PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O.885
19 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
18
No. V.
LEGAL STATUS OF CROWN AGENTS.
The official position of the Crown Agents has never been defined by any Charter, Order in Council, Letters Patent, or Act of Parliament. They are neither a Corporation nor a private partnership.
Their legal status came under consideration in 1898 when they brought an action on behalf of the Government of the Straits Settlements against a Mr. Hoyle. Mr. Hoyle had been selected for appointment as a schoolmaster in the service of the Straits Settlements and the Crown Agents, on the instructions of the Secretary of State, had provided him with a passage to the Colony on his signing an agreement which stipulated inter alia that he, should repay the Colonial Government the cost if he should fail to carry out the terms of the appointment.
Shortly after his arrival in the Colony he threw up his appointment and returned to England and the Crown Agents were instructed to recover from him the cost of his
passage. He raised the question whether the Crown Agents for the Colonies were entitled to sue in their official style on behalf of a Colonial Government without the express authority of such Govern- ment and under Power of Attorney. They had brought many similar actions but the Law Officers who were consulted advised that they could not sue as "the Crown Agents" as they 17010,98 were not a corporation and suggested that they should be incorporated by Act of Parlia-
inent.
Parliamentary Counsel drafted a bill providing that The Crown Agents for the Colonies shall
be a corporation by that name and may sue and 25403 98
be sued on behalf of the Colonies for whom they
act, but the individual members of the corpora- tion shall not incur any liability in respect of acts done in their official capacity."
The Crown Agents, however, objected to in- corporation and submitted a bill providing merely that they might sue and be sued as representing the Government of the Colony or Protectorate for whom they act.
The matter was then dropped "having regard
to the difficulty of the subject and to the fact
that it seems undesirable to give the Crown 32678,99 Agents for the Colonies what, in effect, would be
only a part of the results of incorporation."
In the actual pleadings in the Hoyle case the defendant did not raise the question of the power of the Crown Agents to sue and the Jury found for the Crown Agents. On the hearing of the Bummons for judgment Mr. Justice Grantbarn
1
32000 90
1948 99
Treasury,
21 July, 1863.
Crown Agents, 11 Sept., 1863.
Colonial Office to Treasury,
24 Sept.,
1803.
19
had raised the point and stated that so far as he was informed the Crown Agents had no power to sue under that title. However he did not carry the point further as he gave unconditional leave for the defendant to continue the suit ou other grounds.
There are really two questions involved—
35
(a) Whether "the Crown Agents for the Colonies can sue under that title. According to the Law Officers and the remark of Mr. Justice Grantham strictly they cannot. But they have done so for years without formal objection being raised.
(b) Whether they can sue on behalf of a Colonial Government. In the Hoyle case the Law Officers were consulted on this point and advised that an Information on behalf of the
Crown is the proper procedure to enforce a contract made by the Crown Agents on behalf of a Colonial Government. They added, how- ever, that there was no case on record of an Information having been filed on behalf of a Colonial Government and that the adoption of such a process should if possible be avoided as it would almost certainly give rise to questions of some difficulty. Here also no formal objection appears to have been raised in the Courts although the Crown Agents have sued on behalf of Colonial Governments for years.
2nd April, 1908.
No. VI.
A. J. II.
FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF CROWN AGENTS. FOR MISTAKES, &c.
Each of the Crown Agents gives security for £10,000.
In their letter of 14th May, 1863, the Crown Agents enquired how far they were considered responsible for the "integrity" of those em- ployed under them. The Treasury reply was My Lords are of opinion that as these persons
"
are appointed by the Agents, the responsibility rests with them (the Agents) both as regards Crown Colonies and Representative Colonies."
The Crown Agents answered :—
(See passage quoted in Memo. I, pp. 6-8). A copy of this letter was sent to the Treasury, the Duke of Newcastle observing that "having reference to the relations which will exist between the Crown Agents on the one side, and colonies possessing Representative Institutions or Responsible Government on the other, it is extremely necessary that the amount of the Agents' personal responsibility to those colonies in case of loss arising from dishonesty, negligence, or ignorance of the Agents or their subordinates should be unequivocally defined and made
32466
C 2
D
'