26
pumping and power stations, coal mine pumping, machinery, lock gates, tugs and lighters conveying petrol oil and foodstuffs and in loading and unloading these commodities, for which services it has been the practice to make a charge on the companies concerned based on the wages which would have been payable at current industrial rates if Naval personnel had not been employed, or on the actual Naval pay and allowances of the Naval personnel employed, whichever was the greater amount.
Sir Leslie Scott contended that the Navy stood on an entirely different footing from that of the Army, and that what the Crown may have done in exercise of its pre- rogative in the case of the Navy could have no bearing on the question what the Crown is empowered to do as gards the Army. It is true that the Navy was never looked upon as a menace to the country like the Army was considered to be in the 17th Century, and that it has never been brought under control of Parliament to the same extent as the Army, yet the preamble of 13 Charles II., chapter 6, declares the prerogative rights of the Crown in respect of the Forces both by sea and on land in the same terms, and except in so far as there are any statu- tory restrictions the prerogative powers of the Crown in relation to the Army are the same as those in relation to the Navy.
The statement from the War Office contains many in- stances of occasions upon which the War Office without statutory authority has received payment in respect of services rendered by the personnel of the Army. From these instances it appears that for very many years it has been the practice of the War Office to demand and receive payments for services rendered to foreign countries, British Dominions, Colonies, and private individuals. These payments fall under four heads, namely: (1) payments for services rendered in Ordnance factories (2) payments for services rendered by Military Forces; 3) payments by Dominions, Colonial and mandated territories and foreign governments, and (4) payments in respect of foreign missions. The instances given include under head (1) charges made to many private individuals and firms for goods sold and services rendered; under head (2) charges for military protection afforded to Malta, the Ionian Islands and Cey- lon, for services rendered to private individuals, com- panies and firms during the War by the Dock Battalion and the Transport Workers Battalion, for services rendered by Military Fire Brigades, and for lending troops to re- putable British Film Companies; under head (3) charges for British troops stationed in the territory of Dominions, Colonies and foreign countries; and under head (4) char- ges in respect of foreign missions, all of which (with the exception of one instance in 1904 when 10 officers were lent to the Turkish Government for services with the gen- darmerie in Macedonia) were post-war missions arising out of the War.
In reference to the War Office, it is to be observed that no case has been found where a military guard has been provided for the ship of a trader who for his own profit sets out on a hazardous enterprise. In my opinion, how- ever, the propriety of lending troops for such a purpose and of making a charge for doing so is not a matter which can properly be enquired into in a Court of law.
15.