View report page

52
affected the price of gas in the borough. North, J., held that
the fact that the Corporation, who were large consumers of gas
for the purpose of public lighting and other purposes, might as
such gas consumers have to pay more for their gas if the Bill
passed unopposed, did not make the Bill an attack on their
privileges, rights and duties, and that, therefore, they could not
spend their funds in opposing it. The fact that the object for
which it is desired to incur expense is one for the public benefit
of the inhabitants of the Metropolis, affords no sufficient warrant
for so doing—See "Reg. v. Mayor of Sheffield," L. R. 6, Q. B.
652. It was in consequence of this last mentioned decision that
the Borough Funds Act, 1872, was passed, which entitles the
public authorities therein specified to prosecute or defend legal
proceedings necessary for the promotion or protection of the inhabitants
of their district at the expense of the rates; but this
Act does not extend to the Metropolis (see Section 11), and there
is no similar statutory provision, giving the Local Authorities
of the Metropolis a like power. The cases of the "AttorneyGeneral
v. The Vestry of Bermondsey," L. R. 33, Ch. D. 60, and
the "Attorney-General v. The Vestry of Camberwell," 71 L. T.
N. S. 478, are decisions also bearing upon the question under
consideration, and are adverse to the legality of the proposed expenditure.
In these circumstances, as above stated, we are unable
to advise the Metropolitan Local Authorities that they may
lawfully expend out of the rates the moneys necessary in connection
with this inquiry.
ALEX. MACMORRAN.
H. COURTHOPE MUNROE.
February 9th, 1899.
Supplemental Opinion on Case submitted 20th January, 1899.
Since writing our opinions in this case our attention has been
directed to the provisions of Sec. 92 of "The Metropolis Local
Management Act, 1855," which was not present to our minds at
the time, and also to the opinion of the present Mr. Justice
Channell when at the Bar. We entertain some doubt as to
whether the words "public concerns" in that Section are wide
enough to include the matter in question, but having regard to
the opinion expressed by Sir A. M. Channell, which is entitled to
the greatest respect and which was given, we understand, with
reference to a very similar matter, it must be admitted that there
is considerable colour for the claim made on behalf of the Local
Authorities, and that it is arguable that they are entitled to deflay
the necessary expenses out of the rates. The case referred