14
Lord Finlay, at page 287, after again citing the passage of Lord Justice Atkin, says: "I think that this argument, like most arguments put in the form of a dilemma, fails to cover the whole ground. There was no duty on the police to give the special protection asked for, but it does not follow that it was their duty not to give it." In the same way the King, as head of the Army, may think this a way of affording protection, which in view of other calls on the Army, he is not able to afford except on the terms that those who ask this special and extravagant form of protection for enterprises which they themselves have se- lected without any authority from the King, shall pay for
the protection they want for the dangerous enterprises they themselves have chosen to enter upon for their pri- vate profit. Because every jeweller who leaves valuable jewellery at night only protected by a plate glass window against smash-and-grab raids is in danger of robbery, are the police bound to keep a policeman outside every jeweller's shop, or can they say: "If you want this kind of individual protection, you, the individual, must pay for it"? Because every owner of a motor car who uses the street as a garage and leaves his car unprotected runs the risk of losing it, are the police under a legal duty to keep a policeman in charge of every car which the owner has left in self-created danger, or may the police authori- ties say that if this kind of special protection is wanted and can be afforded, the individual must pay for it? The House of Lords accepted the second alternative in Glasbrook's case (1925, Appeal Cases).
In my opinion there is no legally enforceable duty to protect British property from danger in foreign parts. The remedy, if any, is pressure brought by Parliament on Minis- ters to take steps, either by diplomatic action or otherwise, to protect British subjects. Britons fortunately are enterprising people accustomed to look after themselves; to suggest a duty on the British Government to follow adventurous Britons all over the world into places where their personal wishes or adventures have taken them to protect them from the difficulties they have got them- selves into, does not represent a legal duty of any kind.
or
Before this Court, while the question of duty to pro- tect as correlative with allegiance was argued, more stress was laid on the argument that the Crown had no authority to demand payment for the use of its armed Forces. Mr. Justice Rowlatt did not deal with this argument, but treated what he called "using the Forces for reward" as a matter to which no objection could be taken. The import- ant question was thus raised in this Court as to the exact powers of the King as head of the Army, whether His Majesty by his prerogative could regulate the Army as he pleased, so far as he was not expressly restrained by the Army Act, or the financial provisions of the Appropriation Act, whether the position was not that the King as head of the Army could only incur such expense and take such action as was authorised by statute, and especially could not demand money for protection afforded by his armed Forces, which was said to be imposing a charge on the subject without the authority of Parliament. But if there was no duty to afford anticipatory protection in foreign parts, no charge was imposed on the subject, because he was not bound to accept the protection, and neet not pay money unless he asked for protection, which the Crown was under no duty to afford him. I am reluctant to discuss the matter under the head of "Prerogative", because, as Professor Dicey said, the word introduces the political controversies of