opposed by neighbouring local board and county counoU, 237 • London County Council, alleging possibility of main drainage and system being affected, opposing bill of local authority, 278 SHIPPING (See inteeest). STANDING OEDEBS, 132 [Dissenting shareholders to be heard] , 264 134 [Municipal authorities and inhabitants of towns] , 237, 270, 295 134b [County council alleged to be injuriously affected by bill] , 237, 254, 278, 295 135 [Petitions against tramway bills] , 242, 310 163 [No powers of purchase, &c., except after proof of certain matters before the Board of Trade] , 240 171 [No powers to be given to local authority to place or run carriages upon tramways] , 250, 281 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 327 STATUTES (public, cited), Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, s. 384 ; 270 Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878, s. 39 ; 270 Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876, 278 Lauds Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, 259 Metropolis Management Acts, 278 Poor Law Act, 1879, 278 Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, ss. 52, 54 j 270 Public Health Act, 1875, s. 52 ; 246 Public Health Acts, 1875 and 1890, 276, 278 Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, s. 77 ; 284 Telegraph Act, 1878, 259 Tramways Act, 1870, ss. 19, 43 ; 250 ; s. 30 ; 262 Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, s. 28 ; 246 STREET (See also koad), meaning of in S. O. 135 relating to tramway bills, 310 TAXATION, alteration of alleged by owners opposing bill of local authority, 276 TELEGRAPHS (See railway (2) ). TELEPHONE, claim by company for protective clauses in bill authorising construction of tramways and the user of mechanical power, 242 powers sought by corporation to puU down houses for street improvements, bill causing interference with overhead wires, opposed by telephone company as licensees of owners of houses, 259 consolidation bill enabling corporation to work tramways already worked by electricity opposed by company, 281 TOLLS (See KATES). TOWN COUNCIL {See oobpobation). TRADE, Salt Union as association, having restrictive covenants with owners of lands sought to be acquired by railway company, opposing bill, 284 TRAFFIC (See railway (2), tramway). TRAMWAYS, bill authorising construction of and user of mechanical power, opposed by telephone company claiming protective clauses, 242 railway company alleging competition and "injurious affecting" as frontagers, opposing use of electricity on forming continuous route, 242 corporation seeking powers to purchase ■ by agreement, and to work and lease same to third parties, by bill containing no provision for approval of lease by Board of Trade, 250 purchase of by corporation beyond district of county council, who . alleged injurious affecting of within district, 254 use of electrical power on , opposed by railway company apprehending disturbance to telegraphs, 256 •' i-ir o provisions for works for electrical power on carried across railway bridges, opposed by railway company apprehending injury to bridges, 256 powers to construct works for cable haulage of , opposed by gas and water companies apprehending injury to pipes, 262 consolidation biU enabling corporation to work already worked by electricity, opposed by telephone company, 281 construction of steam along country road, opposed by owner of houses m village as frontager, 310 TRANSFER (See railway). VESTRY (See local board). 328 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. eastern point on the foreshore of your petitioners' district, and the natural ebb of its waters in a receding tide is along the foreshore bounding your petitioners' district. The sewage matter would follow the course of this channel and the action of the tides would, in the opinion of your petitioners, have the effect of casting up and depositing on Penarth flats and the beach adjoining your petitioners' district the solid matter from the sewage, whilst the effluent would be present in the neighbouring waters, thus endangering the health of the inhabitants of and visitors to the district, destroying its amenities as a sea-side resort, and otherwise prejudicially affecting the prosperity of the district." It cannot be said, looking at those allegations, that we are not entitled to be heard against a proposal of that kind. The Chairman : I think we have had a similar case before us. Cripp.i : Yes ; in the case of the Local Govern- ment Provisional Orders (No, 7) (Bingley Order) Confirmation Bill, 1889 (Eickards & Michael, 261). Pembroke Stephens, Q.G. (for promoters) : Let me put my point briefly. My learned friend is very sensitive about sewage, but he need not be because the Penarth sewers at the present moment are here (pointing to the map) already. This being the promenade, their own sewers discharge at a point nearer to themselves than our sewer, as proposed by the bill. What is proposed by us is to shift the point of outfall of the sewage. The sewage of Cardiff goes into the Taff now, only at a different point. The Chairman : Your sewage goes into the Taff at a certain point now by parliamentary authority, and you are now coming for parliamentary authority to allow yon to make the outfall in a new place. Stephens : Yes ; it is the same injury, the only difference being a difference of degree. The Chaikmax : We are clearly of opinion that the petitioners are entitled to be heard under S. O. 134. That would be against Part IV. of the biU, and so much of the preamble as relates thereto. Locus Standi of the petitioners Allowed against Part lY. of the BUI, and so much of the preamble as relates thereto. Agents for Petitioners, Torr d- Co. Petition of (4) Gomjioneks of Common Lands in the Pabish of Cantbeff. Construction of Railway across Common Laiuh — Comjmlsory Acquisition of Lands — Individual Commoners, Bights of, as Landowners. Clause 8 of the bill empowered the promoters to maintain a railway for the conveyance of materials in connection with their water- works undertaking across certain common lands, and clause 40 empowered them to acquire compulsorily for that purpose ten acres of the common lands. The petitioners were twenty commoners of the common lands sought to be taken, who signed the petition as individual commoners. It was objected that as individual commoners they had no rights as landowners, and that the number who signed the petition was too small to entitle them collectively to represent the whole body of commoners. Held, however, that the interest of the peti- tioners in the common lands sought to be compulsorily acquired under the bill was that of a landowner, and that they wei-c entitled, in accordance with the practice of the Court, to be heard generally against the bill. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds: — (1) none of the lands or property of the petitioners will be taken or used under the powers of the bill; (2) paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, and part of 11 only complain of past legislation, and are not relevant to the bill ; (3) the petitioners are not entitled to be heard in i-espect of common- able rights or easements over the commons in question ; (4) even if such rights confer a right to be heard, such right ought only to be given to the body of the persons entitled thereto, and not to individnals, and the petitioners are not suflBcient in number to represent the body ; (5) the petitioners are not entitled to be heard in respect of any alleged abstraction of water; (6) the petitioners, if entitled to be heard at aU, are only entitled to be heard against clause 7 (power to make works and to supply water) and clause 8 (power to maintain railway), and so much of the preamble as rela,tes thereto. Pabt IV.] CAEDIFF CORPOEATION BitL. 329 E. H. Lloyd (for petitioners) : The peti- tion is headed ' ' The petition of the undersigned, being commoners of common lands in tlie parish of Cantreff, in the county of Brecon," and is signed by 20 commoners. These com- mon lands consist of about 3,000 acres. Clause 8 of the bill authorises the corporation of Cardiff to maintain a railway across the common, ia respect of which the petitioners are commoners for the conveyance of mater- ials in connection with their waterworks undertaking, and for this purpose, by clause 40 of the bill, to acquire ten acres of the common. They also seek power to im- pound the waters of certain brooks which flow through the common for the purposes of the enlarged reservoir, not authorised by clause 7 of the bill. Pembroke Stephens, Q.G. (for promoters) : Perhaps I might shorten the proceedings by saying this — as regards interference with water, no question will arise. As regards the land proposed to be taken for the railway to be used solely for the construction of the works, a small portion of the common is taken, and the short question is whether the twenty com- moners who sign the petition are entitled to be heard as representing the commoners as a whole. The first question is whether they have power to petition as owners of land, the lord of the manor not joining in the petition. The second question is, there being a committee of this body, whether they should not petition through that committee ; and the third question is whether they suf&ciently represent the district. I admit that the railway will traverse the common. The Chaikman ; You take some land com- pulsorily from the common ? Stephens: Yes. The Chatrman : The use of the word "land- owner " is sometimes misleading. We give what is called a landowner's locus not only to the person who owns the freehold, but to a person having an interest in the land proposed to be taken. Stephens : No doubt ; but the question is whether an individual commoner has any right to petition as a landowner. I have been unable to find any case in which a locus standi has been given to commoners as such. There have been cases where a lord of the manor, sometimes easily and sometimes under diffi- culties, has established his locus standi ; but as regards commoners, I do not find any case where they have been allowed a locus standi. Lloyd: On the 14th of December, 1893, a parish meeting was held to consider the Cardiff Corporation Bill, and a committee was appointed to take action with regard to that bill, which committee caused the petition to be prepared ; and on the 26th April last a parish meeting was called, which approved of the petition. Stephens : There may have been parish meetings, and there may have been a com- mittee appointed at one of those meetings,, bat it is not the committee of the commoners who petition. Lloyd : A large number of the commoners sign the petition, considering the limited time that was allowed, and the petition received the sanction of the parish meeting held on the 23th April last. We are here as individual petitioners, but the parish has endorsed the action which these petitioners have taken. Stephens : There is nothing to show that ; on the contrary, paragraph 5, in speaking of the proposal to lay an aqueduct across the common, says " Arrangements have been made between the corporation and a committee representing the commoners of the parish of Cantreff for the sale of the easement of laying the said conduit pipe through the common lands for the sum of £16." This is not the petition of any public meeting ; it is the petition of the individuals who sign it. For the purpose of the construction of the waterworks, we take power to lay a railway on a certain portion of the common ; technically, we take so much land, we do not enclose it, but we do lay a railway on it. The Chaieman : You have power to take it under the bill. Stephens : I quite admit that we take enough of the common to construct a railway across it, but we do not take it from these individual petitioners. Until under the Inclosure Acts a commoner has a specific part of a common awarded to him, all that he has the right to is the enjoyment of the common ; he has no property in the water or in any individual spot of the land ; he has a right to put his sheep on the common and to cut tarf and so on ; but in the sense of ownership of a particular plot of land, which might be sought to be acquired compulsorily by a particular bill, there is nothing in the practice of this Court which gives to individual commoners an interest in land of such a character as to support a locus standi. These commoners might have peti- tioned by their committee, or they might have had a public meeting with a chairman, who might have signed the petition, as representing the whole body, but they have not done so. Here is a common consisting of 3,000 aores^ and the petition is signed by twenty persons. 330 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. The Chaikman : I think we may give our decision on this case at once. It is very desirable that any doubt upon this matter should be cleared up. If these petitioners have an interest in land it does not signify whether they are a small number or a large number of the total number of commoners, and in the next place it does not signify that their committee are not here petitioning, and for this very good reason, because each one of tliem is entitled to petition. It is incontro- vertible and cannot be argued to the contrary that a commoner has an interest in land ; it is primitive law and abundantly plaia. Whatever doubts may have been suggested at any time upon the subject, we are clearly of opinion that these commoners have an interest in land and that therefore they are entitled to appear where part of their common is proposed to be taken compulsorily. Stephens : I take it you do not propose to give to the commoners in respect to interference with them by the taking of the land for the construction of the railway, power to ramble over all the clauses of the bill. The Chaikman : We have more than once reconsidered what has been called the " Post " case, that is to say, the case of the London and North-Western Railway Bill, 1868, on the petition of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Raihoay Company [1 Clifford & Stephens, 62), and we have come to the conclusion that so well is the practice established of giving persons interested in land a general locus, that we thought that it was inadvisable for us to attempt to alter it, and that if it were to be altered it should be done by Parliament making a new Standing Order limiting the locus standi in such a case. In this case the locus standi will be a general locus as in all landowners' cases ; but of course the petitioners will be limited by the allegations in their petition, and if they go into matters beyond their petition no doubt the Committee will stop them. Agents for Petitioners, Dyson (& Co. Agents for Bill, Edwin Andrew <& White. DUNDEE SUBURBAN RAILWAY (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL. [H. L.] Petition of The Paboohial Boakd of the Dundee Combination. 11th July, 1894.— (-Be/orfi Mr. Paekek Smith, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Healt, M.P.; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leiqh, Q.G. ; and Mr. Bonham-Caeteb.) Railway — Extension of time for Construction of Works — Railways Clauses Act, 1863, Ft. II.— Local Authority as Purchasers of Lands required for Railway — Notice to Treat for Lands prior to Purchase — Injurious affecting of Hospital erected on Adjoining Lands- Petitioners as Creditors of Promoters — Special Circumstances — Alleged Agreements — Insol- vency of Company — Practice. Clause 3 of the bill extended for a period of two years the time limited for the con- struction of railways authorised by the Dundee Suburban Railway Act, 1884, the period originaDy fixed for their construc- tion by that Act having been already twice extended by the Dundee Suburban Railway Act, 1889, and the Dundee Subur- ban EaUway Act, 1892. No part of the authorised railway or works had been commenced. The petitioners were the parochial board of three combined parishes, including Dundee, who had in 1890 pur- chased lands through which a portion of the authorised railway would be con- structed in cutting. The vendors of the lands had, at the time of the purchase by the petitioners, received notice to treat from the railway company, and the petitioners had purchased subject to that notice. These lands adjoined other lands belonging to the petitioners, upon which they had erected a hospital for paupers and contemplated erecting other build- ings for pauper children. The peti- tioners alleged that it would be im- possible, but for the extension of time proposed by the bill, for the promoters to construct their railway, and contended that they were entitled to be heard against a bUl which would enable a railway to be con- Btructed, which must seriously affect the Part IV.] dundee subueban eailway, etc., bill. 331 value of their hospital for the purposes for which it had been built; and they relied (1) upon an agreement between the pro- moters and their predecessors in title, under which the locus standi of the latter was secured against future bills of the company ; and (2) upon an agreement entered into between the promoters and themselves, and scheduled to the Dundee Suburban Eailway Act, 1892, for the con- struction of certain accommodation works by the promoters for the benefit of the petitioners. It appeared, however (1), that the petitioners were in no sense parties to the agreement between their predecessors in title and the promoters ; and (2) that the agreement confirmed by the Act of 1892 was contingent upon the construction of a portion of the authorised railways, and was not affected by the bill : Held, that the above agreements did not con- stitute any special grounds for a locus standi, and that the petitioners having received notice to treat, were not entitled, according to the practice of the Court, to a loctis standi against the bill. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition does not allege nor is it the fact that any lands or property of the petitioners are sought to be acquired under the powers of the bill ; (2) the paragraphs of the petition numbered 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 (the accuracy of which the promoters do not admit) do not disclose any facts or circumstances which, according to practice, entitle the petitioners to be heard either against the preamble or the clauses of the bill ; (3) the biU does not extend the time for the compulsory purchase of any land belonging to the petitioners, nor does it propose to effect in any manner any agreement between the promoters and the petitioners, or to relieve the promoters from any liability thereunder, or Jto prevent any such agreement being duly carried into effect ; (4) the petitioners are simply creditors of the promoters, and are not entitled to be heard in that or in any other capacity; (5) the allegations with respect to the injurious affecting of the petitioners' pro- perty do not constitute a ground of lociis standi ; (6) the petition discloses no ground which entitles the petitioners to be heard against the bill, according to practice, Balfour Browne, Q.C. (for petitioners) : This is an extension of time bill for works authorised by the Dundee Suburban Eailway Act, 1884, similar application having been made and granted under the Dundee Suburban Eailway Act, 1889, and the Dundee Suburban Eailway Act, 1892. The petitioners are the local board of the combined parishes of Dundee, Liff, and Beuvie, and are the owners of lands which are proposed by the bill to be subjected for an additional two years to the exercise of powers affecting the said lands in a highly objectionable and dangerous manner. These lands were acquired by the petitioners in 1890, six years after the passing of the company's incorporating Act of 1884. The petitioners also own lands immediately adjoining the lands in question, and have constructed upon them a hospital for paupers, and the effect of the construction of the railway will be to seriously affect the value of the hospital for the purposes for which it was built. Our locus standi was disputed by the promoters before the House of Lords, but was allowed. Mr. Heai.y ; When the powers were first renewed in 1889, did you appear and get a lociis standi ? Balfour Browne : No ; we had not then purchased the land, but our predecessors in title did appear ; and in 1892 we appeared our- selves, and obtained an agreement in considera- tion of our withdrawing our petition against the bUl, which is scheduled to the Act of 1892, by which the promoters agreed to execute certain works and also to pay our costs which have never in fact been paid. The promoters have already given notice to treat, and if this bill is allowed to pass they will be able to hold over us for a further period of two years the power to take this laud. The railway has never been commenced, and the company is utterly insolvent. Mr. Hbaly : Was the notice to treat before or after you became possessed of the laud ? Balfour Browne : We bought after the notice to treat, and we bought subject to that notice. The Chaikman : Do you say that this agreement takes you out of the ordinary position of a man who has bought subject to a notice to treat ? Balfour Browne : Yes ; and further, the promoters in 1889 agreed with our predecessors in title that their locus standi upon any future bill should not be objected to, and we are in their place, and have a right therefore to be heard. In 1892 it is clear our loms standi was conceded, as otherwise the promoters would 'i 2 332 COURT OP REFEREES. [Vol. I. not have given us an agreement. They, in fact, bought off our opposition for two years, and we are now in the same position as we were then, and are therefore entitled to a locus stavdi. Mr. Chandos-Lemh : You admit but for the agreement you would have no locus standi ? Balfour Brotvne ; That may be bo, although it is not an ahsolute rule that a landowner who has notice to treat has not a locus standi against an extension of time bill. It is within the discretion of the Court, taking into account the special circumstances of the case. This is not the case of an ordinary landowner. We wish to use this laud for puhlio purposes. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : We cannot have regard to the purpose to which you would put the laud if no extension of time were granted. Is there any case to which you can refer us in support of your contention ? Balfour Browne : I do not think there is any ahsolute authority. This is a peculiar case, three extensions of time having been applied for where the railway to be constructed is only four miles in extent. If we are to have_ no locus standi now the promoters will he able to again come for another extension of time hill, and we shall he then again precluded from being heard, and yet during the whole of this time we shall be unable to use our land. Mr. Healy : Does not the notice to treat give you certain rights against the promoters ? Balfour Browne : I do not see how. It has been decided that a notice to treat does not constitute a contract-at-law. Mr. Chandos Leioh : In the Regents Canal, City and Docks Bill, 1885 (Eiokards & Michael, 59), it was held that, as the bill prima facie altered the conditions of an agreement, it was not necessary to prove that the petitioners were prejudiced by such alteration, and they were entitled to be heard. Balfour Browne : That is my argument. This extension bill alters the agreement we have with the promoters by making the time four years instead of two years. The Chaikiian : There is a later case relating to the Regents Canal, City and Docks Railway imdertaking, decided in 1887 (Eickards & Michael, 187), in which the locus standi was disallowed. Baggallay {for promoters) : The question here is what is the status of the petitioners according to the practice of this Court. It was stated most clearly in the Milford Docks Junction Railway Bill, 1884 (3 Clifford and Eickards, 441). The Chairman asked whether the petitioner was an owner of land required for the purposes of the work, who had received a notice to treat, and the counsel for the petitioner said : " No, in that case we should not have been entitled to a locus standi. The Eailways Clauses Act, 1863, provides {sect. 20) that when the question of compensation to a landowner comes to be decided, the arbitrator takes into consideration not only the value of the land at the time the notice to treat was served, but any damage the land may have suffered by reason of delay in the construction of the works, so that a landowner in such a position would be protected against the consequences of delay." That section of the Eailways Clauses Act, 1863, is incorporated in the hill. As a matter of fact the bill does not extend the time for the compulsory purchase of land, but only for the completion of works. That is the case, apart from the question of agreement. A case like the present is unusual, for here the landowner purchased the land with the notice to treat over it, and took the land subject to that reservation in 1890. Then in 1892 we came for an extension of time bill, and while before the House of Lords we came -to the agreement with the petitioners, which has been referred to, and on which they base their claim to be heard. That agreement is en- tirely unaffected by the bill, and merely compels the company when they make railway No. 1 to make a bridge between the severed portions of the petitioners' property. With regard to the company's agreement not to object to the locus standi of the vendors of these lands against future bills in Parliament, the peti- tioners were not parties to it, and we do not object to the locus standi of those parties against the bill, because they are in fact owners of land in respect to which no notice to treat has been given. This bill does not relieve the company from any of the obligations contained in the agreement. There is no difference between this agreement and an ordinary protective clause inserted in a bill which is in its effect contingent upon the construction of works authorised by the bill. Mr. Healy : The petitioners contend that it is absolutely impossible for you to complete the works within the time. Baggallay : Yes, but the land became ours when the notice to treat was given, and the petitioners are merely creditors of the company in respect of it, and can either force us to complete the purchase or can claim against us for damages for non-completion. If we had not given their predecessors notice to treat - they would undoubtedly have had a locus standi, but as we have done so they are not entitled, according to the practice of this Court, to be heard. ^PaET IV.] EDINBURGH NORTH BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT BILL, 333 The CiLviKMAN : The locus standi is disallowed, as there ai'e no circumstances lO cake ic out of the general rule that a landowner who has been served with a notice to treat Is not entitled to be heard against an extension of time bill. Locus Standi Disallowed. Agents for Petitioners, Robertson (& Co. Agents for Bill, Durnford <£■ Co. EDINBURGH NORTH BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H. L.] Petition of Donald Macgregob and Others. 4th July, 1894.— (Be/ore Mr. Shikess-Will, Q.C., M.P., Chairman, d-c, etc.) The bni authorised the Lord Provost, magistrates and council of the city of Edin- burgh to acquire lands and construct works for widening, altering and improving North Bridge and North Bridge Street in that city, and for that purpose (clause 8) to enter into agreements with the North British railway company, and clause 12 of the biU confirmed an agreement contained in the second schedule to the bill between the magistrates and council and the railway company, relating to the construction of the works authorised by the bill, and pro- viding for a contribution towards the costs thereof by the railway company. By article 3 of the agreement the magistrates and council consented, for any interest they might have, to the company increasing the height of their station and buildings east of North Bridge to a maximum height of forty-two feet above the existing level of the rails, and article 4 pro- vided that the company should acquire, so far as not already done, the whole of the properties on the south side. of Princes Street between the Waverley steps and North Bridge Street, and extending southwards to a line in con- tinuation of the line of the south wall of the General Post OfSoe building, and should, as soon as practicable after Whit Sunday, 1895, take down the present buildings thereon and rebuild them complete within seven years from the date of the confirmation of the agreement by ParUameuti The re-building thus provided for was to he carried out by the railway com- pany subject to a number of conditions and restrictions which prescribed the position of the front walla of the houses to be erected on the south side of Princes Street, the height of new buildings, which was not to exceed 95 feet from the roadway in Princes Street, and other matters as to the size and external design of the buildings, the plans for which were to be approved by the magistrates and council. The petitioners were a number of ratepayers and of feuars on the north side of Princes Street, and streets opening thereon, who held feu charters, originally granted by the corporation of Edinburgh, containing restrictions and covenants against the erection of buildings on the south side of Princes Street ; and they, claimed to be heard against the provisions of the bill which, on the ground that the agreement confirmed by it between the magistrates and council and the railway company, empowered the latter to violate the covenants and restrictions contained in the feus of the petitioners. The petitioners referred to two local statutes (7 c& 8 Geo. IV., c. 76, and 1 & 2 WiU. IV., c. 45) to show the nature of the restrictions as to building on the south side of Princes Street ; and laid emphasis on the fact that the agreement scheduled to the bOl, to which they objected, was also scheduled to and confirmed by an omnibus bUl introduced into Parliament during the present session by the North British railway company, against which hill their locus standi had been conceded. The petitioners also relied on article 16 of the agreement scheduled to the bill, which specially recognised and preserved "provisions, prohibitions, limita- tions, servitudes, and restrictions contained in any prior statute," as recognising the exist- ence of their rights. Contra, the promoters contended that the bill did not do more than enable the company to carry out, with the co-operation of the magistrates and council, powers for building on the south side of Princes Street already conferred upon them by the North British Railway (Waverley Station, &c.) Act, 1891, and that the agreement scheduled to the bill was a matter affecting only themselves and the company who were the parties to it. The Court, however, held that the petitioners were entitled to he heard agaifist clause 8, agreements with North British railway com- pany, clause 12 (confirming agreement con- tained in the second schedule), and the second schedule of the bill. Pembroke Stephens, Q.C., appeared for the petitioners; Pember, Q.C:, for the promoters. [The case turned upon the construction of Acts of Parliament, the agreement ^lontained in the second schedule of the biU, and the effect of the Edinburgh Municipal and Police Acts, 334 COUKT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. 1798 to 1893, and was of no value as a preoedenti] Agents for Petitioners, Martin & Leslie. Agent for the Bill, Beveridge. GREAT WESTERN AND MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL. [H. L.] Petition of The London and Noeth-Westekn Railway Company. 26th July, 189i.— [Before Mr. Shiress Will, Q.C., M.P., Chairman; Mr. Paekek Smith, M.P. ; and The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C.) Railways — Amalgamation — Joint Vesting of Local Line in through Railway Companies — Absorp- tion of Neutral Gathering Ground of Traffic — Competition and Diversion of Traffic. The bill vested in the Great Western and the Midland railway companies the under- taking of the Severn and Wye and Severn Bridge railway company (in the bill called "the Severn and Wye company"). The Severn and Wye railway consisted of a railway 37 miles in length, carried over the Severn by a bridge, extending from Berkeley-road station close to Sharp- ness, where it joined the Midland rail- way, to Lydbrook junction, where it formed a junction with the Great Western railway. The petitioners' railway did not form a junction at any point with the Severn and Wye railway, the nearest points on the petitioners' system being Hereford and Birmingham, but they alleged that they received a considerable amount of mineral tralSc from the Great Western and Midland railways, which arose upon the Severn and Wye railway and was consigned to Liverpool and places on the petitioners' railway in South Staffordshire. They alleged that the effect of the bill would be to enable the promoting com- panies to consign this trafBc exclusively by their own railways to distant places such as Birkenhead, whence it could be carried by barge to Liverpool, instead of handing it over at intermediate places to the petitioners to be forwarded over their own (the London and North-Western) railway system ; and they complained that the bill would convert the Severn and Wye railway, which was at present a neutral gathering ground for themselves in common with the two promoting com- panies, into a feeder for the railways of the promoting companies only. On behalf of the promoters it was contended that the bill created no new competition for the traffic in question ; that it would be still open to traders on the Severn and Wye railway to consign traffic by the London and North-Western route to places not directly served by the promoting com- panies ; and that no substantial injury would be caused to the petitioners by the vesting of the Severn and Wye railway in the promoters : Held, however, that the petitioners were entitled to be heard against the amalgamation proposed by the bill. The locus standioi the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) it is not alleged in the petition nor is it the fact that any lands or property of the petitioners will be taken or interfered with under the powers of the bill ; (2) the promoters deny that the effect of the bill would be as suggested in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the petition, to close wholly or partially to trafiBc any one or more of the routes now open as competitive routes, or to divert traffic from the petitioners' railway and so deprive the public of the advantages of the petitioners' system of railways, but, even were it otherwise, the petitioners would not, on these grounds or any of them, be entitled according to the practice of Parliament to be heard against the bill ; (3) the statements contained in the petition as to competitive traffic are too vague to entitle the petitiohers, according to the practice of Parliament, to be heard against the bill, and even were it otherwise the effect of the bill at most will be to improve the existing competition between the petitioners and the promoters referred to in the petition, and the improvement of an existing competition does not, according to the practice of Parliament, entitle the petitioners to be heard against the bill ; (4) the petitioners have no interests in or rights over the undertaking proposed to be transferred to the promoters, entitling them to be heard against the transfer ; (5) the petition discloses no ground upon which, according to Part IV.J geeat western and midland, ETC., BILL. 335 the practice of Parliament, the petitioners are entitled to be heard against the bill or to ask for any powers or facilities over the Severn and "Wye and Severn Bridge railway as suggested in paragraph 6 of the petition. Littler, Q.C. (for petitioners) : This is a bill to vest jointly in the Great Western and Midland railway companies the undertaking of the Severn and Wye and Severn Bridge railway company, the railway and bridge undertakings of which company were amalgamated in 1879. The Severn and Wye and Severn Bridge rail- way consists of a railway and a bridge over the river Severn, extending from Sharpness to Lydbrook junction, and being about 37 miles in length. It is true that this railway is at present encircled by the lines of the Great Western and Midland railways, but hitherto there has been open competition for traf&c from it to distant places reached by means of the Great Western, Midland, and London and North-Westeru railways. The petitioners have now, by means of through booking facilities and other arrangements, considerable traf&c passing between their railway and the Severn and Wye and Severn Bridge railway, but if this bill passes, the promoters will endeavour to keep this traf&c so far as they can do so on their own railways. The petitioners' nearest point to the Severn and Wye railway is Hereford, which is 17 miles distant, and another important point is Birmingham, which is however a long way off. At present a con- siderable traf&c for Liverpool from the Severn and Wye goes by the Midland railway to Birmingham, and then goes by the London and North- Western railway upwards of 90 miles to Liverpool, but if this bill was passed, this traf&c would be got hold of by the Great Western, who would carry it from Hereford by the joint line of the London and North- Western and the Great Western, to Shrewsbury, and from there to Chester on their own line, thence to Birkenhead by their joint line, and then by barge to Liverpool. That would be a very material divergence of this traf&o. There is also a large traf&o in' pig-iron sent from the Severn and Wye railway to South Stafford- shire. At present this is sent from the Severn and Wye railway, by Birmingham, to Etting- shall-road, on the ^London and North-Western railway, but if this bill passed, the Great Western would carry this traffic to Belston station on their own line, which is close to Ettingshall-road, and the Midland railway could also carry it to their Great Bridge basin on the Birmingham canal, and thence by barge take it to Ettingshall-road. There is also a considerable amount of traffic in iron ore from the Forest of Dean, which is served by the Severn and Wye railway, to the Midlands, and this now to a large extent is sent from the Severn and Wye railway to Wednesbury on the London and North-Western railway by Birmingham, but if this bill passed, the Great Western woulij carry this traffic by their own railway throughout to their station at Wednesbury, and the Midland railway could also carry this traffic by Walsall junction to Wednesbury. Besides these instances there are others in which, if this bill passed, we should lose the share we now have in this traffic, and the public will lose the advantage they now possess of having competing routes by which they can send their goods. Where an amalgamation is proposed by a bill, it is the settled practice to allow every person who has an interest which he reasonably desires to have protected, to be heard against the bill : Midland, and London and North-Western Railway Companies Bill, 18G9 (1 Clifford & Stephens, 83) ; London and North- Western Eailway (New Works, etc.) Bill, 1807 {ib. 99) ; Midland, and Glasgow, and South- western Railway Companies Bill, 1867 (ib. 100). In the Great Western and Bristol and Exeter Railway Companies Bill, 1876, an unreported case in which the Great Western railway were seeking to amalgamate with the Bristol and Exeter railway, the present petitioners were allowed a locus standi, notwithstanding the fact that Birmingham was the nearest point to which they approached to Bristol. There was the case of the London and South-Western^ Midland, and Somerset and Dorset Railway Bill„ 1876 (1 Clifford & Riokards, 242), it is true, decided by the Court on the same day, in which the present petitioners were not allowed a locus standi, and there must therefore have been a very considerable distinction found by the Court between the two cases. TheCnAiBMAN: The. principle stated in the argument for the petitioners in that case seems to me to be unexceptionable, and to state the practice of the Court ; but it may be that the reason of the decision in that case was that the Court were convinced that there could be no diversion of traffic. Littler : Yes. The principle as to locus standi in the case of railway amalgamation bills laid down in May's Parliamentary Practice, 10th edition, page 743, is that " the general ground upon which petitioners are admitted to oppose amalgamation bills is that the amalgama- tion itself will injuriously affect them." There is also the case of the Metropolitan Railway Bill, 1875, on the petition of the London and North-Western Railway Company (1 Clifford & Riokards, 173), where the company were asking 336 COURT OF EEFEEEES. [Vol. I. for powers to make arrangements for the con- veyance of traffic over eight railways belonging to different companies, and the present peti- tioners cornplained that the bill would have the effect of welding separate railway links into one continuous chain, and alleged that these railways would serve the same extreme points as their own continuous system, and there the Court held " that the biU would confer powers differing materially from those possessed by the respective companies separately, and would place those companies in new relations to the petitioners, diverting their traffic to a new route, and entitling them therefore to a locus standi," The principle that competition gives a right to a locus standi, applies to the present case, though the facts may differ. Here the promoters are changing the character and condition of the competition for through traffic arising on the Severn and Wye railway. In the South-Eastern and London^ Brighton, and South Coast Baihvay Companies BiU, 1868 (1 Clifford & Stephens, 103), the present peti- tioners, the Great Western and the London and South-Western railway companies, were all allowed a locus standi to oppose the amalgama- tion. I admit that a mere theoretical idea that traffic will be diverted owing to the proposed amalgamation is not enough to give the right to a locus standi, but in the present case we have traffic amounting to thousands of tons coming from this particular district, which at present goes over our route, and which we can show beyond all reasonable doubt will be diverted under the new condition of things proposed by this bill, and we therefore claim a locus standi against the bill. Pope, Q.C. (for promoters) : The general principle upon which a lociis standi is allowed ia all bills, and not merely in amalgamation bills, is that the petitioners should show some substantial injury likely to arise from the bill. The line proposed to be acquired jointly by the two companies is surrounded at all points by the Great Western and Midland railways, and no traffic can leave the Severn and Wye railway without getting upon the Great Western railway, unless it passes over the Severn bridge and goes through Sharpness the other way. Therefore the Great Western can control the unconsigned traffic under the existing circum- stances. 'The trader controls the traffic, and the Severn and Wye company does not consign traffic. The CnAiEMAN: What interest would the Severn and Wye company have to consign traffic by one route rather than another ? Fo2>e : The Severn and Wye company have no interest except to get the proportion of the rate, and, if the traffic is consigned by the traders, the proposed amalgamation cannot make any difference as to the traffic. Where this Court has allowed a locus against amalga- mation bills, it has been where there has been a claim that previously neutral territory was about to be appropriated by two rival com- panies. The question in every amalgamation case is, have the petitioners, in the traffic which they represent, a substantial interest, and is the injury likely to be inflicted upon them by the amalgamation such in regard to that traffic as to entitle them to a locus standi. The case which has been cited of the London and South-Western, Midland, and Somerset and Dorset RaihoaT/ Bill, 1876 (1 Clifford & Bickards, 242), seems to me exactly analogous to the present case. In that case there was a collect- ing ground, from which, being neutral, traffic might be sent either by the petitioners' route or by another, and the locus standi was disallowed, and from that time to the present the decisions have been consistent with that decision, and not with the decision which was given on the same day in the unreported case of The Great Western and Bristol and Exeter Railway Com- panies Bill, 1876, which has been referred to in argument. In The London and North-Western and Whitehaven, Cleator and Egremont Railway Companies Bill, 1877 (2 Clifford & Eiokards, 36), the Solway junction railway company peti- tioned against the proposed amalgamation, alleging that their interests as carriers of traffic from the district common to them- selves and the promoters would materially suffer by the monopoly which would be created by the bill, and that, though their line did not join the Whitehaven, Cleator and Egremont railway, they had, by agreement with a third railway company, facilities for the traffic they received being passed on, and that the effect of the proposed amalgamation would be to deprive them of the benefit of that agreement. The Court however held that the injury apprehended by the petitioners was too remote to entitle them to a locus standi. The cases of the Llynviand Ogmore, and Cardiff and Ogmore Valley Railway Companies Bill, 1876 (1 Clifford & Bickards, 238) ; the Great Western and Monmouthshire Railway and Canal Com- panies Bill, 18S0 (2 Clifford & Eiokards, 244) ; and the Great Western and Cornwall Railway Companies Bill, 1889 (Bickards & Michael, 255), were of the same kind, and the locus was disallowed in both cases. These cases all show that there must be a substantial alteration of the status of the petitioner in respect of the subject-matter of the bill to give the right to a locus standi against amalgamation bills. In Part IV.] Lancashire and Yorkshire railway bill. 337 this case there will be no substantial alteration in the status of the petitioners. The consignors will send their traffic as now, and the unoon- signed traffic will be dealt with as it now is, and the Severn and Wye railway company wUI after amalgamation Iiave no greater interest to divert it from the petitioners than now. Littler : I dispute that as a matter of fact. The Severn and Wye railway now control the traffic, and they control it in our favour, for they take it by the route by which they get the longest lead and the largest share of the rate, and that in many cases is by our route. Mr. Chakdos-Leigh : If unoonsigned traffic arising on the Severn and Wye railway at the present time has to go to Liverpool, might not it be consigned by, the company itself to go by the Loudon and North-Western by Shrewsbury and C'rewe? Pope : No ; they hand it over to the Midland, and it goes by the Midland route if it is for LiverpooL Littler : I am instructed that is not so, and unless the contrary is proved it must be assumed that we are right in what we allege in our petition. Pope : If there is an issue of fact we must call witnesses. The Chaieman : I think if the evidence is available the Court would like to hear it. [J. S. Beale, solicitor to the Midland railway company, was then called and stated that the proposed amalgamation would not make any difference with regard to the unconsigned traffic for Liverpool or for South Staffordshire, as the Great Western and Midland companies, after receiving it from the Severn and Wye railway, at the present time kept it on their own rail- ways as far as those railways would carry it, and only handed it over to the petitioners' traffic for places beyond those railways, which the Midland and Great Western companies could not carry for themselves independently of the petitioners.] Pope : The petitioners are seeking to oppose this bill in order that they may get what, if it is reasonable, they can now obtain from the Railway Commissioners, viz., through rates and through facilities. I submit that the petitioners have not shown that their interests will be interfered with to such a substantial degree as to entitle them to a loevs standi. The Chaieman: The Locus Standi is Allowed. Agent for Petitioners, G. H. Mason. Agents for Bill, Sherwood c£" Co. LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY BILL. Petition of (1) The Coepokation of Salpoed. 26th April, IBH.— (Before Mr. Shikbss Will, Q.G., M.P., Chairman; Jl/j-. Rotjndell, Jl/.P. ; and The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C.) Bailway — Extension of Time for Construction and Partial Abandonment — Municipal Corporation — In jury to Borough hy postponement of Benefits anticipated from Railway— S. 0. 134 [Muni- cipal Authorities and Inhabitants of Towns."] Clause 15 of the bill extended the time limited for the completion of a railway (No. 1) authorised by the Lancashire and York- shire Railway Act, 1890, and clause 28 provided for the abandonment of a branch railway (No. 2) authorised hy the same Act. Both these railways were within the borough of Salford, and had been designed for the purpose of giving access to the Salford docks of the Manchester Ship canal. The canal was in course of construction in 1890, and had since been completed and opened for traffic. The corporation of Salford claimed to be heard against the proposed extension of time and abandonment on the ground that the borough would be injuriously affected by the postponement and partial loss of the benefits they had anticipated from the construction of the railways in question in accordance with the provisions of the Lancashire and Yoikshire Railway Act, 1890, and they claimed a locus standi under the discretion vested in the Court in such cases by S. 0. 134: Held, that the petitioners were - entitled to bo heard. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition does not allege nor is it the fact that any lands or property of the petitioners can be taken . under the powers of the bill ; (2) the pro- moters deny that the petition against the bill for the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Act, 1890, presented by the Corporation of Salford, the present petitioners, was with- drawn in consideration of the public interests involved in the construction of the railways in the petition referred to. Their opposition was withdrawn in consideration of various pro- 338 COtJRT OP EEFEREES. [Vol. I. tective works contained in thirty-nine sub- sects, to sect. 15 of the said Act ; (3) the peti- tioners are not entitled to be heard against the abandonment of railway No. 2 in the petition referred to on the ground that it would have afforded benefit to the inhabitants of the borough of Salford, of which the petitioners are the municipal authority, or on the ground that the said inhabitants wiU be deprived by such abandonment of the benefit they would have derived from such railway ; (4) the petition does not allege that the extension of time sought by the bUl for the completion of railway No. 1 in the petition mentioned will injuriously affect the petitioners or the said borough ; (5) the extension of time sought for the com- pletion of raUway No. 1 ia the petition referred to does not so injuriously affect the petitioners or the said borough as to entitle the petitioners, according to the practice of ParUament, to be heard against the bill ; (6) the petition does not allege or disclose any matter which injuriously affects the rights and interests of the said borough so as to entitle the petitioners, accord- ing to the practice of ParUament, to be heard against the biU ; (7) the petition does not allege or disclose any right or interest or any ground of objection which, according to the practice of Parliament, entitles the petitioners to be heard against the bill. Bidder, Q.C. (for petitioners) : The pro- visions of the bUl to which the corporation of Salford take special objection are those for extending the time for the construction of one railway and the abandonment of another, both of which railways are within the limits of the borough of Salford. The clauses of the bill dealing with this are clauses 15 and 28, and they are as follows : Clause 15 (sub-sect. 1), " The time limited by the Lancashire and Yorkshire Kailway Act, 1890, for the comple- tion of railway (No. 1) by that Act authorised is hereby extended until the 4th day of August, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, and sect. 7 of that Act shall be read and construed accordingly ; " and clause 28, " The company may abandon the construction of the branch railway at Salford (railway No. 2) authorised by the Lancashire and York- shire Kailway Act, 1890." Both these rail- ways were designed for the purpose of giving access to the Salford docks of the Man- chester Ship canal, and it is obvious that the Manchester Ship canal having been opened it is of great importance to us that it should have every opportunity of being developed. We have made great sacrifices in order to help forward the completion of the canal and the docks, and on the faith of the railway connec- tions that were to be made with them, and it is a breach of faith with us and with the public for the promoters to be allowed to postpone part of the connections and to abandon the rest. As between postponement and abandon- ment the principle is the same, because abandonment is simply effectual postponement. Therefore, as regards both the railways our right to be heard is, in principle, the same. Moreover, all the land required for these lines has been purchased and there is therefore no reason whatever for postponement. On these points our petition contains the following allegations: paragraph (8) " Your petitioners submit that such railway, which is only 1 mile 4-45 chains in length and which presents no special features of difficulty, could easily be completed within the time already authorized by Parliament, that such railway will be of benefit to the public and to the county borough, and the company can show no just cause or reason for seeking a further extension of time for its construction." Paragraph (9) " Your petitioners also object to the abandonment of railway No. 2, and the inhabitants of the borough being deprived of the benefit which they would derive therefrom. Your petitioners submit that the company being under penalty to construct it should not be relieved of their obligations." We also allege in paragraph 6 " Your petitioners, in the interests of their county borough, presented a petition against the bUl for the said Act of 1890 on various grounds, but in consideration of the public interests involved in the construction of the said railways, amongst other things, they withdrew their opposition on a clause for their protection being inserted." The decisions of the Court show that a municipal body has a right to be heard in such cases as representing the public interests. I ask to be heard under the discretionary S. O. 134. We allege that we are injuriously affected, and it is for the Court to say whether, under the circumstances, we have such an interest in the matter as in your discretion entitles us to be heard. Last year we had agreed to subscribe £1,000,000 towards the expenses of the Ship canal company, and we were asking Parliament to authorise this, when the Manchester corporation said they would find the whole money required, and they were allowed by ParUament to do so, but our action in asking to subscribe £1,000,000 shows clearly our hona fide interest in the matter. Besides this we have spent and are spending a very large sum in connection with the alteration of streets so as to give connections with the docks on the ship canal. We had every right to believe that the promoters, having obtained Part IV.l Lancashire and Yorkshire railway bill. 339 these powers, intended to carry them out, and in this belief we have spent large sums of money on improvements. In the case of the Great Eastern Railway Bill, 1872, which was a bill for extension of time, the locus standi of both the corporation of London and the Commissioners of Sewers (2 Clifford and Stephens, 231) was allowed for similar reasons to those for which we claim a locns in this case, and in the case of the Metropolitan Railway Bill, 1872 (ib., p. 238) the locus standi of the Metropolitan Board of Works was conceded, and in the case of the Forfar and Brechin Railway Abandonment Bill, 1891 (1 Rickards and Saunders, 104), the corporation of Brechin and others were allowed a locus standi. Pope, Q.C. (for promoters) : The petitioners base their appeal to the discretion of the Court upon their interest in the Manchester Ship canal. There is nothing in the petition to show that this extension of time or abandon- ment bill would be injurious to the canal. If it were so the Manchester Ship canal are the proper parties to be heard. The petitioners have stated in argument that postponing the construction of railway No. 1 and the abandon- ment of railway No. 2 wUl injure the ship canal, but they do not allege this in their petition, and moreover the fact is that the construction of railway No. 2 would injure the canal, as they require this land for a road entrance. The question as to the extension of time may be different, but the real question is whether an allegation by a corporation that their borough may be injured by the postpone- ment of the construction of a line and depriving them of the benefits anticipated, is enough to found a loctis standi upon. The object of the postponement is to comply with the law requiring us to provide labourers' dwellings in substitution for those we take, and until we do so we cannot obtain possession of and remove the existing dwellings. We are at present doing this, but the construction of substituted dwellings will take a longer time than will enable us to complete the works, and therefore we are bound to ask for an extension of time. I submit that under these circum- stances the Court will not exercise their discretion under S. O. 134 in favour of the petitioners. The Chaikman : We are of opinion that the locus standi must be allowed against both the extension of time and the abandonment. Locus Standi Disallowed except as against Clauses 15 and 28 and so much of the preamble as relates thereto. Agents for Petitioners, Sherwood <& Co. Petition of (2) J. B. Hodgkinson and J. Lindley. Alleged Alteration of Definition of Harhour Limits in Former Act — Property of Landowners Tyrought within Harbour Limits — Doubtful Construction of Act — Practice. Clause 37 of the bill repealed a section of a local Act, passed in 1839, defining the limits of the harbour of Wyre (now called Pleetwood), and defined anew the limits of the harbour. The petitioners were the owners of a part of the foreshore adjoining the harbour, and contended that this part of the foreshore, which was now outside the limits of the harbour, would be brought within it by clause 37 of the bill. Upon a discussion taking place as to whether the meaning of clause 37 warranted this contention on behalf of the petitioners, the Court held that the matter being open to doubt, the petitioners were entitled to be heard against the clause, in accordance with the practice of the Court in such cases. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds; (1) the petition does not allege, nor is it the fact, that any lands or property of the petitioners can be taken under the powers of the bill ; (2) no maps or plans of the proposed limits of the harbour of Fleetwood are by the Standing Orders or rules of Parliament required, nor is any notice of those limits required to be given except the notice which was given in the London Gazette and county papers, and that notice contained an exact description of those limits ; (3) the existing limits of the harbour are not altered so as in any way to include any portion of the petitioners' property ; (4) if the Garstang and Knott End railway is excluded from access to the said harbour it is by reason of existing legislation, which is not altered by the bill, and paragraph 8 of the petition, if intended as a complaint, is a complaint of past legislation or of an existing state of things, and does not constitute a ground entitling the peti- tioners to be heard against the bill ; (5) the promoters deny that they and the London and North- Western railway company have at present no right to recover tolls on the eastern side of Fleetwood harbour, or that sect. 37 of the bill confers that right for the first time as 340 COUET OF EBFEEEES. [Vol. I. alleged in paragraph 9 of the petition ; (6) the petition does not allege or disclose any right or interest or any ground of objection which, according to the practice of Parliament, entitles the petitioners to be heard against the bill. J. D. Fitzgerald (for petitioners) : The peti- tioners are the owners of the foreshore on the eastern and northern sides of the river Wyre, and they believe, that by the proposed altera- tion of the limits of the Fleetwood harbour, their foreshore will be included within the limits of the harbour, and they therefore ask to be heard against the bill. We allege that the promoters, by clause 37 of the bill, alter the line from the centre of the stream to high water mark. We make the following allega- tions in our petition : — Paragraph 3. " Sect. 87 of the bill proposes to repeal sect. 20 of an Act passed in the second and third years of her present Majesty (1839), intituled an Act to amend the several Acts relating to the Preston and Wyre railway and harbour company and the Preston and Wyre dock company, and to con- solidate the said companies," which Act defined the limits of the said harbour as follows : — ' ' That the said harbour shall, for the purposes of the recited Act, be deemed and taken to extend from Bourn Naze aforesaid to two miles north of Eossall point aforesaid on the western side of the said river Wyre, and from the extreme south-west point of a certain head of land called Stalmine head, along the high water line on the western and northern sides of the said head of land to and across the northern end of a certain way or swashway (opening to the river on the north side of the said head of land) to the main, and from thence to three miles north of Knott End on the eastern side of the said river Wyre," and to substitute other limits which are defined so far as the eastern side of the harbour is concerned, as follows : — " And to extend on the easterly side of the said rivers from the south-west point of a certain head of land called Stalmine head along the high water line to Knott End, and thence to a. point three miles from- Knott End, measured in a north-westerly direction along a line, forming an angle of 26° 56', with a line pointing due north from Knott End." Paragraph 4. " Sect. 37 of the bill further pro- vides that the substituted limits shall be deemed to be the limits of the harbour for all purposes, including the levying and recovering of tolls, rates and charges." Paragraphs. "Tour peti- tioners are the owners in fee simple of two equal undivided third parts of the foreshore on the eastern or Knott End side of the river Wyre and on the northern side by Morecambe bay, under a grant from Her Majesty the Queen, in right of Her Duchy of Lancaster, dated the 6th December, 1892, as well as of a valuable building estate of about 86 acres in extent, adjoining the said foreshore, andlmown as the Quail Holme estate." The Chairman : You have to satisfy us that by the proposed alteration of the definition of the limits of the harbour your foreshore is going to be brought for the first time within the limits of the harbour. Fitzgerald : There is nothing said about high or low water in the definition in the Act of 1839. The question is whether the words used neces- sarily imply the high water line. The new definition proposes to make that certain which at present is doubtful, and we are therefore entitled to a locus standi, in order that we may see that our foreshore is not included. Fope, Q.C. (for promoters) : I read the words in the section to be identical in effect with the old powers. The Chaieman ; No, in the definition in the Act of 1839 the line follows the swashway. Pope : That makes no difference ; it does not affect the limits. As the definition stands in the bill there is no doubt that the line following the high water mark takes in the foreshore, and the question is whether the definition in the old Act followed the same line. The words there used are " to the main and from thence to three mOes north of the Knott End on the eastern side of the said river Wyre." The question is what " the main " means. We say " main " is the main bed of the river, whereas the swashway joins the main at a certain point. If it could be shown that by the words of the section we brought the foreshore belonging to the petitioners within our limits, I should at once concede their locus standi, but the hill clearly does not do so. The Chaieman : We think that as there is a doubt in the matter the locus standi must be allowed. Locus Standi pisallowed, except against clause 37, and so much of the preamble as relates thereto. Agent for Petitioners, L. Kirkman. Agents for Bill, Dyson tt Co. PaET IV.] MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD, ETC., RAILWAY BILL. 341 LONDON, CHATHAM AND DOVER RAILWAY BILL. Petition of The Cobpoeation of Folkestone. 12th April, 13H.— {Be/ore Mr. Shieess Will, Q.C., M.P., Chairman, cC'c, c&c.) Balfour Browne, Q.C., appeared for the petitioners ; Pope, Q.C., for the bill. Clause 10 of the bill repealed sect. 31 of the South Eastern Railway Act, 1893, which had enlarged the powers of the joint committee of the South Eastern and the Loudon, Chatham and Dover railway companies appointed to deal with traf&o included within the purview of an agreement between the two companies known as the Continental Agree- ment, and re-enacted in a different form the provisions of sect. 31 of the Act of 1893, but required that in future the approval of a majority of three-fourths of the shareholders of the respective companies, present at a meeting convened for the purpose, should be obtained to modifications of the Continental Agreement by the joint committee of the two companies. The corporation of Folkestone asked to be heard against clause 10 of the bill on the ground that it would enable the two companies to enter into arrangements whereby conti- nental traffic might be diverted from Folke- stone and sent to the Continent via Dover instead of Folkestone, whereby the interests of the borough would be injuriously affected. It appeared, however, upon a comparison of clause 10 of the bill with sect. 31 of the Act of 1893 that, with the exo3ption of the provision in the former that the consent of shareholders should be obtained to any alteration of the Continental Agreement between the two com- panies, clause 10 of the bill was, in effect, identical with sect. 31 of the previous Act, and that the above provisions in clause 10 of the bill as to the consent of shareholders merely restored to the shareholders powers tempo- rarily given to the joint committee by the Act of 1893, and that such a provision was in favour of a continuance of the existing arrangements between the two companies as to continental traffic and a limitation of the power of the joint committee to revise these arrangements, and the Court, after a careful comparison of clause 10 and sect. 31 of the previous Act, dis- allowed the locus standi of the petitioners with- out calling upon the promoters' counsel to reply. [The arguments turned solely upon a com- parison of the clause and section in question and the verbal meaning to be assigned to them; and the case was of no value as a precedent.] Agents for Petitioners Russell, Hill (& Co. CoUyer-Bristow, Agents for Bill, Martin and Leslie. MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD AND LINCOLNSHIRE RAILWAY BILL. Petition of The Vestkt of the Paeish of St. Maeylebone. 26th April, ISH.— {Before Mr. Shieess Will, Q.C., M.P., Chairman; Mr. Roundell, M.P. ; and The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C.) Railway Company — Power to acquire Lands — Local Authority — Demolition of Houses — Loss of Rates — Quantum of Injury — Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, s. 133 [Land Tax and Poor Rate to be made good] — Claim of Peti- tioners to extend provisions of Section to General Local Rates not leviable at time of passing of Lands Clauses Act — S. 0. 134 [Municipal Authoi'ities and Inhabitants of Torvns} . Clause 13 of the bill empowered the promoters " to enter upon, take, use, and appropriate for the purposes of their undertaking" certain lands and buildings, comprising an area of about four acres, in the parish of St. Marylebone. The vestry of the parish petitioned against the bill on the ground that the effect of clause 13 would be that the promoters would destroy house property which at present was rateable for paro- chial purposes, and thereby diminish the rateable value of the parish and throw an additional burden on the ratepayers, and the petitioners claimed to be heard to obtain the insertion of a provision in the bill to extend the provisions of section 133 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (which Act was incorporated with the bill), so as to compel the promoters to make good any deficiency in the general parochial rates levied by the vestry, as well as in the land tax and poor rate as pro- vided by the said sect. 133. The petitioners referred to a section in the Manchester Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway (Exten- sion to London) Act, 1893, which extended 342 COUBT OF EEFEREES. [Vol. I. section 133 of the Lands Clauses Consoli- dation Act, 1845, in the manner asked for by them, and -contended that the reason that section did not extend to general local rates was because such rates were not leviable at the time of the passing of the Act of 1845. Contra, the promoters contended that the object of the company in acquiring compulsory powers over the lands in question was to enable them to fulfil an obligation imposed upon them by section 71 of their Act of 1893, at the instance of the London County Council and the vestry, to erect labourers' dwellings in substitution for other dwellings demolished by the company for the purpose of railway works, and that therefore the acquisition of lands under clause 13 of the bill was not "for the purposes of their undertaking " but for the benefit of other people, and for this reason not within the principle of section 133 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845. This contention, they maintained, was borne out by the amended form oi clause 13 in the filled-up bill, which expressly stated the purpose for which the lands to be acquired were taken, namely, for the erection of labourers' dwellings in accordance with section 71 of the company's Act of 1893. The pro- moters also reUed upon the small rateable value of the property to be acquired by them under clause 13 in proportion to the rateable value of the parish as showing that no substantial injury would be inflicted on the petitioners' district : Held, however, that in accordance with the practice of the Court, clause 13 must be considered, for purposes of locus standi, in the form in which it appeared in the deposited biU, and that the petitioners were entitled to be heard against it on the grounds advanced by them. The loctis standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) clause 13 of the bill against which the petition is directed simply gives powers to take and hold lands for the purposes of the company's undertaking, which, when purchased, they will hold on the same terms as any ordinary purchaser of land, and any buildings which the company may erect upon the lands described in the said clause 13 wiU be subject to the general law relating to the erection and rating of buildings. The rights and interests of the petitioners will be in no way affected by the proposed purchase of land any more than they are by any other purchase of lands and build- ings in the parish ; (2) the area of land described in clause 13 of the bill is not intersected by any roads, streets, or thorough- fares, and none of these wUl be affected by the powers sought by the biU, and they are not entitled to be heard to oppose the provisions of the bill for the purchase of the said lands ; (3) the paragraphs of the petition, numbered 4 to 9 inclusive, the accuracy of which the promoters do not admit, are not such as to entitle the petitioners to be heard against the bill ; (4) the petition does not disclose any facts or circum- stances which, according to the practice of Parliament, entitle the petitioners to be heard either against the preamble or the clauses of the bill. J. D. Fitzgerald (for petitioners) : The part of the bill which affects the vestry of Marylebone is clause 13, which is as follows : — " Subject to the provisions of this Act, the company, in addition to the other lands which they are by this Act authorised to acquire, may, from time to time, enter upon, take, use, and appropriate, for the purposes of their undertaking, all or any of the lands hereinafter mentioned, delineated on the deposited plans and described in the deposited books of reference (that is to say) : — Certain lands and buildings, comprising an area of four acres or thereabouts, situate in the parish of St. Marylebone, in the county of London ; " and then follows a description of the lands in question, with their boundaries. The petitioners oppose this clause on the ground that if this power is granted, sect. 133 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, ought to be extended so as to include local and parochial rates, which answer in the metropolis to the general district rate provided for in other parts of the country by the Public Health Act, 1875. This question has not come before this Court before, but it has often come before Committees of Parliament. Last year the promoters introduced a bUl for constructing new lines in London, and took powers to acquire about 70 acres of land in Marylebone. The present petitioners opposed the bill, which was passed by the title of the Manchester, Sheffield, and LinoohiBhire (Extension to London, &o.) Act, 1893, but as a result sect. 48 was inserted in the bUl, which is as follows : " So far as relates to all property acquired by the company in the parishes of Marylebone Part IV.] Manchester, Sheffield, etc., railway bill. 343 and St. John's, Hampstead, sect. 133 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, shall be • read as if the words ' general district or other local rate ' were included therein." The locvs standi of the petitioners against the bill of 1893 was conceded on account of the interference by the bill with a road under their jurisdiction, and that is the reason why on other similar occasions this question has not been before the Court in the discussion of locus standi. The promoters are now asking for powers to acquire further land, and we are entitled to be heard before the Committee to say that the clause we obtained last year extending sect. 133 of the Lands Clauses Act so as to include the general district and local rates should be inserted in this bill. The general district rates were not included in sect. 133 of the Lands Clauses Act because at the time that Act was passed there were no district rates, and therefore the Act only included the rates then in existence, namely, the land tax and the poor rate. That a vestry suffers damage by lands being taken and kept untenanted for a considerable time was recognised by the legislature in 1845, as is clear from the fact that sect. 133 was inserted in the Lauds Clauses Act. There was nothing equivalent to the general district rate until 1848, when the Public Health Act, 1848, came into existence, and the fact that the legislature recognised this as a grievance and inserted in a public Act a provision to protect the local authority against loss of rates entitles us to be heard, when there is a new rate which has become leviable since the Lands Clauses Act was passed. The Chaibman : Is there anything in your petition to bring you under S. 0. 134 as to the injurious affecting of your district ? Fitzgerald : We allege in paragraph 7 of the petition as follows : " Your petitioners humbly submit that the effect of the powers already conferred on the company will be that a large extent of valuable property within their parish may be taken compulsorUy or by agreement and destroyed, or may be damaged or left un- occupied ; and that the extent and value of pro- perty assessable to parochial and sanitary rates within the parish of your petitioners will be thus diminished, and the parish and the ratepayers thereof will be prejudicially affected. The result of the powers now sought will be to aggravate and extend this hardship and injury in your petitioners' parish without any corres- ponding benefit in the public interest." Worsley Taylor, Q.C. (for promoters) : Local authorities have, no doubt, obtained a locus standi to deal with this matter of rates in some instances, but only where their streets were interfered with, and that was the case in our bill of 1893. It is said that this is a casus omissus, because the general district rate did not exist at the date of the Lands Clauses Act, but sect. 133 provides :' " That if the promoters of the undertaking become possessed by virtue of this or the special Act, or any Act incorporated therewith, of any lands charged with the land tax or liable to be assessed to the poor rate, they shall from time to time, until the works shall be completed, be liable to make good the deficiency in the several assessments for land tax and poor rate by reason of such lands having been taken or used for the purposes of the works." The legislature clearly intended therefore that section to apply when companies obtained power to acquire land for the purposes of certain works authorised by the bill for the benefit of the railway, and therefore in those oases a locus standi might be allowed. But that is very different to the present case. These works are imposed upon us by the County Council in concert with the vestry for the benefit of other people, for whom we are to erect workmen's dwellings in substitution of those we have demolished, and we are not within even the principle of sect. 133. The words in the original biU were " to enter upon, take, use, and appropriate for the purposes of their undertaking " certain lands, but this has been altered by the direction of the authorities of the House, and the following words are substituted : " May take, use, and appropriate for carrying into effect the obligations incumbent upon them in pursuance of sect. 71 of the Extension to London Act, 1893, the marginalnote of which is ' Restriction on dis- placing persons of the labouring class.'" We cannot therefore use .the lauds for any purposes of our own, but we must use them for the benefit of the petitioners' parish. Moreover, the general rule in these cases is that local authorities can only be heard where substantial injury is shown, and that is not the case here. The total rateable value of the parish is £1,800,000, and the whole rateable value of this land is £2,200, of which land part of the value of £800 is ours already. We ask to have this land not to make railways upon, but simply for the purpose of building houses, and there is no alteration whatever in the status of the petitioners, as the present owners of the property could do precisely the same thing without an Act of Parliament. The Chairman : We are of opinion that there is a locus standi, but we specially wish to guard ourselves against saying anything that might affect the merits of the matter. 344 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. Mr. Chanbos-Leigh ; I would like to add this. The Court is always bound by the bill as originally deposited, and in the bill as deposited we find the words " for the purposes of their undertaking." Now the word under- taking might include works which might come within sect. 133 of the Lands Clauses Act. In the filled-up bill this is altered, and what the land is intended for is definitely pointed out. That makes a considerable difference in the position of things when the parties appear before the Committee, but not upon locus standi. Locus Standi Disallowed except as against Clause 13 and so much of the preamble as relates thereto. Agents for Petitioners, Dyson (& Co. Agents for Bill, Martin cC Leslie. NOETH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. Petition of The Coepokation of West Haktle- POOL. 19th April, 18H.— {Before Mr. Shieess Will, Q.G., M.P., Chairman; Mr. Pabkek Smith, M.P. ; Mr. Roundell, 3I.P. ; and The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C.) Railway — Bill for Alternative Line in lieu of Railway Promoted in Previous Session — Local Authority Opposing Bill as not imposing Obligation to Construct Railway — Block Line— Alleged Parliamentary Undertaking by Promoters in Previous Session to Construct Proposed Railway — Penalty Clause in Bill — Injurious Affecting of District — S. 0. 134 [Municipal Authorities and Inhabitants of Towns.] Clause 4 of the bill provided that the North- Easteru railway company might make certain short railways, including a railway. No. 4,xommencing outside the borough of West Hartlepool by a junction with an exist- ing raUway of the promoters, and termina- ting by a junction with another of their railways, close to Seaham harbour. In the previous session of Parliament a bill had been promoted by some independent persons to construct a. railway to afford communication between the same points and serve the same trafftc as railway No. 4 of the bill. The bill of the previous session was rejected by the committee of Parliament, to whom it was referred, on the North-Eastern company, who opposed it on petition, undertaking to promote a bill for a similar railway in the present session. The corporation of West Hartlepool, while admitting that railway No. 4 of the bill would serve the same traf&c as that proposed by the bill of the previous session, opposed the bill on the ground that it imposed no obligation on the North-Eastern company to construct railway No. 4, and that such obligation ought to be imposed upon the company in order to give effect to the arrangement of the previous session. It appeared, however, that the petitioners were not parties to the alleged arrange- ment of the previous session, and did not even present a petition against the bill then before Parliament, and that clause 10 of the bill imposed the usual penalties upon the promoters in case of their failure to complete the authorised railway within the period prescribed by the bill : Held, that the petitioners were not entitled to a locus standi. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds ; (1) the only provisions of the bUl to which the petitioners object by their petition, are those relating to the construction of a railway in the bill and petition referred to as railway No. 4 ; (2) it is not alleged in the petition, nor is it the fact, that the said railway No. 4, or any part thereof, will be situate within the borough of West Hartlepool, or that any lands or property of the petitioners will or can be taken or interfered with under the powers contained in the bill ; (3) the promoters deny that the borough of West Hartlepool or the inhabitants thereof will be injuriously affected by the bUl, or that the bill in any way affects them so as to en- title the petitioners to be heard against the bill ; (4) the petitioners are not entitled to be heard upon their petition for the purpose of asking Parliament to make the construction of the said railway, No. 4, compulsory on your peti- tioners, which would be contrary to the practice of Parliament ; (5) the circumstances in con- nection with the Durham Coast Railway Bill of last session, referred to in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the petition, even if correctly stated (which the promoters do not admit), do not entitle the petitioners to be heard against the bill, and even if the petitioners had been parties to the understanding therein referred to, which the promoters do not admit, they would not on that account be entitled to be heard against the Part IY.J NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. 345 till by whioh the promoters are carrying out their part of such understanding ; (6) the peti- . tioners are not in any way affected by the provisions of clauses 10 and 11 of the bill, which are the usual clauses with respect to penalties for non-completion of the railways authorised by the biU inserted in pursuance of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons ; (7) the petition discloses no grounds upon which, according to the practice of Parliament, the petitioners are entitled to be heard thereon against the bill. Pembroke Stephens, Q.C. (for the petitioners) : This is a bill to- enable the North-Eastern railway company to construct a line, described in clause 4 as railway No. 4, similar to the Durham Coast railway, a bill for which was promoted last session by independent persons, but which the promoters successfully opposed, on the undertaking that they would this session themselves promote a bill answering the same objects. The petitioners are the corporation of West Hartlepool, and object to the purely per- missive powers contained in the bill. We say that there is nothing in the bill to indicate that the inclusion therein of power to construct this line was the result of a parliamentary bargain entered into last session, and that the pro- moters should be placed under obligations to make this line after what took place last session. The town of West Hartlepool has now lost the independent line which would have been made, and as this is merely «■ permissive bill, the line now sought for may never be made, in which event the town will be most injuriously affected. We therefore want the words " may make," contained in clause 4 of the bill, altered to " shall make." The Chairman : That is a very unusual ground for a locus standi. Stephens : The promoters may not exercise the powers themselves, and they may prevent anybody else making the line by their having the power to make it, and so, to use a, common phrase, merely treat the proposed railway as a " block line." The main line of the North-Eastern railway runs into West Hartlepool and the proposed line join^ the main line two miles outside the borough, and therefore it is part of a line starting in the borough. w Mr. Chandos-Leigh : Were the petitioners parties to the arrangement of last year ? Stephens : No ; we did not petition ; we arranged clauses with the Durham Coast railway company because we desired the com- munication to be made. We want now to be before the Committee on this bill to see that this line is made a real line and not used merely to prevent another independent line being made. The Chaieman : Can you refer the Court to any authorities in your favour ? Ste2iheiis : I do not know of any. It is true that if the promoters do not make the proposed line within the time prescribed by the bill, then the penalty clause (clause 10 of the bill) comes into operation, but though penalty clauses might be a very important obligation upon weak promoters, they are absolutely of no consequence to the North-Eastern railway, assuming that they as a matter of policy and to prevent any one else from making this line elected to incur the penalty. The penalty clause, which is in the usual form, is a clear indication of the intention of Parliament that promoters should carry out these undertakings, and I contend that in this particular case these penalties are not sufficient. Mr. Chandob-Leigh : It is the only remedy which at present the general public have, and is in accordance with the established practice of Parliament, and you are asking us to go beyond it in this case. Stephens : Penalty clauses are really for the protection of owners and occupiers on the proposed line of railway, who may be affected by the abandonment of it. There is nothing in the penalty clauses at all meeting the case of a corporation anxious that its district shall be properly dealt with, and we therefore ask to be heard under S. O. 134. Bidder, Q.C. (for the promoters), was not called on. The Chairman ; We are satisfied that in this case no locus standi is made out. Locus Standi Disallowed. Agents for Petitioners, Baker, Lees <& Postle- thwaite. Agents for Bill, Sherwood <& Co. 346 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL. (Loch Efort Okdeb.) Petition of (1) The Clyde Steamship Ownees' Association and John MoCadlum & Company ; AND (2) The Inverness County Council. 21st June, 189i.— (Before Mr. Shieess Will, Q.C., M.P;, Chairman; Mr. Roundbll, M.P.; The Hon. E. Ohandos-Leigh, Q.G.; and Mr. Bonham-Carter.) Construction of Pier in Sea Loch— Shipowners and Traders — County Council — S.O. 134B {County Council alleged to be injuriously affected by Bill) — Loch included within Harbour Limits and Jurisdiction of Undertakers — Imposition of Harbour and Pier Rates — Existing Free Pier and Free Anchorage within Loch — Control of Vessels approaching existing Pier and Anclioring in Loch by Pier-Master — Claim to Limit Locus to question of Rates, not construction of Pier — Practice — Joint Petition of Steamship OioHCT's' Association and Individual Steamship Owners — Claim of Association to represent Trade Interests. The bill confirmed a Provisional Order of the Board of Trade for the construction, main- tenance and regulation of a pier in Loch Efort, an arm of the sea in the island of North Uist, in the county of Inverness. The loch had hitherto been a free anchor- age, and there was an existing pier free from tolls of any kind. The harbour limits, as defined by the order, within which the undertakers could control the navigation of vessels, and levy harbour rates and rates on goods landed or shipped within the harbour Umits and at the pro- posed pier, included the whole width of the loch. A joint petition was presented against the biU by (1) the Clyde Steamship Owners' association and a firm of ship- owners, who claimed to be heard on the ground that' the Order authorised rates to be levied on all vessels which anchored or moored in the lock, whereas the loch had hitherto been a free anchorage ; and the petitioners pointed out that it was often necessary for vessels going, to the existing free pier to lie off it at anchor on account of the lowness of the water. They further objected to the Order as subjecting vessels coming into the loch to the control of the undertakers and their pier-masters. Objection was taken by the undertakers to the loms standiot the petitioners, and especially to that of the Clyde Steamship Owners' association, on the ground (1) that they did not represent the shipping trade of Loch Efort; (2) that inasmuch aa the Order was for the benefit of Loch Efort as a harbour and did not abolish the existing free pier, the levying of a rate on vessels anchoring within the harbour limits was not such a substantial injury as to entitle shipowners or traders to be heard ; and it was further contended (3) that in any case the locus standi of the petitioners ought to be limited to the question of harbour rates, and that they were not entitled to be heard against the construction of the proposed pier and works : Held, that, as regards (1) representation of shipping interests in Loch Efort, the objection to the loctis standi of the Clyde Steamship Owners' association must be sustained on the authority of the decision in the Glasgow and South-Western Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill, 1891 (Riokards and Saunders, 115), but not as regards John McCallum & Co., who signed the petition as an individual firm of shipowners ; (2) that the imposition for the first time of harbour and pier rates within the loch was a ground for the petitioners being heard ; and (3) that their locus standi against the bill confirming the order should be general, and not confined to the question of rates. A locus standi against the bill was also claimed by (2) the county council of Inverness-shire, on the same grounds, under S.O. 134B, and after the decision of the Court in the case of petitioners (1) was conceded by the agent for the undertakers. The locus standi at the petitioners (1) was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petitioners do not represent any trade which will be affected by the Provisional Order. The fact that these vessels come to Loch Efort does PABT IV.] PIER AND HAtlBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS, ETC., BILL. 347 not entitle them to be heard against the oon- struction of a pier which they will be under no obligation to use ; (2) the existing pier and rights (if any) of persons to use the same are not affected by the powers proposed to be con- ferred by the Provisional Order, and the peti- tioners are not entitled to be heard against the Provisional Order on that ground ; (3) the powers sought by the Provisional Order do not affect any portion of Loch Efort in which the petitioners have any such interest as would entitle them to be heard against the Order, nor would the fact that vessels might now anchor within that part of the loch which will be within the limits of the Order entitle the petitioners to be heard against the Order ; (4) the petitioners have no such interest in the rates proposed to be levied under the Order as, according to the practice of Parliament, entitles them to be heard against the Order ; (5) the Order does not con- tain any provision affecting the petitioners, and the petition does not allege or show that the petitioners have, nor have they in fact, any such interest in the objects and provisions of the Order as entitles them to be heard against it. Beveridge (parliamentary agent, for peti- tioners (1) and (2) ) : This is a Provisional Order promoted by Sir John W. P. Campbell Orde, Baronet, to enable him to erect a pier on his property in Locb Efort, in the island and parish of North Uist, in the county of Inverness. Loch Efort is really an arm of the sea, and a common highway for ships going to and from the islands in the Hebrides. There is already a pier higher up the loch, which is a free pier, and the whole loch has hitherto been free from harbour rates of any kind, but by this Pro- visional Order, rates would for the first time be imposed on vessels using the pier, and also on vessels anchoring in the loch. Clause 11 of the Order empowers the undertakers, i.e., Sir John Orde, his heirs, and assigns, to levy the rates specified in the schedule to the Order, and those rates are by the schedule leviable on all vessels anchoring or mooring within the limits of the Order, as well as on goods landed at the pier authorised by the Order, and clause 35 of the Order provides that " no vessel or boat shall anchor within the limits of this Order without the consent of the undertalsers, or their pier- master." Then clause 2 defines the limits to which the Order and the authority of the undertakers and their power to levy rates shall extend as " the pier and works authorised by the Order, and the area below high-water mark lying within a distance of one hundred yards from any part of the pier or works." Ihe effect of that is to include the whole width of the loch within the harbour limits. The petitioners who sign petition (1) are largely interested in this loch, and the Clyde Steam- ship Owners' association was formed for the purpose of watching all proposed legislation affecting shipping, and of taking measures for obtaining proper protection for the interests of steamship owners, and it includes most of the leading steamship owners whose vepsels sail from the Clyde. The steamers entered with the association number 311, and have a gross registered tonnage of about 400,000 tons. Many of the smaller vessels trade to the West Highlands and Islands of Scotland, including the steamers of John McCaUum & Co., one of the petitioners. Prior to 1878 there were two piers in the parish of North Uist free of all rates, one in Loohmaddy, the other in Loch Efort. In 1878 Sir John P. Orde, the father of the present baronet, obtained a Provisional Order, which was afterwards confirmed by Parliament, known as the Loohmaddy Order, for the con- struction of a, pier, harbour and works in Looh- maddy in North Uist, upon the site of the previously existing free pier, which was partly utilised for the new works, and the public were thereby deprived of the use of the free pier at Loohmaddy, and have had to pay the heavy rates leviable under the Order of 1878. This Provisional Order now seeks to aggravate the evil, by subjecting vessels going to the free pier at Loch Efort to rates, and thus sub. jeoting shipowners, merchants and inhabitants to the same heavy burdens at Loch Efort as have been imposed at Loohmaddy. Though there will, of course, be no obligation upon us to use this new pier, we shall on many occasions in effect be deprived of the use of the existiog pier as a free pier, because we shall have to pay harbour rates if we moor or anchor within the limits of this Order in going to the free pier, and vessels are frequently obliged to do so for a time on account of the lowness of the water. In any case we should have to pass through the limits of this rated part, and if we wished to anchor there we should be also sub- jected to regulations, and might possibly be prohibited by the pier-master from anchoring at all, by virtue of his powers under clause 35 of the Order. It is a strong thing to touch free anchorage ground. Mr. Chandos- Leigh : Is it not an advantage to the neighbourhood and to ships to have a pier here ? Beveridge : The county council, as well as the traders to the loch, think it is not because the public have all the accommodation they require at the free pier. This is an attempt M 2 348 COURT OF EEFEEEES. [Vol. I. to take away the existing rights of ship- owners and other persons using the loch to the free use of any part of the loch hy the imposi- tion of dues, if they anchor within the limits of the Order, and by putting them under the control of the harbour master. The proposed limits of 100 yards from the pier extend right across the loch from one side to the other. I cite as an authority in my favour the cases of The Lerwick Harbour Improvements Bill, 1877, on the petition of the North of Scotland and Orkneij and Shetland Steam Navigation Company (2 Clifford & Bickards, 25). The Chairman : That bill proposed to levy certain dues at the harbour of Lerwick, and persons trading to the port were allowed a locus staildi. Does not that case cover your ground ? Beveridge : Yes, I think it does, and there is also the case of the Orkney Harbours Bill, 1887 (Kiokards & Michael, 184), upon which we also rely as determining our right to a locus standi. The Chairman : Is there any objection taken to the signatures of the petitioners ? Frere (parliamentary agent, for promoters) : The objection is that the association does not represent any trade that would be affected by the provisions of the order. The Chaikman : That point was decided in the case of the Glasgow and Scmth-lVestern Raihoay (Steam Vessels) Bill, 1891, on the petition of the Clyde Steamship Owners^ Association and other's (Bickards & Saunders, 115). Beveridge : In that case the Court laid down the principle that " associations representing a particular trade may be heard, where associa- tions representing a combination of various trade interests are not entitled to be heard." The Chairman : Upon that principle the Clyde Steamship Owners' association has no right to a locus standi unless it represents a particular trade. Beveridge . I contend that at any rate individual members of the association who sign as shipowners are entitled to a locus standi, following the decision in the Glasgow and South- Western case, where individuals were allowed to be heard. The Chairman : That does not help the association in this case, where we do not have individual members of the association signing, but only the president and two directors as the officers and representatives of the association. Beveridge : But these officers are also ship- owners, and are therefore entitled to be heard. Mr. Chaneos-Leigh : But they sign as officers of the association only; they do not sign in their individual capacity. Beveridge : In any event I contend that John MoCallum & Co., who sign the petition in addition to and separately from the repre- sentatives of the association, are entitled to a locus standi. Frere (in reply) : I object to John McCullum and Co. being heard on the ground that this Order does not affect them. Bates are only to be levied on vessels anchoring or mooring within the limits of the Order, and they will therefore be in precisely the same position so far as regards rates in going up to the existing pier as they are now. They could pass through our limits up to the present free pier, and we should have no power to control them or levy any rate upon them, unless they moored or anchored within our harbour limits. The Chairman: Traders and shipowners have an interest in the rates on goods and on ships levied in a harbour. Although it may be a very beneficial thing for a public authority or for a landowner to erect a pier and set up a harbour, the Court has always held that those persons who trade to the locality have an interest in seeing that the trade should not be obstructed, and have a right to suggest to Parliament reasonable conditions upon which it should be done, both as regards rates and as regards harbour limits. Frere : If, in this case, there was an existing • harbour and the conditions under which the harbour was used were altered, as in the Lerwick Harbour case, I should not object to the locus standi, but here there is only a small existing pier and no harbour, and there cannot be any trade at present to be affected. If McCallum and Co. are entitled to a locus standi, the owner of any vessel passing along any part of the coast to an existing pier at a particular spot would be entitled to be heard, when there was a proposal to erect a second pier near that spot. There is no existing trade to the present pier, and McCallum & Co. are in no different position to any others of the public, who, if they alleged that they might possibly wish to use a pier, access to which pier might be interfered with by the provisions of a particular bUl, would clearly not be entitled to v, locus standi. Mr. BouNDELL : You are making an area of anchorage ground chargeable with rates which is not chargeable at present. Frere: Yes; but I contend that does not entitle the petitioners to be heard. Mr, Chandos-Leigh : They say that they could not, if this Order is confirmed, use that area without the consent of the undertakers, and they say that the payment for such consent is exorbitant and ask to be before. Part IV.] ST. ANDREWS LINKS BILL. S40 the Committee to see that it is properly adjusted. Frere : The petitioners are merely members of the public. They are not traders to this place, and they are not obliged to pay the rates on goods landed at the proposed pier. They are, therefore, if at all, only entitled to be heard against that part of the Order that would impose a rate upon them when anchoring within the 100 yards limit. The Chaikman : We are of opinion that the locus standi of John McCallum & Co. ought to be allowed generally against the Order. We disallow the locus standi of the Clyde Steani- Ship Owners association for the same reasons as were given in the Glasgow and South-Western (Steam Vessels) case, 1891 (Bickards and Saunders, 115). Frere : I ask the Court to confine the locus standi to a traders' locus standi against rates. I submit that McCallum & Co. are not entitled to raise the point of the expediency of making the pier. Their petition raises all sorts of questions as to the expediency of making the pier here at all, but they are not entitled to go into that ; they are only entitled to go into rates, and should be restricted to those clauses of the Order which relate to rates and to the limits, namely, clauses 2 (Limits of Order) , 11 (Rates) , 25 (Power to Borrow on the Security of Rates) , and 30 (Application of Moneys), Beveridge : I object to being limited in that way. The Chaikman : The question is whether the locus standi should be limited in the way suggested, or whether the petitioner should be allowed a general' locus standi. Now I quite see the force of the objection urged to a general locus standi, but, on the other hand, very great inconvenience would result if the locus standi were limited to the question of the amount of rates and the extent of the limits. For example, I can quite understand that owners of vessels trading to the port might desire to urge that the pier should not be constructed in the particular place proposed, but should be a short distance below or a short distance above, or that the proposed pier was too long. Argu- ments of that kind are all matters to consider. I cannot imagine that any committee would allow a general locus standi to be used as a means of obstructing a landowner in building a pier upon his own property. Therefore the locus standi, John McCallum & Co., will be a general one. Frere : The petition (2) of the county council of Inverness raises the same points as are raised in petition (1), and after the decision of the Court in that case, I concede the locus standi of the county council. Locus Standi of the Clyde Steamship Owners' Association Disallowed, Locus Standi of John McCallum & Co. Allowed. Locus Standi of the County Council of the- County of Inverness Allowed. Agents for Petitioners (1) and (2), Beveridge. Agents for the Bill, Mees (£ Frere. ST. ANDREWS LINKS BILL. Petition of Inhabitants, Owners, Ratepayers, AND Others in the Bukgh op St. Andrews. 19th April, 18H.— [Before Mr. Shiress Will, Q.G., M.P., Chairman; Sir. Roundell, BI.P. ; Mr. Pabkee-Smith, M.P.; and The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C.) Corporation of Scotch Burgh — Acquisition of Golf Links as Recreation Ground— Poiver to Borrow ■ — Levying of Rates for Purchase Money and use of Golf Links — Inhabitants, Ratejiayers, and Owners, dc, in Burgh — Public Meeting — Increase of Local Taxation — Interference with ■existing Privileges of Inhabitants — Absence of Distinct Interests — Representation — Duplicate Petition raising same Points — Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892 — Promoters as Police Commissioners — Municipal Corporations (Borough Funds) Act, 1872. The bill empowered the provost, magistrates, and council of the royal burgh of St. Andrews, as commissioners of the burgh for the purposes of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, to acquire compul- sorily the links of St. Andrews for a public park and recreation ground ; and for this purpose to borrow a sum of £10,000 on the security, for the repayment of principal and interest, of the burgh general assess- ment leviable by them under the above- mentioned Police Act, The object of the acquisition of the links was to secure their use for the purposes of golf, and the biU gave power to the commissioners to regulate the use of the links for this purpose, and to expend money in maintaining a golf course or courses and regulating the playing of the game, and the commissioners were empowered to levy a rate upon all persons playing golf on the links, as an additional means of providing for the 350 COURT OF EErEKEES. [Vol. -I. expenses of maintaining and regulating the linkg as a golf ground, whicli expenses were also chargeable to the general burgh assessment, in the same manner as the payment of the principal and interest of the purchase money of the links. The petitioners were a number of inhabitants, owners, lessees, and occupiers of property in the burgh, and the chairman of a public meeting of inhabitants, &c., held to protest against the bill. The petitioners claimed to be heard (1) on account of the increased taxation upon property in which they were interested, which would result from the bill ; and (2) on the ground that the bill would deprive them of the privilege, which they had hitherto enjoyed, of playing golf upon the links free of charge. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to generally on the ground that as ratepayers they were represented by the corporation, who promoted the bill under their common seal; and that as regards those of the petitioners who were owners, they did not, as owners, contribute to the rates, and would therefore not be called upon to contribute to the additional rate leviable under the bill ; and it was also urged that the interests of golf players were sufficiently represented by the petition of the trustees of a golf club, whose locus standi was not objected to, which raised the same points as the petition before the Court : Held, that those of the petitioners who were merely ratepayers were not entitled to be heard, but that those of the petitioners who were owners (including in that term holders of leases for a substantial term of years) were entitled to be heard, according to previous decisions of the Court. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) no lands or other property belonging to the peti- tioners are proposed to be taken under the powers of the bill ; (2) the petitioners, whether as inhabitants, owners, lessees, or occupiers of property, or ratepayers, and the said John Paterson, as chairman of the alleged public meeting referred to in the petition, vote in the election of, or are all of them reprepeuted by the provost, magistrates, and council of the city and royal burgh of St. Andrews as representing tlje community thereof, and also as the commissioners of that burgh under and for the purposes of the Burgli Police (Spotland) Act, 1892. The biU is promoted by the said provost, magistrates, and council as repre- senting the community of St. Andrews under the common or corporate seal of the burgh of St. Andrews, and also by the said provost, magistrates, and council as commissioners aforesaid, and the petitioners are therefore not entitled to be heard in opposition to the bill ; (3) the petitioners have not any interest or grievance, so far as the provisions of the bill are concerned, separate or distinct from the general body of the inhabitants and owners, lessees, and occupiers, and ratepayers in St. Andrews ; (4) the petitioners are not entitled to represent and do not represent any class or classes of the community of St. Andrews, who would, according to the practice of Parliament, be entitled to be heard against any of the pro- visions of the bill and in opposition to the common seal ; (5) in any view the petitioners are so comparatively few and represent so comparatively small a portion of the rateable value of the property in St. Andrews, that they are not, according to the practice of Parliament, entitled to be heard against the bill ; (6) of those whose signatures are attached to the petition, the principal persons are members of the royal and ancient golf club of St. Andrews, on whose behalf another petition, raising similar questions and signed by the trustees of the club has been deposited ; they will accordingly be heard in that behalf and ' do not need to be heard twice over. Some of the persons signing as inhabitants, &c., within the city of the royal burgh of St. Andrews are not in fact electors or ratepayers of St. "Andrews or otherwise qualified; some are known to have been at sea when the petition was in course of signature ; some have with- drawn their signatures, and some are illiterate persons whose signatures could not, in any event, be genuine ; (7) the statements made in the petition are, moreover, erroneous and mis- leading, because the bill for the acquisition of the links by the commissioners on behalf of the town is promoted in accordance with the feeling of the town, as expressed at meetings duly convened ; and at the municipal elections no candidate opposed to such acquisition was returned. On the 17th March, 1894, a fui-ther meeting of the ratepayers, with, the provost in the chair, " heartily endorsed what ha4 been done by the commissioners in pressing on the bill and authorised them to go on as they had been doing," and the meeting of the 19th March, Part IV.] ST. ANDREWS LINKS BILL. 351 1894, referred, to in the petition, though called by placards for the purpose of opposition to the bill, in fact negatived the resolution instructing the chairman to sign the hostile petition, and ultimately declared in support of the bill ; (8) the petition does not disclose any grounds on which, according to the Standing Orders of this House, or the practice of Parliament, the petitioners, or any of them, are entitled to be heard either against the preamble of the bill or against any of the clauses and provisions of the same. Erskine Pollock, Q.O. (for petitioners) : This is a bill to enable the provost, magistrates, and council of St. Andrews, as the commissioners of the burgh under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, to acquire compulsorily the links of St. Andrews for a public park and recreation ground. The petitioners are owners, lessees, and occupiers of property and ratepayers within the burgh, and also John Paterson, a commissioner and ex-provost of the burgh, who signs the petition as chairman of, and by the authority and on behalf of, a public meeting of inhabitants and ratepayers of the burgh held on the 19th March, 1894. The question involved in the case is a new one. It is the question of a corporation acquiring a golf ground for the purpose of enabling golf and other games to be played thereon, and pro- posing to levy a rate on persons playing golf on what has hitherto been a free public ground. The promoters in the preamble of the bill state that the golf ground, prior to the year 1797, belonged to them, but when they parted with possession of it in 1797 they reserved to the inhabitants the right to play golf upon the links. This has hitherto been a free right, but the bill empowers the commissioners to levy a rate upon all persons, including the inhabitants of the burgh. At the public meeting of inhabitants, owners, lessees, and occupiers, representing a total yearly rateable value of £13,500, out of a total rateable value in the burgh of £41,000, held on the 19th of March, 1894, a resolution was passed condemning this bill and directing that a petition should be lodged against it and signed by the chairman on behalf of the meeting. The present petition was accordingly prepared and received about 400 signatures, although some of these signa- tures have since been withdrawn. The Chaikman : Is the point in this case whether inhabitants can be heard against the seal of their corporation ? Pembroke Stephens, Q.C. (for promoters) : The first point, broadly, is representation ; the second is that as regards any particular interest of golf-players there is a separate petition, that of the Royal and Ancient, Golf Club of St. Andrews, whose locus is not disputed, signed by a number of the same persons who sign this petition, which properly deals with the golf interest, and raises the same points. Pollock ; The owners allege that their property would be injuriously affected by increased rates, inasmuch as £10,000 is to be raised on the security of the general burgh assess- ment under the borrowing powers contained in clause 11 of the bill for the purchase of the links, and in addition the promoters ask for powers in clause 9 to levy rates upon all persons playing golf upon the links, in order to provide for the upkeep and maintenance of the links, which is also to be charged upon a rate levied upon property within the burgh, in accordance with the provisions of the Burgh Police Act of 1892, in the same way as the principal and interest of the borrowed money. It is admitted that an increase in rates must diminish rental value and so affect the owners of property, and occupiers would, of course, be affected by such rates, according to the terms of their leases. This case falls within the principle laid down by this Court that where people have had the right to something free of cost, which it is proposed by the bill to take away, or where it is proposed to impose anything in the nature of a toll on the exercise of that right, those people have a right to be heard against the bill. It must be borne in mind that St. Andrews is a Scotch burgh, and that there is consequently no meeting of ratepayers called to approve of the promotion of a private bill as there must be in an English borough in accordance with sect. 4 of the Municipal Corporations (Borough Funds) Act, 1872. The vote recorded against the bill at the public meeting held on the 19th March, 1894, must therefore be regarded as taking the place of a meeting under that Act. Stephens : 150 signatories to the petition have already withdrawn from it. The Chaikman : There is a doctrine of this Court that as a general rule ratepayers are not allowed to be heard against the common seal, and then there are certain distinctions made by the practice of the Court with regard to owners, but are there not some reported cases in which a substantial number of ratepayers appearing have been allowed to be heard ? Pollock : I think so, where there has been a substantial body of ratepayers, and where they have alleged some special injury. The pro- moters say we are represented by the corporation and cannot therefore petition against a bill which is promoted by the corpo- 352 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. ration, but a large portion of the petitioners are owners who complain that their property would be injuriously affected, and they are not represented and are therefore entitled to a locus standi. Whilst some of the petitioners are owners and also occupiers, there are some who are not occupiers, and who therefore would not have a vote in the election of the governing body. But assuming they all had votes the principle remains that they are owners whose property would be injuriously affected by the bill, and it is upon that ground that owners have been allowed a locus standi to protect their interest. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : Can you refer us to any recent case in which we have allowed a . substantial number of ratepayers to be heard ? Pollock ; The most recent case was the Hornsey Local hoard Bill, 1893, ore the petition of Owners and Lessees of property in Hornsey (Bickards & Saunders, 276). Mr. Chandos-Leigh : That v.'as not a case of ratepayers exclusively. The Chairman : We appreciate the case you have made as regards owners. Will you teH the Court on what grounds you say in this particular case ratepayers ought to be heard contrary to the general rule that ratepayers cannot be heard against the common seal of the local authority ? Pollock : The point I rely upon with regard to the right of the inhabitants qua rate- payers to be heard is this, that the question of the acquisition of this ground for the public for golf is not an ordinary ratepayers' question that would be present to the minds of those who were electing their representatives, and is not an ordinary municipal question as to which they are represented. Stephens : It was the principal question at the last municipal election. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : I call your attention to the case of the Edinburgh Municipal and Police Bill, 1879, on the petition of John Hope (2 Clifford & Bickards, 149). Follocli : In every case it is within the discretion of the Court to grant a locus standi to ratepayers qua ratepayers. A further reason for granting the locus standi in this case is that the corporation declined to allow a plebiscite to be taken to see how the ratepayers felt on this question, and thereupon the peti- tioners called a public meeting, and a resolution to oppose the bill was passed. On the question of the sufficiency of the numbers of petitioning inhabitants to constitute a representative body, in the Pontypool Gas and Water Bill, 1873 (1 Clifford & Bickards, 51), only 175 petitioned out of a population of between 30,000 and 40,000, and yet they were allowed to be heard. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : That was a case of consumers. The Chaibman : If you are going to rely upon the public meeting, as distinguished from the signatures to the petition,- you would have to prove it, but in this case I do not think it would carry the matter much further. Stephens (in reply) : With regard to the question of representation, unless an owner is in some way subjected to some burden by the bill of the corporation, the mere fact of his being an owner does not give him any right to oppose the bill. The bill empowers the commissioners of the burgh of St. Andrews to buy back these links, so that they should again become the property of the burgh. Since the corporation parted with these links, the Eoyal and Ancient golf club of St. Andrews has practically provided the funds necessary to maintain the ground, and there is no reason to suppose that the mere change in the ownership of the land will cause any expense to be thrown upon the rates, but if there was any withdrawal of this assistance by the club, then there would be an expenditure by the corporation towards the maintenance of the ground. There is no reason, however, to anticipate this withdrawal, so that the extent of the burden which will in all proba- bility be imposed on the town by this bill will be the payment of the principal and interest of the purchase money of the links, amounting to £10,000. All ratepayers are represented by the commissioners, and there is no power in the bill to levy a charge upon owners, but only power to borrow at interest upon the security of the general rates leviable by the corporation as police commissioners under the Buirgh Police Act, and those rates will fall upon ratepayers, i.e., occupiers, not upon owners. As to the argu- ment that we shall deprive the inhabitants of the burgh of their present privilege of playing golf on the links free of charge, we are willing to insert a clause in the bill exempting present inhabitants of the burgh from the payment of any rate for playing golf. The Chaiiuian : Our practice for purposes of locus standi is to take the bill as deposited. Stephens : I contend that the bill will make no substantial alteration in the status of owners. The Chiirman: In the case of the petition of John Hope against the Edinburgh Municipal and Police Bill, 1879 (2 Clifford & Bickards, 149), a single owner petitioned, who undoubtedly had a vote in the election of the town council, and was allowed a locus standi. Does it not therefore follow that the fact that an owner PaktIT.] west highland railway, etc., bill. 363 has a vote in the election of the town council has nothing to do with the question ? Stephens : The destinction between that case and the present was that there the petitioner was very directly affected by the money provisions of the biU. The Chairman : The case the petitioner made was common to every other owner in Edinburgh. Stephens: This is at most a conditional liability to rates, except in respect of the original purchase money. There is no power taken to charge any owners. The power is to levy a rate upon all ratepayers, and the peti- tioners have no special interests from other ratepayers, and are represented by the corporation. Pollock : The effect of increased taxation is to decrease the value of the property subjected to it, and I contend that an occupier of a tenement on a lease of substantial duration would be entitled to the same locus standi as an owner. Stephens : I doubt if there are any occupiers of that class signing on the petition. With regard to the other petitioners, no individual right is interfered with, for none of them have any individual right on the golf ground, but merely a right in common with all members of the community, and all rate- payers are represented by the town council. The Chaikman : We are of opinion that those of the petitioners who are merely ratepayers have no locus standi according to the previous cases decided by the Court. As regards the question who are owners and who are not, we decided in the case of the Hornsey Local Board BiU, 1893 (Eickards & Saunders, 276), that a leaseholder for a substantial term of years is in the same position as an owner for purposes of locui standi. Locus. Standi Disallowed except as to peti- tioners being owners of property in the burgh of St. Andrews. Agents for Petitioners, Durnford <£- Co. Agents for Bill, Robertson c£ Co. WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY (MALLAIG EXTENSION) BILL. Petition of The CALLANDEit and Oban Railway Company and the Caledonian Railway Com- pany. 12th April, 1804.-(i3f/o)-e 3Ir. Shikess Will, Q.C., M.P., Chairman; Mr. Rodndell, HI. P.; BL: Healy, M.P. ; The Hon. E. Chandos- Leioh, Q.C. ; and Mr. Bonham-Cabtee.) [Mr. Parker-Smith, M.P., who had been pre- viously sitting as a member of the Court, stated that he would not take any part in this case, his name being on the back of the bill.] Railway Extension and Construction of Harhour — Competition, New or Improvement of Existing — Sea-borne Traffic — Competing Ports. Practice — Working Agreement in Perpetuitg — Right of Working Company to be heard in addition to Owning Company. The bill authorised the extension 'of the West Highland railway from B ana vie, the present terminus of the railway on the Caledonian canal, close to Fort William, to Mallaig on the west coast of Scotland, where harbour works were authorised to be constructed by the bill, the proposed extension rail- way being about 40 .miles in length. In 1889 the West Highland railway company sought Parliamentary powers, in the bill by which they were incorporated, to construct a railway from Glasgow via Fort William and Banavie to Roshven, a point on the west coast 12 miles south of Mallaig, but Parliament refused to sanction the proposed railway beyond Banavie, the present northern terminus of the railway. The petitioners, who claimed a locus standi against the bill were the Callander and Oban and the Cale- donian railway companies. The railway of the former company extended from Callander, where it formed a junction with the Caledonian railway, to Oban on the west coast, about 40 miles south of Mallaig, and it was worked under an agreement in perpetuity by the Cale- donian company. The petitioners claimed to be heard on the ground of the com- 854 COUET OF REFEEEES. [Vol. I. petition that would be created at Mallaig for fish and other sea-borne traffic with Oban, the terminus of the Callander and Oban railway, and at present the only port on this portion of the west coast of Scotland. It was contended on behalf of the promoters that the bill at most authorised an improvement of existing competition, inasmuch as the West Highland railway already extended to Fort William on Loch Eil and Banavie on the Caledonian canal, from both of which places sea-borne traffic could already reach the West Highland railway, at a point nearer to and therefore more competitive with Oban than Mallaig; , and formal objection was taken to the Caledonian company, who worked the Callander and Oban railway in perpetuity at cost price, being heard in addition to the latter company : Held, that the competition created by the bill was not merely an improvement of exist- ing competition, and was of such a character as to entitle the petitioners to be heard ; and that, following the decision in the West Highland Bailway Bill, 1889 (Eickards & Michael, 311), the objection to the locus standi of the Caledonian company as the working company could not be sustained. The loeus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) no lands, rights, or property of the petitioners or either, of them are proposed to be taken, interfered with or affected by the bill ; (2) the railway proposed to be authorised by the bill is situated in a totally different district, and many miles away from the railways of the petitioners ; (3) as a shareholder in the Oban company's undertaking the Caledonian com- pany is not entitled to be heard against the bill, as its interests as such are represented by the Oban company, and it has no distinct interest such as would, according to the practice of Parliament, entitled it to be heard in- dependently ; (4) as the company working the Oban line under the agreement scheduled by the Callander and Oban Eailway (Abandon- ment, &c.) Act, 1870, which provides that the line shall be worked at cost price, the Caledonian company has no such interest in the Oban line, the traffic thereon , and the revenue therefrom, as entitles it to be heard against the bill on the alleged grounds of the abstraction from the aforesaid railway of any part of its traffic; (5) in the year 1889, when the bill for the construction of the main line of the West Highland company which crosses the Oban line at Crianlarich, was before Parliament, both the Caledonian and Oban companies appeared in opposition, but in spite of their opposition Parliament thought fit to pass the bill. These two companies are not now entitled to be heard to say that a new branch commencing at a point 40 miles from the Oban line and running directly away from it ought not to be sanctioned ; (6) under the powers of its Act of 1890, the West Highland company is at present constructing its line to the west coast at Banavie, at which point there is connection with the Glasgow steamers, and even if it were true, which the promoters deny, that the railway and pier proposed by the bill would compete with and abstract traffic from the railway of the Oban company to any appreciable extent, this would not be such new competition as, accord- ing to the practice of Parliament, would entitle the petitioners or either of them to be heard to oppose the bill ; (7) the suggestion made in the 16th paragraph of the petition that the needs of the district on the coast north of Oban and of the western islands would be better pro- vided for by an extension of the Oban company's line does not give to the petitioners or either of them any right to be heard against the bQl. It is not the practice of Committees to inquire into the merits of a scheme which is not before Parliament ; (8) no grounds are disclosed by the petitioners which entitle them or either of them, according to the practice of Parliament, to be heard against the biU. Pemher, Q.C. (for petitioners) : In 1889 there was a scheme before Parliament for making a railway, called the West Highland railway, from Helensburgh to Banavie, which is on the Caledonian canal close to Fort William, and thence on to Eoshven on the west coast, where a harbour was proposed to be constructed. The line was authorised as far as Banavie, but the scheme, so far as it provided for making a Une from Fort William to Eoshven, was rejected. This bill proposes in lieu of that line to Eoshven to make an extension railway forty miles in length, from Banavie to Mallaig on the west coast, a place about twelve miles north of Eoshven, where also there is a deep natural harbour, which is to be protected by a pier and breakwater, also authorised by clause 4. By clauses 51 and 52 of the bill it is provided that the Treasury may guarantee interest or Part IV. J west hiohland railway, etc., bill. 355 dividend on the capital to be raised under the bill, and may issue out of the consolidated fund a sum to fulfil any guarantee of interest under the bill. The Chairman : Clauses of that kind would have to be inserted in a Committee of the whole House. Pemher : Yes. But they are in the bill, and it is clearly the intention of the promoters to get from Parliament a subsidy for the making of this line in some form or other if they can. Mr. Chandos-Lbioh : The Treasury objected to these clauses because they created a charge upon the consolidated fund, aild they have, therefore, been cut out of the bill altogether, and are not to be proceeded with. Pember : Although we may have a guarantee that these clauses will not appear in the bill as referred to a Committee, there is no guarantee that the Treasury may not carry out this proposal in some other way by a public biU. What we wish to ha vc the opportunity of arguing before the Committee is that these clauses to some extent are based upon the report of a Government Commission, which has been sitting upon this matter, and that our case, which is one of competition, is enormously strengthened by the fact that there is a scheme for giving public money by way of subsidy to the promoters of this line. The Callander and Oban line runs from near Stirling to the deep water harbour of Oban, and it is worked under an agreement in perpetuity by the Caledonian company, who are large shareholders in it. The two companies opposed the making of the West Highland line from Helensburgh to Eoshven in 1889, on the ground of the keen competition which would be' created between the proposed port of Eoshven and Oban for all traf&c from the Highlands to and from the Hebrides and other islands. Our loctis standi was not objected to in the House of Lords, and in the result the part of the line between Banavie and Eoshven was thrown out by the Lords' Committee on the bUl. This bill proposes to set up precisely the same competition again, and the fact that the line is to go to Mallaig, 12 miles further north, instead of to Eoshven, is of no import- ance, nor does a distance of some 40 miles between the competing points of Oban and Mallaig alter the complexion of the case. After that part of the line to Eoshven had been thrown out by the Lords, the promoters thought our case of competition woiJd be con- siderably weakened, and they therefore opposed our locus standi in the House of Commons, but with the result that we obtained a general locus standi on the ground of competition even without that part of the line (IVest Highland liailway Bill, 1889, Eickards & Michael, 311). There can be no doubt in the present case of the competition that would arise between the Callander and Oban railway, and the proposed extension to Mallaig, which is practically a re-iutroduotion of the extension to Eoshven proposed in 1889. This bill proposes to set up a perfectly new competition of port against port. There is now no competition between Oban and any port in the neighbourhood, and whether this port, which we say will be in competition with our port at Oban, is at a distance of 40 miles or more, makes no difference in principle. Mallaig will com pete for fish and other sea-borne tralfic with Oban, and will deprive the CaUander and Oban company of traf&c, which at present reaches their railway at Oban. Acxoorth (for promoters) : In the ]Vest High- land Railway Bill, 1889, the petitioners had an undoubted Jocks standi as we crossed their line, and we could not, therefore, object to their appearing, but inasmuch as there was no agreement with the North British Com- pany for the working of the line from Fort William to Eoshven, and as it could not therefore be supposed to be very remunerative in itself, it was a strong argument that the line would not in fact be made, and that was one reason for the Committee of the House - of Lords refusing to sanction that part of the line. It appears from the report of the case before this Court (Eiokards & Michael, p. 313) that it was distinctly stated that if the West Highland railway was allowed to be made to Fort William there would be competition with the Caledonian at Oban for sea traf&c, but having got to Fort WiUiam in 1889, and to Banavie in 1890, we are now entitled to say that the proposed extension to Mallaig is merely an improvement of existing competition. We are now asking for power to make a line which is a great deal further off from Oban than the port we were allowed to go to in 1889. Mr. Bonham-Caetee : The additional distance between the ports makes very little difference. We have had cases on the eastern counties where the distance was 70 or 80 miles. Acworth : Assuming that this is competition, it is only sea competition. This Court has held that that is different from the competition of lines abstracting traf&c from the same area of country. The question here is as to competi- tion for traf&c brought by sea only, and is practically the same question as in the Glasgow and South-Western Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill, 1891, on the petition of Lanarkshire and Ayrshire and Caledonian Railway Companies (Eickards & Saunders, 111), where the peti- 356 COUET OF EEFEEEES. [Vol. 1. tioners objected to the promoters obtaiBing power to run steamboats. The Chairman then said: "Where a company proposes to run alongside an existing line, the existing company- has a strong case, but the case of competition by sea is not so strong." If the Court should think that the petitioners are entitled to a loais standi, it should be limited to competition at Mallaig only, and they should not be allowed to discuss the engineering features of our line. The Chaieman : If they have any locus standi upon the ground of competition that covers the whole ground, including engineering and estimates. Acworlh : The only other point is whether the Caledonian company should not be excluded, even if the Callander and Oban were given a locus standi. The Callander and Oban railway is worked in perpetuity by the Caledonian company, and both companies should not be heard. Pemb'er : I did not argue that point because it was decided in my favour in 1889. The Chairman : Is it not enough that the Caledonian company are working the Callander and Oban ? Acworth : They are working under a special agreement. The Caledonian company also claim to be heard as shareholders in the Callander and Oban company. .The Chaibman: You need not labour that point as we shall not give them a locus standi as shareholders, but on the ground of competition. We are of opinion that the Locus Standi in this case has been made out. Agents for Petitioners, Grahames, Currey and Spens. Agents for Bill, Durnford ^ (2) The Edinbubgh and Leith Coepobation Gas Commissioners . . 2G2 Edinbttegh North Beidoe Improvement Bill, 1894 (H.L.). Petition of Donald Macgregor and others . . . . • • • • ■ • • ■ 333 Electric Lighting Provisional Obdebs (No. 11) Conpiemation Bill (Chatham, Eochestee, and Disteict, Electeic Lighting Ordee), 1890. Petition of Walter Eichard Solman 26 Fishguard Bay Eailway and Pier Bill, 1893 (H.L.). Petition of James Okell 264 Fleetwood Impbovement Bill, 1893. Petition of Eichard Edmondson 266 Folkestone Pieb and Lift Bill, 1890. Petition of Eichard Hammersley Heenan 28 Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Tramways Bill, 1891. Petition of The South op England Telephone Company, Limited 102 Forfar and Brechin Eailway Bill, 1891. Petition of (1) The Provost, Magistrates and Town Council op Forfar, The Earl OP Strathmore, James Taylor, and Manupactueebs and Traders in fobpar • • 10* „ (2) The Caledonian Railway Company 108 30 Glasgow and South- Western Eailway (Steam-Vessels) Bill, 1891 (H.L.). Petition of (1) The Lanaekshiee and Ayeshiee Railway Company Ill ,, (2) The Caledonian Eailway Company Ill ,, (3) The Clyde Steamship Owners' Association and others . . . . Ho Glasgow and South- Western Eailvay Bill, 1892 (H.L.). Petition of The Provost, Magistrates and Council of the Eoyal Burgh op Irvine lb7 Glasgow and South-Western Eailway (No. 2) Bill, 1892. Petition of The Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway Company and the Ardeossan Harbour Cojipany " be 362 INDEX OF CASES. PAGE Glasgow Cobpobation Bill, 1890. Petition of The Pabtick, Billhead and Mabyhill Gas Company, Limited . . . . 31 Glasgow Cobpoeation Wateb Bill, 1892. Petition of The Caledonian Eailwat Company 191 Glasgow South Shbueban Bailw.iy Bill, 1891 ' 117 Glasgow, Tokeb and Clydebank Eailway Bill, 1892. Petition of (I) The Lanarkshibe and Dumbabtonshiee Bailwat Company . . . , 191 ,, (2) The Caledonian Bailway Company 191 ,, (3) The Magisteates and Police Commissionebs op the Buegh of Clydebank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Glasgow, Yokeb and Clydebank Railway Bill, 1893. Petition of The Cobpoeation of Glasgow . . . . . . . . . ■ . . 269 Geeat Noeth of Scotland Railway Bill, 1890. Petition of (1) Ownebs, &c , in the vicinity of Elgin. . . . . . . . . . 34 W) James Simpson 34 (3) The Coepobation op Invebness 34 !i Geeat Noeth of Scotland Eailway Bill, 1893. Petition of The Cobpoeation of Abebdeen . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 Geeat Westeen Eailway Bill, 1891. Petition of (1) The Taff Vale Eailway Company 117 ,, (2) The Babby Docks and Eailway Cojipany 120 Geeat Westeen and Midland Eailway Companies Bill, 1894 (H.L.). Petition of The London and Noeth- Westeen Eailway Company . . . . . . 334 Gbeenock Cobpoeation Bill, 1893. Petition of (1) The Clyde Navigation Teustees . . , 270 ,, (2) The Cobpoeation of Glasgow 270 Handswobth (Stafpoed) Eectoby Bill, 1891 (H.L.). Petition, of Inhabitants and Chubchwaedens of Holy Teinity, Handswobth . . 123 Highland Eailway (New Lines) Bill, 1890. Petition of William Young . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 HoENSEY Local Boaed Bill, 1893. Petition of (1) Ownees and Lessees of Lands, &c., in the Ueban Sanitaby DiSrBICT OF HoENSEY, IN THE CouNTY OF MIDDLESEX . . . . 276 „ (2) The London County Council 278 Keighley Cobpoeation Bill, 1891. Petition of The Local Boaed of Health fob the Disteict op Hamwobth, in the County of Yobk 125 Lancasuiee and Dumbabtonshiee Eailway Bill, 1890. Petition of The West Highland Eailway Company . . . . . . . . . . 36 Lancashibe, Deebyshiee and East Coast Eailway Bill, 1891. PrtidoH o/ John Peestwich .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 127 Lancashibe and Yoekshire and London and Noeth- Westeen Eailways (Steam-Vessels) Bill, 1892. Petition of (1) The Belfast Steamship Company . . . . . . . . . . 195 „ (2) The Glasgow, Dublin AND Londondebby Steam Packet Company.. 195 Lancashibe and Yobkshibe Eailway (Steam- Vessels) Bill, 1892. Petition of (1) The City of Dublin Steam Packet Company 197 ,, (2) The Glasgow, Dublin, and Londondebby Steam Packet Company 197 ,, (3) The Steamship Ownees' Association and the Ieish Steamship assocution , . . . , , 199 INDEX OP CASES. 363 Lakcashike and Yoekshire Railway Bill, 1894. Petition .of (1) The Corpokation of Salfoed .. .. ., .. .. .. 337 „ (2) J. B. HODGKINSON and J. LiNBLEY 339 Lea Valley Drainage Bill, 1892. Petition of The London County Council 202 Leeds Corporation (Consolidation and Improvement) Bill, 1893 [H.L.] Petition of The National Telephone Company . . . . 281 Local Government Provisional Order (for the Formation of the Edmonton, Enfield, South Hohnsey and Tottenham Joint Hospital District) Con- firmation Bill, 1891. Petition of (1) The Southgate Local Board 127 ,, (2) Thomas James Mann AND others 127 Local Government Provisional Order No. 10 (Halifax Order) Confirmation Bill, 1892. Petition of The Corporation of Bradford 204 London, Chatham and Dover Eailway Bill, 1894. Petition of The Corporation of Folkestone ^ . . . . 341 London and North-Western Railway Bill, 1893. Petition of The Salt Union, Limited 284 London and South-Western Railway Bill, 1890. Petition of The Poole Bridge Company . . 36 London and South- Western Railway Bill, 1893. Petition of Ratepayers of Southampton . . • • . ■ • • • • ■ • • • 287 London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway (Various Powers) Bill, 1890 (H.L.). Petition of William Duke and others . . 39 London County Council (General Powers) Bill, 1891. Petition of The Brush Electrical Engineering Company and six other Electrical Lighting Companies 130 204 208 London County Council (General Po^vers) Bill, 1892. Petition of The Gas Light and Coke Comp.\ny London County Council (Money) Bill, 1892. Petition of The Corporation of West Ham London County Council (Subways) Bill, 1892. Petition of The Board of Works for the St. Giles's District 210 London County Council (General Powers) Bill, 1893. Petition of (1) The Goveenour and Company of the New River, brought from Chadwell and Amwell to London ; the East London Water- works Company; the Company of Proprietors of Lamreth Waterworks; the Company op Proprietors of the West Middlesex Waterworks; the Grand Junction Wateewoeks Company; the Goveenoue and Company of the Chelsea Wateewoeks; and the Soothwaek and Vauxhall Water Company . . ,, (2) The East London Wateewoeks Company .. ,, (3) The Kent Wateewoeks Company „ (4) The Corporation op West Ham and other Local ,, (5) The Essex County Council „ (C) The Berkshire County Council (7) The Surrey County Council ■"' The "Upper Thames Association .. •• „ „ The Thames Ripaeian Ownees' Association, and Sie Gilbert Clayton East, Bart (10) The Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons op the City of London (11) The Commissioners op Sewers of the City of London London Open Spaces Bill, 1803. . Petition of The Gas Light And Coi?e Company • • °^^ •^ ' BB 2 290 290. .. 290 Authorities . . 295 295 295 295 298 298 300 303 364 INDEX OF CASES. PAGE London Stbeets (Removal op Gates, &c.) Bill, 1893. Petition of The Gas Light and Coke Company 307 Manchesteh, Sheffield, and LiNOOLNsnins Railway (Extension to London, &c.) Bill, 1891. Petition of (1) Viscount Poetman 130 ,, (2) Owners, Lessees, and Occcpiers op lands, houses and property in the Parishes op St. Marylebone and St. John, Hampstead. . 133 „ (3) John Wooley Pitt and Thomas John Pitpield and Others . . 133 ,, (4) Owners, Lessees, and Occupiers in Broadhubst Gardens, in the Parish of St. John, Hampstead . . . . . . . . . . 136 ,, (5) George Boultry and Others, Owners, &c., op Propiwty in Nottingham 139 ,, (6) The Vicar and Churchwardens of the Parish Church op St, Mary, Leicester . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . 139 ,, (7) The Towcester and Buckingham Railway Company 140 Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway (Extension to London, &c.) Bill, 1892. Pcft'd'oH o/ W. G. Chapman AND Company 212 Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway (Various Powers) Bill, 1891. Petition of The Great Western Railway Company ] 40 Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire R.vilway Bill, 1894. Petition of The Vestey of the Parish of St. Marylebone 341 Metropolitan Railway Bill, 1890. Petition of (1) The Vestry of Marylebone 40 {'2) The Vestry of St. Panceas 40 (3) The Viscount Poetman . . . , . . . . . . . . . . 43 (i) The Reverend H. S. Eyre 44 (5) The London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company . . 46 (6) The Great Eastern Railway Company . . . . . . . . . . 46 (7) The Midland Railway Company 46 (8) The Great Northern Railway Company . . . . . . . . 46 (9) The London, Chatham and Dover Railway Company . . . . 46 (10) The Great Western Railway Company . . . . . . . . 46 (11) The Metropolitan District Railway Company 49 Midland Railway Bill, 1892. Petition of James Addy 213 144 147 147 147 147 Nelson Corporation Bill, 1891. Petition of (1) John Baheowclough (2^ Messrs. Henry Hartley AND Sons ,, (3) Owners AND Occupiers OF Mills on the RivEE Caldf.r ,, (4) Paddiham and Hapton Local Boaed - ,, (5) The Corporation op Birnley . . Newcastle-upon-Tyne Improvement Bill, 1892. Petition of The Walker Local Board 215 NorthBeitish and Glasgow and South-Westeen Railway Companies Bill, 1890. Petition of (1) Sharp, Stewart and Company 50 „ (2) Warehousemen in Glasgow .. .. ..50 ,, (3) The Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway Company 53 ,, (4) The Solway Junction Railway Company 53 North British Railway Bill, 1891. Petition of Proprietors, Feuars, &c., in Dundyvan Road, Coatbridge . . . . 151 North-Eastern Railway (Hull Docks) Bill, 1892 (H.L.). Petition of (1) The South Yoekshire Coal Owners' Assurance Society . . . . 217 „ (2) Owners of Wharves and Warehouses, and Others, at Kinoston- IJPON-HULL 217 INDEX OF CASES. 865 I'AGIS Nomh-Eastekk Railway Bill, 1892. Petition of This South Yohkshiue Coal Ownees' Assueance Society . . . . 217 Nokth-Easteen Eailwa* Bill, 1894. Petition 0/ The CoEPoEATioN OF West Hartlepool 341 Paetick, Hillhead AND Mabvhill Gas and Electmcity Bill, 1890. Petition of Committee or Katepayees, Gas Consumees, and Feuaes in Kblvinside and Othees . . . . , . 53 Pier and Haeboue Provisional Orders Conwemation (No. 8) Bill, 1894 (Loch Ei'oet Oeder). Petition of (1) The Clyde Steamship Owners' Association and John McCallum and Company ; and (2) The Inverness County Council . . . . 346 Poniypeidd Bcriai. Board Bill, 1892. Petition of Ratepayers and Others within the District Affected by the Bill . . 221 Regent's Canal, City and Docks Kailw.iy Bill, 1892. Petition of (1) The Corporation of West Ham 224 (2) The Vestry of St. Pancras 227 Rhondda AND Swansea Bay' Railway Bill, 1893 (H.L.). Petition of The Gkeat Western Railway Company . . 309 RiBBLE Navigation Bill, 1890. PcfifioH o/ The CoEPORATioN OF Sodthpoet .. .. .. .. .. .. 56 Richmond Footbridge (Lock, &c.) Bill, 1890. Petition of (1) The Vestey of Hammeesmith . . „ (2) The Board of Works foe the Wanuswoeth Distkict ,, (3) The Chiswick Ldcal Board „ (4) Inhabitants and Ratepayers of Moetlake and Riparian Ownees „ (5) The Duke of Devonshire 60 60 60 60 60 ROTHEEHAM, BlYTH, AND SUTTON RAILWAY BiLL, 1891. Petition of The Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company . . "" 152 Rhymney Railway Bill, 1890 (H.L.). Petition of (1) The Barry Dock and Railways Company . . . . . . . . 64 „ (2) The Taff Vale Railway Company . . . . . . . . . . 64 „ (3) The Pontyteidd, Caerphilly, and Newport Railway Company '. . 67 „ (4) The Marquess of Bute and the Trustees of the Will of the Late Marquess of Bute . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 St. Andrews Links Bill, 1894. Petition of Inhabitants, Ownees, Ratepayers and othees in the Buegh of St. Andrews . . . . . . . . . . . . . ■ . . 349 Saint Barnabas Chuech, Liverpool, Bill, 1892 (H.L.). Petition of Inhabitants of the Ecclesiastical District of Si. Barnabas . . . . 229 Sheffield and Midland Railway Comp.vnies' Committee Bill, 1891. Petition of (1) The Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation Company . . 153 „ (2) The Great Northern Railway Company . . 155 Souih-Easteen Railway Bill, 1890 (H.L.). Petition of The Overseers of the Poor foe the Parish of St. Saviour's, southwark . . . . . . . . . . • • • ■ • • 68 South-Eastern Railway Bill, 1891. Petition of The London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company 157 South-Eastern Railway Bill, 1893. Petition of The Vestey of Bermondsey . . . . . . . . . ■ • ■ • • 310 366 INDEX OF CASES. FAOE South Yoekshiee Junction Railway Bill, 1890. Petition of The Noeth-Easteen Railway Company 69 SlODEEEIDGE ImPEOVEMENT CoMMISSIONEES BilL, 1891. Petition of The Stouebeidge Gas Company . . . . 159 SwiNTON and Pendlebuby Local Boaed Bill, 1892. ^1) The Coepoeation of Balfoed (2) The Local Boaed of Little Hulton 233 Petition of (1) The Coepoeation of Balfoed . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 „ {2— ' ~ Tottenham and Fokest Gate Junction Railway Bill, 1890. Petition of (1) Ownees, Lessees and Occupiees, along the Line of the Proposed Railway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 ,, (2) Inhabitants of Leyton, Wanstead, and West Ham . . . . 72 Tramways Peovisional Oedees Confiemation Bill (No. 2) (Beistol Teamways Exten- sion Obdee), 1891. Petition of The Bristol Waterwoeks Company . . . . . . . . . . 160 Teamways Oedee Confiemation (Someeton, Keinton-Mandeville, and Castle Cary Tramways Order) (No. 2) Bill, 1893 (H.L.). Petition of J. Huntley Theing 310 Weae Valley Extension Railway Bill, 1892 (H.L.). Petition of The Cumberland County Council . . . . . . . . . . 234 Weavee Navigation Bill, 1893. Petition of Beunnee, Mond and Co 312 West Highland Railway (Mallaig Extension) Bill, 1894. Petition of The Callandee and Oban Railway Company and The Caledonian Railway Company 353 West Riding Rivers Conservancy Bill, 1894. Petition of (1) The Mobley Chamber of Commerce ; (2) The Wakefield Incoepoeated Chamber of Commeece and Shipping . . . . 356 Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Water Bill, 1891. Petition of (1) The Monmouthshire County Council . . . . . . . . 161 The Vicae and Chuechwaedens op the Parish of Mynyddislwyn 163 The Blackwood Gas and Water Comi'Any, Limited . . . . 164 (2) (3) Whitland, Ceonwaee and Pendine Railway (Abandonment) Bill, 1892. Petition of Thomas John Browick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 WoECESTEE and Broom Bailway (EXTENSION OF Time) Bill, 1890. Petition of The Stbatford-on-Avon, Towcestee and Midland Junction Railway Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 INDEX TO SUBJECTS, TO CASES REPOETED IN THIS VOLUME. (SESSIONS 1890-1894 INCLUSIVE). ',* Where a Standing Order is referred to in the Index, the numbering is that of the Standing Orders for 1895. ABANDONMENT [See eailway (1) ). ABSTRACTION (See gas, eailway (4), tkatho, waieb). ACCESS {See also obstbuction, road), . to harbour interfered with by railway bridge, 20 to ferry interfered with by level crossing, 23 direct to town, by construction of railway, opposed by owners of toll bridge, 36 interference with by construction of line in front of petitioners' property, 136 to church interfered with by railway, 189 loss of occasioned by closing of level crossing, 151 bill prohibiting interference with to subways of county council, opposed by local board as road authority, 210 interference with to docks by construction of tramways, 215 partial interference with , when sufficient to confer a locus standi, •il2, 215 interference with to docks by construction of competing dock, 318 ACTS, PUBLIC (See statutes). ADVOWSON, transfer of and re-endowment of rectory opposed by inhabitants and churchwardens of ecclesiastical district formed from parish, 123 AGREEMENT (See also bailway (3), tbamway), how far intention of considered, 1 as to clause in first House, how far excluding locus in second House, 39 alleged fraud in obtaining to supersede protective clause, 144 of railway company with road authority, not oonflrmed by bill, how affecting locus, 151 alleged violation of by power in bill to subscribe to pier, 157 not to oppose, how far binding when bill altered in first House, 231 relating to royalties at docks affected by construction of competing dock, 318 alleged by promoters in previous session to construct proposed railway as ground of hcus of corporation, 344 ALLEGATION (See petition, pkaotice). AMALGAMATION (See bailway (2), tramway). AMBIGUITY (See pbactice). 368 INDEX TO SUBJECTS- AMENITY (See alio owners), loss of of residential ueighbourhood by construction of railway and erection of terminal station, 134, 136 ANCHORAGE {See hakbouk). APPEAL to Board of Trade, as to bye-laws dealing with navigation, provided for in bill, 77 alleged right of under general law, affected by bill, 174 APPEOACH {See access). AQUEDUCT {See eesekvoie, water). AREA {See also oas, rates, water), lessening the over which taxes can be levied, opposed by parochial board, 91 construction of railway across catchment of reservoir opposed by corporation supplying water to their district, 187 ASSOCIATION {See also steamship owners, trade), voluntary for election of river conservators opposing proposed alterations in constitution of conservancy board, 298 AUTHORITY {See harbour, local board, sanitary authority). BARGE OWNERS, opposing introduction of large vessels on canal, on ground of com- petition and danger, 77 BILL {See practice). BOARD OF TRADE, control of works authorised by previous Acts, imposed by bill on , 56 appeal to , as to provisions in bill relating to bye-laws as to navigation, 77 corporation seeking powers to purchase tramways by agreement, and to work and lease same to third parties, by bill containing no provision for approval of lease by , 250 BOARD OF WORKS {See local board). BONDS, petitioner holder of and also a creditor, complaining of alteration of status by bill, 28 BOROUGH {See corpoeatiox). BRANCH {See railway (3) ). BREACH OF FAITH {See also agreement, practice), alleged by corporation against railway company seeking to abandon authorised line and to substitute another, 104 question of not entertained by Court, 191 BRIDGE, interference by railway with access to harbour, 20 abstraction of traffic by railway from road bridge, 23 owners of toll • opposing railway giving direct access to town, 36 construction of and weir with removable sluices opposed bv local authorities, 60 x-r j construction of by county council, opposed by gas company claiming a landowner's locus for interference with pipes, 204 widening of railway by construction of over road, iuterferint; with light and air, 213 injurious affecting of district by delay in reconstruction of 227 provisions for works for electrical power on tramway carried over railway , opposed by railway company apprehending injury, 256 , gas company with pipes across , opposing carrying of water-mains over same, 324 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 369 BURGH (Sec also cohi'Ouation), extension of and application of Acts relating to existing bui-L'h to added area, opposed by traders, 174 town council of Royal in Scotland claiming to represent trade, 178 communication between different parts of affected by construction of railways, 193 BURIAL BOARD, constitution of opposed by ratepayers and individual inhabitants within district affected by bill, 221 CANAL, construction of to form junction between existing canals, opposed by barge-owners, 77 extension of time bill for construction of railway and • opposed by local authority as delaying reconstruction of bridge provided for in the original Act, 227 diversion of water from into dock opposed by riparian owners, 313 CAPITAL, . proposed repeal of clause as to share in previous Act, opposed by secured creditor, 28 tramway bill for additional — opposed by corporation as future purchasers of tramways, 184 CARRIERS [See kailwat (3) ). CATTLE, provision in burgh improvement bill for depot, opposed by navigation trustees and corporation alleging competition, 270 CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE, claim of to represent traders, 356 CHURCH, injury to by disturbance and vibration owing to propinquity of railway, 139 biU for sale and removal of opposed by inhabitants of ecclesiastical district with authority of churchwardens, 229 CHURCHWARDENS (See also vicae), and inhabitants of ecclesiastical district formed from parish, opposing transfer of advowsou and re-endowment of rectory, 123 CLAUSE (See pkactioe, savins clauses). COLLIERY, lessees of — - as riparian owners apprehending danger from enlargement of reservoir, 320 COMMISSIONERS (See hakboue boabu, navigation, etc.). COMPANY (Sec dock, gas, uailway (3), etc.). COMPENSATION (Sec water). COMPETITION (See also cohpoh.ation, dock, gas, kailway (4) ), amalgamation of tramways and use of electricity thereon, how far an improvement of existing , 242 improvement of existing , by bill for additional water works, opposed by company supplying district, 246 pier owner opposing establishment of ferry and powers to owners of boats to use landing stage, on ground of ^ — , 266 establishment of cattle dep6t in burgh improvement bill, opposed by navigation trustees and corporation alleging , 270 COMMONERS, individual claiming landowner's locus in respect of intcrlcreuce with <:ommon lands by railway, 32S 370 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. CONSEBVANCY {See also navigation), board, how far representing the interests of riparian owners, 60 county council, represented on board, claiming representation on Drainage commisBion, 202 alteration of constitution of board, by London County Council, opposed by water companies, 290 ; by county councils and corporation, 295 proposed alterations in constitution of board, opposed by voluntary association for election of conservators, 298 river bill, opposed by chamber of commerce claiming to represent traders, 356 CONSTEUCTION OF ACT {See pbactice). CONSUMEBS {See gab, watek). CONTBACT (See agbeement). COBPOBATION, MUNICIPAL, - — promoting simultaneous bills for electricity and extension of borough, opposed by company promoting bill to supply electricity, in respect of both bills, 31 opposing construction of a competing railway, on ground of injury to trade interests, 34 of Scotch burghs how far representing traders also petitioning, 50 distinction between of English and Scotch burghs, 50 promoting bill for additional capital for deep water channel already authorised, opposed by neighbouring alleging injury to tidal flow, 56 of Scotch burgh alleging injury to town by conversion of local into through line, 104 purchase of and power to work electrical tramway by , opposed by telephone company claiming protective clauses, 167 promoting bill for additional water works, opposed by local board of district supplied by promoters, 169 of Eoyal burgh, claiming to represent trade, in opposing harbour bill, 178. opposing tramway bill conferring powers of agreement with local authorities as to mechanical power, purchase and lease of tramways, &c., on tramway company, 184 construction of railway across catchment area of reservoir of ■ supplying water to district, 187 opposition of to bill of London County Council allocating sums to works already authorised, 208 construction of tramivays by partly outside borough, opposed by local board of district, 215 as landowners, having acquired land subject to notice to treat under original Act, opposing a bill for extension of time for purchase of lands, 224 agreement by not to oppose bUl, how far binding when bill altered in first House, 231 promotion of sewerage scheme by , opposed by county council alleging " injurious affecting," 237 claiming a landowner's locus in respect of leat crossed by pipes of water company, 248 powers to purchase tramways by agreement, and to work and lease same to third parties sought by , without provision in bill for approval of lease by Board of Trade, 250 purchase of tramways by beyond district of county council, who alleged injurious affecting of tramways within district, 254 powers sought by to pull down houses and interfere with overhead wires, opposed by telephone company as licensees of owners and occupiers of houses, 259 railway company seeking powers to supply water within the district of supply of , 269 bill of for burgh improvement providing for prevention of smoke nuisance within burgh and port, opposed by navigation trustees and neighbouring corporation, 270 burgh improvement bill of providing lor establishment of cattle dep6t, opposed by navigation trustees and corporation, alleging competition, 270 consolidation bill enabling to work tramways, already worked by electricity, opposed by telephone company, 281 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 371 CORPORATION , MUNICIPAL— Continued. opposing bill for extension of time for oonstruotion and for partial abandonment of authorised railway, 337 opposing bill as not imposing obligation on promoters to construct railway, 344 COUNTY COUNCIL, claiming general locus against water bill, how far local authority under S. O. 134a, 160 rights of under Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, 160 London , apprehending injury to river inside county, opposing drainage bill where drainage area and proposed works outside county, 202 London claiming representation on Drainage commission, 202 construction of bridge by London opposed by gas company having pipes in streets within limits of deviation, and claiming to be heard as laud- owners, 204 London seeking to impose improvement ("Betterment " ) rate opposed by ratepayers, 204 money bill of — , allocating sums to works already authorised, opposed by corporation, 208 subways bill of opposed by board of works as road authority, 210 seeking to compel promoters of railway outside county to extend same into county, 234 purchase of tramways by corporation beyond district of , alleged to injuriously affect tramways within district, 254 local authority seeking special powers as to local government, opposed by London , claiming uniformity of legislation, and alleging possibility of main sewerage system being affected, 278 alteration of conservancy board by London ■ — -, opposed by water companies, 290, by county councils and corporation, 295 corporation as market authority opposing bill of London authorising expenditure of county rate on inquiries as to water supply and markets, 300 power to regulate erection of dwelling-houses on low-lying lands by , opposed by commissioners of sewers, 303 acquisition of private garden by London for public recreation ground, opposed by gas company alleging interference with mains in street, 305 bill of London for removal of gates and obstructions from streets, opposed by gas company, 307 — — opposing imposition of harbour rates within sea loch hitherto forming free anchorage, 346 COURT OF REFEREES (See pbactice). Creditors (See aUo moktoaqees), secured — - opposing repeal of clauses as to capital in previous Act, 28 and mortgagees of harbour rates opposing reduction of same by bill, 178 landowners having received notice to treat, how . far of railway company, 330 CROSSING (See level ceossing, railway (3) ). covenant, salt union having restrictive with owners, claiming an interest in lands sought to be acquired for railway sidings, 284 DESCRIPTION (See pkaoiice). DEVIATION (See limits of deviation). DISSENTIENT (Sec katepayek, snAREnoLDEu). DISTINCT INTERESTS (See cohpokation, owneks, eepeesentation, teadees), of traders arising out of agreement with railway company, 50 DISTRICT (See also gas, local boaud, tkamway, wateii). , allegation that territorially belonged to petitioners' railway as ground of competition, 67 meaning of word •' district," 72, 134 372 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. DIVEESION {See tolls, tkapfio, etc.) DOCK {See also haebouk), and railway oompany seeking running powers over petitioners' railway, 1 transfer to competing of powers granted to railway company to construct railway, 12 injury to competing , by diversion of traffic, 17, 318 railway company as owners of opposing construction of junction, 81 interference with access to by construction of tramways, 215 alleged injurious effect upon existing competition by amalgamation of with railway, 217 construction of by railway company opposed by ratepayers, 287 diversion of river water into opposed by riparian owners and traders, 313 clause exempting company from liability for loss by fire, etc., opposed by traders, 313 construction of new opposed by owner of royalties in respect of competing docks, 318 owner of alleging interference of access by construction of new dock, 318 DRAINAGE scheme opposed by county council apprehending injury to river in their county, 202 claim for representation by county council on commission, 202 London County Council, alleging possibility of main system being affected, opposing bill of local authority, 278 EASEMENT, gas company having in roads to lay pipes, claiming landowners' locus standi, 204 interference with of light and air, how far entitling to a locus standi, 213 ELECTBICITY {See also mechanical powee, tkamway), and extension-of -borough bills opposed by promoters of electricity bill on ground of competition, 31 EVIDENCE {See petition, peactice). EXTENSION {See also boeough, cokpoeation, gas), ■ of burgh and electricity bills opposed by promoters of electric bill on ground of competition, 31 of burgh, and application thereto of Acts relating to existing burgh, opposed by traders, 174 EXTENSION OF TIME BILL {See also gas, harboue, railway (3), teamway), for construction of railways, but not for compulsory taking of lands, 17 railways, petitioning railway company claiming locus to obtain clause to interpret existing Act, 75 railway company claiming general locus against on account of railway crossing their land, 117 ■ for construction of waterworks opposed by local board of neighbouring district, claiming water-shed appropriated by promoters under previous Acts, 125 for purchase of lands opposed by corporation as landowners, they having acquired land since the original Act conferring compulsory powers, 224 for construction of railway and canal opposed by local authority as delaying reconstruction of bridge provided for in original Act, 227 opposed by Scotch parochial boards as landowners under notice to treat, 330 ■ also providing for partial abandonment of authorised railway, opposed by corporation of borough, 337 FACILITIES {See also railway (3), traffic), loss of present to town at present on main line, apprehended by corporation of burgh, 104 FARES {See eatiss). INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 373 FERRY, invasion of rights by railway bridge causing abstraction of traffic, 23 interference with access to by level crossing, 23 establishment of and power to owners of boats to use landing-stage, opposed by pier owner, 266 FOOTPATH, proposal to close and substitute foot-bridge, opposed by residents, 39. FORESHORE, alleged interference with rights of pier-owner, by bill for establishment of ferry, 266 sale of mudlands on by corporation to railway company for construc- tion of dock, opposed by ratepayers, 287 owners of opposing bill defining harbour limits alleging that it included their property, 389 FREIGHTERS (See tbadees). FRONTAGER (See aUo owners, &o.), railway company as opposing amalgamation of tramways and use of electricity thereon, 242 owner of houses in village as opposing construction of steam tramway on country road, 310 GAS, company without statutory powers, competing with corporation as promoters of bill for electric lighting, and claiming to prohibit corporation from supplying gas within limits of company, opposed by ratepayers and consumers, 53 rights of' individual consumers to oppose bill, 58 company, claiming to be heard as landowners, against construction of bridge, 2T)4 abstraction of part of district of supply and purchase of mains used for supply of to local board, opposed by local board, apprehending the raising of gas rate to consumers, 233 powers to construct works for cable haulage of tramways opposed by local authorities supplying apprehending injury to pipes, 262 company, alleging injury to mains, opposing powers for acquisition of land by county council. 305 company, claiming protective clauses in bill of county council for removal of gates and obstructions in streets, 307 company claiming to be heard as landowners in respect of interference with mains laid in public road, 324 HARBOUR (See also dock), opposition by owner of competing to proposal of railway company to subsidise harbour revenues, 5 commissioners and traders opposing construction of railway bridge interfering with access to harbour, 20 commissioners apprehending diminution of tolls opposing construction of railway, 81 reduction of rates at one opposed by trustees of competing harbour, 178 alleged extension of limits so as to include property of landowner, as ground of locus, 339 imposition of and pier rates within sea loch, both hitherto forming free anchorage, opposed by traders and county council, 340 construction of in connection with railway extension, opposed by competing railway companies, 353 HAULAGE (See tkamway). HIGHWAY (See boad). HOSPITAL, formation of united district for for infectious diseases opposed by sanitary authority of adjoining district alleging injurious affecting, and by owners and occupiers of adjacent property, 127 374 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. HOUSE OF LOEDS {See pbactice). HOUSES {See also ownebs, &c.), demolition of and diminution of rates during construction of work, opposed by rating authority, 68, 341 power to London County Council to regulate erection of upon low- lying lands opposed by Commissionei's of Sewers, 303 INCUMBENT {See church, vicae). INFECTIOUS DISEASES {See hospital). INHABITANTS {See also owners, eate?ayees), and traders opposing interference with access to harbour, 20 opposing bill for bridge over navigable river on ground of injury to residential property, 60 — — alleging injurious affecting, how far represented by local authorities, 72 and churchwardens of ecclesiastical district, formed from parish, opposing transfer of advowson and re-endowment of rectory, 153 opposing construction of terminal station as destroying residential character of district, 134 of ecclesiastical district opposing bill for sale^and removal of church, 229 ratepayers and owners, etc., opposing acquisition of golf links by corporation of burgh, 349 existing free privilege of interfered with by bill of corporation imposing rate on golf players, 349 INJUBIOUS AFFECTING {See also amenity, landowner, owners), of landowners' property, by repeal of protective clause in existing Act prohibiting heavy goods traf&c, 130 of district by construction of terminal station, 134 of telephone company by tramway propelled by electricity, 167 of hydropathic establishment by conveyance of mineral springs and pump-room to local board, with power to sell water, 171 of water supply of local authority, how far entitling to a locus standi under S. O. 134a, 169 of town by reduction of rates at competing harbour, 178 of district by abstraction of water by water company, 181 of streams and surface water by construction of railway across catch- ment area of reservoir, 187 general of burgh by construction of railway, 198 how far must be alleged in the petition, 202 caused by interference with access, when entitling to a locus standi, 212 mere of property, when entitling to a locns standi, 213 of district alleged, by delay in reconstruction of bridge under extension of time bill, 227 sufficiency of allegations of by cbunty council opposing bill of corpora- tion for sewerage scheme, 237 alleged of tramways within district of county council, by purchase of tramways by corporation beyond district, 254 telephone company alleging by removal of overhead wires in street improvement bill of corporation, 259 contractor of authorised railway with contingent interest therein alleging by exercise of running powers over same, 264 bill of local authority for special powers of local government opposed by owner.'! and occupiers alleging of property by increased rates, 276 of telephone company by provisions enabling corporation to work tramways already worked by electricity, 281 alleged of houses in village, by construction of steam tramway on country road, 310 of stability of gas-holders by construction of sewer, 324 INJUBY {See also injurious aefeoting), remoteness of to owners of toll bridges by diversion of traffic, 36 special to traders not adequately represented by corporation, 50 remoteness of how far affecting the right to a locus standi, 60 quantum of how far considered, 68 absence of substantial to petitioners caused by railway bill, 120 to church by disturbance and vibration caused by railway, 139 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 875 INTEREST, running powers sought over authorised railway opposed by contractor with a contingent tlierein, 2G4 salt union having restrictive covenants with owners of land sought to be acquired by railway claiming in land, 284 community of of proprietors of both canal and dock as affecting riparian owners and traders, 313 JOINT OWNERS (See ownebs, railway (8) ). JUNCTION (See railway (5) ). LAND (See also landowner, owners), interference by formation of junction with of railway company, 14 same scheduled by bills of promoters and petitioners, as ground of locus against making of new railway and extension of authorised railway, 120 same scheduled under a bill jointly promoted by petitioners and another railway company, claim to general locus in respect of, 152 suppression of facts at Local Government enquiry as to , a question for committee on bill, 224 acquisition of by corporation for sewerage purposes alleged to " injuriously affect " county council and neighbouring local board, 237 acquisition of rights over and under , how far entitling to a locus, 284 acquisition of subject to notice to treat, how affecting owner's loctis against extension of time railway bill, 330 LANDING PLACE [See pier). LANDOWNER (See also owners), railway company as claiming general locus, 14, 117 not having received notice to treat, opposing bill for extension of time for constructing railway, 17 adjacent to underground rail way, injuriously affected by excavations, 44 claiming general locus on ground that his land was crossed by proposed railway, 67 petitioners served with notice as not alleging that their lands were taken by bill, 87 associations and individual opposing additional taxation for police and sanitary improvements, 100 railway company as claiming general locus, and opposing extension of time for railway crossing petitioners' land, 117 claiming general locus against bill proposing to repeal protection clause under existing Act prohibiting heavy goods traffic, 130 navigation company as , opposing bill under which lands of navigation undertaking were scheduled, 158 corporation as opposing construction of railway across catchment area of their reservoir, 187 gas company claiming to be heard as against bill for construction of bridge, 204 locus claimed by corporation as , in respect of land purchased since the Act conferring compulsory powers of purchase over it, against bill for extension of time, 224 water company as adjoining owners claiming a locus standias — —in respect of road in which promoters sought to lay pipes, 246 corporation claiming a locus as in respect of land proposed to be crossed by pipes of water company, 248 locus of claimed by gas company in respect of interference with mains laid in pubUc road, 324 locus of claimed by individual commoners in respect of interference with common land by railway, 328 Scotch parochial board as under notice to treat, opposing extension of time railway bill, 380 in respect of foreshore alleging that bill defining harbourlimits would include his property, 389 LEASE, bill of corporation to purchase tramways and to lease or work same but containing no provision for approval of by Board of Trade, opposed hj tramway company, 250 370 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. LEGAL REMEDY {See pbaotice). LEGISLATION, complaint against past , a ground for disallowing locus, 1, 56, 91, 240 past , telephone companies affected by development of electrical science claiming to discuss, 102, 167 , how far alteration of circumstances entitles petitioners to re-open, 125 complaint against past , where non-opposition was alleged to be owing to misapprehension, 174 complaint against past , by corporation opposing money bill of county council, 208 claim for uniformity of by London County Council when opposing bill of neighbouring local authority, 278 past by general Act not providing for rates subsequently authorised, how affecting loms of rating authority, 341 'LESSEE (>5ee ownehs). LEVEL CROSSING, stopping up over railway opposed by owners, &c., 39, 151 LIGHT AND AIR (See easemekt). LIMITS OF DEVIATION, special power necessary to stop up road included in , 136 gas company with pipes "within claiming to be heard as landowners against construction of bridge, 204 LIMIT OF DISTANCE, where river affected injury not governs the case, 60 LIS PENDENS, how far affecting a right to locus standi, 144 LOCAL BOARD AND AUTHORITY (See also conponATioN, sanitary authoeity), opposing repeal of Act prohibiting goods traffic by underground railway, 40 how far representing inhabitants of district injuriously affected, 72 as mortgagors of district rate as collateral security for harbour revenues, 81 Scotch parochial boards claiming, as ratepayers, to oppose proposed exemption of public buildings from poor rates, and to discuss policy of existing exemptions, 91 of neighbouring district, claiming watershed appropriated by promoters under previous Acts, opposing extension of time bill for construction of works, 125 how far county councils are under S. 0. 134a, 160 supplied with water by promoters opposing bill for additional water works, 169 conveyance of mineral springs and pump room to opposed by owner and lessee and mortgagees of hydropathic establishment, 171 tramway bill containing powers of agreernent with as to use of mechanical power, and purchase of tramways, opposed by corporation, 184 opposition of outside metropolis to money bill of London County Council allocating sums to works already authorised, 208 ■ as road authority opposing subways bill of county council, 210 alleging interference with access to docks and consequent injury to trade, opposing construction of tramway, 215 alleging injury to district by delay in the construction of bridge provided for in original Act, opposing extension of time bill, 227 opposition of to purchase of mains supplying gas to district on ground of increased rates to consumers, 233 sufficiency of allegations of "injurious affecting" by opposing sewerage scheme of corporation, 237 additional works sought by supplying water to a district also included in limits of a water company, 246 corporation claiming landowner's loevs as owners of leat proposed to be crossed by pipes of , 248 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 377 LOCAL BOAED AND AVmoniTY— Continued. bill of containing special provisions as to local government opposed by owners and occupiers within district injuriously affected by increased rates and alteration of taxation, 276 bill of containing special provisions as to local government opposed by London County Council claiming uniformity of legislation, 278 of neighbouring district opposing outfall of sewer into tidal river, 327 Scotch parochial board opposing extension of time railway bill as land- owners under notice to treat, 330 vestry as opposing demolition of houses by railway works on account of diminution of rates, 341 LOCKS (See weirs) LOCOMOTIVE ENGINE MANUFACTURERS alleging special injury by railway amalgamation biU, arising out of the nature of their business, 50 LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (See county council). MAINS (See also gas, watek), alleged necessity for duplication of owing to construction of tramway to be worked by cable haulage, 160 interference with gas opposed by gas company claiming landowners' locns, 324 MANOR (See commonebs). MANUFACTURERS (See tradebs). MARKET, corporation as authority opposing bill authorising expenditure of county rate upon enquiries as to water supply and markets, BOO MECHANICAL POWER (See also tramway), bill for construction of tramway to be propelled by , including electricity, opposed by telephone company, 242 MEETING (See public meeting). MERCHANTS (See traders). MILL-OWNERS, money payments to in lieu of compensation water, 144 below point of return of impounded water opposing bill, 147 MINERAL SPRINGS (See springs). MORTGAGEES (See also creditors), of hydropathic establishment opposing conveyance to local board of mineral springs and pump-room, 171 and creditors of harbour rates opposing reduction of same, 178 MUNICIPAL (See corporation). NAVIGATION (See also dock, harbocb, river), commissioners opposing construction of railway bridge across river, 20 obstruction of on canal and competition by compartment boats, opposed by barge-owners, 77 provisions in bill relating to bye-laws as to providing for appeal to Board of Trade, 77 . . . • company as landowners opposing bill, where land of navigation undertaking was scheduled, 158 trustees claiming to represent shipping and trade interests against bill affecting harbour, 270 trustees opposing provisions for abatement of smoke nuisance m burgh improvement bill of corporation, 270 provision for cattle depot in burgh improvement bill opposed by trustees on ground of competition, 270 378 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. NOTICES (See objections to Locus Standi, owneks, petition, practice). NUISANCE, , provisiona for abatement of smoke within, port in burgh improvement bill, opposed by navigation trustees, 270 OBJECTIONS TO LOCUS STANDI {See also petition, phactice), application for extension of time for giving notice of , 11 notice of deposited after time, 159 OBSTRUCTION {See also access), competition and of navigation on canal by compartment boats, 77 of access to business premises by stopping up of streets by construction of railway, 212 OCCUPIERS {See owners). OVERSEERS, petition by against proposed railway in respect of demolition of houses and diminution of rates, 68 , OWNERS, LESSEES, AND OCCUPIERS {See also railway (3), ratepayers), of property adjacent to site for hospital, opposing formation of united district for infectious diseases hospital, 127 opposing running powers over railway and repeal of prohibitions as to heavy goods traffic and construction of station, 134 of houses complaining of obstruction and loss of access to town by construction of railway, 136 and mortgagees of hydropathic establishment opposing conveyance to local board of mineral springs and pamp-room, 171 • not being consumers within district of supply opposing bill of water company for additional works, 181 water company as adjoining , claiming a landowner s locus standi in respect of road in which promoters sought to lay pipes, 246 telephone company as licensees of of houses opposing street improve- ment bill of corporation, on ground of interference with overhead wires, 259 local authority seeking special powers of local government opposed by injuriously affected by increased rates, 276 as distinguished from ratepayers, opposing bill of local authority, 276, 349 salt- union having restrictive covenants with of lands sought 'to be acquired for sidings, opposing railway bill, 284 construction of steam tramway on country road opposed by of houses in village, as frontagers, 310 ■ • ratepayers and inhabitants opposing acquisition of golf links by corporation of burgh, 849 leaseholders how far for purposes of locus standi, 349 PARISH {See also rates, vicar), inhabitants and churchwardens of ecclesiastical district formed from , opposing transfer of advowson and re-endowment of rectory, 123 PARTNERS {See railway (3) ). PENALTY CLAUSE, in bill how affecting locals of corporation opposing bill as not imposing obligation on promoters to construct railway, 344 PETITION {See also practice), ' notice of objections to loctis standi, application for extension of time for serving, 11 sufficiency of allegation in of injury to trade, 34, to owners, 71 authority to represent inhabitants not alleged in , 72 absence from of landowners, of allegation that their lands were taken by bill, 87 joint of traders and corporation ,of burgh, opposing withdrawal of railway facilities, 104 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 379 PIER, proposed alteration of stains of shareholders iu and lift company, 28 power to subscribe to , alleged violation of existing agreement by, 157 owner of opposing establishment of ferry with power to owners of boats to use landing-stage, 206 construction of and imposition of harbour rates in sea loch hitherto forming free anchorage, 346 PIER MASTER, extension of limits of jurisdiction of opposed by owner of slipways as affecting vessels approaching same, 318 jurisdiction of created by bill, how affecting vessels approaching existing free pier, 346 PIPES {See gas, mains, noAn, watee). POLICE, and sanitary provisions, proposed additional taxation for, oppose I by associations of landowners and individual owners of property, 100 practice of Committee on and sanitary bills, as affecting question of locits staiuli, 174 POLICE COMMISSIONERS, interference with roads and sewers of burgh by construction of railway opposed by -of burgh, 193 of burgh promoting bill to acquire golf linlcs, opposed by ratepayers, owners, etc., 349 POLLUTION {See kivee, wateh). PORT (Sec also dock, haeeouk), provision in burgh improvement bill for abatement of smoke nuisance within , opposed by navigation trasteos, 270 provision relating to infectious cases on board ships within in burgh improvement bill, opposed by corporation as sanitary authority, 270 provision in burgh improvement bill for expenses of treatment of infectious cases within opposed by navigation trustees as affecting shipping interests, 270 railway companies interested in sea-borne traffic opposing formation of new harbour and railway extension to competing , 353 " POST CASE " discussed, 14, 19, 117 PRACTICE {See also petition), objection by railway company with running powers over line to admission of another company, 1 notice of objections to' locus sto7!f?j, application for extension of time for ' serving, 11 Court unwilling to re-open or decide questions relating to legal rights of petitioners, 11 railway company as landowners claiming general locus against omnibus bill, 14 applicable to bills confirming Provisional Orders, 26 where clause agreed in House of Lords, petition with additional signatures but identical interests, how far entitling to loctis standi, 39 remedy at law how far affecting right to locus standi, 45 re-hearing of case after motion in the House to allow petitioners against amalgamation bill to be heard, 52 probabUity of injury, how far a ground of locus standi, 60 petitioners whose bill had been rejected in first House, claiming insertion of running powers in competing bill in second House, 64 how far necessary for owners to allege that they are within the limits of deviation and to allege specific injury in petition, 71 petitioners against extension of time bill not entitled to re-open question of guarantee, 75 petitioners served with notice as landowners not alleging that their lands were taken under bill, 87 withdrawal of signatures from petition, 90 right of petitioners to be heard against clauses of bUl as amended for Committee, 98 CO 2 380 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. PRACTICE— Comiimied. appearance not entered by petitioners, on promoters undertaking not to reinstate clauses, 99 joint petition of steamship owners and steamship owners' association, and claim of association to represent trade and shipping interests, 115, 346 how far railway company as landowners entitled under S. 0. 133 to a general or limited locus standi, 117 same land scheduled by bills of promoters and petitioners, as ground of locus against provisions in omnibus bill authorising new railway and extension of authorised railway, 120 where insufficiency of allegations in petition, how far promoters bound to consider deposited plans with petition, 120 landowner claiming general locus against repeal of protection clauses in existing Act, 130 special instruction to Committee, how far affecting right to locus standi, 130 road within limits of deviation, whether express powers necessary to divert or stop up, 136 temporary inconvenience during construction of line, how far amounting to special grievance, 136 absgnoe of prima facie evidence of fraud, how affecting locus of petitioner, 1 14 right of petitioners to be heard against bill as deposited, 151, 341 allegation of competition in petition, explained by reference to map, 155 deposit of notices of objection to locus standi after time, 159 authority of vicar and churchwardens to sign petition on behalf of inhabitants and ratepayers, 163 ambiguity of definition of " mineral springs " in bill as ground of locus standi of owners of hydropathic establishment, 171 practice of Committee on police and sanitary bills as affecting question of locus standi, 174 practice where constituents of member of Court are affected by bill, 174 limited loctis standi allowed to discuss alleged conflict between local Act and general law, 174 sufficiency of allegation in petition, as to " injurious affecting," 184, 202 the Court will not consider an allegation as to breach of faith, 191 the construction of a statute how far a question for the Court, 191 how far the Court will consider the question of general public policy, 199 where clause conceded, locus standi allowed for the purpose of seeing that clause is inserted in bill, 204 a single ratepayer not entitled to be heard in his individual capacity as a ratepayer under S. O. 184, 221 alleged suppression of facts at Local Government enquiry, a question for Committee, 224 agreement not to oppose, how far binding when bill altered in iirst House, 231 right of petitioners to be heard where locus standi of other petitioners raising similar objections is conceded, 237 locus standi granted against principal clauses authorising use of electrical power, how far entitling to locus against subsidiary clauses, 242 practice as to joint petitioners when objections refer to only one petitioner, 298 petitioners allowed locus against a particular clause to ask Committee to make meaning clear, 300, 339 right of landowners having received notice to treat to oppose extension of time railway bill, 830 claim of local authority for locus to extend sect. 133 (Land Tax, etc.) of Lands Clauses Act, 1845, to local rates not leviable at time of passing of Act, 841 penalty clause in bill, how affecting loctts of corporation opposing bill as not imposing obligation to construct railway, 844 right of petitioners, how affected by deposit of duplicate petition raising same points, 349 leaseholders, how far entitled to locus as owners, 349 right of company working railway to be heard in addition to company owning railway, 358 PROPEIETOES (See shaeeholders). PROSPECTIVE BENEFIT, loss of , by abandonment of line authorised in previous session, 104 PROTECTIVE CLAUSES (See SAVING clauses). INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 381 PBOVISIONAL OEDEE, {See also pbactioe), extending area of supply of electric lighting company opposed by shareholders, 26 for formation of united district for hospital for infectious diseases, omitting reference as to site of hospital, 127 PUBLIC MEETING {See also PEiOTioE, ratepayeks, shareholdeks), insignificance of , how far affecting right of gas consumers to be heard, 53 authority given by , to vicar and churchwardens to petition on behalf of ratepayers and inhabitants, 163 PUBLIC PARK (See eeckeation ground). PUMP-BOOM, extinguishment of rights in , by conveyance to local board, with power to sell water, opposed by owners of hydropathic establishment, 171 QUANTUM OF INJURY, not distance, test of right to locus, 60 RAILWAY {See also Agreement, Extension of Time Bill, Rates), (1) Abandonment. (2) Amalgamation. (31 Company. (4) Competition. (5) Junction. (6) Running Powers. (7) Station. (8) Working Agreement. (i) Abandonment, of line and substitution of another opposed by corporation, of burgh alleging injury to town, 104 partial and diversion of authorised line opposed by company under an agreement to work same, 108 partial opposed by corporation alleging injury to borough, 337 (2) Amalgamation, alleged virtual by vesting railways of harbour trustees in railway company, 5 railway affecting traders by removal of competition, 50 between railway and docks causing injury to traders by removal of competition, 217 alleged virtual by agreement for transfer of railway to working company, 240 joint of local with through railway companies opposed by competing company, 384 (3) Company, proposing to subsidise harbour revenues opposed by owners of com- peting harbours, 5 transfer of powers to make railway from to dock company, 12, 14 as landowners, opposing interference with land of , by formation of junctions, 14, 19 underground not interfering with surface of street opposed by vestry, 40 adjacent landowners opposing underpinning clause as to underground , 44 as owners of portions of railway over which promoters' railway must pass, 46 general locus standi claimed against crossing lanl of petitioners, 67 proposing to pull down houses for works, and causing diminution of rates, opposed by local authority, 68, 841 petition of , forming link in chain of through co u.nunication, 69 interested in guarantee to promoters opposing extension of time bill, 75 as dockowners, opposing junction on ground of competition and diversion of traffic, 81 as landowner, how far affected by S. O. 138, 87 seeking to convert local into through line, opposed by corporation of burgh, 104 seeking steamboat powers, opposed by companies working and owning competing line, and also as joint owners of railway with promoters, 111 382 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 'RAILWAY— Continued. as landowners whose land Is compulsorily taken, claiming general locus, 117 where proposing to convert branch goods line into passenger railway, claim of petitioning company to extend running powers over promoters' railway to this branch, 117 petitioning opposing extension of time for railway crossing their land, 117 seeking running powers over railway intersecting petitioners' property, and thereby repealing protective provisions in existing Act, 130 construction of line by in front of petitioners' property, causing temporary interference with access, 136 ; causing injury to church by disturbance and vibration, 139 agreement of with road authority not confirmed by bill, how affecting locus, 151 same land scheduled by as under bill jointly promoted by petitioners and another railway company, 152 scheduling land forming part of navigation undertaking, opposed by navigation company, 153 proposing to construct a railway across catchment area of reservoir of corporation supplying water to the district, 187 extension of railway opposed by a , whose lands were scheduled, claiming landowners' locus standi, 191 construction of railway on embankment in burgh by , opposed by Police Commissioners of burgh, 193 asking for steamboat powers, opposed by independent steamboat companies, 195, 197 stopping up streets by construction of raUway, opposed by manu- facturers, 212 widening of line by , causing interference with light and air of peti- tioners' premises, 213 extension of time bill for purchase of lands by , opposed by corporation as landowners, they having acquired the land since the original Act conferring compulsory powers, 224 extension of time bill for construction of railway and canal by , opposed by local authority as delaying reconstruction of bridge provided for in original Act, 227 county council opposing promotion by of railway outside county on ground of interference with road leading into county, 234 agreement for vesting railway in working , opposed by competing company, 240 alleging competition and " injurious affecting" as frontagers, 242 opposing use of electricity on tramways forming continuous route, 242 seeking protective clauses for telegraph wires and signals in bill authorising the use of electricity on tramways, 242, 256 provisions for works for electrical power on tramways carried across railway bridges, opposed by apprehending injury to bridges, 256 _running powers sought by over authorised railway, opposed by con- tractor with a contingent interest therein, 264 powers sought by to construct reservoir and make aqueduct and impound stream, opposed by corporation supplying water to district, 269 acquisition of lands by for sidings, opposed by salt union having restrictive covenants against salt working with owners of lands sought to be acquired, 284 construction' of dock by opposed by ratepayers, 287 ■ ■ promoting bill for alternative line in lieu of railway promoted in previous session, opposed by corporation of borough, 344 extension of existing railway and construction of harbour, opposed by interested in coftipeting harbour, 853 working railway in perpetuity, how far entitled to be heard in addition io company owning railway, 353 (4) Competition, new or improved , by transfer of powers from railway to dock company, 12 by transfer of power to construct authorised railway to dock and railway company, 16 — ;;— between local and through railwj,y by means of running powers, 19 ■ with existing railway, opposed by coiporation on account of injury to trade;, 34 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 383 EAILWAY— ContiHUffJ. improvement of existing between toll bridge and railway, 36 removal of by amalgamation, opposed by traders, 50 status of petitioners not affected by removal of , 53 new caused by construction of local line forming junction with through railway, 69 junctions with petitioners' railway available for , how far entitling to a general locus, 108 alleged by petitioning companies against railway seeking steamboat powers, 111 local railway company alleging with proposed through railway, 140 possibility of by circuitous route, but not effective, 155 allegation of arising from power to competing company to subscribe to pier, 157 alleged by independent steamboat companies against railway company seeking steamboat powers, 195, 197 alleged by steamship owners' associations against railway seeking to acquire steamboat powers, 199 alleged injurious effect upon existing - — by amalgamation bill, 217 by amalgamation of local line with through railways, opposed by competing company, 334 for sea-borne trafl&c at competing ports under biU for extension of authorised railway, 353 (5) Junctiofis, formation of causing interference with land of railway company, 14 and compulsory powers of taking land, 19 construction of opposed by harbour commissioners and railway company as dookowners, 81 formation of with petitioners' railway, how far entitling to general locus, if available for competition, 108 (6) Rumimg Pollers, over existing railway company sought by dock and railway company, 1 petitioners having opposing admission of another company to same, 1 causing competition between local and througli railway, 19 claimed in second House, by petitioners whose bill has been rejected in first House, against competing bUl, 64 claim by petitioners to extend over main line of promoters to branch railway, which promoters proposed to convert from a goods line into a passenger railway, 117 sought over railway intercepting petitioners' property, thereby repealing protective provisions in existing Act, 130 opposed by owners, lessees, occupiers and inhabitants, as involving practical repeal of prohibition of goods traffic under existing Act, 134 power of petitioners to compel exchange of , under previous Acts, interfered with by bill, 140 (7) Station, erected on petitioners' land, sought to be altered without his approval, 43 construction of terminal opposed by owners, &c., as affecting amenity of residential property, 184 (8) WorJdty Agreement, and construction of junction -with existing railway opposed by local board, 81 company having as to authorised line, opposing partial abandonment and diversion of same, 108 proposed to be authorised by bill opposed by competing company, 81, 140 in perpetuity, how affecting right of working company to be heard in addition to owning company, 353 RATEPAYERS (See aJso coepohation, inhabitants), and gas consumers injuriously affected by gas bill removing competition, 53 claim of Scotch parochial board to represent under Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845, 91 not dissenting at statutory meeting represented by local board, 171 384 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. B.ATEFAYEB.S— Continued. gas company as opposing construction of bridge by London County Council, 204 opposing imposition of improvement (" Betterment ") rate by London County Council, 204 insufficiency in numbers of and inhabitants opposing bill for con- stitution of burial board, 221 single and inhabitants not entitled to be heard in individual capacity under S. O. 134, 221 owners and occupiers, as distinguished from , opposing bill of local authority, 276, 349 "'■''. opposing construction of dock, how far represented by corporation, 287 inhabitants and owners, etc., opposing acquisition of golf links by corporation of burgh, 349 EATES^ (See also extension, hareoce, railway, &o.), diminution of . during construction of proposed works, opposed by local authority, 68. 341 ' ft- j poor — — , proposed exemption of public buildings from, opposed by parochial boards, 91, and by School Board, 96 school ~— , collection of, by parochial boards, opposed by School Board, 96 combined railway and sea provided for in bill of railway company seeking steamboat powers. 111 j i j reduction of , at one harbour, opposed by trustees of competine harbour, 178 i & cost of construction of bridge by London County Council to be borne by local and by improvement , opposed by ratepayers, 204 collector of not petitioning as such, but signing petition of ratepayers, not entitled to be heard, 221 r j , local authority seeking special powers of local government opposed by owners and occupiers alleging " injurious affecting" by increased -, 276 grouping of at docks, how affecting traders, 313 ; how affecting owner of competing docks, alleging undue preference, 318 diminution of local , not provided for by Lands Clauses Act, 1845, sect. 133, a ground for locus against railway bill involving demolition of houses, 341 imposition of pier and harbour within sea loch hitherto forming free anchorage, opposed by traders and county council, 346 additional ■ for purchase and use of golf links under bill promoted by corporation, opposed by ratepayers, owners, etc., 349 EECTOEY {See advowson). EEEEEEES {See practice). EE-HEAEING {See practice). EEMEDY AT LAW {See aorebment, practice). EECEEATION GEOUND, acquisition by corporation of golf links as with power to charge rates on players, opposed by ratepayers, owners, &o., in burgh, 349 EEMOTENESS {See injubt). EEPEAL, of clause in previous Act, for protection 6f petitioner, 144 by water company of section in former Act for supply by meter, as ground for limited loctts standi of owners, &c., 181 EEPEESENTATION {See also inhabitants, local board), l-roposed alteration of on conservancy board, opposed by local authorities, 60 by local board of harbour commissioners alleging distinct interests, 81 how far of a trade may be claimed by a trades' association, 115, 199, 346 of trade by town council of Eoyal Scotch burgh, 178 claim of county council outside drainage area to on Drainace commission, 202 alleged of gas company as ratepayers by county council, 204 alleged —— of ratepayers and inhabitants of district, insufficient in number by local authority, 221 ' INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 385 EEPEE SENT ATION — ConJtnHetJ. sufficienGy of • of inhabitants of an ecclesiastical district petitioning against church removal bill, 229 insufficiency of of members of congregation by a single individual, 229 county councils and corporation opposing bill for alteration of constitution of conservancy board and claiming additional , 295 claim of voluntary association, for promoting efficient on conservancy board, to oppose bill altering constitution of board, 298 alleged of corporation as ratepayers by London County Council seeking powers to expend county rate on enquiries as to vsrater supply and markets, 300 alleged of inhabitants, ratepayers and owners in Scotch burgh by corporation promoting bill for acquisition of golf links, 349 RESERVOIR, bUl for extension of time to construct opposed by local board, 124 construction of railway across catchment area of and apprehended interference with streams, opposed.by corporation, 187 powers sought by railway company to construct and aqueduct opposed by corporation supplying water to burgh, 269 enlargement of how affecting riparian owners entitled to compensation water, 320 RESIDENTS (Sec inhabitants). RES JUDICATA (See legislation, pbactice). RIGHT OF WAY {See footpath, noAD). RIPARIAN OWNERS, opposing bill for bridge as affecting flow of river, on ground of injury to property, 60 money payments to in lieu of compensation water, 144 below point of return of impounded water, liow far affected, 147 and traders opposing diversion of river water into dock, 813 opposing construction of dock as interfering with access to competing dock, 318 claiming increase of compensation water on account of enlargement of existing reservoir, 320 local board as opposing outfall of sewer into tidal river, 327 RIVAL SCHEME (See also competition), of petitioners having been rejected, claim to be heard to ask for running powers over promoters' line, 64 RIVER (See also consebvancy), construction of bridge and weir with removable sluices, over navigable opposed by local authorities and riparian owners, 60 water of impounded, how far persons below point of return of compen- sation water affected, 147 apprehended affecting of by abstraction of underground water by water company, 181 apprehended interference with, and pollution of , by construction of railway across catchment area of reservoir, 187 proposed diversion and widening of under drainage bill, opposed by county council outside the drainage area, 202 riparian owners and traders opposing diversion of water into dock, 313 outfall of sewer into tidal — i — opposed by neighbouring riparian local board, 327 ROAD (See also footpath), vestry as authority opposing underground railway, 40 where included in limits of deviation, but no express powers to divert same in bill, right of owners to be heard, 136 reference to agreement by authority with railway company, not confirmed by bill, 151 interference with main by pipes of water company, opposed by county council, 160 interference with by water company, opposed by owners, (Sic., 181 interference with in burgh by construction of railway, opposed by Police Commissioners of burgh, 193 386 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. KOAD — Cuntinned. alteration of levels of and disturbance of gas pipes by construction of bridge, opposed by gas company, 204 corporation opposing bill of county council to carry out works already authorised which would cause interference with , 208 stopping up of by bill for construction of railway, opposed by manufacturers, 212 blocking of by tramway, causing interference with access to docks, opposed by local board, 215 interference with outside county, no ground for locus standi to county council as road authority, 234 water company as adjoining owners claiming a landowner's locus standi in respect of a in which promoters sought to lay pipes, 246 gas and water companies apprehending injury to pipes in by construc- tion of works for cable haulage of tramways, 262 bill for removal of gates and obstructions from opposed by gas company, 307 construction of steam tramway on country opposed by owner of houses in village as frontager, 310 interference with ~ — by waterworks opposed by gas company claiming landowner's locus, 324 EOAD AUTHOBITY {See local boabd, eoad). ROYALTIES, owner of at docks, opposing construction of competing dock, 318 RUNNING POWERS {See hailway (6) ). RURAL SANITARY AUTHORITY {See sanitaey authouity). SANITARY AUTHORITY {See also coupobation, county council, local boakh). of adjoining district, alleging injurious affecting, opposing the formation of united district for hospital for infectious diseases, 127 below point of return of impounded water opposing bill, 147 opposing construction by neighbouring authority of sewer with outfall into tidal river, 327 SANITARY {See also cokpokation, local authoeity), and police provisions, proposed additional taxation for, opposed by association of landowners and by individual owners of property, 100 SAVING AND PROTECTIVE CLAUSES, provisions of bill inconsistent with • in existing Act, as ground of locus, 43 claim for by telephone company in bill for extension of time for constructing tramways, 102 proposed repeal of , prohibiting heavy goods traf&o, opposed by landowner, 130 proposed repeal of as to compensation water, affected by subsequent agreement, 144 telephone company claiming , on transfer of electrical tramway to corporation, 167 telephone company claiming ■ in bill authorising construction of tram- ways and use of mechanical power, 242 SCHEDULE {See land). SCHOOL BOARD, opposing exemption of public buildings from poor rate, 96 SERVICE OF NOTICES {See i-ehhon, peactice). SEWER, interference with by underground railway opposed by vestry, 40 interference with in burgh by construction of railway, opposed by Police Commissioners of burgh, Itis construction of how affecting mains of gas company, 324 construction of with outfall into tidal river, opposed by neighbouring local board, 327 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 387 SEWEEAGE,- scheme for pvomoted by corporation opposed by neighbouring local board and county council, 237 London County Council, alleging possibility of main drainage and system being affected, opposing bill of local authority, 278 SHAREHOLDERS, not having dissented at public meeting, 11 alteration of status of proposed by bill dealing with issue of share capital,. 28 alleged collusion of of both canal and dock companies to injury of riparian owners and traders, 313 SIGNATURES {See petition, practice). SILTING, bill for borrowing additional money for carrying out navigation works opposed by corporation alleging that tidal flow would be injured by , 56 SLIPWAYS {See dock). SPRINGS, mineral and pump-room, extinguishment of rights in, by conveyance to local board, with power to sell water, 171 mineral , ambiguity in meaning of, as ground for owner of hydropathic establishment to oppose bill, 171 STANDING ORDERS, 5 [Notices to specify limits of burial ground, hospital, &c.] , 127 14 [Notices when it is proposed to abstract water from stream] , 147 43 [Diversion of roads] ,136 62-63 [Meetings of proprietors to approve bills empowering companies to do certain acts] , 26 131 [In what cases shareholders to be heard] , 26 132 [Dissenting shareholders to be heard] , 26, 264 133 [In what oases railway companies to be heard] , 1, 14, 87, 108, 117, 152 133a - [Chambers of commerce, etc., may be heard in relation to rates and fares] , 50, 217, 356 134 [Municipal authorities and inhabitants of towns] , 20, 34, 40, 53, 60, 72, 81, 104, 134, 147, 163, 178, 181, 184, 187, 193, 208, 215, 221, 227, 237, 270, 295, 327, 337, 341, 344 134a [Local authorities to have locus standi against lighting and water bills] , 147, 160, 163, 169 134b [County council alleged to be injuriously affected by bill] , 202, 234, 237, 254, 278, 295, 346 135 [Petitions against tramvpay bills] , 242, 310 151 [Proceedings on bills for confirming Provisional Orders] , 26, 127 156 [Railway companies not to acquire canals, docks, steam-vessels, &c.] , 5, 195, 199, 217 163 [No powers of purchase, &o. , except after proof of certain matters before the Board of Trade] , 240 171 [No powers to be given to local authority to place or run carriages upon tramways] , 167, 250, 281 184 [Compensation water], 147, 160, 320 208a [Provisional Order Bills to stand referred to committee of selection] , 26, 127 STATION {See railway (7) ). STATUS, alteration of , by postponement of petitioners' claims to mortgagees, 28 alteration of , and diversion of traffic by railway company seeking steamboat powers, 111 STATUTES, PUBLIC (citeu). Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, 349 ; s. 384 ; 270 Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878, s. 39 ; 270 Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876, 278 General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862, 193; s. 363, 174 Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, s. 30, 217 388 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. STATUTES, -BVBhlC—Contwued. Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, a. 16, 153 ; s. 40, 40 ; s. 128, 43 259, s. 133, 341. Local Government Act, 1888, ss, 3 ; s. 14 ; ss. 3, 356 ; s. 15, 234 ; 11, 14, IS, 160 Metropolitan Board of Works (Loans) Act, 1869, ss. 38, 50 ; 208 Metropolis Management Act, 1855, 278 ; s. 135 ; 208 Municipal Corporations (Borough Funds) Act, 1872, 349 Poor Law Act, 1879, s. 17 ; 221 ; 278 Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845, s. 17, 91 Public Health Act, 1875, s. 52, 125 ; 163, 246, 276, 278 ; ss. 131, 279 ; 308, 127 Public Health Acts, 1890, 276 Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, ss. 52, 54 ; 270 ; ss. 89, 90 ; 187 Kailways Clauses Act, 1868, Part II., 330 Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, s. 16, 46 ; s. 77, 284 Bivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, 160, 356 Roads and Streets in Police Burghs (Scotland) Act, 1891, 193 Telegraph Act, 1878, 259 Tramways Act, 1870 ; 160 ; ss. 19, 43, 184, 250 ; s. 30 ; 262 Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, s. 28 ; 246 STATUTORY BIGHTS, telephone company without , opposing bill for extension of time for construction of tramway, 102 water company without , opposing water bill for supply by promoters within area supplied by themselves, 164 relating to royalties at docks, affected by bill for competing dock, 318 STEAMBOATS, powers for , sought by railway company, opposed by competing railway companies. 111 powers for , opposed by association of steamship owners and individual steamship owners, 115, 199 opposition of independent companies to railway company seeking steamboat powers, 195, 197 STEAMSHIP OWNERS, joint petition of , and steamship owners' association, and claim of association to represent trade and shipping interests, 115, 346 opposition by associations claiming to represent their individual members against bill of railway company asking for steamboat powers, 115, 199 and traders opposing imposition of harbour rates to sea loch hitherto forming free anchorage, 346 association claiming to represent traders in opposing harbour bill, 346 STOPPAGE {See access, footpath, boad). STREAM (Sec river). STREET {See also road), meaning of — — in S. 0. 135 relating to tramway bills, 810 STRUCTURAL DAMAGE, to church by propinquity of railway, 189 SUBSIDENCE, apprehended injury by caused by underground railway, 40 SUBWAYS, county council bill containing prohibition of interference with access to , opposed by local board as road authority, alleging interference with their powers and duties, 210 SUPPLY {See gas, water). TAXATION {See also harbour, rates). additional for police and sanitary improvements, opposed by associa- tion of landowners and by individual owners of property, 100 alteration of alleged by owners opposing bill of local authority, ^76 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 389 TELEGRAPH {See eailway (3) ). TELEPHONE, company without statutory powers opposing bill for extension of time for constructing tramway to be worked by electricity, 102 company, without statutory powers, opposing transfer of electrical tramway to corporation, and claiming protective clauses, 167 claim by company for protective clauses in bill authorising construction of tramways and the user of mechanical power, 242 powers sought by corporation to pull down houses for street improvements, opposed by company as licensees of owners of houses, on account of interference with overhead wires, 259 consolidation bill enabling corporation to work tramways already worked by electricity opposed by company, 281 THROUGH-RATES, combined railway and sea prSposed by bill, 111 TIDAL FLOW, alleged injury to by corporation opposing bill for making deep water channel, 56 diminution to scour of , alleged by construction of bridge over navigable river, 60 TOLL BRIDGE, abstraction from - — of traffic by railway, 23 ; owners of opposing railway giving direct access to town, 36 TOLLS {See also beidge, habboub, rates), harbour commissioners apprehending diminution of by junction, 81 TOWN COUNCIL {See coMonATiON), TRADE (See also teadees), injury to by construction of competing railway, claim of corporation to be heard as to, 34 right of association representing particular to be heard as distinguished from association representing combination of various trades, 1 15 town council of Royal burgh claiming to represent , 178 injury to by removal of competition, by amalgamation of railway with docks, 217 opposition to amalgamation bill by association of coalowners representing coal of district, 217 Salt Union as association, having restrictive covenants with owners of lands sought to be acquired by railway company, opposing bill, 284 TRADERS {See also tbade), and inhabitants opposing interference with access to harbour, 20 affected by removal of competition owing to railway amalgamation, 50 petition of , where corporation of burgh also petitioning, 50 joint petition of and corporation of burgh, against withdrawal of railway facilities, 104 opposing extension of burgh and application thereto of existing Acts affecting their trade, 174 opposing bill affectingroad, howfar represented by local authority, 212 and riparian owners opposing diversion of river water into dock, 313 and shipowners opposing imposition of harbour rates within sea loch hitherto forming free anchorage, 346 representation of and steamship owners, claimed by Shipowners' Association, 199, 346 representation of by chamber of commerce, 356 TRAFFIC {See also railway (3), tkamway), " working " goods meaning x)f, 3 diversion of to harbour subsidised by railway, 5 obstruction of by transfer of powers from railway company to dock and railway company, 14 390 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. T'RA'FFIC—Covtimied. diversion of — — causing injury to competing docks, 17 abstraction of from existing road bridge by railway bridge, 23 diversion of causing injury to owners of toll bridge, 36 repeal of Act prohibiting goods traffic on underground railway, 40 diversion of owing to proposed combination of railways, 4G diversion of — — apprehended by company as dockowners from construction of railway junction, 81 diversion of and competition, by bill for diversion and partial abandon- ment of authorised line, 108 alteration of stains and diversion of by railway company seeking steamboat powers. 111 clauses prohibiting heavy goods , landowners opposing repeal of, 130 absorption of neutral gathering ground of by railway amalgamation bill, opposed by competing company, 334 competition by railway companies for sea-borne at competing ports a ground of locns, 353 , TRAMWAY, extension of time for construction of electric opposed by telephone company without statutory powers, 102 construction of — - to be worked by cable haulage, causing interference with pipes of water company, 160 propelled by electricity, proposed transfer of, to corporation, opposed by telephone company, 167, 281 bill of company, containing powers of agreement with local authorities as to mechanical power, purchase of tramways, etc., opposed by corporation, 184 construction of by corporation, partly outside borough, opposed by local board of adjoining district, alleging interference with access to docks in borough, 215 bill authorising construction of and user of mechanical power, opposed by telephone company claiming protective clauses, 242 railway company alleging competition and " injurious affecting " as frontagers, opposing use of electricity on forming continuous route, 242 corporation seeking powers to purchase by agreement, and to work and lease same to third parties, by bill containing no provision for approval of lease by Board of Trade, 250 purchase of by corporation beyond district of county council, who alleged injurious affecting of within district, 254 use of electrical power on , opposed by railway company apprehending disturbance to telegraphs, 256 provisions for works for electrical power on carried across railway bridges, opposed by railway company apprehending injury to bridges, 256 powers to construct works for cable haulage of , opposed by gas and water companies apprehending injury to pipes, 262 construction of steam along country road, opposed by owner of houses in village as frontager, 310 TKANSFEK {See eailway). TRUSTEES {See hakboub). TURNPIKE, right of owners of — — to locvs against railway discussed, 36 UNDERGROUND (See hailway (3) ; watek). UNDERPINNING, power for ■ and to rebuild sought by underground railway company, 40 UNDUE PREFERENCE {See hates). VESTRY {See local boabd), VIBRATION (See church, bailwai (3) ) INDEX TO SUBJECTS. SUl VICAE and churchwardens alleging injury to church hy construction of railway, 139 opposing water bill on behalf of inhabitants, 163 WATER {See also waterwobks), extension of time for construction of works opposed by local board of neighbouring district requiring further supply to their own district, 125 bill providing for money, payment in lieu of compensation to riparian owners, opposed by mill owner, 144 bill to repeal clauses as to compensation and reservoirs and to impound water, opposed by riparian owners and sanitary authority, 147 alleged interference with pipes of company by construction of tramway to be worked by cable haulage, 160 interference with main roads by pipes of company, general locus claimed by county council as to, 160 bUl, opposed by vicar and churchwardens of parish within district of supply, as representing inhabitants, 163 bill, opposed by non-statutory company proposed to be included in limits of supply, 164. local authority within the limits of supply, injuriously affected as to supply of , how far entitled to locus standi under S. O. 134a, 169 bill for additional works and abstraction of underground by water company, opposed by owners not consumers within district of supply, 181 owners allowed a limited locus standi against bill, which repealed a section in a former Act providing for a supply of water by meter for non-domestic purposes, 181 opposition of corporation, supplying to district, to construction of railway across catchment area of their reservoir, 187 interference with, and pollution of streams and surface by construction of railway, opposed by local authority, 187 • company, as adjoining owners, claiming a landowner's locus standi in respect of a road in which promoters sought to lay pipes, 240 opposition of company also supplying district, to bill of local authority for additional works, 246 corporation claiming landowner's locus in respect of a leat crossed by pipes of company, 248 powers to construct works for cable haulage of tramways opposed by company apprehending injury to pipes, 262 railway company seeking power to supply withiif the district of supply of corporation, 269 opposition of companies to alteration of constitution of river conser- vancy boards by bill of London County Council, 290 increase of compensation claimed by riparian owners, on account of enlargement of reservoir, 320. WATEKSHED, claim by petitioners to appropriated by promoters under previous Acts, 125 WATERWORKS {See also watek), bill for additional , opposed by local board whose district was supplied by promoters, 169 enlargement of how affecting riparian owners entitled to compensation water, 320 danger to life and property at colliery from enlargement of reservoir, 329 gas company alleging injury to mains by construction of , 324 WEIR, construction of lock and with removable sluices opposed by local authorities, 60 WELL, apprehended affecting of by abstraction of underground water opposed by water company, 181 WHARF (See dock).