CO885-(11-13) — Page 97

590.

7. These conditions were, as to the works and forts, an undertaking to maintain them in a condition of efficiency (as otherwise these and their armaments may be sold, and the proceeds paid to the exohequer), and as to the troops to bear the actual cost incurred by Great Britain in sending them to the Province.

8. If Parliament sees fit to waive these conditions (which have been stated in papers laid before the Commons) then the War Department would be exempt from responsi- bility in parting with Imperial property without first obtaining from the Colony express stipulations in legislative enactment to give effect to them; but in the absence of any such indemnity, is it not incumbent upon the Secretary for War to insist upon these stipulations? Certainly as to the cost of the Imperial troops the 51 Geo. 3. c. 155. seo. 87 furnishes a precedent, which could by Imperial and local legislation be made applicable to the colonies accepting the responsibility of their own defence.

9. No doubt as the custody of these forts and armaments has hitherto been intrusted to the Secretary of War as a responsible Minister, the responsibility (if such there be) of parting with them without a full Parliamentary sanction rests individually upon him rather than upon any other member of the cabinet. However, were no such question involved, it might well be doubted whether, as Parliament has dealt with the naval defence of the colonies by 28 Vict. c. 14. (and having regard to various provisions found in the 30 Vict. c. 3.), its advice should not be resorted to in carrying out the policy of the military defence of the same portion of Her Majesty's dominions. The three previous cases, with "the memorandum of conditions," are sent for reconsideration that the opinion of the Law Officers may be given on the question sub- mitted in the case of the 7th November last.

War Office, 9th January, 1873,

SIR,

No. 793.

(BRITISH HONDURA3.)

FOREIGN OFFICE to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Foreign Office, January 20, 1873.

WITH reference to your letter of the 24th ultimo, I am directed by Earl Gran- ville to state to you, for the information of the Earl of Kimberley, that his Lordship has consulted the Law Officers of the Crown upon the question raised by the Lieutenant- Governor of British Honduras in his Despatch, No. 195, of the 28th of October as to the interpretation of the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870; and Lord Granville is advised that the Act in question cannot be put in force until the existence of hostilities.

His Lordship is, however, at the same time advised that it is the duty of the person administering the government of any British Possession Lieutenant-Governor of British Honduras-to take every possible measure to be able - in this case of the

to put the Act in force on the first outbreak of hostilities.

I am accordingly to request that you will suggest to Lord Kimberley that instruc- tions in this sense should be sent to Lieutenant-Governor Cairns.

The Under Secretary of State,

Colonial Office.

I am, &c.

(Signed) E. HAMMOND.

OPINION.

It may be that, technically speaking, the same Sovereign being supreme over both the British Islands and the British Empire, there is no cession of land and withdrawal from sovereignty in what is proposed to be done, as there was in the case of Hanover and of Dunkirk. But substantially and in sense it is the transfer from one country with a separate legislature and separate taxation to another country with a separate legislature and separate taxation. Upon the question of Parliamentary policy raised by Lord Kimberley, it is not our business to express any opinion, but as Law Officers we are unable to alter or qualify what we wrote on the 11th March 1872,* to which we desire to adhere.

Temple, January 17, 1873.

(Signed)

No. 7210.

J. D. COLERIDGE. G. JESSEL.

Q 16978-908.

95.-5/86.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :---

'། ། ། ། ། mmmmC.O. 885

11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

یا