3. Mr. Stanhope thinks that the distinction drawn between Colonial Crown lands held by the military for defence purposes, without any title deed, as was the case in Mauritius prior to 1841, and such lands held under title from the Governor, as was the case in Mauritius after 1841, is of no practical importance. It is a distinction without any fundamental difference. In each case, the Secretary of State for War held the user only, without legal power to dispose of the lands except by surrender to the Governor. When such lands are surrendered to the Governor, free from any conditions as to future resumption, he becomes possessed, in each case, of exactly the same estate, such estate being neither increased nor diminished in extent or value by the fact of the military having previously enjoyed the user, either with or without a special grant from the Governor.
4. When the Secretary of State holds the perpetual user of Crown lands, and absolutely and without reservation surrenders that right, he practically puts it in the power of the Colony to realize the fee simple value of property which up to that time had no saleable value whatever to the Colony. In fixing the value to be assigned to such property, therefore, its selling value at the time of transfer seems to be the only sound and reliable standard to adopt. Mr. Stanhope considers that it would be practically impossible to assign to surrendered military Crown lands values varying with the tenure under which their perpetual user had been enjoyed; a condition which could have no effect on their value when the user was surrendered. To depart from the rule that their selling value is their true value to the Colony, would give rise to friction and dispute between local civil and military authorities, and it is difficult to see what other standard of valuation could be adopted that would be generally applicable.
5. The remark in the proposed addition to the draft reply that, "otherwise it (the Colony) would, in fact, be asked to pay for its own property," indicates a misapprehension as to the recommendations of the Committee as understood by this department. Mr. Stanhope does not understand that Colonies are to be called upon to pay for surrendered military Crown lands. The proposition appears to be that when Colonial Crown lands, set aside for purposes of military defence, become unsuitable to their purpose, they shall be surrendered to the Governor, the Colony undertaking to replace them, when necessary, by other sites, if not free of all cost to the Imperial Exchequer, at any rate, free to the extent of the value of the surrendered properties.
6. This arrangement cannot be termed asking the Colony "to pay for its own property." It is merely asking the Colony to substitute property suitable to its defence for surrendered properties which have become unsuitable to that purpose. As pointed out by the Committee, if such an arrangement were not made, on every change of sites necessitated by the changing conditions of defence the Colonial Exchequer would gain, while the Imperial Exchequer would have a new expenditure imposed upon it.
7. While Mr. Stanhope recognises the importance of a clear understanding on this subject being come to, between Lord Knutsford and himself, before instructions are issued to the Colonies for carrying out in detail the approved recommendations of the Committee on Colonial Military Contributions, he would point out that this particular aspect of the question does not arise on the Treasury letter to which the proposed draft letter was a reply.
8. There were only two important points in the Treasury letter calling for reply—
(1.) As to the right of sale by the Secretary of State to private individuals of Colonial military Crown lands.
(2.) The creation of a lien on the realised values of such lands on account of "outstanding claims against the Colony for military expenses of any kind."
9. On these two points the Secretaries of State are agreed, and it appears to Mr. Stanhope undesirable to introduce into the reply to the Treasury letter matter which does not arise out of that letter, and which, in the present stage of its consideration between the two departments, does not require to be submitted for their Lordships' consideration.
RALPH THOMPSON.
Sir,
7
No. 8.
Colonial Office to War Office.
Downing Street,
5th March, 1890.
I am directed by Lord Knutsford to acknowledge receipt of your letter* of the 28th of January, 40243 on the subject of Colonial military lands and buildings, and to state that his Lordship agrees that the letter to the Treasury may proceed without the addition which he had proposed to insert at the end of the draft, and without the greater part of the suggested addition to paragraph 2.
2. Lord Knutsford, however, thinks it will be better to omit the words "held under title from the Crown, or by grant from Colonial Governments," in that paragraph, and to insert "occupied by the military authorities without title deed, or conveyed to the Board of Ordnance or Secretary of State for War by grant from the Crown signed by the Governor." The reason is that the words proposed to be omitted are not quite accurate, and are wanting in precision. No Colonial Government is able to make a Crown grant; it is the Governor, as the specially authorised agent of the Queen, and acting in her name and on her behalf, who makes the grant of the land which theretofore was vested in the Queen; and as lands held under such a grant are held under title from the Crown, there is not any real distinction between the two branches of the sentence which it is proposed to omit. But there is a substantial difference between the two branches of the sentence which it is proposed to insert in place of those words. The Queen is the legal owner of all unalienated Crown lands, and the military authorities have, by permission of the legal owner, the occupation and user of such portions of unalienated Crown lands as are held by them for purposes of defence. On the making of a deed of grant to the Board of Ordnance or Secretary of State for War, the Queen ceases to be, and the Board or Secretary of State becomes, the legal owner of the lands specified in the grant; but, as Lord Cairns pointed out in 1875, he is, though legal owner, unable to dispose of the lands, because he holds them in trust for the public.
3. A further distinction is shown by the different proceedings which follow if the military authorities have no further use for lands of either class. They simply walk out of lands of the first class with or without conditions, and the land remains Crown land vested in the Queen, and liable to be disposed of like other Crown lands. On the other hand, the Secretary of State for War cannot get rid of lands of the second class except by an Order in Council under the Colonial Fortifications Act, 1877, and the effect of such an order is to vest the land in the Governor, and not in the Queen. In the first case, the Queen remains, as she was, legal owner of the land; in the second case, the Governor becomes the legal owner.
4. Lord Knutsford still thinks that there is more than Mr. Stanhope is disposed to admit in the question of the reversionary rights of the Colony; or to speak more accurately, of the Queen, but the question can be more conveniently discussed on another paper, and I am to refer to the letter from this department of the 4th instant respecting the Hong Kong Praya extension.
* No. 7.
JOHN BRAMSTON
↑ The letter in question did not specifically refer to the point of the method of valuation.
40248 196 199