Sir,
Hong Kong
8
1298
16
No. 17.
Colonial Office to War Office.
Hong Kong 8
1289
Downing Street,
19th May, 1892.
In reply to your letter,*
of 23rd March last, I am directed by Lord Knutsford to request you to inform Mr. Secretary Stanhope that his Lordship regrets that he cannot concur in the opinion that the Treasury would be a proper arbitrator in the matter referred to, which is in fact, a question between the Imperial Exchequer and the Exchequer of the Colony of Hong Kong, and his Lordship still considers that, if no agreement can be arrived at, it would be fairer to submit the point to some independent authority, such as the Lord Chancellor.
2. Nor is his Lordship able to agree with the view expressed in paragraph 2 of your letter, which is at variance with that expressed in the 3rd paragraph of the letter† from this department of 4th November (sic, should be December) last.
3. The general principle to be settled, once for all, could conveniently be raised and decided upon the simple case of Murray Battery, which it is proposed in paragraph 15 of War Office letter to Treasury of 31st March last
Hong Kong 8 (copy of which was enclosed in your letter,
of the 2nd ultimo) > 1286
to surrender to the Colony, "the value being applied to the erection of barracks elsewhere." As this is to be paid in money, it is necessary to settle what the value is, as pointed out in the last paragraph of the letter from this department of 10th February last.
EDWARD FAIRFIELD.
17
be retained by the Colonial Government, and be held by them available towards the provision of such other lands and buildings as it may subsequently be necessary to acquire for defensive purposes."
4. There is no room here for any such distinction as that which it is proposed to establish between the fee-simple value and the value of the right of user enjoyed by the Secretary of State for War. The paragraph seems to Mr. Stanhope to clearly establish the principle that the saleable value of the land is to be the value recorded by the Colony. Any other interpretation seems inconsistent with the terms used, for, obviously, no sale to a private person of the peculiar rights enjoyed by the War Office would be possible.
5. Mr. Stanhope fails indeed to see that there are equitable grounds for arriving at any other conclusion. It is argued in paragraph 2 of your letter* under reply, and paragraph 3 of your letter of 4th December (not November), that what the military authorities surrender is a right of occupation only; but the right of occupation for an unlimited time is for all practical purposes as valuable as the freehold. This would be recognized in the case of any very long lease.
6. Moreover, in all this discussion it must be clearly borne in mind that the recorded value of military lands remains in the possession of the Colony until its expenditure on the defences of the Colony becomes necessary.
When that necessity arises, the value of the ceded property can only be expended within the Colony, and on lands or buildings essential to its defence. In the meantime the Colony has the use of the property, or of the unexpended funds resulting from the sale, but it has no claim to make what would really be an addition to its general funds, by permanently diverting to ordinary uses any portion of what the memorandum above referred to properly describes as "a capital sum devoted to defensive purposes."
7. The proposal to make some arbitrary fixed deduction from the freehold value of ceded lands, in order to get at the value of the user, could only result in the establishment of a rule always open to dispute, both as to military lands surrendered to the Colony and lands to be assigned to the War Office, and would offer no such firm practical basis for a settlement as is afforded by adopting the saleable value as the recorded value,
No. 18.
War Office to Colonial Office,
War Office,
4th July, 1892.
Sir,
I am directed by the Secretary of State for War to acknowledge the receipt of your letters of the 19th May, enclosing a despatch from the Governor of Hong Kong, and discussing generally the principles on which the value of military lands surrendered to a Colony should be assessed.
2. To Mr. Secretary Stanhope it seems that those principles were laid down with sufficient precision in paragraph 56 of Report No. 5 of the Committee on Colonial Contributions, dealing with the subject of Colonial military lands and buildings, which paragraph was, after full consideration of the report adopted by the War Office, Treasury, and Colonial Office, and embodied, in identical terms, in the memorandum which accompanied the circular despatch addressed to the various Colonies by the Colonial Office on the 9th June, 1890,
3. The paragraph in question (paragraph 56 of Report and 4 of Memorandum), runs as follows:---
"It is therefore considered 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,
† No. 12
t No. 15.
§ No. 17.
Sub-Enclosure in No. 9.
* No. 16.
9. Mr. Secretary Stanhope regrets, further, that he is unable to assent to the proposal that the question of the mode of valuing the abandoned sites should be submitted to some independent arbitrator, as, for instance, to the Lord Chancellor. No doubt the question is in one sense, between the Imperial Exchequer and the Exchequer of the Colony at Hong Kong. But as much might be said of all questions relating to the Colonial Contributions, and yet such questions have not been referred to any arbitrator, but have been settled by the Home Government.
This special question is not one of law, and it seems to Mr. Stanhope that it should, in the first place, be referred to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury; and if Lord Knutsford finds himself unable to accept their decision, that the matter should be finally settled by the Cabinet.
• No. 12.
(585)
RALPH THOMPSON.
14
Sir,
Hong Kong
8
1298
16
No. 17.
Colonial Office to War Office.
Hong Kong 8
1289
Downing Street,
19th May, 1892.
In reply to your letter,*
of 23rd March last, I am directed by Lord Knutsford to request you to inform Mr. Secretary Stanhope that his Lordship regrets that he cannot concur in the opinion that the Treasury would be a proper arbitrator in the matter referred to, which is in fact, a question between the Imperial Exchequer and the Exchequer of the Colony of Hong Kong, and his Lordship still considers that, if no agreement can be arrived at, it would be fairer to submit the point to some independent authority, such as the Lord Chancellor.
2. Nor is his Lordship able to agree with the view expressed in paragraph 2 of your letter, which is at variance with that expressed in the 3rd paragraph of the lettert from this department of 4th November (sic, should be December) last.
3. The general principle to be settled, once for all, could conveniently be raised and decided upon the simple case of Murray Battery, which it is proposed in paragraph 15 of War Office letter to Treasury of 31st March last
Hong Kong 8 (copy of which was enclosed in your letter,
of the 2nd ultimo) > 1286
to surrender to the Colony, "the value being applied to the erection of barracks elsewhere." As this is to be paid in money, it is necessary to settle what the value is, as pointed out in the last paragraph of the letter from this department of 10th February last.
EDWARD FAIRFIELD.
17
be retained by the Colonial Government, and be held by them available towards the provision of such other lands and buildings as it may subsequently be necessary to acquire for defensive purposes."
4. There is no room here for any such distinction as that which it is proposed to establish between the fee-simple value and the value of the right of user enjoyed by the Secretary of State for War. The paragraph seems to Mr. Stanhope to clearly establish the principle that the saleable value of the land is to be the value recorded by the Colony. Any other interpretation seems inconsistent with the terms used, for, obviously, no sale to a private persons of the peculiar rights enjoyed by the War Office would be possible.
5. Mr. Stanhope fails indeed to see that there are equitable grounds for arriving at any other conclusion. It is argued in paragraph 2 of your letter* under reply, and paragraph 3 of your letter of 4th December (not November), that what the military authorities surrender is a right of occupation only; but the right of occupation for an unlimited time is for all practical purposes as valuable as the freehold. This would be recognized in the case of any very long lease.
6. Moreover, in all this discussion it must be clearly borne in mind that the recorded value of military lands remains in the possession of the Colony until its expenditure on the defences of the Colony becomes necessary.
When that necessity arises, the value of the ceded property can only be expended within the Colony, and on lands or buildings essential to its defence. In the meantime the Colony has the use of the property, or of the unexpended funds resulting from the sale, but it has no claim to make what would really be an addition to its general funds, by permanently diverting to ordinary uses any portion of what the memorandum above referred to properly describes as "a capital sum devoted to defensive purposes."
7. The proposal to make some arbitrarily 6xed deduction from the freehold value of ceded lands, in order to get at the value of the user, could only result in in the establishment of a rule always open to dispute, both as to military lands surrendered to the Colony and lands to be assigned to the War Office, and would offer no such firm practical basis for a settlement as is afforded by adopting the saleable value as the recorded value,
No. 18.
War Office to Colonial Office,
War Office,
4th July, 1892. Sir,
I am directed by the Secretary of State for War to acknowledge the receipt of your letters of the 19th May, enclosing a despatch from the Governor of Hong Kong, and discussing generally the principles on, which the value of military lands surrendered to a Colony should be assessed.
2. To Mr. Secretary Stanhope it seems that those principles were laid down with sufficient precision in paragraph 56 of Report No. 5 of the Committee on Colonial Contributions, dealing with the subject of Colonial military lands and buildings, which paragraph was, after full consideration of the report adopted by the War. Office, Treasury, and Colonial Office, and embodied, in identical terms, in the memorandum which accompanied the circular despatch addressed to the various Colonies by the Colonial Office on the 9th June, 1890,
3. The paragraph in question (paragraph 56 of Report and 4 of Memo- randum), runs as follows:---
"It is therefore considered 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,
† No. 12
t No. 15.
§ No. 17.
Sub-Enclosure in No. 9.
* No. 16.
9. Mr. Secretary Stanhope regrets, further, that he is unable to assent to the proposal that the question of the mode of valuing the abandoned sites should be submitted to some independent arbitrator, as, for instance, to the Lord Chancellor. No doubt the question is in one sense, between the Imperial Exchequer and the Exchequer of the Colony at Hong Kong. But as much might be said of all questions relating to the Colonial Contributions, and yet such questions have not been referred to any arbitrator, but have been settled by the Home Government.
This special question is not one of law, and it seems to Mr. Stanhope that it should, in the first place, be referred to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury; and if Lord Knutsford finds himself unable to accept their decision, that the matter should be finally settled by the Cabinet.
• No. 12.
(585)
RALPHI THOMPSON.
#
438
だ
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.