Rep. 420, 426, Lefroy, C. J., after an elaborate review of the authori ties, says: "It is settled by authority that the recital of an intention merely, in a subsequent statute, will not operate by implication to repeal a former specific statute, and that, in order to effect such a repeal, there must be a clause of repeal in the repealing statute. It is also quite settled, that mere general words in a subsequent affirmative sta tute, not referring expressly to a former specific statute, are not suffi cient to repeal such former statute, if the two statutes can stand together." There can be no difficulty in holding that these two statutes may stand together. There is no hardship in compelling the Company to supply the better quality of gas at the price they before charged for the inferior gas, seeing the great benefits they derive under the Act of Parliament.

Sir Fitzroy Kelly, in reply.-The proposition advanced on the other side as to the necessity of express words in a later statute to repeal a former statute, is subject to this qualification, viz., that, if the provisions of the later Act are directly inconsistent with those of the former, the former Act is repealed. It is submitted that the 24th section of the 14 & 15 Vict. c. lxix. is altogether inconsistent with the 19th and 40th sections of the 23 and 24 Vict. c. 125. The contract which the Companies are by the 19th section authorized to make for the supply of gas, are to be "subject to the provisions of this Act," not to the provisions of the 14 & 15 Vict. c. lxix. The combined effect of the 19th and 40th sections, is, that the Company may charge. more than 4s. per 1000 cubic feet, provided they do not exceed 5s. 6d. The "rate prescribed by this Act," is, whatever price between those limits the parties may mutually agree upon. The Company is not to *830] charge more than 4s. 6. per 1000 cubic feet, if that has been the limit of its price before the passing of the Metropolitan Gas Act, 1860: but, no matter what has been the price charged or the quality of the article supplied, in future the quality shall be that pointed out in s. 25, and the price that limited by s. 40. This construction does not require the Court to draw any inference or make any conjecture: it merely calls upon them to construe the exact words of the Act of Parliament. [WILLES, J.-The Company are to be limited to a dividend of 10 per cent.: see 14 & 15 Vict. c. lxix., s. 25.] That is another mode of limiting the price to be charged to the consumer. And this was the only practical limitation down to the passing of the Act of 1860. By s. 41 of the 23 & 24 Vict. c. 125, the Companies are required to furnish accounts to the home secretary. The 13th section of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847, 10 & 11 Vict. c. 15, is almost in terms identical with the 19th section of this Act. The 36th section is not unimportant: it enacts that "all contracts made or existing before the 1st of January, 1860, between any of the gas Companies included in this Act and any local authority, for or relating to the supply of gas, shall terminate on the 1st of February, 1862, and thereafter the provisions of this Act in all particulars shall apply to such Company: provided that, from the time of the passing of this Act until the said 1st of February, 1862, the provisions of this Act relating to price, purity, and illuminating power of gas, shall not apply to any such Company, unless such Company shall elect to adopt them." Here, the Company has elected to adopt the Act, and therefore is

bound by all the provisions of the Act as well in relation to price as to purity and illuminating power. The supply must be at "the rate prescribed by this Act," whatever that rate may be. [BYLES, J.— How do you deal with the suggestion of the Recorder that

there would be an absurdity in saying, that, if the Company [*831

charged 4s. 6d. or more on the 1st of January, 1860, they cannot under any circumstances increase the charge, but that, if they charged less than 4s. 6d. on that day, they are at liberty to go up to 5s. 6d. per 1000 cubic feet? If it is a substantive enactment, it seems very absurd; and if, as the Recorder suggests, it is a proviso, it is equally absurd. WILLES, J.-Possibly that absurdity may be avoided by treating the next proviso as being general, and by compelling the Company, before any advance is made to 4s. 6d. or otherwise, to take the steps pointed out in the proviso, by notice. If the charge is 4s. 6d., they must show a change of circumstances to justify the increase: if it is under that sum, then it falls within the general proviso, and they must give notice of the alteration: and, if that is considered unjust, recourse may be had to arbitration, under s. 38.] It is perfectly clear, that, under this Act of Parliament, some Companies are limited to 4s. 6d., while others may charge up to 5s. 6d. for the same sort of gas: and, if there be any absurdity or inconsistency in this, recourse must be had to the legislature to cure it.

WILLES, J.-This is a case in reference to the importance of which and the desirability of the speedy decision of which the Court was induced to take it out of its turn and allow it to stand first among the cases for consideration at the present sittings: and the same reasons which induced the Court to accede to the application of the parties for that purpose, also induces them to think, that, if they feel that they have arrived at a clear opinion upon the construction of the Act of Parliament, they ought at once to announce that opinion, and not to hamper the proceedings which either party may think proper to take elsewhere by any delay in *giving utterance to that opinion. We have arrived at an opinion, in which my Brother Williams [*832

concurs.

The question arises in this way,-It appears that the gas supplied to the Metropolis is supplied by several Companies, many of which competed with one another, especially upon the boundaries of the districts chiefly supplied by them. These Companies were governed by Acts of Parliament which were not uniform or consistent in their provisions. With regard to the matter more immediately under our consideration, viz., the price to be charged for the gas supplied, there was considerable discrepancy. Some of the Companies, as in the case of the Company who are the plaintiffs on this occasion,-were obliged to supply gas of a certain quality at a certain price, viz., 4s: per 1000 cubic feet. Another Company was obliged to supply gas of a superior quality at a higher price, viz., 5s. per 1000 cubic feet. Other Companies had no prescribed limit as to quality or price; and the gas supplied by them was supplied, like any other article coming into the market, at the price it would fetch, or at the price which in particular instances the Companies might be able to obtain from the persons with whom they contracted. There was therefore an absence of uniformity as well in price as in quality. Before the passing of the

Metropolis Gas Act, 1860, the Companies supplying the Metropolis appear to have agreed that it would be desirable as far as possible to cease their ruinous competition with each other, and that each Company should, as far as could be arranged, confine itself to a given district. This arrangement was sanctioned by the legislature. But it was far from being the only object which the Act of Parliament had in view. It is impossible to look at the recitals without seeing that the regulations to which these Companies were subject were not uniform at the time *the Act passed, and that it was one of the objects of the legis

*833] lature to make them so. Looking at the fact that several of these Companies supplied to one and the same district that which has now become almost a necessary of life, it was to be expected that the legislature in dealing with them would endeavour to make the regulations affecting that district uniform as to all the Companies. One provision of the Act is remarkable. In the first place, it makes a general provision with respect to the kind of gas which is to be supplied by all the Companies coming within its regulation: and it provides for the production of two descriptions of gas, one of which is called common gas, the other cannel gas, which is a gas of a superior quality and character. Now, the first of these sorts of gas was that which formed the standard of excellence in one or more of the Acts of Parliament which affected Companies other than the Company who are the plaintiffs in this case: but that was a standard beyond that which the plaintiffs' Company were required to attain in the gas which they supplied, and for which under the Act of 1851 they were authorized to charge the sum limited by that Act. I refer to the 25th section of the Metropolis Gas Act, 1860, and the 23d and 24th sections of the plaintiffs' Act, 14 and 15 Vict. c. lxix. Here is, therefore, first of all a standard introduced which is a different and a higher standard than that which existed in the Act of 1851, and the expense of production greater than that of the gas required to be supplied under that Act. You have, then, a common provision as to the sort of gas which is to be supplied by all the Companies, and you have the fact that the gas to be supplied is a more expensive article than that which was supplied by these plaintiffs under their Act of Parliament. To say the least of it, it is not unreasonable to expect to find a general provision as to *price for all the Companies, or that this Com*834] pany should be authorized to charge in respect of the superior

article which they are now compelled to supply a higher sum than they before charged for the inferior article under their own Act. No doubt these gas Companies acquire, as the learned Recorder has suggested, considerable benefits by coming under the operation of the general Act. Amongst other benefits, they acquire a more advantageous use of their capital, by escaping a wasteful competition with one another. But it must be remembered that that is a benefit which originated with themselves, and resulted from their mutual arrangement which the Act of 1860 only countenanced and sanctioned; and this consideration in no degree detracts from the remark I before made, that there is nothing unreasonable in saying that more should be charged for the supply of a better article. Then, we have under the Act of 1860 a class of persons who are unquestionably to be governed by the provisions of that Act. I mean those persons who

are mentioned in the 14th section: the Companies are bound to supply them with gas "at the rate prescribed by this Act." We now come to the consideration of the 40th section, with three lights thrown upon its construction,-first, the reasonableness of charging a higher price for a better article, and the unreasonableness of requiring the Com pany to limit their charge to 4s. per 1000 cubic feet equally for common gas and for cannel gas,-secondly, the fact that general provisions are made with respect to several Companies, and that some at least of those Companies must be governed by the 40th section only,-thirdly, that, with respect to the class of persons coming under s. 14, their rights must certainly be governed by that section: and there is also the fact that no substantial distinction has been pointed out between the case of *those persons and the case of persons who were supplied previously to the passing of the Act. I have in vain [*835 endeavoured to discover any reason why a preference should be given to the persons supplied under s. 14 over those who were supplied before. If any could be suggested, it would have been pointed out to us by the Recorder.

We now come to the material section,-s. 40. That section enacts that "No Company shall advance the price of gas above the rate taken by such Company on the 1st of January, 1860, whenever such rate is at or above 4s. 6d. per 1000 cubic feet, unless there has been such increase in the cost of gas, or any other circumstances affecting the Company, as will warrant such advance." And there is a proviso "that no gas Company shall charge for common gas supplied by them any sum exceeding 5s. 6d. for every 1000 cubic feet, or for cannel gas any sum exceeding 7s. 6d. for every 1000 cubic feet." That, as it seems to me, is the provision which must govern the dealings of these Companies from and after the passing of the Metropolis Gas Act, 1860: and, if that be so, it is inconsistent with the 24th section of the 13 & 14 Vict. c. lxix.

I do not assent to the proposition quoted from Dwarris on Statutes, that, in order to effect a repeal of a former Act, the later or repealing Act must contain express words. If that be the proposition which that learned author means to lay down, it clearly is not accurate. It is enough if there be words which by necessary implication repeal it. Now, it is a necessary implication, that, if the Company are to charge sums not exceeding 5s. 6d. for every 1000 cubic feet of gas A., or 7s. 6d. per 1000 cubic feet of gas B., gas C. not being supplied at all, that is a provision which is practically and in terms inconsistent with the provisions of the 14 & 15 Vict. c. lxix. Is there *any absurdity in that construction, or any reason why that proviso [*836 in the 14th section of the Metropolis Gas Act, 1860, should be inapplicable to the present case? Upon much consideration, I am satisfied there is no such absurdity. I certainly did at one time incline to think that it would be absurd that the Companies who on the 1st of January, 1860, charged at the rate of 4s. 6d. per 1000 cubic feet for their gas should be precluded from raising that rate unless there has been such increase in the cost of gas, or other circumstances affecting the Company, as should warrant such an advance, and that other Companies who on that day charged, like this Company, less than 4s. 6d. per 1000 cubic feet for their gas should be at liberty at once to

raise the price to 5s. 6d. But, although that does appear to be so when you read the first six lines of the section, I think it will appear not to be so when you read the proviso which immediately follows,— "Provided always, that before raising the gas-rate in any district, the gas Company supplying such district shall give notice of their intention to the local authorities of the district, and in some newspaper circulating within the district for two consecutive weeks at least, one month before such alteration in the gas-rate shall be made; and, in case any local authority shall, within such month, dissent from such alteration, it shall be determined by arbitration in the manner hereinbefore mentioned whether such alteration shall be allowed." That proviso is applicable generally, as it appears to me, to the case of any Company raising its rate, whatever that rate may have been upon the 1st of January, 1860: if that rate was then 4s. 6d. per 1000 cubic feet, it is not to be raised unless the circumstances can be shown which are referred to at the beginning of the section: whatever it may have been, it is not to be raised without notice, *837] *and not then, if upon a reference to arbitration,-which, upon the best consideration I can give the Act, appears to me to be a reference to the inspector to be appointed under the 7th section, and whose award is to be carried into effect in the manner pointed out in ss. 7 to 10 inclusive, it shall appear that the raising of the price is unreasonable. If it were proposed to raise the rate beyond 4s. 6d. per 1000 cubic feet, the arbitrator would doubtless look to the legislative declaration at the beginning of the section, and would not allow the rate to be raised beyond 4s. 6d. per 1000 cubic feet, unless there had been either a general rise in the cost of gas or some other circumstances affecting the particular Company which would warrant an advance of price. That appears to me to reconcile the whole matter,— this proviso, awkwardly, no doubt, introduced into the middle of the section, operating for the purpose I have mentioned. Then follows a proviso which seems to me strongly to confirm this view of the matter. It is, "Provided always that no gas Company,"—that is, none of the Companies mentioned in the preamble,-"shall charge for common gas supplied by them any sum exceeding 5s. 6d. for every 1000 cubic feet, or for cannel gas any sum exceeding 7s. 6d. for every 1000 cubic feet; provided also, that any Company shall be at liberty to change the kind of gas from time to time supplied by such Company, whether common or cannel gas, on giving three months' notice of their intention so to do; and, upon the expiration of such notice, the Company shall thenceforth supply gas pursuant thereto under the provisions of this Act until any like notice shall be given for a further change; and, when the Company shall change the supply from cannel gas to common gas, the rate shall be reduced so as not to exceed 4s. 6d. per 1000 cubic feet, except under the circumstances *and in the *838] manner hereinbefore set forth." This clearly is general, and applicable to all the Companies; and it would be absurd, as applicable to this Company (the plaintiffs), if 4s. was to be the maximum charge for each species of gas; for, to be of any validity, the argument on the part of the defendants must undoubtedly go to that length.

Having paid the best attention I could to the various provisions of these Acts of Parliament, and to the able arguments which have been