PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
To Is To Je le li
Reference :-
C.O.885
13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO.
2
That Mr. Wingfield was to request that we would take the papers transmitted with his letter into our consideration and favour your Lordship with our opinion-
(1) Whether the Act of 1886, in respect of the provisions complained of, was within
the competence of the Colonial Legislature?
2) Whether the course taken by the Colonial Government in levying such customs
and export duties could be legaliy upheld-
(a) As regards ships fishing entirely within three miles of the shore.
(b) As regards ships fishing partly within and partly beyond the three-mile
limit.
(3.) Whether those provisions of the Act could properly be enforced-
(a.) Against ships which only carried on fishing beyond the three-mile limit, and
did not at any time come within it.
مجھو
(b) Against such ships which occasionally came within that limit for shelter or
other purposes, and whether they did or did not enter any port of the Colony. That your Lordship would also be obliged if we would favour you generally with any observations we might desire to offer on the subject.
We have taken the matter into our consideration, and in obedience to your Lord- ship's commands have the honour to
Report
(1.) That in our opinion the provisions of the Act of 1886, in respect of which complaint has been made, were within the competence of the Colonial Legislature.
(2) The course taken by the Colonial Government in levying customs and export duties under the Act can be legally upheld, both as regards ships which fish entirely within three miles of the shore, and as regards ships which fish partly within and partly beyond the three-mile limit.
(3.) In our opinion the provisions of the Act cannot be properly enforced against the vessels mentioned in the third question, unless such vessels have taken a license, or have in fact been used or employed by persons engaged in a pearl-shell fishery within the three-mile limit, in one or other of the ways enumerated in section 1 of the Act of 1886.
The Right Hon. Lord Knutsford.
&c.
&c.
&c.
We have, &c., (Signed)
RICHARD E. WEBSTER. EDWARD CLARKE.
16,457.
No. 127a.
(Hong KoNG.)
[COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY FIRING HEAVY GUNS.]
LAW OFFICERS TO WAR OFFICE.
[Received in War Office letter of 15th August 1888.]
CASE.
In October last, the Secretary of State for War, received a letter from a solicitor at Newport, Isle of Wight, acting on behalf of the trustees of the estate of John Wyley, late of Seacroft House, Sandown, Isle of Wight, deceased, stating that his clients had been informed of the intention of the War Office to supply Sandown Barrack Battery with far heavier ordnance than at present used; that great care had already to be taken to prevent damage to Seacroft House when the guns are fired, and that it was seriously apprehended that the concussion arising from the use of guns of any greater calibre would render the property unfit for habitation, if not raze the residence altogether. And the solicitor asked for an inquiry to be instituted as to the correctness of the report, and that he might be informed of the results.
This letter has been acknowledged, and a further communication promised.
It is the fact that it is proposed to mount the battery with heavier ordnance, but the Commanding Royal Engineer does not anticipate serious injury to Seacroft House. He considers "that at most the concussion would bring down portions of ceilings and
break windows, the latter the more likely."
+
It has hitherto been the practice of the War Department to decline all compensation for damage caused by firing of guns from the numerous forts and batteries of the War Department in the United Kingdom and in the Colonies.
But, as the national ordnance becomes heavier year by year, the damage to private property somewhat increases, and the claims for compensation become more frequent. In September last the solicitors to, the Trinity House wrote to the Secretary of State that they had been requested to advise as to the position of that Corporation in regard to injuries done to the structure and contents of lighthouse buildings by the firing of heavy guns, and referring particularly to injuries to the Gibraltar, Tynemouth, and Flatholme (Severn) lights, in each of which cases the War Department had repudiated all liability.
The solicitor stated that it appeared to them that primâ facie their clients had a good claim for compensation, and they asked to be referred to the statutory or other authority under which you claim exemption.
The reply was made by the Treasury solicitor that the ground upon which the War Department refuses compensation in such cases" is, that the damage is caused in the "reasonable and proper use by the military of the forts and batteries of which the Secretary of State for War is the trustee for the military purposes of the realm." And it was added that due notice of "the firing is always given in order that precautions may be taken by the occupants of adjoining buildings."
61
The reply appears to have been considered satisfactory, as the solicitors for the Trinity House have not pursued the matter.
The Secretary of State, however, advised as to the extent of his powers and obligations and those of the Artillery Officers thinks the present a good opportunity for him to he with reference to the firing of heavy ordnance for practice purposes in time of poach, and whether it is necessary for him to ask Parliament for express powers and for votes and provisions for assessing compensation to house-owners whose property may be injured by the gun practice (see sections 2, 4, and 6 of the Military Mantenvres Act. 1872. 35 & 36 Vict. c. 64.)
The facts of the case with regard to Seacroft House, are as follows:---
The site of Sandown Barrack Battery (shown on the plan annexed to this case), was one of several strips of laud and foreshore in the parish of Brading, acquired from
52P50.-33. 25.-9;83.
A