TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION V. 758 



TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17. 

 Tlie following Papers were read : — 

 1. A Discussion on Housing was opened by Professor W. Smart, 



2. IVie Economic Effect of the Tramways Act, 1870. 

 By E. F. Vesey Knox, M.A. 



The Act has now been thirty-one years in operation, and has never been 

 amended. It has been a disastrous legislative experiment. This view is not the 

 result of opposition to municipal trading, nor based on any idea that municipal 

 ownership of tramways is an economic mistake. 



I. History and Effect of the Act. 



The decision in Reg. v. Train (1862) rendered it necessary to obtain Parliamen- 

 tary authority to lay down a tramway. The object of the Act was to facilitate 

 tramways by substituting Provisional Order for Bill. It was, however, hedged 

 round with restrictions. 



II. The Vice of the Departmental Method of Legislation. 



The essence of the departmental method is that the inspector who holds the 

 local inquiry (if any) has no authority to decide. The Board of Trade have failed 

 to obtain any respect for decisions in really contested cases. In such cases the 

 practice of promoters is now to go to Parliament direct. 



III. The Want of Compulsory Powers for the Taking of Land. 



English roads are seldom suited for tramways without alteration, yet the 

 Tramway Order may not authorise the taking of land for road Avidening. 



IV. The Frontagers' Veto. 



Frontagers in narrow places can prevent tramways by a mere mechanical veto. 

 This has led to single lines and other bad tramways. 



v. The Veto of the Local Authorities. 



This veto has sometimes been abused, and has tended to discourage the best 

 schemes and the soundest promoters. It is not, however, likely that an objection 

 by a local authority based on reasonable grounds would ever be overruled. 



VI. The Purcliase Clause. 



There were some good reasons for inserting a purchase clause, though nothing 

 of the sort had been applied to railways, and gas and water undertakings have only 

 been purchased under special Acts at a very full price. It is now hopeless to con- 

 tend tbat there should be no power of purchase ; the really debatable matters are 

 the period and the method of valuation. Mr. Shaw Lefevre anticipated that pro- 

 moters would not mind the purchase clause because there was no limitation of 

 profits. What they did was to try to take their profit through inflating the 

 capital, and clear out. Hence abortive schemes and disappointed investors. °The 

 comparison between the price at which railway and tramway capital can be raised 

 is not less instructive than that between private and municipal credit for tramway 

 purposes. The best class of investors have been discouraged by the Tramways 



