unsafe ship within the meaning of Part V. of the Act, the owner shall be liable to pay to the Board their costs of and incidental to the detention and survey of the ship, and those costs shall, without prejudice to any other remedy, be recoverable as salvage is recoverable under sects. 547-556 of the Act.

(c) For the purpose of the section the costs of and incidental to any proceeding before a Court of survey, and a reasonable amount in respect of the remuneration of the surveyor or officer of the Board of Trade, shall be part of the costs of the detention and survey of the ship, and any dispute as to the amount of those costs may be referred in England or Ireland to one of the masters or registrars of the High Court (the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division, by the R. S. C. (Merchant Shipping), 1894), and in Scotland to the Auditor of the Court of Session, and such officer shall, on request by the Board, ascertain and certify the proper amount of those costs.

(d) An action for any costs or compensation payable by the Board under the section may be brought against the Secretary of the Board by his official title as if he were a corporation sole, and if the cause of action arises in Ireland, and the action is brought in the High Court, that Court may order that the summons or writ may be served on the Crown and Treasury Solicitor for Ireland in such manner and on such terms respecting extension of time and otherwise as the Court thinks fit, and that that service shall be sufficient service of the summons or writ upon the Secretary of the Board.

By sect. 461, where the ship has been detained in consequence of a complaint, and the circumstances are such that the Board are liable under the Act to pay the owner any costs or compensation, the complainant shall be liable to pay the Board all such costs and compensation as the Board incur or are liable to pay in respect of the detention and survey of the ship.

Sect. 462, as amended by sect. 2 of the Act of 1906, applies these provisions to the detention of foreign ships.

Under the original enactment in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 85), ss. 12, 13, the owner must have proceeded by petition of right, since the Act provided no direct process against the Board of Trade. In Lewis v. Gray (1876), 1 C. P. D. 452; 45 L. J. C. P. 720, the difficulty was overcome by arrangement, the owner being permitted to sue the Assistant Secretary of the Marine Department of the Board.

In the Merchant Shipping Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 80), s. 10, the present provision made its first appearance. Thompson v. Farrer (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 372; 51 L. J. Q. B. 534, was an action brought against the Secretary of the Board in pursuance of this provision, and

this case was followed by Dixon v. Farrer (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 43; 56 L. J. Q. B. 53, where it was held that such a case was within sect. 46 of the Crown Suits, &c. Act, 1865 (28 & 29 Vict. c. 104), and therefore the Attorney-General was entitled to demand as of right a trial at bar, and on his waiving his right the Court was bound to change the venue to any county wherein he elected to have the action tried. See the discussion of this matter below, p. 582.

The same case is reported on the facts, s.n. Dixon v. Secretary of the Board of Trade (1887), 3 T. L. R. 478. A subsequent case was Dixon v. Caleraft, [1892] 1 Q. B. 458; 61 L. J. Q. B. 529.

A precedent of the pleadings in an action of this kind will be found below, p. 139.

Appeals with respect to the Cancellation or Suspension of the Certificate of a Master, Mate, or Engineer.-These are scarcely civil proceedings which fall within the scope of this chapter or this work, although in the case of such appeals in Scottish Courts the Board of Trade figure as respondents in the title of the appeal, and although they do in fact in all such appeals play the part of respondents. Their functions in the matter, under the General Rules for Formal Investigations as to Shipping Casualties, 1895, are discussed in the recent case of The Carlisle, [1906] P. 301; 75 L. J. P. 97, where the costs of a successful appeal by a master were awarded against them, on the ground that they ought to have assisted the magistrate who was holding the formal investigation by intimating whether in their opinion the certificate, on the evidence, ought to be dealt with or not. Sect. 66 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, extends the right of appeal from decisions given on investigations as to shipping casualties under Part VI. of the Act of 1894.

Certain Proceedings in Scotland.-William Denny & Brothers v. Board of Trade (1580), 7 R. 1019, a suit in which, in fact, the Lord Advocate, on behalf of the Board, and the Board's surveyor were the defenders, was an action for a declaration that the Board had exceeded their powers in giving certain instructions to their surveyors as to surveys of passenger steamers under the (now repealed) Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 104). It was held that the (now repealed) Merchant Shipping Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 80), ss. 14, 15, provided a remedy by appeal to a Court of survey or scientific referees, and that the jurisdiction of the Court of Session was excluded. Otherwise, semble, the Court would have been ready to interfere.

L. A. v. Clyde Steam Navigation Co. (1875), L. R. 2 H. L. Sc. 409, was a suit instituted by the Lord Advocate on behalf of the Board of Trade and the Commissioners of Customs to have it

declared that the tonnage of the respondents' steamship was erroneously computed at an amount under the proper tonnage thereof as ascertained by the official surveyor.

Board of Trade v. Leith Local Marine Board (1896), 24 R. 177, was a decision on a special case presented by the Lord Advocate on behalf of the Board of Trade and the secretary of the respondents as to the powers of the Board of Trade and the respondents in respect of the cancellation and suspension of certificates.

Granfelt & Co. v. L. A. (1874), 1 R. 782, was a note of suspension and interdict brought against the Board of Trade praying to have the proceedings of the Board suspended, on the ground that the ship detained by them was not a British ship. No objection seems to have been taken to the form of the proceedings, which, however, failed on the facts of the case.

Proceedings under the Tramways Act, 1870.

In In re Pontypridd and Rhondda Valleys Tramways Co., Ltd. (1889), 58 L. J. Ch. 536, it was sought to restrain an inquiry by the Board under sect. 42 of the Tramways Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 78). The Court, in dismissing the motion on other grounds, expressed the opinion. that it had no power to restrain the Board from prosecuting an inquiry which the Legislature said that, under certain circumstances, they might institute. This would appear to be the case, as far as proceedings in Chancery are concerned, but probably a prohibition would issue in a proper case to the Board to prevent them from holding an inquiry, if in so doing they were acting in a judicial capacity. (See below, p. 123.)

Proceedings in Bankruptcy.

The Board of Trade occupy an administrative position under the law of bankruptcy, by virtue of which they and their officers, the official receivers, may be parties to legal proceedings with respect to bankrupt estates. See, in particular, as to appeals by and from the Board of Trade, the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), ss. 21 (3), 82 (1), 86 (2), 104, 139, 162 (4), and Bankruptcy Rules 6, 202, 237, 299. As to applications to the Court by official receivers, see Bankruptcy Rules 332-334; as to appeals by and from official receivers, the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, ss. 104, 139. The enforcement by the Court of orders or directions of the Board or of an official receiver or other officer of the Board, on application by the Board, or official receiver or other authorised person, is provided for by sect. 102 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883.

C.P.

E

The Local Government Board.

This Board was constituted by the Local Government Board Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. c. 70), s. 1, and all the duties of the Poor Law Board, and also the duties of the Secretary of State and the Privy Council set forth in the Schedule to the Act, were transferred to them, subject to the same conditions, liabilities and incidents as attached to the former authorities. By sect. 3 the Board is to consist of certain high officials, and by sect. 5 they may adopt an official seal, and describe themselves generally by the style and title of "The Local Government Board."

There appears to be no statutory power by which they can sue or be sued except in the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1903 (3 Edw. VII. c. 39), s. 3, and Sched. (9), whereunder by action in the High Court they may recover penalties from undertakers who enter on any working men's dwellings in contravention of the Schedule or of any conditions imposed by the Board. The administrative county of London is excluded from the operation of this provision by sect. 16 of the Act. A similar provision used to be inserted in private Acts, e.g., the London and North Western Railway Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. ccxv.), s. 50. A failure to make a return to the Board under the Local Taxation Returns Act, 1877 (40 & 41 Vict. c. 66), s. 2, is punishable by a penalty not exceeding 201., recoverable by action on behalf of Her Majesty in the High Court; that is to say, apparently, by an information by the AttorneyGeneral and not by action on the part of the Board. Fines under the Alkali, &c. Works Regulation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. VII. c. 14), are, by sects. 17 and 27, recoverable by action in the County Court brought with the sanction of the Board by the chief or some other inspector appointed for the purpose by the Board, and are to be deemed debts due to such inspector. Various other provisions as to procedure are contained in sects. 17, 18

Donahoo v. Local Government Board (1882), 46 L. T. 300, reported as Donahoo v. Dodson, 30 W. R. 334, was a motion to restrain the Board from issuing an order dismissing a medical officer of a poor law union, on the ground that they had not heard him in his defence as he alleged they were bound by statute to do. No objection seems to have been taken to the form of the proceedings.

The Local Government Board for Scotland.

This Board was established by the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 58), ss. 3-7, and consists of certain

officials and three appointed members, with an official seal, and the style and title of "The Local Government Board for Scotland." They superseded the Board of Supervision, established by the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 83). There appears to be no general statutory power to the Board to sue or to be sued.

By the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 101), s. 97, the Board of Supervision, now succeeded by the Local Government Board, in case any local authority refuses or neglects to do what is required of it, or in case any obstruction arises in the execution of the Act, may, with the approval of the Lord Advocate, apply by summary petition to either Division of the Court of Session, or during vacation or recess to the Lord Ordinary on the Bills, and the Court may make such order and dispose of the expenses as it deems just. For instances of proceedings under this section, see Board of Supervision v. Local Authority of Lochmaben (1893), 20 R. 434, and Local Government Board for Scotland v. Elgin County Council (1897), 24 R. 513. A similar provision is to be found as to defaults of parochial boards (now parish councils) in the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 83), s. 87.

The Local Government Board for Ireland.

This body was established by the Local Government Board (Ireland) Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 69), ss. 2-4, to supersede the Poor Law Commission and to take over the other powers and duties scheduled to the Act, subject to the same conditions, liabilities and incidents as those under which they were exercised by the previous authorities. The Board is to consist of two officials, together with a vice-president and two appointed members, is to have an official seal, and is to be described as "The Local Government Board for Ireland." The Board, it appears, cannot sue or be sued.

Penalties in connection with the taking of houses of the labouring class may be recovered by the Board by action in the High Court under provisions similar to those referred to above, p. 50, which are inserted, where appropriate, in private Acts relating to Ireland; see, for instance, the Mullingar, Kells and Drogheda Railway Act, 1904 (4 Edw. VII. c. lxviii.), s. 19.

Fines under the Alkali, &c. Works Regulation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. VII. c. 14), are recoverable in Ireland with the sanction of the Board by sects. 17 and 27. (See above, p. 50.)