CO885-(15-16) — Page 236

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference:---

‛། ?། ཟ། “ཤ། ། mmimimC.O. 885

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

15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

We have taken the matter into our consideration, and in obedience to your commands have the honour to

Report-

(1) We answer this question in the affirmative.

(2) A Bill when passed should be presented to the Governor as provided by Rule 6 of the Standing Rules as soon as it has been received by the Clerk of Parlia ments and authenticated by him.

(3 and 4) It is not essential to the validity of a Bill that it should be assente 1 to before the prorogation of Parliament, nor is there any limit of time within which such assent must be given.

(5) In our opinion it is illegal and unconstitutional for Ministers to withhold a It would be, in our opinion, also Bill from presentation for the Governor's assent. illegal and unconstitutional for a Governor to withhold his assent for a specified or indefinite time at the request of Ministers, or for any other reason than a desire to properly exercise his discretion or carry out the directions under which he acts.

We have, &c.,

The Right Honourable

Joseph Chamberlain, M.P.,

&c., &c..

&c.

R. B FINLAY EDWARD CARSON.

44739

No. 165A.

(TRANSVAAL.)

FOREIGN OFFICE to LAW OFFICERS.

[Claim of Oost Afrikaansche Compagnie for Rent for Premises occupied by Troops.]

Gentlemen,

Foreign Office, September, 13, 1902.

I HAVE the honour, by direction of the Marquess of Lansdowne, to transmit to you the Papers noted in the accompanying list, respecting a claim which was put forward, on the 21st September last, by the Netherlands Chargé d'Affaires on behalf of the Oost Afrikaansche Compagnie for rent for the occupation of their store at Machadodorp by British troops. (Paper A.)

The claim was referred in due course to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in South Africa, and, on his report in regard to it (Paper B) being received, it appeared that no claims for rent for the use of buildings necessarily occupied by the military in South Africa were being admitted by the Local Compensation Boards.

The attention of the Secretary of State for War was accordingly drawn to the fact (Paper C) that the principle followed in the Egyptian War in regard to such questions (see Sir J. Ardagh's Memorandum of the 7th January, 1883) (Paper D), had been that the owner of private property in a country invaded or occupied in time of war has an equitable claim to be indemnified by the invading or occupying Power if his house is temporarily used for the accommodation of that Power's troops; and the inquiry was made whether Mr. Brodrick had approved of the principle laid down in the matter by Lord Kitchener, and, if so, what were the grounds on which he had. decided to depart from the course followed in assessing the Egyptian War claims.

The War Office in their reply" (Paper E), maintained that the theory as to compensation laid down in Sir J. Ardagh's Memorandum was conclusively disproved by the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, which he himself quoted in § 10, p. 4, of his Memorandum (Paper D), and they further pointed out that the cases cited in support of that officer's argument seem hardly conclusive. For example, the French Government voted 106,000,000 fr. after the Franco-German War of 1870-71 to indemnify its own citizens, but the compensation was for damage or destruction of real or moveable property-not for the temporary occupation of private buildings for public purposes. The German Government, moreover, did not pay rent to French citizens or residents in Alsace and Lorraine on account of the temporary occupation of their houses by the German troops. Nor did the German Government pay rent to Frenchmen or others for houses temporarily occupied in other parts of France."

The War Office concluded by saying that, while there were precedents for compensation on account of loss, damage, or destruction of private property, they could find no precedent, except that of Egypt, for the payment of rent on account of the temporary occupation by troops of private buildings during war, and that it therefore seemed possible that there had been special circumstances attending the occupation of Egypt in 1882, which rendered it advisable to make the unusual concession recommended in 1883 by Sir J. Ardagh, and approved by Her late Majesty's Government. They were not, however, prepared to accept the action taken in Egypt precedent, all the less as it did not appear to have been based on authoritative legal opinion.

As a

The opinion of the Law Officers to which reference is made in Sir J. Ardagh's Memorandum (Paper D) seems to relate not so much to the payment of rent as to the existence of a legal right on the part of neutrals to exemption from military contributions; it is agreed that no such right exists. (See Law Officers of the 26th August, 1870, and the 28th February, 1871*.) (Paper F.) But in view of the fact that in this war requisitions are to be paid for as an act of grace, the question arises whether the forced occupation of a building for purposes in connection with the war comes

• Not printed.

12875-25-1002 W 2757 DS 5