London, Apr. 12. protect the shipowner against 'The Court of appeal, consisting the criminal action, of the pas Mord Sustice Eerution, Lard jets whom the shipowner him Shaul Lawrence and, Lord' Justice had invited aboard?
Bieuer, "Sertoday "definitely de-'The King, as head of the Army, eet aad akipowaer in Chinese might think that a way of afford: jing protection which, in view of ast "Gane "riner "any" foreign eer ea}'is able For payment Sor Jother calls on the Army, he was not able to afford except on the ie"armed. guards supplied to him those who asked for che"Aem or Navgy to-carry in pasty piraterafeted: waters. that special and extravagant form lof protection for enterprises, which appeal by Messrs. Butterfield they themselves had selected with-Swire against decision of Mr. out any authority from the King Seite "Rowiatt's thst' they. were should pay for the protection they wanted for the dangerous enter-ie'to pay for the guards.
By their statement of claim (acprises they themselves had chosen to enter on for their private profit, eatin ta the "times® report) Because any jeweller who left Sintles sd. that they "were me valuable jewelry at night only corporated under the Companies Serer carved out a shipping protected by a plate glass window sinesss puricalasly. in "Eh Jagainst smash-and-grab raids was jin danger of robbery, conveying a large quant <Tiusble argo" and" momerout police bound to. keet hascnper Ghinsee "waters," they outside "every jeweller's shop, or id they say, "If you want this said, were infested by pirates, and kind of individual protection you, the peed' for protection of ships the individual, must pay for it"? inch argoes, and ofthe lives of Because every owner of a motor: pad corta" and" crew ind bon 3e-Jear who used the street as a eae et aM "Crown, for very garage and left his car unprotected ran the risk of losing it, were the Indy provided de 12 barn andthe Crown Sear: uteed "on shipe trading in those police under " legal duty to keep Jo policeman in charge of every car emer. 'By' letter from the Ade jwhich- the owner hag left in self-Peiraey, dred March 18, 1990, the Jereated danger, or might the police vias' sid, that they_ were me Jauthorities say' that if that kind of armed thatthe provision of arm ea"fearde wou riy be coined [special protection was wanted and Jeould be afforded the individual SGufect to the condition hat the ones simul be pa for tu fal must pay for it? The House of Lords, in Glassbrook Brothers, Limited, 'v. Glamorgan County the placate accordingly claim-[Couneit' (41 the, "Times" L.Ry, 2135 can declaration lat the'sipalethat cit Reovaton of prolation [1925] A.C, 270), accepted the sin and forth orvetn second alternative.
In his opinion there was no Them' by: the. letter of 'March 18, Rach sought iapooed legally enforceable duty to protest British "property, from danger, in able' against the. plaids and 1930, were sent and unenforceforeign parts. The remedy, if any, ae, Eater, that" the plains twas by pressure brought by Parlia-rare unr ne eligatin take ment "on Ministers to take steps the payments to or for the Jeither by diplomatic action or nay of tht "Sonn for which the otherwise to protect British subipulations provided: andy further, fects. Britons fortunately were Raat Tong as and whenever. enterprising people accustomed to ithe view of the Crown such protec-Nook after themselves; to suggest in" was® required, the plaints duty on the British' Government ore "emiied to enjoy" the' same to follow. adventurous Britons all feitvoct"imaling' any specie pay: lover the world. into places where monte therefore. thei personal wishes or adventures One cence, the Attorney. had taken them, to protect them ctzeal nghemed® the "Court, from the difficulties they had gob fie'*Majety was of, under, any themselves. into, did not, represent uty tevprovide armed, guards fa legal duty of any kind. tote uk naval or military: Toren Before that Court, while the forthe' purpose of preventing the question of duty. to protect was Herbresk? of internal pracy argued as correlative with Bettie skips: "and, thie certain egiance, more stress was laid on Ermet' gande had been from time the argument that. the Crown had tina provided on the request of fo. authority. to, demand. payment eitring? companies onthe terme for the use, of its mumed forces: that", wie ct. erst. hat Mr, Justice Rowlatt did not deal paid by the shipping companies with that argument, but treated Peeling the plain what he. called "using the forces Hie, forte? Howat eld, that for teward" as a matter to which me eciton was. minconesived_and Ino, objection could be taken, that the claim must be dismissed. the important question was thug Thet*court of appeal "had "no raised as to the exact powers of heat ation in supporting) this King, as head of the Army—cision. As well they said, might a whether his Majesty by his pre" evel, who mesieted t"pretct frogative could regulate the Army is window by silo, argue that jas he pleased, so far as he was npslceman should cotinsaly be Met expressly" rest' aRionedeutside his shop to protect Army Act or the againat smach-and-grab aves. visions of the Appropriation Acts One curious feature of the judg-whether the position was not ment was that the Judges were that the King, as head of the immensely taken up with the ques-'Army, could, only incur such ion. whether, consittionally, the pense and take such action as wai fer'soppiying guards, and. reports own wat entitled to receive [authorised by statute, and especial Hy. could not demand money for were supplied by the Treasury, t0- protection afforded by his armed ing back over the practice of the forees, which was said to be ime Army and. Navy for 120 years. Te posing a charge on the subject ided that the Crown was Without "the authority of Parlias ment, But if there was no, duty The judgment w) obvious-to afford anticipatory protection in lly of rear importance in the Far foreign parts, no charge was int East follows in full: posed on the subject, because he Tord Justice Scrutton, in giving Was not bound to accept the prom judgment, said that he entirely Yection and need mot pay money agreed with the view of Mr. unless he asked for protection Justice Rowlatt that there was no which the Crown was under ud egal duty on the Crown to afford duty to afford him. by its military forces, protection in He (his Lordship), was reluctant foreign parts to British subjects. to discuss the matter under the A missionary, in self-sacrificing Hhead of "Prerogative" because, as to. his religious view Professor Dicey said (Laws of the ithout the consent of the Constitution, p. 61), the word me troduced the, political controversies of an earlier age whether. the Jobjected to the missionary's tribes who strongly Sovereign had some power which fnouneing their religion. Had the could not be superseded, rosulated, [Crown a duty to follow and protect for abolished by Act of Parliament. ithe missionary and' send armed Professor Dicey treated the Pre-forces to rescue him from his self-rotative (p. 421) as the name for imposed' danger? A shipowner, the residue of discretionary power without the assent of the Crown, left at_any moment in the hands traded for purposes of "his own lof the Crown, whether such power profit in neighbourhoods which be in fact exercised by the King [were insufficiently policed by for-himself or by his Ministers. Every jeizn Governments; for his profit he fact which the executive Government ook on board large numbers of lean lawfully do without the author-foreign passengers going on. the fey of the Act of Parliament is thigh seas, or up a navigable river Jdone in virtue of this, prerogative. toa foreign port, He was unable Now it was clear that there was to control those foreign passengers a wide margin of executive acts Jor guarantee their peaceful inten done yy the King or his. Ministers ions. Had the Crown a legal duty relation to the administration oF
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.