View report page

58
objection to a clause prohibiting it." Sir Frederick Bramwell,
and all the scientific witnesses, gave evidence saying that they
did not want them overhead, and in the case of Dundee, Mr.
Leng, who was seeking powers there—he was Chairman of the
Northern Electric Light Company—was asked as to the practice
in Dundee. "(Q.) How do you get across the street ?—At
present by overhead wires. (Q.) Is there anything to prevent
your having overhead wires ?—The local authority could at once
prevent us. (Q.) Do you think it right that they should?—I
think that overhead wires, if multiplied, would come to be very
objectionable. (Q.) Even if carried along the roofs of the houses,
as they are in London?—I think if you had a large number of
them they would be datigerous."
Now, Sir, what does the section in the Act say with regard to
overhead wires? "Notwithstanding anything in this Act, or in
any Act incorporated therewith, the undertakers shall not be
authorized to place any electric line above ground, along, over,
or across any street without the express consent of the local
authority," and so on. I contend, Sir, that having in view the
replies given by Mr. Gladstone, and by his Attorney-General,
and the evidence given by Mr. Farrer, the Secretary to the
Board of Trade, that it was then the opinion of the Government
—and they allowed the legislature to form the same opinion—
that the erection of overhead wires was absolutely illegal without
consent. But since this Act was passed, the question has been
contested. There was an action brought by the Wandsworth
District Board against the Postmaster-General, and an action
brought also against the United Telephone Company. There
was no question at all about the power of the Wandsworth
District Board to control the wires of the Post Office, because
they come under the Telegraph Act of 1863, and the legislation
effecting the transfer from the Companies to the Government.
But the United Telephone Company's case went to Appeal, and
the Master of the Rolls in giving judgment said, "I am of
opinion that this Act of Parliament (18 and 19 Vic., cap 120,
sec. 96), by the use of the word 'street' does not pass any
property over the street; it only passes property in the street.
It therefore passes only that which is the ordinary space occupied
by men or things which use the street as a street. Under
those circumstances it appears to me that no property passes in