CO885-(13-15) — Page 229

22060.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.885

13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

+

SIR,

No. 219B.

(TRINIDAD.)

TREASURY SOLICITOR to TREASURY.

Treasury, August 18, 1891.

THEIR Lordships have been pleased to refer to me, by Minute of 22nd July, together with Treasury papers, a letter of 17th July from the Colonial Office, covering a copy of a despatch of 14th January 1891, from the Governor of Trinidad, with reference to a recent correspondence on the subject of the law and practice of escheat and the disposal of casual revenues of the Crown. With the Colonial Office letter are copies of Ordinances referred to by the Attorney-General of Trinidad, whose memorandum is enclosed in the Governor's despatch.

Lord Knutsford asks to be favoured with their Lordships' observations on the enclosures in his letter to the Treasury.

The points taken by the Attorney-General in his memorandum may be summarised

as follows:-

•

-

Three-fourths of population of Trinidad are bastards.

Very few properties formerly escheated.

No effort made to watch interests of Crown escheats not watched.

Many properties escheated have never been formally escheated. Difficulties arise.

Question whether Governor is authorised to waive title of Crown. Definite instructions desirable.

Also as to cases in which property is of small extent, and might be insufficient to

cover expenses of escheat.

Yet escheat still remains a blot on title.

Desirable in proper cases, and within certain limitations, that power of divesting Crown of its right of escheat, should be given to the Governor, and should be evidenced by some form of grant or deed.

On this I would observe-

That escheats are not watched and discovered. is surely a matter for the internal

administration of the Colony.

It would be well to take steps to remedy defects in administration so disclosed. With regard to waiver of Crown's title in cases referred to, I agree that it is desirable, following the Intestates Estates Act, 1884 (47 & 48 Vict. c. 71.), as a precedent that the Governor should be empowered in proper cases to waive the Crown's title, and that such waiver should be evidenced by some formal grant or deed. This seems also a matter which requires legislation by the Colony. The Attorney-General next raises the point-

That the 4th section of the Trinidad Ordinance 16 of '72, conflicts with the

Imperial Act of 15 & 16 Vict. c. 39.

On this I observe—

The 4th section of the Trinidad Ordinance 16 of '72, empowers the Governor to grant escheated lands to any member of the family of former owner or to̟ an illegitimate child, &c., or to person discovering escheat.

This is a somewhat similar provision to the Imperial Act of 47 Geo. III.,

Sess. 2. c. 24.

But, says Attorney-General for Trinidad, the purposes mentioned in the Ordinance

are not "public purposes" under 15 & 16 Vict. c. 39.

And it seems to me that there is a good deal of force in his contention, inasmuch as I find in the circular despatch of 25th January 1867 it is stated that “it is

worthy of consideration whether the Executive should not be specifically entrusted with a discretionary power to deal with equitable and moral claims as well as legal."

44

*

The Attorney-General then proceeds to question the policy of making grants in favour of illegitimate relations, because--

It is a decided obstacle in the way of breaking the custom of concubinage which

prevails.

That the customary favour must in the end be considered as a right.

Legislation will be asked for to make it a right.

That the right once granted, concubinage will have received the sanction of the law.

E 65453-89. 25.-11/91.

PUBLIC

TTTTT 'TI

RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

IALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO