In consequence the hearing was adjourned, and the Attorney-General supplied us with two detailed memoranda as to the Navy and Army respectively. Counsel for the Appellants did not discuss in detail the Navy papers, as he appeared to take the view that the prerogative of the Crown in respect of the Navy was much wider than that, if any, in regard to the Army, owing to the historical cir- cumstances connected with the Revolution of 1689 and the Bill of Rights in connection with a "standing Army".
In the case of the Navy it was obvious that the Admiralty constantly received payments from outsiders, foreign Governments, or British and foreign subjects, for work done or services or materials supplied to those out- siders; and that the Admiralty so acted without any ex- press authority from Statutes, though the sums they received were dealt with in the Appropriation Act as stated hereafter. For instance, the Admiralty charter the Navy oil tankers to private individuals for reward when they are not required for Navy services, and there is no Statute authorising such action. The most interesting question is that of salvage. In the "Mary Anne"(1. Haggard, page 158) Lord Stowell had said "though there is an obligation on King's ships to assist the merchant vessels of this country, yet when services have been rendered those who confer them are entitled to an adequate reward." That statement was limited in later years by the Statutes requiring that no salvage reward should be claimed without permission of the Admiralty. It was also made more precise by the decision in "The Ulysses" (13 Probate Division, page 205), where the Court said that it would not treat the presence of a King's ship protecting against actual pirates or robbers as sal- vage service, but did treat the presence of guards and sentinels not on the King's ship but on a wrecked ship to guard against pirates or robbers who might attack, and of members of the Navy salving cargo from maritime perils, as entitling them to salvage reward. This was not the case of a claim for salvage service and remuneration under an agreement made, not when perils were actually endangering the ship, but in anticipation that such perils might arise. The question of King's Ship Salvage was not exhaustively discussed before us, but will be found so discussed in Kennedy on Civil Calvage, pages 112 to 118. The Admiralty render services to private persons and Companies in time of civil commotion for payment. A similar series of payments to the War Office for the supply of materials and men is set out in the Army Memorandum. None of these payments are
all required or protected by express statutory authority; are said to be justified by the uncontrolled discretion of the King as head of the Army, in matters under which he is under no express statutory restriction, such as the require- ment that he shall not employ more men or spend more money than Parliament authorises. He need not employ all these men or spend all the money that Parliament authorises. The matter is left to the uncontrolled discretion which he exercises by his Ministers. The Courts cannot question it, though Parliament by Vote of no confidence, or pressure in Parliament may influence it.
The financial side of the matter, the question of im- posing a charge on subjects without the consent of Parlia- ment, is illuminated by two memoranda from the Treasury
The first sets produced to us during the second hearing.
out the way in which receipts for services rendered by the Army and Navy have been dealt with during the last 120
16
years.
5.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.