25
passages in the judgments are not without interest in connection with this case.
In the "Mary Anne" (1 Haggard, page 158) where a demand was made for the remuneration of salvage services which had been rendered by the commander and crew of one of the King's ships Lord Stowell said: "Undoubtedly the parties may fairly claim a remuneration although the ship belongs to the State and although there is an ob- ligation upon the King's ships to assist merchant vessels of this country; yet when services have been rendered those who confer them are entitled to an adequate reward".
The case of the "Lustre" (3 Haggard, page 154) was where a government steamer assisted a merchant vessel on a stipulation to re-imburse all expenses arising from damage to the steamer or the stores, and it was held that such a stipulation was no bar to salvage compensation. Sir John Nicholl, in the course of his judgment, said: "It is a mistake to suppose that the public force of the country is to be employed gratuitously in the service of private individuals merely to save them expense; these government steam vessels are kept for the public service and the officers in command cannot employ them in the ser- vice of individuals and thus risk the public property with- out authority or an indemnity for all expense and damage".
In the case of "Ewell Grove" (3 Haggard, page 209) where a merchant vessel was salvaged by a government steamer and 200 men and the Court awarded £1,200 and costs to the salvors, Sir John Nicholl said: "It is true that the "Rhadamanthus' is one of His Majesty's ships worked by steam found and paid at the expense of the public, yet this does not give a title to private individuals to employ and be assisted by them without remuneration any more than any other vessel in the public service. I have therefore no doubt as to the title of His Majesty's steam vessels in case of civil salvage to remuneration".
In the present case we requested the Attorney-General to procure a search to be made for precedents both at the Admiralty and at the War Office in order to see whether there was any and what practice on the part of the Crown in regard to charging for services rendered to private in- dividuals by the Naval or Military Forces. In response to this request we have been furnished with statements on be- half of the Admiralty and of the War Office. The Admiralty statement says that services rendered to private individuals for payment are subject to varying conditions according to the nature of the service, and that in general such services would only be rendered in special circumstances and in re- sponse to a definite request, and generally would not be undertaken if alternative private or commercial facilities were available. It also appears from that statement that in 1879 the principle of charging for the services of Naval personnel was recognised in the Queen's Regulations (Article 1772) which provided that where divers are lent to effect repairs to Merchant ships a charge of 21s.0d. a day is to be made for wear and tear of their dresses and apparatus, and in addition a sum that will cover the pay and allowances of the persons engaged for the time they may be actually absent from their ships. It also appears that in times of strike or civil commotion Naval ratings have been employed in the absence of regular workers on railways in manning,
14.