the amount which the Treasury had allowed him for the purpose; that the Court could not control the Treasury in such a matter by mandamus (see above, p. 113); and that consequently a mandamus could not there issue against the Postmaster-General. The Court assented, although it thought the statute clearly intended full poor rates to be paid.

In R. v. Postmaster-General (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 428; 47 L. J. Q. B. 435, a mandamus was issued to the defendant to assess part of certain compensation under the Telegraph Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 110), though it was refused as to other part, and judgment was given against the Postmaster-General on demurrers to the return and plea to the mandamus. See also previous proceedings in the same matter, 32 L. T. 559.

The Inland Revenue Authorities.

Mandamus will issue to the Inland Revenue Commissioners and the Income Tax Commissioners in accordance with the general principles already laid down. R. v. Commrs. of Excise (1788), 2 T. R. 381, was a case in which a mandamus to the Commissioners to grant a permit for the removal of certain wine was refused on the construction of the statute. In a later case of a similar kind, R. v. Commrs. of Excise (1845), 6 Q. B. 975; 14 L. J. Q. B. 179, a preliminary objection was taken, but ultimately waived, that a mandamus did not lie against the Commissioners, the refusal to issue the permit having been made by the excise officer acting under their directions, and they, in their turn, having given these directions under the orders of the Treasury. See also In re Hayward (1845), 14 L. J. Q. B. 113.

In R. v. Commrs. of Stamps and Taxes (1846), 9 Q. B. 637; 16 L. J. Q. B. 75, which was an action on the return to a mandamus to the Commissioners to return certain probate duty, the objection that no mandamus could lie against the Commissioners was waived for the purpose of that case only, and judgment was given for them on the

merits.

In the similar proceedings in R. v. Commrs. of Stamps and Taxes (1849), 18 L. J. Q. B. 201, no such objection was taken, and judgment was given against the Commissioners. In In re Webster (1859), 1 L. T. 45, a rule for a similar purpose was refused, in the absence of consent on the part of the Commissioners. But in R. v. Commrs. of Inland Revenue, In re Nathan (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 461; 53 L. J. Q. B. 229, which was an application for a mandamus to return probate duty, the objection was taken successfully, and it was held that the statute created no duty between the Commissioners and the

applicant, and that the latter had a remedy by petition of right. This decision has been discussed above, pp. 111, 112, but it must now be taken to be the law so far as mandamus to the Commissioners for that particular purpose is concerned.

In R. v. Commrs. of Inland Revenue (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 569; 57 L. J. M. C. 92, which was an application for a mandamus to grant an excise licence, the objection that a mandamus could not be granted against the Commissioners, as servants of the Crown was taken, but waived for that case only, as in the case in 9 Q. B. 637, cited above.

R. v. Commrs. for Special Purposes of the Income Tax (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 313; 57 L. J. Q. B. 513, shows that the principle of In re Nathan, which was urged on the Court by counsel for the Commissioners, did not extend to claims for the repayment of overpaid income tax under sect. 133 of the Income Tax Act, 1842 (now repealed by the Finance Act, 1907, s. 24). So Commrs. for Special Purposes of the Income Tax v. Pemsel, [1891] A. C. 531; 61 L. J. Q. B. 265, shows that it does not extend to claims to have an allowance granted under sect. 61, No. VI. of the same Act.

In R. v. Commrs. of Inland Revenue, [1891] 1 Q. B. 485; 60 L. J. Q. B. 376, an application for a mandamus to grant pawnbrokers' licences, the objection that a mandamus would not lie to the Commissioners as servants of the Crown was once again taken, and waived pro hac vice. In R. v. Commrs. of Inland Revenue, [1907] I K. B. 108; 76 L. J. K. B. 41, we find the Crown still taking and waiving the same objection.

As has already been pointed out, such an objection cannot prevail where the Commissioners are under a statutory or other duty to the public or the applicant.

There have also been plentiful instances of mandamus issued to minor officials, or sets of officials, of the Inland Revenue.

The Commissioners of Customs.

R. v. Commrs. of Customs (1836), 5 A. & E. 380; 6 L. J. M. C. 65, was an application for a mandamus to compel the Commissioners to deliver up goods rightfully in their custody to secure the duty, on the tender to them of a sum which the applicant alleged, but which they denied, to be the whole duty payable. There was, under the circumstances, no duty which was owed by the Commissioners to the applicant, and the Court refused the mandamus, leaving the applicant to any other remedy he might have.

R. v. Lindsay and the Board of Customs (1888), 4 T. L. R. 464, was an attempt to obtain a mandamus against the Commissioners and

the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen to register the applicant as managing owner of a ship. A question was raised as to the jurisdiction, since the registration in question would be at Leith, and the general question of the power to issue a mandamus to the Commissioners seems also to have been raised. But the mandamus was refused on the interpretation of the statutes.

The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.

There appear to be no reported proceedings for a mandamus against this Board, but it should be noted that there have been successful mandamus proceedings against the Board's predecessors, the Inclosure Commissioners, the Land Commissioners and the Tithe Commissioners.

The Department of Agriculture and other Industries and Technical Instruction for Ireland.

Mandamus could have issued to the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries, the predecessors of this Department as far as fisheries were concerned, as appears from In re Lord Listowel's Fishery (1875), Ir. R. 9 C. L. 46; R. v. Inspectors of Irish Fisheries (1876), Ir. R. 10 C. L. 213; R. v. Inspectors of Irish Fisheries (1887), 20 L. R. Ir. 155; and R. v. Inspectors of Irish Fisheries, [1896] 2 I. R. 40, though none of these applications were successful.

The National Debt Commissioners.

It is apprehended that, in respect of certain of their functions, the Commissioners must be deemed to be under a statutory duty to the subject, and therefore could be compelled by mandamus to perform their duty; for instance, as to the payment of annuities when due, or the repayment of moneys invested with them under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 25), s. 52.

The Commissioners of Woods and Forests.

In E. p. Reeve (1837), 5 Dowl. 668, the Court refused a rule for a mandamus to the Commissioners to pay a poor rate in respect of lands held by them for the Crown.

In R. v. Commrs. of Woods and Forests (1848), 17 L. J. Q. B. 341, a mandamus was issued to compel the Commissioners to issue their warrant to the sheriff for the summoning of a jury to assess compensa

tion for land, of their intention to take which they had given notice under 9 & 10 Vict. c. 38. The Court said that they were public officers invested with public duties which might affect the rights of private persons. Any objections to the mandamus, such as the fact that the Commissioners had no funds specifically appropriated to the purchase and the alleged impossibility of enforcing specific performance, should be taken, if at all, on the return.

The objections were so taken, as reported in R. v. Commrs. of Woods and Forests (1850), 15 Q. B. 761; 19 L. J. Q. B. 497, and judgment was given for the Commissioners. The decision must be taken to depend upon the special code contained in the Act under which the notice of intention to take the lands was given. It would seem that if the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, had been incorporated, and the Commissioners had given notice to treat, they would have been in the same position as any other compulsory purchaser. Quære, whether the judgment of the Court amounted to more than this. Its words were: “There may be reason for holding a notice to treat for a purchase, when given by a private company which has the option of taking land, to be a declaration of their option to take, and a contract of purchase, of which this Court will compel specific performance. .. But in the case of Commissioners for the public, having a limited power of taking land, provided the required quantity can be obtained for a given sum, a notice to treat for the purchase should be construed to be that which it is; the Commissioners cannot ascertain whether the land can be obtained for a price unless they treat for a purchase."

The Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland.

Instances of proceedings for a mandamus against this body, all unsuccessful on the construction of the statutes, will be found in R. v. Commrs. of Public Works (1855), 5 Ir. C. L. R. 113; R. v. Commrs. of Public Works in Ireland (1857), 2 Ir. Jur. (N. S.) 305; and R. v. Commrs. of Public Works (1861), 6 Ir. Jur. (N. S.) 304. The first two proceedings were to compel the appointment of an arbitrator to assess compensation; the last to compel the service of a notice to treat.

The Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

It seems to follow from the observations of Lord Hardwicke, L.C., in Vernon v. Blackerby (1740), 2 Atk. 144, more fully reported in Barn. Ch. 377, that a mandamus would lie to the Commissioners to perform a duty towards the public.

The Charity Commissioners.

A mandamus to the Commissioners to decide a question arising out of a scheme made under the Endowed Schools Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 56), was refused, on the ground that the applicants had alternative, convenient and effectual remedies, by proceedings under the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, s. 28. (R. v. Charity Commrs. for England and Wales, [1897] 1 Q. B. 407; 66 L. J. Q. B. 321.)

The Commissioners in Lunacy.

In R. v. Commrs. of Lunacy, [1897] 1 Q. B. 630; 66 L. J. Q. B. 387, a rule for a mandamus to discharge a lunatic from detention was discharged on the ground that the Commissioners had a discretion in the matter under sect. 49 of the Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 5).

The Irish Land Commission.

Mandamus lies to the Land Commission to hear and determine: see the three cases R. v. Irish Land Commission, [1894] 2 I. R. 391; [1899] 2 I. R. 399; and (1900) 34 I. L. T. R. 219. In the second case an appeal was held not to lie to the House of Lords ([1899] A. C. 435).

The Office of Land Registry.

In R. v. Vice-Registrar of Office of Land Registry (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 178; 59 L. J. Q. B. 113, a mandamus was applied for, as "a convenient mode of obtaining a judicial interpretation of a statute," to compel the registration of certain charges. The Court interpreted the statute in a sense unfavourable to the applicant.

The Registry of Friendly Societies.

In R. v. Registrar of Friendly Societies (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 741; 41 L. J. Q. B. 366, a mandamus to the Registrar to register a trade union was refused on the merits. As to appeals from a refusal to register a friendly society, see above, p. 102.

The Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks. The Court refused a mandamus to this official to hear a petition in opposition to the grant of a patent in R. v. Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks, [1899] 1 Q. B. 909; 68 L. J. Q. B. 568, partly on the construction of the statutes, and partly because the