Sir,
No. 3.
Colonial Office to War Office.
Downing Street.
20th May, 1889.
I am directed by Lord Knutsford to acknowledge the receipt of your letter* of the 6th instant, enclosing, for his Lordship's consideration, Section 5 of the Report of the Committee on Colonial Military Contributions, and I am to request that you will state to Mr. Secretary Stanhope that Lord Knutsford fully concurs in Part II of the recommendations of the Committee.
JOHN BRAMSTON.
If para. 54 be read as referring to such lands and buildings only, my Lords agree in the description given by the Committee of the purposes which the military authorities should keep in view in dealing with them.
But, even in regard to such lands, my Lords think that the right of sale to private persons, whenever the Secretary of State can give a good title to such purchasers, should be reserved, in case the Colonial Government refuses to enter into such an arrangement as the Committee recommend on equitable terms. The further right should be reserved of taking into account, in any such arrangement, outstanding claims against the Colony for military expenses of any kind.
Subject to these remarks, my Lords concur in the report.
FRANK MOWATT,
T. No.
8306 89
40248 174
No. 4.
Treasury to War Office.
Treasury Chambers,
12th November, 1889.
The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have had before them the report of the Colonial Military Contributions Committee upon Colonial Military Lands and Buildings, which was enclosed in Mr. Knox's letter of the 6th May last (40248), and they direct me to make the following observations thereon for the information of Mr. Secretary Stanhope.
114
The particular question which occasioned this report was that which has arisen between the War Department and the Government of Mauritius as to the sale of the old military hospital at Port Louis to M. Pougnet, and the disposal of the proceeds.
The Colonial Government contend that the War Department had no power of selling the property to a private person, and that if no longer wanted for military purposes, it must revert to the Colony free of charge, or the proceeds be accounted for to the Colony. This view is, moreover, supported by an opinion given by the Law Officers of the Crown in England on 6th December, 1886.
The Committee show that the sale of the hospital was in accordance with long-standing practice in dealing with military lands in Mauritius, and that the Law Officers had been imperfectly informed of the facts. They also show that as the proceeds of sale have been used in building new barracks at Curepipe, a service for which the Colony might have been properly called upon to provide, they had been expended for the benefit of the Colony.
My Lords approve of the recommendation of the Committee that the Colonial Government should be moved on these grounds to concur in the sale and in the appropriation of the proceeds. But, failing this appeal, they think that another reference should be made to the Law Officers.
As regards the general question of the future mode of disposing of Colonial military lands and buildings which are no longer required by the War Department, my Lords agree in the main in the view taken by the Committee, but they would make some reservations which appear to them of importance.
A certain degree of ambiguity has been given to Part II of the Committee's recommendations by the introduction of the words "other than such as may have been purchased and paid for by the Imperial Government," in para. 58, and by para. 61, expressly dealing with lands and buildings so purchased and paid for. Both these passages may be taken as conveying a meaning which the Committee probably intended them to exclude, viz., that paras. 54 to 57 relate to all Colonial military lands and buildings, however acquired by the War Department.
My Lords believe, however, that the Committee use the term "Colonial military lands and buildings" in a technical sense, as denoting Crown lands and buildings of the Colony acquired free of charge, and held under title from the Crown, or by grant from the Colonial Government, such as seem to be referred to in the Act 40 & 41 Vic., cap. 23, which describes them as "held in trust for the defence" of a Colony.
* No. 2.
Sir,
No. 5.
War Office to Colonial Office.
War Office,
20th December, 1889.
I am directed to transmit herewith the draft of a letter which Mr. Secretary Stanhope proposes to address to the Treasury in reply to a letter from that department (of which a copy is also enclosed) relative to the recommendations of the Committee on Colonial Military Contributions on the subject of Colonial military lands and buildings, and I am at the same time to request that you will be good enough to move the Secretary of State for the Colonies to state whether he concurs in the terms of the reply in question.
RALPH THOMPSON.
(Draft.)
Enclosure in No. 5.
War Office to Treasury.
I am directed by the Secretary of State for War to acknowledge the receipt of your letter* of the 12th November, conveying the approval of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury to that portion of Section 5 of the Report of the Committee on Colonial Military Contributions which deals with the question which has arisen as to the sale of the military hospital at Fort Louis, Mauritius, and, with certain reservations, their general concurrence with the remainder of the report.
The question before the Committee related solely to the disposal of Colonial military Crown lands and buildings held under title from the Crown, or by grant from Colonial Governments.
The reference in the report to other lands or buildings purchased by the War Department and paid for from Imperial revenues was outside the question before the Committee, but it was considered by the Committee desirable to refer to them as it was found that, in Mauritius, buildings so acquired had, when no longer required for military purposes, been handed over to the Colony free of charge instead of their value being credited to Imperial revenues.
With regard to the last paragraph of your letter under reply, in which it is suggested that the right of sale of Colonial military Crown lands to private individuals whenever the Secretary of State can give a good title to such purchasers, should be reserved in case Colonial Governments refuse to enter into such an arrangement as the Committee recommend on equitable terms, I am to observe that the right to grant titles to Colonial Crown lands is now vested in Governors of Colonies by their Commissions, and it may be assumed therefore that the right cannot concurrently exist in any other authority, and that apart from any special custom in any particular Colony, the right does not exist in the Secretary of State for War to dispose of, and give valid title to, Colonial Crown lands.
With regard to the further suggestion that the right should be reserved of taking into account outstanding claims against the Colony for military expenses of any kind, I am to point out that if the justice of such claims were admitted by the Colony, it would no doubt discharge the obligation if it were in a position to do so, and where the sale of military Crown lands or buildings provided the means, the claim could then be fairly pressed to adjustment. No special stipulation would be necessary for this purpose.
* No. 4.
40248
174
197
40248
122
Sir,
2
No. 3.
Colonial Office to War Office.
Downing Street.
20th May, 1889. I am directed by Lord Knutsford to acknowledge the receipt of your letter* of the 6th instant, enclosing, for his Lordship's consideration, Section 5 of the Report of the Committee on Colonial Military Contributions, and I am to request that you will state to Mr. Secretary Stanhope that Lord Knutsford fully concurs in Part II of the recommendations of the Committee.
JOHN BRAMSTON.
If para. 54 be read as referring to such lands and buildings only, my Lords agree in the description given by the Committee of the purposes which the military authorities should keep in view in dealing with them.
But, even in regard to such lands, my Lords think that the right of sale to private persons, whenever the Secretary of State can give a good title to such purchasers, should be reserved, in case the Colonial Government refuses to enter into such an arrangement as the Committee recommend on equitable terms. The further right should be reserved of taking into account, in any such arrangement, outstanding claims against the Colony for military expenses of any kind.
Subject to these remarks, my Lords concur in the report.
FRANK MOWATT,
T. No.
8306 89
40248 174
No. 4.
Treasury to War Office.
Treasury Chambers,
12th November, 1889.
The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have had before them the report of the Colonial Military Contributions Committee upon Colonial Military Lands and Buildings, which was enclosed in Mr. Knox's letter of the 6th May last (40248), and they direct me to make the following observations thereon for the information of Mr. Secretary Stanhope.
114
The particular question which occasioned this report was that which has arisen hetween the War Department and the Government of Mauritius as to the sale of the old military hospital at Port Louis to M. Pougnet, and the The Colonial Government contend that the War disposal of the proceeds.
Department had no power of selling the property to a private person, and that if no longer wanted for military purposes, it must revert to the Colony free of charge, or the proceeds be accounted for to the Colony. This view is, more- over, supported by an opinion given by the Law Officers of the Crown in England on 6th December, 1886.
The Committee show that the sale of the hospital was in accordance with long standing practice in dealing with military lands in Mauritius, and that the Law Officers had been imperfectly informed of the facts. They also show that as the proceeds of sale have been used in building new barracks at Curepipe, a service for which the Colony might have been properly called upon to provide, they had been expended for the benefit of the Colony.
My Lords approve of the recommendation of the Committee that the Colonial Government should be moved on these grounds to concur in the sale But, failing this appeal, they think and in the appropriation of the proceeds. that another reference should be made to the Law Officers.
As regards the general question of the future mode of disposing of Colonial military lands and buildings which are no longer required by the War Depart- ment, my Lords agree in the main in the view taken by the Committee, but they would make some reservations which appear to them of importance.
A certain degree of ambiguity has been given to Part 11. of the Com- mittee's recommendations by the introduction of the words "other than such As may have been purchased and paid for by the Imperial Government," in para. 58, and by para. 61, expressly dealing with lands and buildings so pur- chased and paid for. Both these passages may be taken as conveying a meaning which the Committee probably intended them to exclude, viz., that paras. 54 to 57 relate to all Colonial military lands and buildings, however acquired by the War Department.
My Lords believe, however, that the Committee use the term “Colonial military lands and buildings" in a technical sense, as denoting Crown lands and buildings of the Colony acquired free of charge, and held under title from the Crown, or by grant from the Colonial Government, such as seem to be referred to in the Act 40 & 41 Vic., cap. 23, which describes them as "held in trust for the defence" of a Colony.
* No. 2.
Sir,
No. 5.
War Office to Colonial Office.
War Office,
20th December, 1839. I am directed to transmit herewith the draft of a letter which Mr. Secretary Stanhope proposes to address to the Treasury in reply to a letter from that department (of which a copy is also enclosed) relative to the recommendations of the Committee on Colonial Military Contributions on the subject of Colonial military lands and buildings, and I am at the same time to request that you will be good enough to move the Secretary of State for the Colonies to state whether he coneurs in the terms of the reply in question.
RALPH THOMPSON.
(Draft.)
Enclosure in No. 5.
War Office to Treasury.
I am directed by the Secretary of State for War to acknowledge the receipt of your letter* of the 12th November, conveying the approval of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury to that portion of Section 5 of the Report of the Committee on Colonial Military Contributions which deals with the question which has arisen as to the sale of the military hospital at Fort Louis, Mauritius, and, with certain reservations, their general concurrence with the remainder of the report.
The question before the Committee related solely to the disposal of Colonial military Crown lands and buildings held under title from the Crown, or by grant from Colonial Governments.
The reference in the report to other lands or buildings purchased by the War Department and paid for from Imperial revenues was outside the question before the Committee, but it was considered by the Committee desirable to refer to them as it was found that, in Mauritius, buildings so acquired had, when no longer required for military purposes, been handed over to the Colony free of charge instead of their value being credited to Imperial revenues.
With regard to the last paragraph of your letter under reply, in which it is suggested that the right of sale of Colonial military Crown lands to private individuals whenever the Secretary of State can give a good title to such purchasers, should be reserved in case Colonial Governments refuse to enter into such an arrangement as the Committee recommend on equitable terms, I am to observe that the right to grant titles to Colonial Crown lands is now rosted in Governors of Colonies by their Com- missions, and it may be assumed therefore that the right cannot concurrently exist in any other authority, and that apart from any special custom in any particular Colony, the right does not exist in the Secretary of State for War to dispose of, and give valid title to, Colonial Crown lands.
With regard to the further suggestion that the right should be reserved of taking into account outstanding claims against the Colony for military expenses of any kind, I am to point out that if the justice of such claims were admitted by the Colony, it would no doubt discharge the obligation if it were in a position to do so, and where the sale of military Crown lands or buildings provided the means, the claim could then be fairly pressed to adjustment. No special stipulation would be necessary for this purpose.
* No. 4.
40248
174
197
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.