1
1
18
In making this provision the authorities pointed out that these protective measures could not be continued in- definitely and that shipowners should themselves take adequate measures for internal defence. As about 200 British ships were engaged in the. China trade and the Plaintiff Company alone would have required about 200 soldiers adequately to guard all their ships, it was ob- viously impracticable for the military authorites to pro- vide armed guards for more than a small proportion of the total number of ships requiring them. At first no charge was made to the shipowners for providing these guards beyond the additional expenditure over and above the nor- mal cost of the guards. Later on in the month of December 1928 the military authorities notified the shipowners that the provision of guards would be continued for a period of six months as from November 1st last on the conditions then in force, but that if military guards were required after that date the full cost of providing them must be met by the shipping interests concerned.
Early in 1930 the military authorities after inform- ing the shipowners that it had been decided to reduce the strength of the British garrison in the China Command by one battalion from Hong Kong at the end of February 1930 and that consequently it would be necessary to reduce considerably the number of military guards available in British ships notified the shipowners that it was the declared policy of His Majesty's Government that all military guards should be withdrawn on April 1st 1930 and that consideration must be given by the shipowners to the steps they were prepared to take for providing guards from other sources.
The Plaintiffs and other shipowners protested against this decision and requested the authorities to reconsider it and to continue the supply of military guards after 31st March, 1930. In the month of March 1930 the Commander- in-Chief on the China Station notified the shipowners
that in view of the fact that the shipping companies con- cerned were then engaged in working out details for the formation of a properly trained force for the prevention of piracy of their vessels His Majesty's Government had reconsidered its attitude to the extent that it had decided to sanction a further extension of the provision of military guards for a definitely limited period subject (inter alia) to the condition that any guards supplied after March 31st 1930 must be paid for in full.
The Plaintiffs and other shipowners at first protest- ed against the condition of paying for the military guards in full but ultimately submitted to that condition and agreed to pay, and, in fact, paid in full for all military guards supplied them after March 31st, 1930. The Plaintiff Company after having made that agreement commenced this action against the Attorney-General alleging that the agree- ment was made under compulsion and asking the Court to declare that the condition imposed upon the Plaintiff Company by the Crown of paying for the military guards was illegal and unenforceable and that the Plaintiff Company was under no obligation to make any such payment.
The first ground on which the Plaintiff Company bases its claim is that the Crown has provided the military guards in fulfilment of the common law duty which it owes to its subjects, and that in the absence of express statutory sanction it is not entitled to demand any pay- ment as a condition of fulfilling that duty. Sir Leslie Scott's contention on this branch of the case was that
7.