Guided by the foregoing rule, and by the recognized principle that "colonies ought, as far as their means allow, to respectively provide for their own land defence," the Committee recommended two courses, which might be adopted in dealing with colonial military Crown lands-
(1.) That colonial military lands should, on surrender, be either sold by the colony or retained by the colony, the realized value, or the estimated value, as the case might be, being received by and recorded in the Colonial Treasury, to be available when necessary for the provision of other properties required for the defence of the colony. (Paragraph 58, Appendix A.)
(2.) That all such properties should be freely surrendered to colonies when no longer suited to defence purposes, the colony undertaking to provide any other properties required for defence purposes. (Paragraph 60, Appendix A.)*
The Committee stated that "if some such course be not adopted it is evident that whenever, owing to local conditions, a change of barracks or sites in a colony becomes necessary, the colony would gratuitously acquire valuable properties, whilst the Imperial Government would have imposed upon it the entire cost of replacing them." (Paragraph 59, Appendix A.)
A difference has arisen between the Colonial and War Offices as to the manner in which surrendered lands should be valued for the purposes of record, and with a view to the provision, within the colony, of other properties required for its defence.
Before the issue of the Colonial Office circular of 9th June, 1890, the correspondence (in Appendix B, Nos. 1 to 8) took place.
The Colonial Office wished, for purposes of valuation, to draw a distinction between (a) “Crown lands held by the military authorities without any title-deed and (b) lands conveyed to the Board of Ordnance or to the Secretary of State for War by grant from the Crown signed by the Government." The War Office contended that there was no practical distinction between the two classes of holdings, and that, as both were subject to a perpetual user by the military, the colony, on the surrender of that user, practically came into an available fee-simple value in both cases, and that that value should be the recorded value.
The question then dropped, and the circular of the 9th of June, which embodied the Committee's original recommendation that "the realized or estimated value" should be recorded, was issued by Lord Knutsford. (Appendix B, No. 9.)
The Colonial Office again raised the question in March, 1891, and still maintains that as the War Office only holds the right of user, the value of the right of user should alone be assessed for purposes of record and possible future expenditure. The War Office maintains that the value that the colony comes into, on the surrender of properties, and is able to realize by their sale, is the value that should be recorded. If a limited, and lesser, value is to be recorded it is clear that on each transaction the Colony will come into funds, only a portion of which will be made available for defence purposes, a condition which would violate the principle laid down in paragraph 59 of the Committee's report (paragraph 6 of the Colonial Office circular). (See Appendix B, Nos. 10 to 22.)
It is understood that the value of all colonial military properties sold or transferred can only be expended within the colony and for defence purposes, and is not to be in any way a credit to the Imperial Exchequer. (Paragraphs 54, 56, and 58, Appendix A.)
The Colonial Office wishes the question referred to the Law Officers of the Crown. The War Office objects that there is no legal question upon which the Law Officers can advise. The question involved is one of policy, not of law, viz., what is an equitable policy to adopt in surrendering and acquiring colonial military Crown lands for purposes of colonial defence?
* This alternative was accepted by Singapore, which colony had always supplied military lands and buildings.
It is open to colonies objecting to the proposed mode of valuation to adopt the alternative course suggested by the Committee, viz., to take over such properties without valuation, on condition that they provide all such other properties as it may become necessary to acquire for their defence. (Paragraph 60, Appendix A, and paragraph 7, Appendix B, enclosure to No.9.)
Keeping in view the following accepted principles-
(1.) That colonial military properties and their values should be treated as part of a capital sum devoted to defence purposes, and when they are disposed of by sale, or by transfer to the Civil Government, their realized or estimated value should be retained by the Colonial Government, and be held by them available towards the provision of such other lands and buildings as it may subsequently be necessary to acquire for defensive purposes. (Paragraph 4, enclosure to No. 9, Appendix B.)
(2.) "That colonies ought, so far as their means allow, to respectively provide for their own land defence" (paragraph 4, Colonial Office Memorandum, from Lord Ripon)-
the Law Officers are requested to advise whether in assessing the value of properties surrendered to, and of others provided by, colonies for their defence, the fee simple value should be taken, or whether a lesser value should be adopted, and if so, how it should be assessed.
WAR OFFICE,
November, 1892.