Chap. III. deposit them at one end of it, where either a business centre or the commencement of another system is situated; and in this case clearly the passenger traffic in the various parishes must be greater or less according as they are situated nearer to or farther from such end. (ii) Division according to lineal mileage, allowance being made, where there are branches, for the fact that certain portions of the lines are used by the traffic for more than one branch. Thus, if a system had in one parish two branches from A and B, which joined at C, and the traffic from both these ran from C to D, and thence into another parish, the former parish would be entitled to reckon the lineal mileage from C to D twice over, inasmuch as it was utilised by the traffic of two branches. This method was adopted in London Tramways Co., Ltd. v. Lambeth (s) with regard to receipts, but not with regard to expenses. It gets rid, to some extent, of the necessity that the facts should comply with condition (a) above, but it is still necessary that conditions (b) and (c) should be complied with, or the method will not be a fair one. In the case last cited an attempt was made to induce the Court to make some allowance for the unequal distribution of the population, but this was refused as having a too speculative basis. The method was also adopted as to net profits, which is equivalent to its adoption both as to receipts and as to expenses, in Melbourne Corporation v. Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Co., Ltd. (t), and in Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Co., Ltd. v. Fitzroy Corporation (u). (8) (1874), 31 L. T. 319; Ryde's Met. Rat. App. 103 (Q. S.). (t) (1894), 20 Vict. L. R. 36. (u) (1899), 25 Vict. L. R. 5. (iii) Division according to the car mileage run in Chap. III. each parish. This is a somewhat better method than the last, because it does away completely with the necessity that condition (a) should be complied with. But it is still subject to conditions (b) and (c), inasmuch as In London Tramways Co., Ltd. v. Lambeth, ub. sup., the expenses (other than horse expenses) were apportioned by this method. The same decision also apportioned similarly the various other deductions, and the value of the stations, car-sheds and stables. If the Court possessed the requisite data, as it seems to have done, it would seem that they ought to have apportioned the receipts on the same method, which is fairer than method (ii). Neither does it seem fair to apportion, as they did, the receipts and expenses by two different methods. The horse expenses were treated separately in this case, and divided by method (ii), but as a general rule such expenses, and locomotive expenses generally, should be apportioned like any other expenses. (iv) Division according to passenger mileage and goods mileage, if goods be carried, in each parish. This would clearly be the fairest method, but it is unlikely that there would ever be the requisite data to enable it to be applied. It is independent of conditions (a), (b) and (c). Its results would, however, be rendered slightly incorrect, if, owing to competition or other causes, fares over one portion of the route were lower or higher than those for the same distance over another portion of the route in a different parish, or in so far as workmen or other persons were S. G Chap. III. conveyed at special rates, and no separate account was kept of such conveyance. It must be remembered that these suggested methods are attempts, however inadequate, to apply the parochial principle, and are not applications of what is called the "mileage principle" as against the "parochial principle." The "mileage principle," properly so called, consists in rating no building or anything else separately in any particular parish, but taking every part of the undertaking together, and then dividing the aggregate rateable value of the whole among the various parishes in which the undertaking is situated in proportion to the lineal mileage of tramway which each parish contains. It is now settled that this "mileage principle" is not to be applied to tramways (v). (v) Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Co., Ltd. v. Fitzroy Corporation, [1901] A. C. 153; 70 L. J. P. C. 1. CHAPTER IV. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS RELATING TO TRAMWAYS AND LIGHT RAILWAYS. THERE are a certain number of statutory provisions which relate to Tramways or Light Railways, but which are of too general a nature or not of sufficient practical importance to be printed at length in the present work. It will be convenient to group them together here. Some of them, as will be seen, are discussed in their appropriate place in the notes to the Tramways and Light Railways Acts. A. Provisions relating to Tramways. (1) Regulation of Railways Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 119), applies, by sect. 2, to the whole or any portion of a tramway, whether worked by steam or otherwise. Some of the provisions of the Act could not in practice apply to a tramway. The portions which can so apply are sects. 3 to 13 and Sched. I. as to accounts and audits; sect. 17 as to furnishing particulars of charges for goods, where a tramway carries goods, as tramways are now beginning to do; sect. 18 as to the calculation of through tolls on two systems worked by one company; sect. 19 as to non-consumption of smoke where steam power is used; sect. 21 as to providing special cars for a prize-fight; sect. 24 as to removal of trees dangerous to a tramway; sects. 25 and 26 as to compensation for accidents (see also note (h) to sect. 55 of Tramways Act, 1870, post, p. 245); sects. 30 and 31 as to Chap. IV. arbitrations by the Board of Trade; sect. 34 as to printing copies of the shareholders' address book; sects. 39 and 40 as to procedure. (2) Regulation of Railways Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. c. 78), applies (sect. 2) to the whole or any portion of a tramway, whether worked by steam or otherwise, which has been authorised by any special Act of Parliament. Thus the Act, which, it must be observed, was passed after Tramways Act, 1870, appears not to apply to tramways authorised by a Provisional Order, which in its turn is confirmed by an Act which is a public general Act (see Tramways Act, 1870, ss. 4 and 14, and contrast Conveyance of Mails Act, 1893 (p. 304), where "Act" is defined to include Provisional Order). The reason for this is not at all obvious; it is probably merely a blunder. Further, the Act is to be construed (sect. 1 and Sched. II.) with certain previous Acts which have nothing to do with tramways. The sections applicable to tramways authorised by special Act would seem to be sects. 3 and 4 as to inspection of tramways; sects. 6, 7 and 8 as to returns of and inquiries into accidents; sects. 9 and 10 as to returns of statistics, now made in the forms substituted for those in Sched. I. of the Act by the Board of Trade under Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 25), s. 32; sects. 11 and 15 as to penalties. The Board of Trade have also issued certain instructions with regard to returns. As a corollary to the above, Continuous Brakes Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 20), applies to such tramways as those to which the above Act applies, as "railway" in both Acts is expressed to have the same meaning. The application of this last Act to tramways is absurd. (3) Railway Companies Securities Act, 1866 (29 & 30 Vict. c. 108), applies to (sect. 2) a tramway authorised |