The Colonial Assemblies imitated the Parliament of England. They voted supplies to "His Majesty"; but they also appropriated those supplies. In Colonial Acts coming from what we may call an ancient date and from places which still form parts of the British Empire, we may see a good deal of care taken that whatever is given to the king shall be marked with a trust. For instance, in the Bermudas, when in I698 a penalty is imposed, half of it is given to the informer, "and the remainder to His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, to be imployed for and towards the support of the Government of these Islands and the contingent charges thereof". If "the old house and kitchen belonging to their Majesties [William and Mary] and formerly inhabited by the Governors of
these Islands" is to be sold, then the price is to be paid "into the Publick Stock or Revenue for the
Publick Uses of these Islands and the same to be paid out by Order of the Governor, Council and a Committee of Assembly". It would, I believe, be found that in some colonies in which there was no ancestral tradition of republicanism, the Assemblies were not far behind the House of Commons in controlling the expenditure of whatever money was voted to the king.

In 1753 the Assembly of Jamaica resolved "that it is the inherent and undoubted right of the
Representatives of the People to raise and apply monies for the services and exigencies of government and to appoint such person or persons for the receiving and issuing thereof as they shall think proper, which right this House hath exerted and will always exert in such manner as they shall judge most conducive to the service of His Majesty and the interest of his People." In many or most of the colonies the treasurer was appointed, not by the Governor but by an Act of Assembly; sometimes he was appointed by a mere resolution of the House of Representatives. In the matter of finance, "responsible government" (as we now call it) or "a tendency of the legislature to encroach upon the proper actions of the executive" (as some modern Americans call it) is no new thing in an English colony.

We deny nowadays that a Colony is a corporation. The three unquestionably incorporated colonies have gone their own way and are forgotten of lawyers. James L.J. once said that it seemed to him an abuse of language to speak of the Governor and Government of New Zealand as a corporation. So be it, and I should not wish to see a "Governor" or a "Government" incorporated. But can we -- do we really and not merely in words -- avoid an admission that the Colony of New Zealand is a person? In the case that was before the Court a contract for the conveyance of emigrants had professedly been made between "Her Majesty the Queen for and on behalf of the Colony of
New Zealand" of the first part, Mr Featherston, "the agent-general in England for the Government of New Zealand", of the second part, and Sloman & Co. of the third part. Now when in a legal document we see those words "for and on behalf of" we generally expect that they will be followed by the name of a person; and I cannot help thinking that they were so followed in this case. I gather that some of the colonies have abandoned the policy of compelling those who have aught against them to pursue the ancient, if royal, road of a petition of right. Perhaps we may not think wholly satisfactory the Australian device of a "nominal defendant" appointed to resist an action in
which a claim is made "against the Colonial Government", for there is no need for "nominal parties to actions where real parties (such, for example, as a Colony or State) are forthcoming. But it is a wholesome sight to see "the Crown" sued and answering for its torts. If the field that sends cases
to the Judicial Committee is not narrowed, a good many old superstitions will be put upon their trial.

In the British North America Act, 1867, there are courageous words. "Canada shall be liable for the debts and liabilities of each Province existing at the Union. Ontario and Quebec conjointly shall be liable to Canada...The assets enumerated in the fourth schedule... shall be the property of Ontario and Quebec conjointly. Nova Scotia shall be liable to Canada... New Brunswick shall be liable to Canada... The several Provinces shall retain all their respective public property... New Brunswick shall receive from Canada...The right of New Brunswick to levy the lumber dues... No lands or property belonging to Canada or any Province shall be liable to taxation...." This is the language of statesmanship, of the statute book, and of daily life. But then comes the lawyer with theories in his head, and begins by placing a legal estate in what he calls the Crown or Her Majesty. "In construing these enactments, it must always be kept in view that wherever public land with its incidents is described as 'the property of' or as 'belonging to' the Dominion or a Province, these expressions merely import that the right to its beneficial use, or to its proceeds, has been
appropriated to the Dominion or the Province, as the case may be, and is subject to the control of its legislature, the land itself being vested in the Crown." And so we have to distinguish the lands
vested in the Crown "for" or "in right of" Canada from the lands vested in the Crown "for" or "in right of" Quebec or Ontario or British Columbia, or betweenlands "vested in the Crown as represented by the Dominion" and lands "vested in the Crown as represented by a Province." Apparently "Canada" or "Nova Scotia" is person enough to be the Crown's cestui que trust and at the same time the Crown's representative, but is not person enough to hold a legal estate. It is a funny jumble, which becomes funnier still if we insist that the Crown is a legal fiction.

"Although the Secretary of State [for India] is a body corporate, or in the same position as a body
corporate, for the purpose of contracts, and of suing and being sued, yet he is not a body corporate for the purpose of holding property. Such property as formerly vested, or would have vested, in the East India Company now vests in the Crown." So we sue Person No. 1, who has not and cannot have any property, in order that we may get at a certain part of the property that is owned by Person No. 2. It is a strange result; but not perhaps one at which we ought to stand amazed, if we really believe that both these Persons, however august, are fictitious: fictitious like the common vouchee and the casual ejector.

We are not surprised when we read the following passage in an American treatise:

Each one of the United States in its organized political capacity, although it is not in the proper use of the term a corporation, yet it has many of the essential faculties of a corporation, a distinct name, indefinite succession, private rights, power to sue, and the like. Corporations, however, as the term
is used in our jurisprudence, do not include States, but only derivative creations, owing their existence and powers to the State, acting through its legislative department. Like corporations, however, a State, as it can make contracts and suffer wrongs, so it may, for this reason and without express provision, maintain in its corporate name actions to enforce its rights and redress its injuries.

Our Taxes
Crown as Corporation - Page 1
Crown as Corporation - Page 2
Crown as Corporation - Page 3
Crown as Corporation - Page 4
Crown as Corporation - Page 5
Crown as Corporation - Page 7
Crown as Corporation - Page 8