Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

given for the defendants, but it would seem to have been a clear case for a new trial.

A.-G. v. Trustees of the British Museum, [1903] 2 Ch. 598; 72 L. J. Ch. 743, was a successful information filed to establish the title of the Crown to certain articles in the possession of the Trustees on the ground that they were treasure trove.

Actions have also been brought against the Trustees for damages for negligence and other matters. A precedent of pleadings in an action against them is printed below, p. 140.

The Board of Trustees for the National Galleries of Scotland. This Board was first established by the National Galleries of Scotland Act, 1906 (6 Edw. VII. c. 50), s. 3, and superseded the Board of Trustees for Manufactures in Scotland, which was thereby abolished, and whose powers, duties and property were transferred to the new Board by that section and sect. 6, save the Royal Institution, the National Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery, and Dunblane Cathedral, which were vested in the Commissioners of Works by sect. 7, while their management was given to the new Board by sect. 3. See also the National Galleries of Scotland Order, 1907.

Nothing is provided in the Act with regard to actions by or against the new Board. Their powers and duties are to be such, und are to be exercised and discharged in such manner, as may be prescribed by order of the Secretary for Scotland (sects. 2, 3).

The Crown Agents for the Colonies.

The Crown Agents were established primarily to transact business for Crown Colonies. They are not strictly in the position of Government officials, nor are they an integral part of the Colonial Office, though the Secretary of State for the Colonies, as being responsible generally for the good government of the Colonies, appoints them and will exercise supervision over them in matters of importance, or where any principle is involved.

The Government has expressed an opinion that it would be advisable that they should not act for Colonies having responsible government, as this will tend to involve His Majesty's Government, although the latter has no effective control over them. The only self-governing Colony for which they act at present is Newfoundland; and occasionally the agents of the self-governing Colonies appeal to the aid of their experience.

Their business is of a very varied nature, and the form of proceedings to be taken by or against them in any particular case would

depend on the particular facts. If they themselves were to sue or be sued, the proceedings would have to be taken by or against them individually, since they have no corporate or statutory existence, and they would probably be protected on the principles enunciated below, p. 643. See, in particular, Wright & Co. v. Mills (1890), 60 L. T. 887; 63 L. T. 186, an action on a contract against the AgentGeneral of a Colony. The only recent case in which they have been involved in litigation in this country arose out of their position as agents for the Uganda Railway, a work which was constructed out of Imperial funds. It was desired to sue contractors for breach of a contract to deliver rails and fishplates, and, under the circumstances, the action being substantially by and on behalf of the Crown, since the contract was made by the Crown Agents on behalf of the Crown, the proceedings took the form of an information by the AttorneyGeneral for damages for breach of contract. (A.-G. v. Ebbw Vale Coal and Iron Co., Ltd. (1901), not reported.)

The Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851.

This body was incorporated, and may sue and be sued, under the above title by virtue of their charters, dated August 15, 1851, and December 2, 1852, which are printed in the Parliamentary Papers, 1852, Vol. 26, Part 1; 1852-1853, Vol. 54.

Other Government Departments.

There are a number of Government Departments which have not been specifically dealt with, and which appear to have no statutory power or liability to sue or be sued as such, either in the name of the Department or of particular officers thereof. The issue of writs of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari against some of them is dealt with in Chapters III., IV. and V. of this Book.

The principal Departments among them may perhaps be usefully enumerated here.

(i.) In England.-The Civil Service Commission, the Exchequer and Audit Department, the Royal Mint, the Heralds' College, the Railway and Canal Commission, the Light Railway Commission, the Public Record Office, the Stationery Office, the Registrar-General, the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies.

(ii.) In Scotland.—The Crofters Commission, the Registrar-General, the Lyon Court.

(iii.) In Ireland.-The Chief Secretary, the Office of Arms, the Registrar-General, the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, the Stationery Office, the Royal Irish Constabulary.

CHAPTER II.

MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION AND CERTIORARI ON THE PROSECUTION OF THE CROWN AND GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

THE procedure in such cases does not differ from that which is followed on similar applications by subjects. The most frequent form of application for a mandamus by a Government Department in England is that under sect. 299 of the Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), which empowers the Local Government Board to enforce by writ of mandamus orders made by it on a local authority for the performance of their duty under the Act, as therein provided. Reference may be made to R. v. Staines Union (1894), 10 R. 292; 62 L. J. Q. B. 540, where the procedure is discussed. Again, sect. 16 of the Education Act, 1902 (2 Edw. VII. c. 42), provides for the enforcement by mandamus of an order of the Board of Education to compel a local authority to fulfil their duty under the Act, as in R. v. West Riding of Yorkshire C. C., reported in the House of Lords as A.-G. v. West Riding of Yorkshire C. C., [1907] A. C. 29; 76 L. J. K. B. 97.

A Government Department would not be entitled, it is apprehended, to apply for the prerogative writ except in respect to matters, the performance of which it was its duty to ensure.

We find applications by the Secretary of State for War for a mandamus to justices to hear and determine a question of disputed compensation under the Defence Acts (R. (Secretary of State for War) v. Cork JJ., [1900] 2 I. R. 105); by the Postmaster-General to enforce compliance with a request for the conveyance of mails (R. (Postmaster-General) v. Great Northern (Ireland) Rail. Co., [1907] 2 I. R. 242); by the Local Government Board for Ireland to guardians to compel the appointment of a medical officer (R. (Local Government Board) v. North Dublin Union, [1902] 2 I. R. 412); by the Irish Public Works Commissioners to compel the payment of arrears to them (R. (Commissioners of Public Works, Ireland) v. Wexford Corporation (1886), 20 I. L. T. R. 51); and by the RegistrarGeneral to compel a clergyman to make a quarterly return of marriages (R. (Registrar-General) v. Magee (1893), 32 L. R. Ir. 87).

A writ of prohibition may be claimed by the Crown at any stage. (Broad v. Perkins (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 533; 57 L. J. Q. B. 638.)

The right of the Crown to a certiorari, where a suit touches its profit, is discussed below, p. 583. R. (Secretary of State for War) v. Goff, [1904] 2 I. R. 121, was an unsuccessful application by the Secretary of State for War for a certiorari to quash a taxing master's certificate given in respect of lands taken under the Military Lands Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 43). In R. (Commrs. of Public Works) v. Down JJ., [1902] 2 I. R. 220, the Commissioners obtained a certiorari.

As to costs in such proceedings, see below, p. 619.

The Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 61), s. 1, specially provides that the limitation of time thereby enacted shall not affect any proceedings by any Department of the Government against any local authority or officer of a local authority.

CHAPTER III.

MANDAMUS TO THE CROWN AND GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

The Crown and its Servants in General.

Thus, in R. v.

A MANDAMUS will not issue against the Crown. Powell (1841), 1 Q. B. 352, which was an unsuccessful application for a mandamus to the steward of a manor belonging to the Crown, Lord Denman, C.J., said: "That there can be no mandamus to the Sovereign, there can be no doubt, both because there would be an incongruity in the Queen commanding herself to do an act, and also because the disobedience to a writ of mandamus is to be enforced by attachment." The latter reason seems to be more valid than the former. (See p. 2, above.)

In R. v. Commissioners of Customs (1836), 5 A. & E. 380; 6 L. J. M. C. 65, Littledale, J., observed: "The goods are in the hands of the officers of the Crown: a mandamus to them in this case would be like a mandamus to the Crown, which we cannot grant.

The most decisive statement of all is to be found in R. v. Lords Commissioners of the Treasury (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 387; 41 L. J. Q. B. 178, where Cockburn, C.J., said: "I take it, with reference to that jurisdiction [i.e. mandamus] we must start with the unquestionable principle that when a duty has to be performed (if I may use that expression) by the Crown, this Court cannot claim even in appearance to have any power to command the Crown; the thing is out of the question. Over the Sovereign we can have no power."

It would appear also that, in addition to the grounds upon which the above judgments rely, the Crown can also appeal, where it is appropriate, to the principle that only where there is no specific remedy, and by reason of the want of that specific remedy justice cannot be done unless a mandamus issues, will the Court grant a mandamus. (R. v. Bank of England (1780), 2 Doug. 524, 526, per Lord Mansfield, C.J., as interpreted by Brett, M.R., in R. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, In re Nathan (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 461; 53 L. J. Q. B. 229.) The last-cited case decides that petition of right is such a specific remedy, in spite of the fact that it is not within the writs that were known to the common law, and is not an absolute legal

« ElőzőTovább »