27
If the wide powers which the Crown has and exercises with regard to the disposition and use of the Army are to be restricted in any way this can only be done by Parlia- ment. In view, however, of what has been said in the course of the argument, I would only add that if a ship- owner asks the Crown to provide armed guards to assist him to control the passengers whom he invites on board his ship, and the Crown accedes to his request, it seems only reasonable that he and not the public should pay for that privilege.
Lastly, it has to be remembered that ever since Parliament has sanctioned the raising and keeping of a standing Army in 1689 it has insisted upon a thoroughly open and independent examination of the annual Army Estimates and audit of the Army receipts and expenditure. All receipts in respect of the Army have to be applied as an appropriation in aid of the money provided by Par- liament for that service under section 2 of the Public Audits and Charges Act 1891, and have therefore to be brought into the Army Estimates. The amount which may be appropriated is definitely limited to the sum author- ised by Parliament by the Appropriation Act of the year, and any sums received in excess of that amount is surren- dered to the Exchequer as an extra receipt.
In practice the Army Council submit their Estimates to the Treasury, which critically examines them both as to the estimated expenditure and as to the estimated receipts. After approval by the Treasury the Estimates are submitted to Parliament by the Secretary for War and may be dis- cussed in Parliament before the granting of supply and the passing of the Appropriation Act. After the supply has been granted the administration of the moneys granted is left to the War Office under the direction of an accounting officer, who is responsible to the Treasury and to Parlia- ment for the due administration of those moneys.
The ac- counts are audited annually by the Comptroller and Auditor- General, whose duty it is to report to Parliament any case in which he considers that service has been wrongfully given, or for which inadequate authority existed, or for which inadequate or improper payment was made. The accounts are then placed before the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons.
The sums paid by the Plaintiff Company for the provi- sion of armed guards on its ships were included in the Estimates for the years in which they were received as an appropriation in aid and were duly granted by Parliament as part of the supply for the Army for that year: they were subsequently passed as proper receipts by the Comp- troller and Auditor-General. In the face of these facts it is difficult to see how the contention that the Crown has levied money for its use without grant of Parliament contrary to the Bill of Rights can successfully be main- tained. Moreover, if contrary to my opinion, the sanction of Parliament were wanted to the Crown hiring out troops to the Plaintiff Company and other shipowners trading in Chinese waters such sanction is in my opinion necessarily implied from the grant by Parliament of the amount received by the Crown for such hire as part of the supply for the Army.
In the result for the reasons stated I have come to the conclusion that the decision of Mr. Justice Rowlatt was right and that this appeal should be dismissed with costs.
16.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.