and when they are no longer needed for that purpose the Secretary of State surrenders them to the Governor of the Colony, as representing the Crown. The question is not whether the Secretary of State shall sell them but how they shall be dealt with by the Colony when surrendered to it, so as to secure "the efficient execution of the special services to which the lands and buildings are devoted," and "the general interests of the Colony."
This is the question, and the only question that requires immediate solution. In solving it, it is necessary to keep constantly in view the broad general principle laid down by the Colonial Office in paragraphs 18 and 19 of its despatch to the Governor of the Straits Settlements, of 13th December, 1889. Amongst other things Lord Knutsford there stated:-
"In dealing with the great question of the defence of the Empire, it is difficult to lay down any other broad principle for dividing the cost of Colonial defence except that of the Mother Country undertaking the sea defence of the Colonies by means of her Navy and the Colonies, as far as their means allow, respectively providing for their own land defence."
At the present moment no single Colony possessing an Imperial garrison completely performs this duty.
The War Office maintains that, as long as it is the duty of Colonies to bear the cost of their land defence, the Government is justified in requiring them so to administer their military Crown lands and buildings, that, when any are surrendered to the Colony, their full value shall be ear-marked and held available towards the expense of providing such other properties as may, at the time, or subsequently, be required for their defence. This course will enable a Colony partially to fulfil the duty which it has been told devolves upon it.
It is not claimed that there is any legal right to compel Colonies to adopt this course, but it is claimed that the Government is fully justified in demanding that they should adopt a policy that will enable them to some extent to fulfil their Imperial obligations.
This claim stands upon exactly the same footing as the claim for an annual contribution towards the cost of Colonial garrisons. The Government does not demand that contribution as a legal right, but urges it as a proper and legitimate performance of an obvious duty. The mere fact of recording the value of a Colonial asset, set free by the military authorities, does not involve a corresponding expenditure, but should other properties become essential for the defence of the Colony, it enables the Colony to meet the necessary expenditure without any increased strain on its finances. If the value of the assets exceeds such expenditure, the Colony retains possession, and gets the full benefit, of the surplus funds. Under no circumstances are such funds ever credited to the Exchequer.
The sole question for decision, therefore, is this: Shall the Government require Colonies having Imperial garrisons, so to administer their military Crown lands as to enable them, out of their value, to provide, as far as possible, such other properties as may be required for defence without casting extra expenditure upon Imperial funds?
Paragraphs 27, 28, 29, 36, 37 and 38 of the Report of the Committee on Colonial Military Crown Lands and its Appendices, Nos. 44 to 60, prove that this practice prevailed up to 1890, though of late years it seems to have fallen by neglect.
A. L. H.
WAR OFFICE,
21st January, 1893.
REVISE.
Miscellaneous. No. 89.
Printed for the use of the Colonial Office.
Page 181
Military Lands in the Colonies.
Crown lands in the Colonies are the property of the Colonial Government, and if sold or leased the proceeds are paid to the Colonial Treasury for the uses of the civil Government. Some portions of such Crown lands are occupied by the military for purposes of defence, and while so occupied are not available for sale or lease by the Colonial Government. A question has arisen as to the mode in which these lands should be dealt with when no longer required for defence. The natural answer is that they should be restored to the Colonial Government for civil purposes, and in former years this was the course usually followed.
2. But since the coaling stations have been fortified the Colonies of Hong Kong, Straits Settlements, Ceylon, and Mauritius have been called upon to bear a larger share of the cost of their garrisons. The demand was resisted by them all on the ground that the coaling stations are not fortified for the sake of the Colonists, but for the protection of the trade of the United Kingdom with India and the far East, a contention that has a considerable element of truth.
3. The Straits, however, has been induced to pay for five years the sum of 100,000l. a year, or about three-fourths of the cost of the garrison, and Hong Kong 40,000l., or one-seventh of the like cost. The Colonial revenue could not in either case bear a larger payment.
Ceylon undertakes the cost of the garrison at Colombo, the cost of the garrison at the naval station of Trincomalee being, for the present, at any rate, borne by the Imperial Exchequer.
Mauritius has been recently devastated by a hurricane, and the demand for this year has been reduced to 15,000l., but the question remains unsettled as to the claims for future years.
4. The Committee which considered the military contributions also went into the question of military lands, and agreed to a report, which was accepted by the three Departments, and embodied in a Memorandum which was sent in circular to the Colonies concerned. When it was sought to give effect to this Memorandum, a difference as to its interpretation arose between the Treasury and War Office on one side and the Colonial Office on the other, and as no agreement seemed possible, the Secretary of State for the Colonies determined, as the first step to a settlement, to obtain an authoritative opinion from the Law Officers as to its real meaning. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer considers that a reference to the Law Officers is unnecessary, and the War Office now formulates a question of principle independent of the terms of the Memorandum. The agreement may therefore be regarded as definitely abandoned by the three Departments.
5. The ground being thus cleared, it is proposed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretaries of State for War and the Colonies should discuss and come to a decision upon the question, which, in a Memorandum of 21 January 1893, is stated by the War Office as follows:-
Shall Her Majesty's Government require Colonies having Imperial garrisons so to administer their military Crown lands as to enable them, out of their value, to provide as far as possible such other properties as may be required for defence without casting extra expenditure upon Imperial funds?
6. The meaning is that Crown Lands occupied by the military without power of sale, when given up as being useless for defence purposes, (1) shall be sold by the Colonial Government, who shall either hand over the proceeds to the military for immediate
Page 182
I 75718. 12.-3/93. G. 75. E. & S.
2
and when they are no longer needed for that purpose the Secretary of State surrenders them to the Governor of the Colony, as representing the Crown. The question is not whether the Secretary of State shall sell them but how they shall be dealt with by the Colony when surrendered to it, so as to secure "the efficient execution of the special services to which the lands and buildings are devoted," and "the general interests of the Colony."
This is the question, and the only question that requires immediate solution. In solving it, it is necessary to keep constantly in view the broad general principle lald down by the Colonial Office in paragraphs 18 and 19 of its despatch to the Governor of the Straits Settlements, of 13th December, 1889. Amongst other things Lord Knutsford there stated:-
"In dealing with the great question of the defence of the Empire, it is difficult to "lay down any other broad principle for dividing the cost of Colonial defence except "that of the Mother Country undertaking the sea defence of the Colonies by means of "her Navy and the Colonies, as far as their means allow, respectively providing for "their own land defence,"
At the present moment no single Colony,possessing an Imperial garrison, completely performs this duty.
The War Office maintains that, as long as it is the duty of Colonies to bear the cost of their land defence, the Government is justified in requiring them so to administer their military Crown lands and buildings, that, when any are surrendered to the Colony, their full value shall be ear-marked and held available towards the expense of providing such other properties as may, at This course will the time, or subsequently, be required for their defence, enable a Colony partially to fulfil the duty which it has been told devolves upon it.
It is not claimed that there is any legal right to compel Colonies to adopt this course, but it is claimed that the Government is fully justified in demanding that they should adopt a policy that will enable them to some extent to fulfil their Imperial obligations.
This claim stands upon exactly the same footing as the claim for an annual contribution towards the cost of Colonial garrisons. The Government does not demand that contribution as a legal right, but urges it as a proper and legitimate performance of an obvious duty. The mere fact of recording the value of a Colonial asset, set free by the military authorities, does not involve a corresponding expenditure, but should other properties become essential for the defence of the Colony, it enables the Colony to meet the necessary expen- diture without any increased strain on its finances. If the value of the assets exceeds such expenditure, the Colony retains possession, and gets the full benefit, of the surplus funds. Under no circumstances are such funds ever credited to the Exchequer,
The sole question for decision, therefore, is this-Shall the Government require Colonies having Imperial garrisons, so to administer their military Crown lands as 'to enable them, out of their value, to provide, as far as possible, such other properties as may be required for defence without casting extra expenditure upon Imperial funds?
Paragraphs 27, 28, 29, 36, 37 and 38 of the Report of the Committee on Colonial Military Crown Lands and its Appendices, Nos. 44 to 60, prove that this practice prevailed up to 160, though of late years it seems to have fallen hyo neglect, +
A. L. H,
WAR OFFICE,
21st January, 1893.
REVISE.
Miscellaneous. No. 89.
Printed for the use of the Colonial Office.
181
Military Lands in the Colonies.
Crown lands in the Colonies are the property of the Colonial Government, and if sold or leased the proceeds are paid to the Colonial Treasury for the uses of the civil Government. Some portions of such Crown lands are occupied by the military for purposes of defence, and while so occupied are not available for sale or lease by the Colonial Government. A question has arisen as to the mode in which these lands should be dealt with when no longer required for defence. The natural answer is that they should be restored to the Colonial Government for civil purposes, and in former years this was the coarse usually followed.
2. But since the coaling stations have been fortified the Colonies of Hong Hong, Straits Settlements, Ceylon, and Mauritius have been called upon to bear a larger share of the cost of their garrisons. The demand was resisted by them all on the ground that the coaling stations are not fortified for the sake of the Colonists, but for the protection of the trade of the United Kingdom with India and the far East, a contention that has a considerable element of truth.
3. The Straits, however, has been induced to pay for five years the sum of 100,000%. a year, or about three-fourths of the cost of the garrison, and Hong Kong 40,000%, or one- seventh of the like cost. The Colonial revenue could not in either case bear a larger payment.
Ceylon undertakes the cost of the garrison at Colombo, the cost of the garrison at the naval station of Trincomalee being, for the present, at any rate, borne by the Imperial Exchequer.
Mauritius has been recently devastated by a hurricane, and the demand for this year has been reduced to 15,000, but the question remains unsettled as to the claims for future years.
4. The Committee which considered the military contributions also went into the question of military lands, and agreed to a report, which was accepted by the three Departments, and embodied in a Memorandum which was sent in circular to the Colonies concerned. When it was sought to give effect to this Memorandum, a difference as to its interpretation arose between the Treasury and War Office on one side and the Colonial Office on the other, and as no agreement seemed possible, the Secretary of State for the Colonies determined, as the first step to a settlement, to obtain an authoritative opinion from the Law Officers as to its real meaning. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer con- and the War Office now formu- siders that a reference to the Law Officers is unuecessary,
lates a question of principle independent of the terms of the Memorandum. The agree- ment may therefore be regarded as definitely abandoned by the three Departments.
5. The ground being thus cleared, it is proposed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretaries of State for War and the Colonies should discuss and come to a decision upon
the question, which, in a Memorandum of 21 January 1993, is stated by the War Office as follows
!--
Shall Her Majesty's Government require Colonics having Imperial garrisons so to administer their military Crown lands as to enable them, out of their value, to provide as far as possible such other properties as may be required for defence without cast- ing extra expenditure upon Imperial funds?
6. The meaning is that Crown Lands occupied by the military without power of sale, when given up as being useless for defence purposes, (1) shall be sold by the Colonial Government, who shall either hand over the proceeds to the military for immediate
I 75718. 12.-3/93. G. 75. E. & S.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.