§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether high legal opinions have declared that the sum of £276,000, and other funds realised from securities and jewels of the enemy, and retained by the Indian. Government, are distributable as proceeds of the capture of Kirwee and its Chiefs; whether any judicial decision or dictum in any Law Court has overruled those opinions; whether the Treasury Board, when it decided, in May 1863, that these moneys were not booty within the meaning of a certain Indian Proclamation, was aided by legal assessors, or founded its decision on any judicial precedent; and, whether the Treasury Board retains any jurisdiction in matters of prize booty since the passing of Lord Collenham's Act, 3 and 4 Vic. c. 65, s. 22, which was framed to abolish this jurisdiction?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)In reply to the last Question of my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, I may say that the section of Lord Cottenham's Act to which he refers only empowers the Court of Admiralty to decide questions 1153 relating to booty of war when they are referred by Her Majesty in Council to its judgment, and without in any respect taking away from the Board of Treasury the power of returning such answer as it may deem fit to Petitions addressed to it. The Board of Treasury, therefore, was acting within its powers in hearing and adjudicating upon the claims of the captors of Kirwee as against the Secretary of State for India in Council in May, 1869. I may mention that these claims had no reference to funds realized from "jewels," the proceeds of which, and of similar property, were distributed as prize. The captors, on their part, dissatisfied with the decision of the Treasury, brought an action in the Court of Chancery against the Secretary of State for India, who demurred to their Petition on the ground that it rested with him, as trustee for Her Majesty, to declare what property taken in war should be treated as booty and distributed, as a matter of grace and favour, among the captors. Vice Chancellor Hall overruled the demurrer; but his ruling was reversed by the Court of Appeal, and the House of Lords, on the 19th of May, 1882, upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal. It is not usual to state publicly how far the Treasury is guided by legal opinion in making its decisions; but I may say that it was not without consultation with the most eminent legal authorities, and the fullest examination of precedents, that the Board arrived at its decision in 1869.