CHAPTER XV. LOCAL AUTHORITIES (concluded): CONSOLIDATION ACTS, 1845-7: APPLICATION OF GAS AND WATER REVENUE: METROPO- OF COMMUNITY: STREET IMPROVEMENTS—DISPOSAL OF SUPERFLUOUS LAND: EXEMPTIONS FROM LOCAL RATING: NUMBER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES. Acts. ELEVEN Consolidation Acts, passed in 1845-7, apply to Consolidation private companies as well as to local authorities, and may be conveniently treated under the same head. solidation lation before dation Acts, A consolidation statute, the first of its kind, passed in 1801,1 First Conrecites that, "in order to diminish the expense attending the Act, 1801 passing of Acts of Inclosure, it is expedient that certain (Inclosures). clauses usually contained in such Acts should be comprised in one law." This precedent, however, appears to have been Private legisforgotten, for when the promotion of other private under- the Consolitakings under statute became frequent, a question revived, 1845. which led to much difference of opinion, and is still sometimes debated: Should a private Act be self-contained or speak by reference? Before the year 1845 each private Act comprised within itself all provisions governing the particular undertaking. This system had some manifest advantages. Each Act, though lengthy, was an intelligible whole: it was 1 41 Geo. III. c. 109. Conflict of statutes. Commons' Committee, 1838. unnecessary to go outside its provisions to some general statute in order to find out the law regulating each community or undertaking. On the other hand, though the common form clauses, and those inserted in compliance with Standing Orders by Parliament, purported to be in substance alike, no adequate means existed for ensuring absolute uniformity in these provisions, and the result was, that local authorities and companies, which ought to have been subject to the same rules, sometimes escaped from restrictions which were essential in public interests. These varied provisions led to a considerable increase of litigation; and as sections relating to similar objects often differed in different Acts, a decision upon one Act seldom determined the proper construction of any other. Sometimes special provisions were inserted relating to the devolution of property and other matters, already provided for by the common law, which was abrogated for no sufficient reason; and the new remedies and incidents affecting real estate were often imperfect, again causing frequent litigation. These inconveniences arose to a large extent upon railway Acts, but also applied to Improvement Bills promoted by municipal corporations and other local bodies.1 It was obviously necessary to render private bill legislation more uniform, and with this object a Committee of the House of Commons on Private Business, in the year 1838, suggested that drafts of general bills should be prepared, which, if sanctioned by Parliament, might be incorporated by reference in each private Act, thus relieving promoters from an obligation to adopt Standing Order clauses, and securing, beyond possibility of mistake, that companies incorporated by statute for the same class of objects should be subject to the same general code. Another incidental advantage contemplated was to free Committees from a considerable burden of work, as well as from a risk of overlooking new 1 Second Report of House of Commons' Committee on Private Busi ness (1839); evidence of Mr. John Tyrrell, conveyancer. Bills drafted. and objectionable provisions, owing to the extreme length of most bills. Recognising the necessity of these general Acts, Experimental the Treasury, prompted by Mr. Poulett Thompson, who, as President of the Board of Trade, had presided over the Committee of 1838, employed two draftsmen to prepare the necessary measures. The result was a series of bills containing provisions common common to enclosures, to enclosures, railways, canals, docks, harbours, bridges, cemeteries, town improvements, police and gas and water works. These common clauses, essential to good government in every urban community, and the proper working of every newlyincorporated company, instead of being considered in turn by each Committee upon each Bill of the same class, were to be enacted by Parliament in an authoritative form, after careful consideration; and Committees, no longer responsible for seeing that bills contained every usual provision, expressed in proper form, would be able to give their undivided attention to the special circumstances of each measure. Some communications which passed between the Com- Legislation of mittee of 1839 and Lord Shaftesbury, then Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords, were not encouraging. The Government, however, were induced to take up this work by an earnest recommendation from the Committee, and Mr. Tyrrell, a conveyancer and draftsman of great experience, who had served upon the Real Property Commission, was engaged by the Board of Trade to revise the Consolidation Bills then prepared. Six years, however, passed before they became law. In 1845, Parliament adopted three of these measures. Their object sufficiently appears in Companies a preamble to the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act,2 first of the series, which recites that "it is expedient to comprise in one general Act sundry provisions relating to the Mr. Symonds, with Mr. Booth, who at this time prepared the breviates, and was afterwards Speaker's Counsel, were the draftsmen em ployed. See Appendix to Second 1815. Clauses Act. Lands Clauses constitution and management of joint stock companies, usually introduced into Acts of Parliament authorizing the execution of undertakings of a public nature by such companies, and that as well for the purpose of avoiding the necessity of repeating such provisions in each of the several Acts relating to such undertakings as for ensuring greater uniformity in the provisions themselves." This Act provides an elaborate machinery chiefly governing the relations of shareholders inter se,1 and, unless its provisions are expressly varied or excepted by the special Act, it applies to every joint stock company incorporated by Parliament to carry on any undertaking. In the same Session an Act containing a similar code was passed for Scotland, with such changes in its machinery as were made necessary by differences between Scotch and English law. In 1845, also, another statute was passed2 "for consolidating in one Act certain provisions usually inserted in Acts authorizing the taking of lands for undertakings of a public nature." Where public bodies or private promoters propose to construct works, there are few cases in which they can obtain possession of all the necessary land by agreement. They must, therefore, ask Parliament for powers to acquire Common form such land by compulsory process. In all these cases methods of procedure and of assessing compensation should obviously agree, and not be left for settlement by common form clauses in each Bill. These clauses purported to be substantially the same, but sometimes, through accident or intention, small differences were introduced which caused endless disputes, and inflicted considerable hardship on owners who were dispossessed. That litigation clauses. has been ended by the Lands Clauses Act, cannot, unfortunately, be said. Probably no modern statute has brought so much grist to the legal mill. It has called into existence almost a literature of its own in treatises and commentaries written upon its provisions, and in every populous district it has enriched a numerous band of surveyors, land-valuers, and arbitrators. or compul This very important statute1 refers, first, to purchases Lands taken by promoters of lands which their special Act has autho- by agreement rized them to take by agreement. Without express power, sorily. corporations and many individuals would be unable to convey some land required by promoters. The Act, therefore, provides that parties under disability may lawfully sell and convey. But it is any purchase and taking of lands "otherwise than by agreement," as the Act mildly puts it, which necessitates its fighting clauses. Promoters cannot exercise compulsory powers until their whole capital is subscribed.2 Disputes as to compensation are settled by two justices if the amount claimed does not exceed 507.; if above that amount, by arbitration or a jury, at the claimant's option.3 Procedure in these cases is prescribed in elaborate provisions. If the claimant's interest is a limited one, the Act points out how to apply any compensation which may be awarded. Promoters may also be required to take the whole of "any house or other building or manufactory," if they touch any part of the premises. 1 Amended by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act Amendment Act, 1860, and the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1869, which are usually cited together as the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts. Some Consolidation Acts are not applicable to private undertakings authorized by statute, unless these Acts are incorporated with the special Act. But the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, applies in its entirety (s. 1) to every undertaking thereafter authorized to take land, so far as its provisions are applicable, and unless they are expressly varied or excepted by the special Act. 28 Vict. c. 18, s. 16. In practice, however, this condition is not always insisted upon by landowners when Much litigation has they are otherwise satisfied as to a 3 Ib., ss. 22, 23. 4 Ib., s. 92. Long before the passing of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, it was a condition upon the grant of statutory powers to take lands, &c., that the whole property should be taken, though only a part might be required. See Act of 1795, empowering the Governors of Christ's Hospital to enlarge their site. (35 Geo. III. c. 104, s. 6.) This provision is, in fact, of still older date. It often entailed upon promoters an outlay out of all proportion to the objects sought, and greatly exceeding the estimates, rendering necessary applications to Parliament for fresh capital. (See recitals to 42 Geo. |