CO885-(10-11) — Page 171

8813.

No. 131.

(GENERAL.)

F. S. REILLY, Esq., Q.C., to ADMIRALTY.

OPINION ON THE PROPOSED BILL FOR THE TRANSFER OF ADMIRALTY PROPERTY TO INDIVIDUALS. (HONG KONG, TRINIDAD, ST. VINCENT, ST. LUCIA.)

Lincoln's Inn, August 26, 1862. WITH respect to these several islands, it is reported (to the effect) that there is no Admiralty property in them, and it is apparently inferrod that the proposed Bill is inapplicable to these islands. But this does not follow, all that does follow is, that clause 1 of the Bill is inapplicable to them; there is nothing to show that so much of the Bill as relates to future acquisitions of property by the Admiralty is not applicable to them. I am therefore of opinion that as far as appears there is no reason why the Bill should not be passed for Trinidad, St. Vincent, and St. Lucia, with the omission of clause 1 (and the consequential omission of the word other in the second line of clause 2). The preamble also might be altered by the omission of words relating to the past acquisition of property, but this is practically of no importance. Indeed there is no necessity even for the omission of clause 1, because that clause could only be said to be superfluous at most.

Hong Kong.—I am of opinion that in the case of Hong Kong the following clause (or a clause to the same effect, in such form as may be approved by the local authorities) may be properly added to the Bill :

Nothing in this Act shall be taken to empower the Lord High Admiral or the Com- missionors aforesaid for the time being to sell or dispose of any property reserved by the Government for naval or public purposes, and held or occupied by the Lord High Admiral or Commissioners aforesaid for the time being under any grant, lease, license, or appropriation made by the Governor on that behalf.

This clause will remove the objection taken to the Bill in its present form, that the Admiralty would be empowered by it to sell land which should instead of being sold be given back to the Colony.

I think that, as far as appears, there is no reason why the Bill should not be passed for Hong Kong with this additional restrictive clause, so that the Bill may operate in such cases as are referred to in the last paragraph of the Governor's Despatch of 7th May 1862, namely, where the Admiralty purchase in the market lands which have been For those cases the proposed parted with by the Crown to private individuals.

legislation seems as necessary or expedient in Hong Kong as elsewhere.

Q

16278.-177. 25.-2/86.

(Signed) FRAN. S. REILLY.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

། །། །

Reference :-

C.O. 885

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO