385
was to be done when land was surrendered to the
Colony: but he went on to say that so far as the
acquisition of lands from the Colonial Government was
concerned the conditions existing prior to 1896 had been
completely changed by the new system of military
contribution which was extended further in 1901, when
the Colony undertook to pay 20% of revenue in full
return including the cost of lands and buildings. The
Colonial Secretary quoted the Secretary of State's
despatch of 24/10/00 which said: "as part of this
arrangement all lands required by the War Department
which are the property of private persons will be
purchased at the cost, and will become the property of that Department. Lands which belong to and are occupied
by, or are a source of revenue actual or potential to the Colonial Government should be similarly treated. When the land is thus purchased by the War Department the capitalised value of the Crown Rent will be paid
by that Department to the Colonial Government at the time of purchase".
Sir F.May added that the Lewis memorandum which introduced the principle of nominal rentals for re- serves dealt only with outstanding controversies and did not affect the application of the conditions laid down by Mr. Chamberlain so far as future arrangements might be concerned.
In his letter of the 3rd September 1912 Sir F.H.May says "I submit that, except in the particular cases provided for in the Lewis Agreement in order to settle outstanding questions, military reserves
cannot
cannot exist".
I gather that Sir F.H.May's position is that
the War Office is bound to purchase land and that there can be no question of the military being allowed to obtain Crown land for Reserves on the payment of a nominal rent. Consequently the War Department should purchase the land they require for clearance areas paying to the Colonial Government the capitalised Crown
Rent whether the land so purchased is private or Crown
land.
Sir F.Lugard's view (Gov/5086/12) appears to
have been that, though the Lewis Agreement strictly applied only to the outstanding questions which it settled, yet the principles of settlement should be followed in the future, provided that it was agreed that the military should be charged in the Lands Account
with the value of building sites acquired as "Reserves";
and that where there were no actual building sites at
the time of acquisition but the military wished to
place restrictions on building hereafter, the consequent
depreciation of the site should be a charge against the
Lands Account.
After studying the terms of the Lewis Memoran-
dum and its covering despatch I am inclined to think
that it was intended that the military might be given
lands on the same terms in future but the actual terms
show that the memorandum dealt only with outstanding questions; and if, which is open to argument/ it was
argument intended to apply the principles of the memorandum to
future transactions, the despatch from Mr. Chamberlain
of 24/10/00 must have been overlooked.
I don't think that there is any force in
Colonel