Although it was formerly doubted whether a mandamus would lie to a lord of a manor to admit a copyholder, yet in R. v. Rennett', where application was made for a mandamus to the steward of a manor, to admit a person who claimed as heir at law to a customary estate within the manor, the court said, they had no doubt but that a mandamus ought to be granted, to compel a lord of a manor to admit a copyholder, if a proper case were laid before them; but as the party making this application claimed by descent, it would not answer any purpose to grant the mandamus, since he had as complete a title without admittance as with it, against all the world but the lord. See also R. v. Lord of the Manor of Hendon, where a mandamus was granted to the lord, who had refused to admit the surrenderee of a copyhold estate on account of a disagreement respecting the fine to be paid; the court observing, that they would not give an opinion respecting the lord's fine on an application by a tenant for a mandamus to be admitted, because the lord had not any right to the fine until admittance. See also R. v. Coggan, where a mandamus was granted to the lord and steward of a manor to admit a person to a copy hold tenement, who had a primâ facie legal title, in order to enable him to try his right, though a court of equity had before refused to compel the lord to admit him for want of his shewing an equitable right to the property; Lord Ellenborough, C. J. observing, that he was aware that the power of the Court of King's Bench to grant a mandamus to admit to a copyhold, had been questioned on the other side of the hall, yet the court having for many years past been in the constant habit of granting such writs, upon a sufficient primâ facie title made out on the part of the person applying, he could not doubt their power in this respect. N. There being a claim of a previous fine due to the lord in respect of the ancestor from whom the party claimed, the rule for a mandamus was granted upon the party's undertaking to pay such fine or fines as should be due to the lord. It makes no difference by what mode the party becomes entitled to the franchise, whether by charter, prescription, or tenure; therefore, where by the custom of the borough of Midhurst, the jury at a court baron is to present the alienation of every burgage tenement, and upon such presentment the steward is to admit the tenant, who then becomes entitled to the franchises of the borough, the jury, at a court baron in 1749, having refused to present several conveyances of burgage tenements, the court c 6 East, 431.

a 2 T. R. 197.

b 2 T.R. 484.

granted a mandamus to the lord to hold a court, and to the burgesses to attend at such court and to present the conveyances. And though one mandamus will not lie to restore several persons, yet the court held it would lie in this case to the jur to do an act to perfect the rights of sevéral. So where, y the custom, the court leet was to present to the steward the person whom the commonalty of the borough had chosen to be mayor, the court granted a mandamus to the steward to hold a court leet, and to the in-burgesses to attend at such court, and to present J. D. who had been chosen by the commonalty. And it is the same where no particular person is interested; as where by charter or prescription the corporate body ought to consist of a definite number, and they neglect to fill up the vacancies as they happen, the court will grant a mandamus.

III. Where not.

It is a general rule, that a mandamus does not lie unless the party making the application has not any other specific legal remedy. On this ground the court refused to grant a mandamus to a bishop, to license a curate of a curacy, which had been twice augmented by Queen Anne's bounty, where the right of appointing was claimed by two several parties, and there had been cross nominations; because the party had another specific remedy by quare impedith. So a mandamus does not lie to the governor and company of the Bank of England to transfer stock, because the party has his remedy by assumpsit1.

Although the court will grant a mandamus in order to enforce the making a poor's rate, they will not grant it with a direction, that certain persons shall be inserted in the rate; although an affidavit be made of the sufficiency of such persons, and that the omission had for its object, the preventing their having votes for members of parliament*. The power of licensing public houses being absolutely in

the discretion of the justices of the peace, the court will
not award a mandamus for the licensing a public house!.

A mandamus will not lie to compel admission to the
degree of barrister (5). Nor for a fellow of a college,
when there is a visitor (6). Nor to the judge of the eccle-
siastical court to grant a probate of a will, lite pendente".
Nor to the master and wardens of the company of gun-
makers to cause them to give a proof-mark to a freeman of
their company. Because they are no legal establishment.
Nor to the mayor and aldermen of London to admit a per-
son to the office of auditor of the chamberlain's and bridg-
master's accounts, who had served it three years successively,
because contrary to the custom of the city". Nor to the
college of physicians, commanding them to examine a
doctor of physic, who has been licensed in order to his being
admitted a fellow of the college. Nor to a visitor where
he is clearly acting under a visitorial authority'. Nor to a
*teward of a manor court to admit a person who claimed as
heir at law to a customary estate within the manors. In
R. v. Jotham', the court refused a mandamus to restore a
minister of an endowed dissenting meeting-house; because
it did not appear, that he had complied with the requisites
necessary to give him a primâ facie title; adding, that a
mandamus to admit was granted merely to enable the party
to try his right; but the court had always looked much
more strictly to the right of the party applying for a man-
damus to be restored; for if he has been before regularly
admitted, he may try his right by action for money had and
received. A mandamus will not lie to the archbishop of
Canterbury to issue his fiat to the proper officer for the ad-

(5) The only mode of relief is by appeal to the twelve judges.
(6) Wherever there appears to be a general visitor, the com-
mon law courts will not interpose; yet as this is in the nature of a
plea to the jurisdiction, it must appear on the return. The court
will not supersede the writ of mandamus on an affidavit of the fact:
it must appear by matter of record, which the party may contest.'
R. v. Dr. Whaley, master of Peterhouse Coll. Cambridge, E.
13 Geo. 2. 34 MS. Serj. Hill, p. 325.

mission of a doctor of civil law, a graduate of Cambridge, as an advocate of the court of Arches".

IV. Form of the Writ.

HAVING endeavoured in the foregoing sections to explain. the nature of a mandamus, and having briefly stated those cases in which this remedy may be adopted, I shall proceed to consider the form of the writ, as to which the following rules may be useful:

1. Care must be taken that the mandamus is properly directed, that is, to the persons who are to obey the writ (7). And this duty is cast upon the person who applies for the writ; for the court, when they grant the writ, will not specify the person to whom it is to be directed. If the writ be improperly directed, e. g. if the right of election be in the mayor and aldermen, and the mandamus is directed to the mayor, aldermen, and common council, the court will grant a supersedeas, quia improvide emanavit. If a writ be directed to a corporation by a wrong name, they may return to this special matter, and rely upon it; but if they answer the exigency of the writ, they admit themselves to be the corporation to whom the writ is directed; and cannot take advantage of the misnomer.a

2. The writ must contain convenient certainty, in setting forth the duty to be performed; but it need not particularly set forth by what authority the duty exists.

Therefore where a mandamus to the commissary of the archbishop of York, to admit a deputy register, stated quod minus rite recusuvit to admit, it was holden

u R. v. Archb. of Canterbury, 8 East,

213.

x R. v. Mayor of Hereford, Salk. 701. R. v. Mayor of Rippon, Salk. 433.

y R. v. Wigan, 2 Burr. 782.

z R. v. Mayor of Norwich, Str. 55.
a R. v. Bailiffs of Ipswich, Salk. 434,5
b R. v. Ward, Str. 897.

(7) If the writ is directed to the corporation, it has been held good. But if it be directed to those, who by the constitution of the corporation ought to do the act, without doubt it is good also. Per Holt C. J. R. v. Mayor of Abingdou, Ld. Raym. 560.

sufficient, though it was objected it was the constant form to allege, that the party to whom the writ is directed, is the person to whom it appertains to swear and admit; for if the defendant was not the person to whom the executing this writ belonged, he should have returned so, but instead of that the return consisted merely of matter of excuse; besides, it was laid that minus rite he refused, which was an averment that in justice he ought to do it.

So a mandamus to the dean of the Arches to grant probate to Lord Londonderry's executors, setting out that the dean juxta juris exigentiam recusavit, was holden sufficient, though it was objected that it did not shew the dean's title to grant probate; not having set out that there were bona notabilia; for the court will not presume an inferior jurisdiction, and it appeared that he had already done some acts of office as the prerogative judge, and he shall not be received now to say it does not appear he has any jurisdiction. So a mandamus, reciting whereas there is or ought to be one bailiff and twelve capital burgesses.

So a mandamus reciting that there ought to be a common council, consisting of the mayor, and twenty-four persons chosen by the mayor and burgesses, without stating whether by charter or prescription.

3. If several persons have been removed, there must be a distinct writ for each person; for they cannot joinf; for the interest is several, and the amotion of one is not the amotion of the others.

4. Every circumstance that is requisite to shew that the party is entitled to be admitted must be suggested in the writ; therefore where in a mandamus to the ordinary to license a curate, it was stated that he had been duly nominated and appointed by the inhabitants of a township to be curate of the church of P., but neither the consent of the rector, or any endowment or custom for the inhabitants to ake such nomination and appointment was stated, the court quashed the writh. But although it is essential such facts should be alleged as are necessary to shew that the party applying for the writ is entitled to the relief prayed, no precise form is required.

c R. v.

Bettesworth, Str. 857.

d R. v. the Devises, M. 7 Auu, Bull. N. P. 204.

e R v. Mayor and Burgesses of Nottingham, H. 25 G. 2. Bull. N. P. 204. Say, 36. S. C.

f5 Mod. 11. R. v. city of Chester, Salk. 433. 436.

g 6 Mod. 310. per Holt, C. J.

R. v. Bp. of Oxford, 7 East, 345.

i Per Lee C. J. in R. v. M. & B. of Nottingham, Say. R. 37.