WAR OFFICE,
C.O.
22508
425
21 NOV 92
#
Sir,
18th November, 1892.
1. With reference to your letter of 17th August, covering copy of a letter, of the same date, which the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury had addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the subject of the principle on which Colonial military Crown lands should be valued on their surrender by the military authorities to Colonial Governments, with a view to the subsequent provision of such other properties as it might become necessary to acquire for the defence of the Colony concerned, I am directed by Mr. Campbell-Bannerman to inform you that he has received from the Colonial Office copy of a case (the original having been sent to their Lordships) which it proposes to submit to the Law Officers of the Crown, in conformity with the consent of their Lordships, as expressed in the last paragraph of their letter above referred to.
2. The Secretary of State for War understood their Lordships' letter of 17th August to consent to a reference to the Law Officers of the question which had formed the subject of the correspondence it quoted. That question, as will be seen from the annexed reprint of the correspondence bearing upon it, was "as to the basis on which surrendered lands should be assessed, and whether the amount should be calculated on the fee-simple value of the land, or only on the value of the occupation right possessed by the military authorities." (Appendix enclosure to No. 12, also No. 20.)
3. The War Office maintained that if the principle laid down by the Committee on Colonial Military Contributions is to be adhered to, the fee-simple, that is the saleable, value should be taken for record. That principle, which has been approved by the Government, is that "all such military properties and their values should be treated as part of a capital sum devoted to defensive purposes, and that when they are disposed of by sale, or by transfer to the Civil Government, their realized or estimated values should, as hereinafter detailed, be retained by the Colonial Governments, and be held by them available towards the provision of such other lands or buildings as it may subsequently be necessary to acquire for defensive purposes." (See Appendix A, paragraph 56.)
4. In the first instance, the Secretary of State for the Colonies clearly so understood the Committee's recommendation, for in the case of the sale of the hospital at Mauritius, which gave rise to the Committee's report, Lord Knutsford accepted the Committee's recommendation that its full realized value should be devoted by the Colony to the provision of other accommodation within the Colony. (Appendix A, paragraphs 47 to 52, and Appendix B, Nos. 1 and 13 and their enclosures.)
5. Subsequently the Colonial Office wished to draw a distinction between (a) Colonial military Crown lands held by the military authorities without deed; and (b) other similar properties held under deed or grant, arguing that of properties in class (a) only the military user should be valued, while in regard to properties in class (b) something more nearly approaching the fee-simple value should be recorded. (Appendix B, No. 6.)
6. This department pointed out that there was no practical distinction between the two classes, and that the value for record should be the value realized by the sale, or the estimated saleable value when actual sale did not take place. (Appendix B, No. 7.)
To the Secretary of the Treasury.
(466)-617wo
Hong Kong
&
1313
WAR OFFICE,
C.O.
22508
425
21 NOV 92
#
Sir,
18th November, 1892.
1. With reference to your letter of 17th August, covering copy of a letter, of the same date, which the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury had addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the subject of the principle on which Colonial military Crown lands should be valued on their surrender by the military authorities to Colonial Governments, with a view to the subsequent provision of such other properties as it might become necessary to acquire for the defence of the Colony concerned, I am directed by Mr. Campbell-Bannerman to inform you that he has received from the Colonial Office copy of a case (the original having been sent to their Lordships) which it proposes to submit to the Law Officers of the Crown, in conformity with the consent of their Lordships, as expressed in the last paragraph of their letter above referred to.
2. The Secretary of State for War understood their Lordships' letter of 17th August to consent to a reference to the Law Officers of the question which had formed the subject of the correspondence it quoted. That question, as will be seen from the annexed reprint of the correspondence bearing upon it, was "as to the basis on which surrendered lands should be assessed, and whether the amount should be calculated on the fee-simple value of the land, or only on the value of the occupation right possessed by the military authorities." (Appendix enclosure to No. 12, also No. 20.)
3. The War Office maintained that if the principle laid down by the Committee on Colonial Military Contributions is to be adhered to, the fee- simple, that is the saleable, value should be taken for record. That principle, which has been approved by the Government, is that "all such military properties and their values should be treated as part of a capital sum devoted to defensive purposes, and that when they are disposed of by sale, or by transfer to the Civil Government, their realized or estimated values should, as hereinafter detailed, be retained by the Colonial Governments, and be held by them available towards the provision of such other lands or buildings as it may subsequently be necessary to acquire for defensive purposes." (See Appendix A, paragraph 56.)
4. In the first instance, the Secretary of State for the Colonies clearly so understood the Committee's recommendation, for in the case of the sale of the hospital at Mauritius, which gave rise to the Committee's report, Lord Knutsford accepted the Committee's recommendation that its full realized value should be devoted by the Colony to the provision of other accommodation within the Colony. (Appendix A, paragraphs 47 to 52, and Appendix B, Nos. 1 and 13 and their enclosures.)
5. Subsequently the Colonial Office wished to draw a distinction between (z) Colonial military Crown landsfheld by the military authorities without deed; and (b) other similar properties held under deed or grant, arguing that of properties in class (a) only the military user should be valued, while in regard to properties in class (b) something more nearly approaching the fee-simple value should be recorded. (Appendix B, No. 6.)
6. This department pointed out that there was no practical distinction between the two classes, and that the value for record should be the value realized by the sale, or the estimated saleable value when actual sale did not take place. (Appendix B, No. 7.)
To the Secretary of the Treasury.
(466)-617wo
Hong Kong &
1313
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.