10
11
necessary to retain them for any other object; and I go further and assert most confidently that it would unquestionably be more to the advantage of the Colony that they should be withdrawn, than that any such contribution as that fixed by the Duke of Newcastle should be enforced. His Grace proposes that the Colony should pay in aid of the maintenance of 1000 men in total idleness, as far as the Colony is concerned, a sum equal to £20 per man or £20,000 per annum, to be raised to a higher rate on a future occasion.
If the Troops were withdrawn and supposing even the existing local forces were found insufficient, which I think myself unlikely, the contribution named would pay for an addition of 600 men and Officers to the local police force who could be at all times employed in the Service of the Colony. I am desirous to press this question as to the necessity or otherwise of the Troops for the security of the European Inhabitants as forcibly as I can upon the Duke of Newcastle's consideration, because upon it depends the justice or injustice of His Grace's proposal—and if my opinion is not thought conclusive, I would suggest that those of the Executive Council, the Judges, the Magistrates, the Officers of Police, and the Chamber of Commerce should also be taken upon the subject.
I have not overlooked the argument used by you in the 6th paragraph of your Despatch that Hongkong cost the Imperial Exchequer no less a sum than £273,000 for its Civil Establishment during the first 14 years of its existence as a Colony, and that this large expense to the mother country would of itself be sufficient to impose on the Colony the obligation of a substantial contribution from local funds towards the cost of the Military defence of local interests. I entirely admit the justice of calling on all Colonies to contribute as far as they can towards the cost of the Military defence of local interests, but as I have before explained I do not consider Her Majesty's Troops are stationed in Hongkong for any such object: and the cost to the mother country of establishing the Colony imposes no obligation on the latter to meet a payment now which is not justly due. Besides, it must be remembered that the Colony was established not for purposes of colonization or for the advantage of future Colonists, but solely because it was considered it would be a convenience to the mother country on political and military grounds as well as a useful adjunct to the China Trade—and the value of the Colony as a political and military position has been abundantly proved by the result. I believe the possession of Hongkong with its naval and military Establishments, small although they were as a basis for assembling and organizing the last expedition alone saved the Government far more than the sum named by you as the cost to the mother country of bringing the Colony through its first years of infancy. This will be easily understood by any one who watched the proceedings of our allies who had no permanent establishments nearer than Marseilles and who made that the base of their operations and attempted to organise there their expeditionary Force, and to send it direct and complete from thence to the scene of its intended operations.
The exceptional character of Hongkong as a Watch Tower keeping guard as it were over national interests with which it has only but a slight and remote connection has been fully conceded by high Authorities who have looked into the subject.
In 1847, a Committee of the House of Commons reported:—
"Nor do we think it right that the burden of maintaining that which is rather a post for general influence and the protection of the general trade in the China Seas than a Colony in the ordinary sense should be thrown in any great degree on the Merchants or other persons who may be resident upon it." This opinion had reference to the cost of maintaining the Civil Government, how much more forcibly then would the reasoning have applied to the maintenance of the actual garrison itself.
I find too in the "Report of the Committee on expense of Military Defences in the Colonies" (1860), that Hongkong although not specifically named is evidently by the context included amongst the "Military Posts in which garrisons are maintained for objects altogether independent of and distinct from the defence of the particular countries in which they are situated," and the Committee were of opinion that as these garrisons "are maintained without reference to the wants and wishes of the Inhabitants they should be dealt with exceptionally and not included in any general Scheme of Colonial contribution."
Mr. Elliot in dissenting from this opinion and contending that as regards Military Posts "there would be no injustice in accepting a contribution from such of these places as contain prosperous communities so long as the amount falls short of the cost of the number of the Troops which they would require for their own purposes," proceeds when dealing specifically with the case of Hongkong to observe that he supposes the garrison there "will always be within the limit of the amount deemed indispensable for general national objects."
I entirely agree with Mr. Elliott that even a military Post maintained for Imperial purposes, "may fairly be asked to contribute if able a moderate quota towards the expense of Troops which are indispensable to its internal security," but I have already explained (1) that in my opinion the Troops are not indispensable for the security of Hongkong, and (2) that even if this opinion should be erroneous, the quota asked is the reverse of moderate.
And lastly I find the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Colonial Military Expenditure (1861) have included Hongkong in the class of "Military Garrisons, Naval Stations, Convict Depôts, maintained chiefly for objects of Imperial Policy"—"the responsibility and main cost of the defence of which properly devolve on the Imperial Government."
But while for the reasons I have given I do not think Hongkong can with justice be called on for the contribution demanded, there is an expenditure borne at present by the Imperial Government which is unquestionably for Colonial purposes and which I have always intended to recommend should be assumed by the Colony as soon as ever as it is in a position to do so. I allude to the Police of the Hongkong waters and the approaches to them—a duty which as far as it is performed at all at present falls entirely on the Imperial Government. Pirates literally swarm amongst the Islands, Creeks, and Rivers in the neighbourhood and prey, to an extent which would scarcely be credited, upon the local traffic of the Colony conducted by Chinese in Chinese craft. Lately they have become so bad that most daring and successful attacks have been made even upon British and Foreign vessels within sight of the harbour. All our daily supplies are water borne and I was assured shortly before leaving the Colony that, a species of black mail was levied upon all the supplies from the mainland. The Admiral has always given what assistance he could consistently with the demands of an extensive station to meet this evil of which he has been fully aware, and after each report of Piracy a Gun-boat is generally sent to cruise about for some days—and one I observe is now stationed off Stone Cutters Island entirely for local purposes. But some more regular and systematic service is required to suppress altogether this great and growing evil, and I consider that for some years one or perhaps even two Gun boats should be kept perpetually cruising about the Macao Passage, the mouth of the Canton River, the Capsingmoon and Lyemoon Passages, and the more immediate Waters of the Colony. I would earnestly recommend therefore that as soon as ever the Colony is in a position to meet the expense, it be allowed to fit out and man one or more Gun boats for this service and that the Imperial Government be relieved altogether of the charge of the Police of the Hongkong Waters—a duty strictly Colonial, but which even in the inefficient way in which it is necessarily performed at present, is a considerable charge upon the Imperial Exchequer.
I have only to add that if the Colony undertakes the preservation of internal order and security, as well as the Police of its own waters, and the Imperial Government reduce the Garrison within the limits of the amount deemed indispensable for general national objects there will exist no fair grounds that I can see for asking for any contribution from the Colony in aid of Military Expenditure in China.
Sir F. Rogers, Bart., &c., &c., &c.
have, &c.
(Signed) HERCULES G. R. ROBINSON.
P.S.—Since writing the foregoing the China Mail has come in from which I extract two items of intelligence bearing on the topics referred to in the letter. Exchange in Hongkong has in consequence of the scarcity of Mexican dollars reached 5/04, in other words Mexican dollars issued by the Imperial Government in payment of Naval, Military, Consular and Diplomatic Services at 4/2 cost in Hongkong 5/04—thus involving a loss of 21 per cent, at least 12 per cent of which would be saved by a Mint in Hongkong. I annex a notice also of a case of Piracy outside the Harbour of Hongkong and may mention that four or five such reports often appear weekly in the Police Reports.
(Signed) H. G. R. R.
105.