View report page

51
assist individuals who may feel aggrieved without being charged
with the crime of maintenance.
In dealing with the gas question we may regard the Local
Authorities simply as very large consumers of gas (as, in fact,
they are for public lighting), who have a grievance against the
Gas Companies, and, in that capacity, they have asked for the
enquiry, and, at the same time, the inhabitants generally are
benefiting by the ventilation of their grievance.
Counsel will please advise the Committee, having regard to
these facts, whether the Local Authorities of the Metropolis, as
gas consumers, are justified in spending money raised by rates in
the manner indicated by, if necessary, appearing before the
Select Committee by Council, and obtaining and paying for the
attendance of witnesses before that Committee.
Holborn Town Hall,
20th January, 1899.
N.B.—The case above referred to contained a history of how the
Parliamentary Enquiry originated, and the opinion advised as to the
evidence to be given.
Opinion.
We have perused the accompanying papers, and, in our
opinion, the facts therein stated are not sufficient to justify the
Local Authorities of the Metropolis as gas consumers, or otherwise,
in spending money raised by rates for the purpose of defraying
the expenses of appearing before any Select Committee
of Parliament that may be appointed to deal with the Metropolitan
Gas Companies' charges. The Local Authorities of the Metropolis
are statutory bodies having only the powers and duties
expressly given to them by statute, and it is only in the case of
their rights, privileges and duties being attacked and imperilled
that they have powers to expend money in their defence out of
the rates—See "Bright v. North." 2 Ph. 216, and "AttorneyGeneral
v. Mayor of Brecon," L. R. 10. C. D. 225. The Local
Authorities of the Metropolis (other than the London County
Council) have no power to promote Bills in Parliament, and it is
from the principles above stated that they derive their frequently
exercised right to oppose, at the expense of the rates, Bills introduced
into Parliament affecting their rights, privileges and
duties. A case much in point to the question upon which our
opinion is sought, is that of the "Attorney-General v. Mayor of
Swansea," L. R. 98, 1 Ch. 602. The Corporation were there
restrained from applying their funds to the cost of opposition before
Parliament of a Bill promoted by a gas company which