Hong Kong
8
1309
1. No. 12090 12232
92
20
of Lord Knutsford, that it scarcely appears to Mr. Stanhope that any practical object will be served by further discussion between the two departments, and that he has caused a letter to be addressed to the Treasury (copy enclosed) with a view to eliciting the opinion of their Lordships as to the right mode of calculating the value of military land surrendered to a Colony, and the desirability of referring the question of legal authority.
Sir,
No. 22.
Treasury to War Office.
RALPH THOMPSON.
Treasury Chambers,
17th August, 1892.
I am directed by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to transmit to you herewith, for the information of the Secretary of State for War, in reply to Mr. De la Bère's letter of the 22nd ultimo, Hong Kong 8 1298 copy of a letter of to-day's date, which my Lords have caused to be addressed to the Colonial Office on the subject of the valuation to be set upon military land in Hong Kong when surrendered by the War Department to the Colonial Government.
4
R. E. WELBY.
21
On the other hand, the Colonial Office maintain that the value to be recorded or paid or to be substantially less than the full market value of the land, because the War Department are but limited owners of it, possessing only a right to its perpetual use for a particular purpose. The War Department have, it is assumed, no power of alienating the land from the purposes for which they hold it in trust, except by surrendering it to its reversionary owner, the Colonial Government. The full market value of the land could not be realised without a surrender of the rights of both parties of the War Department as potentially permanent occupier, and of the Colonial Government as reversioner. It would be unfair, therefore, to make the Colonial Government pay to the War Department the value of its own rights as well as the value of those of that department. The rights of either party alone would probably be quite unsaleable. If the union of those rights be necessary to produce a price, that price must belong to both parties jointly.
My Lords acknowledge the force of the arguments on both sides. For the integrity of the trust and in the interest of the defence of the Colony, the War Department must be enabled by the Colonial Government to replace what they surrender whenever necessary. The limited purpose for which the War Department would require the new land would probably not enable them to obtain it for less than its full market value, therefore the Colonial Government must hold at the disposal of the War Department the full market value of the land surrendered. But, in return, the Colonial Government may fairly ask to be given the same reversionary rights over the land acquired by the War Department in substitution for that surrendered as they enjoyed over the surrendered land.
What has been said of land applies also to buildings.
To take an example, my Lords hold that the Colonial Government should pay to the War Department the full market value of Murray Battery at once if it be surrendered to the Colony, because the War Department have to spend that value (and much more) in building barracks for the defence of the Colony. But if the Colonial Government have a reversionary interest in Murray Battery they should, in return, be given a like reversionary interest, to an equal value, in the new barracks, which interest that Government will be entitled to realise should neither the barracks, nor their equivalent, be required hereafter for purposes of defence.
Such is the decision at which my Lords would arrive; but if the Secretary of State still desires a legal opinion, my Lords cannot oppose his obtaining it, so long as it is understood that no legal opinion can affect the obligation of every Colony to contribute according to its means to the cost of its own defence.
My Lords are sending a copy of this letter to the War Office.
T. No.
12090 12232
92
Sir,
Enclosure in No. 22.
Treasury to Colonial Office.
Treasury Chambers,
17th August, 1892.
The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have had before them your letter of the 25th ultimo, and the preceding correspondence sent to them by the War Office, respecting the valuation to be set upon military land in Hong Kong when surrendered by the War Department to the Colonial Government, a point on which a difference of opinion has arisen between Lord Knutsford and the Secretary of State for War, and which Mr. Stanhope wishes to submit for the decision of the Treasury, whilst Lord Knutsford would prefer either the arbitration of the Lord Chancellor, or a reference to the Law Officers of the Crown, because the question is one between the Imperial and Colonial Exchequers on which my Lords are interested parties.
Under the agreement arrived at by Her Majesty's Government, on the recommendation of the Colonial Military Contributions Committee, and communicated by the Colonial Office to the Colonies in a circular despatch of the 9th June, 1890, when Colonial military land, occupied by the military authorities without any title deed, or conveyed to the Board of Ordnance or Secretary of State for War by grant from the Crown signed by the Governor, for purposes of defence, is no longer required for those purposes, it is to be surrendered to the Colonial Government, on payment of its estimated value in kind or money, if that value be immediately required for the military defence of the Colony, or, if not, on condition that the Government agrees to hold its recorded value at the time of transfer, or its actual proceeds if subsequently sold, at the disposal of the War Department, in case they are obliged at any future time to obtain land for purposes of defence in the Colony.
The War Department contend that the value to be either immediately paid for the land, or held to their credit at call, is the full estimated market value, or the full actual proceeds of sale of the land, in accordance with the probable intention of the Colonial Military Contributions Committee. The War Department are trustees of this land for defence purposes, and it would be a breach of trust if they surrendered it without retaining the right to resume possession of it, or of its equivalent in land or money, when required for the purposes of the trust. If the future need can be met by something less than this equivalent, the War Department will be content with less, for the time being; but their duty as trustees compels them to reserve the right of regaining possession of the full equivalent of whatever they surrender, and the only practical measure of that equivalent is the sum which the surrender will enable the Colonial Government to obtain for the land.
R. E. WELBY.
440
rafty
Hong Kong
8
1309
1. No. 12090 12232
92
20
of Lord Knutsford, that it scarcely appears to Mr. Stanhope that any practical object will be served by further discussion between the two departments, and that he has caused a letter to be addressed to the Treasury (copy enclosed) with a view to eliciting the opinion of their Lordships as to the right mode of calculating the value of military land surrendered to a Colony, and the desirability of referring the question of legal authority.
Sir,
No. 22.
Treasury to War Office.
RALPH THOMPSON..
Treasury Chambers,
17th August, 1892.
I am directed by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to transmit to you herewith, for the information of the Secretary of State for
War, in reply to Mr. De la Bère's letter of the 22nd ultimo, Hong Kong 8
1298 copy of a letter of to-day's date, which my Lords have caused to be addressed to the Colonial Office on the subject of the valuation to be set upon military land in Hong Kong when surren lered by the War Department to the Colonial Government.
4
!!!
R. E. WELBY.
$
21
On the other hand, the Colonial Office maintain that the value to be recorded or paid or to be substantially less than the full market value of the land, because the War Department are but limited owners of it, possessing only a right to its perpetual use for a particular purpose. The War Department have, it is assumed, no power of alienating the land from the purposes for which they hold it in trust, except by surrendering it to its reversionary owner, the Colonial Government, The full market value of the land could not be realised without a surrender of the rights of both parties of the War Department as potentially permanent occupier, and of the Colonial Govern- went as reversioner. It would be unfair, therefore, to make the Colonial Government pay to the War Department the value of its own rights as well as the value of those of that department. The rights of either party alone would probably be quite uusaleable. If the union of those rights be necessary to produce a price, that price must belong to both parties jointly.
My Lords acknowledge the force of the arguments on both sides. For the integrity of the trust and in the interest of the defence of the Colony, the War Department must be enabled by the Colonial Government to replace what they aurrender whenever necessary. The limited purpose for which the War Department would require the new land would probably not enable them to obtain it for less than its full market value, therefore the Colonial Government must hold at the disposal of the War Department the full market value of the land surrendered. But, in return, the Colonial Government may fairly ask to be given the same reversionary rights over the land acquired by the War Department in substitution for that surrendered as they enjoyed over the surrendered land.
What has been said of land applies also to buildings.
To take an example, my Lords hold that the Colonial Government should pay to the War Department the full market value of Murray Battery at once if it be surrendered to the Colony, because the War Department have to spend that value (and much more) in building barracks for the defence of the Colony. But if the Colonial Government have a reversionary interest in Murray Battery they should, in return, be given a like reversionary interest, to an equal value, in the new barracks, which interest that Government will be entitled to realise should neither the barracks, nor their equivalent. be required hereafter for purposes of defence.
Such is the decision at which my Lords would arrive; but if the Secretary of State still desires a legal opinion, my Lords cannot oppose his obtaining it, so long as it is understood that no legal opinion can effect the obligation of every Colony to contribute according to its means to the cost of its own defence.
My Lords are sending a copy of this letter to the War Office.
T. No.
12090 12232
92
Sir,
Enclosure in No. 22.
Treasury to Colonial Office.
Treasury Chambers,
17th August, 1892.
The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have had before them your letter of the 25th ultimo, and the preceding correspondence sent to them by the War Office, respecting the valuation to be set upon military land in Hong Kong when surrendered by the War Department to the Colonial Government, a point on which a difference of opinion has arisen between Lord Knutsford and the Secretary of State for War, and which Mr. Stanhope wishes to submit for the decision of the Treasury, whilst Lord Knutsford would prefer either the arbitration of the Lord Chancellor, or a reference to the Law Officers of the Crown, because the question is one between the Imperial and Colonial Exchequers on which my Lords are interested parties.
Under the agreement arrived at by Her Majesty's Government, on the recommeuda- tion of the Colonial Military Contributions Committee, and communicated by the Colonial Office to the Colonies in a circular despatch of the 9th June, 1890, when Colonial military land, occupied by the military authorities without any title deed, or conveyed to the Board of Ordnance or Secretary of State for War by grant from the Crown signed by the Governor, for purposes of defence, is no longer required for those purposes, it is to be surrendered to the Colonial Government, on payment of its estimated value in kind or money, if that value be immediately required for the military defence of the Colony, or, if not, on condition that the Government agrees to hold its recorded value at the time of transfer, or its actual proceeds if subsequently sold, at the disposal of the War Department, in case they are obliged at any future time to obtain land for purposes of defence in the Colony,
The War Department contend that the value to be either immediately paid for the land, or held to their credit at call, is the full estimated market value, or the full actual proceeds of sale of the land, in accordance with the probable intention of the Colonial Military Contributions Committee. The War Department are trustees of this land for defence purposes, and it would be a breach of trust if they surrendered it without retaining the right to resume possession of it, or of its equivalent in land or money, when required for the purposes of the trust. If the future need can be met by some- thing less than this equivalent, the War Department will be content with less, for the time being; but their duty as trustees compels them to reserve the right of regaining possession of the full equivalent of whatever they surrender, and the only practical measure of that equivalent is the sum which the surrender will enable the Colonial Government to obtain for the land.
R. E. WELBY.
440 V
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.