CO129-532-7 Anti-piracy guards- China Navigation Company v. H.M. Attorney General 19-1-1931 - 20-4-1932 — Page 30

th

30

It is also worthy of note that the responsibility, both to the Crown and to Parliament, of all the business of the Army Council borne by the Secretary of State is conferred upon him by Order in Council and not by statutory provision. (See the Order in Council dated 10th August, 1904).

In place of the Mutiny Acts, there is now passed an Annual Army Act which, as a rule, contains amendments of the Principal Act which it continues for one year. It provides in its preamble that the keeping or raising of a standing army within the United Kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of Parliament, is against law (see the Army and Air Force Annual Act 1931), and pro- vides that the Army Act and the Air Force Act shall be and remain in force during the periods thereafter mentioned and no longer unless otherwise provided by Parliament. (There follows a period to the 30th April, 1932, in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man with different provisions elsewhere; see

Section 2 (1) 9 (a) and ent) provisi

This short investigation of the history of the re- lations of Parliament and the Army shows clearly that at no time has Parliament derogated from the prerogative with regard to the command of the Forces as it was declared in the time of Charles II. It has declared the standing Army illegal in time of peace without the consent of Parliament, but has abstained from interfering with the command by the Crown over a legalised army.

In so far as practice is to be considered in such a connection, the memorandum with which we were furnished by the War Office makes it clear that moneys have from time to time been received by the Crown without statutory authority for military protection. In 1846 from Malta and Ceylon and the Ionian Islands; from the old East India Company; during the late War the service of Dock Battalions and Transport Workers' Battalions were charged for, so also were soldiers released for civil work and charges

aild! have been made for military fire brigades, regimental bands, for the use of troops employed by film companies, and for the guard at the Bank of England:

It is stated that from time to time almost every Colony has in one way or another made payments to the Brit- ish Exchequer in respect of British troops stationed in its territory. Payments have been made for the extra cost of British Forces in Iraq and in Palestine, by the Governments of those countries; by the Egyptian Government, and by certain foreign Commissions and Boundary Commissions. None of these payments was authorised directly or indirectly by Statute. If Sir Leslie Scott's argument is correct, the

Indeed, whole, or most of them, would be contrary to law. until the present case, I do not know that it has ever been questioned that the Crown have the right to receive payments for the use of troops used in one way or another by private persons or foreign Governments or Dominions of the Crown. It was at one time suggested in argument that Parliament would lose its financial control if the Crown received these moneys, but it has been made clear to us that the pro- visions of the Appropriation Acts guard against any such contingency. All the receipts resulting from the use of the Army are brought into the appropriation account, and although the sums so received are not always paid directly

19.

Page 30Page 31