185
Paragraph
15.
2
increase of the contribution at the end of the five years, for he said that he desired, in fixing the amount at 20,000%, not to press too heavily at first upon the Colonial revenues, and the Governor of Hong Kong himself interpreted this passage as meaning that the contribution was to be raised to a higher rate at a future
occasion.
5. Changes, however, occurred in the post of Secretary of State, and at the expiration of the five years the intention of the Duke of Newcastle appears to have been forgotten. The contribution remained unchanged, and nothing more was heard upon
the subject until 1884, when the Secretary of State for War wrote to the Colonial Office that the military contribution paid by the Colony would have to be re-con- sidered with reference to the proposed increase of the garrison. No action followed this intimation, and revision of the existing arrangements was not undertaken until the Committee on Colonial Military Contributions, consisting of Sir Arthur Haliburton, Mr. Bramston, and Mr. Ryder, made their report on Hong Kong in July 1888-three and twenty years after the actual imposition of the contribution which the Duke of Newcastle had demanded in 1863. The Committee on Colonial Military Contributions have, in the case of Hong Kong, as in that of Singapore, discharged thoroughly the task entrusted to them. They have put before Her Majesty's Government the facts of the case in compact and intelligible form, and the Treasury, the War Office, and the Colonial Office are now fully informed of the intentions of those who fixed the present contribution, and of the financial progress of the Colony during the intervening period.
6. My Lords have stated that the contribution of 20,000%, as originally fixed, represented about one-sixth or one-seventh of the revenue of the Colony, and one-fifth of the military charge of the Colony defrayed by the Imperial Exchequer. In the intervening time the garrison has risen to 1,445 men of all ranks, exclusive of volunteers, the cost to the Imperial Exchequer rising from 100,000% to 160,0007, a year. The Colonial Defence Committee now recommend that the garrison of the future shall consist of 2,525 Imperial troops of all ranks, and of 493 local regulars, or 3,018 in all, costing about 280,000Z. "a year. If the total net estimated cost of the British army for 1889-90 be divided by the number of men on the Home and Colonial establishments, exclusive of India, (17,000,000/. by 152,000 men,) the result gives 1114. per man, and the corresponding cost of 3,000 men would be 333,0001. Sir A. Haliburton's Committee exclude from their computation militia and volunteers costing approximately 3,0007, a year.
7. The Committee further point out that the revenue of the Colony has risen since 1863 from an average of 568,000 dollars to 1,638,000 dollars, the amount as estimated for 1888. They reckon that after allowing for the loss which attends the discharge by silver-using communities of obligations payable in gold, the proportion of the military contribution to the revenue of the Colony is only eight per cent., or one-half of the proportion which the contribution bore to the revenue in 1863.
8. My Lords observe that the Colonial Office has not in the case of Hong Kong, as in that of the Straits, indirectly reduced the military contribution by allowing the Colony to pay a sterling debt in silver at an obsolete rate.
Works and Buildings.
9. Sir A. Haliburton's Committec state that when the defence of Hong Kong was under consideration in 1883-84, it was contemplated that the whole cost of the project, estimated at 100,000, should be defrayed by the Colony. The Imperial Government has, however, subsequently decided that the Colony should provide the works, and the Imperial Government the armament. According to the first estimate framed upon this basis, 60 per cent. of the expenditure would fall upon the Colonial, 40 per cent, upon the Imperial Exchequer. As the estimate now stands, 35 per cent. only will fall upon the Colonial, and 65 per cent. upon the Imperial Exchequer, the sums being respectively 116,000l. and 209,0007. My Lords cannot but observe that in this case, as in that of Singapore, the estimates upon which the Treasury gave its assent to the principle of partition, have been absolutely misleading. The War Office proposed by their estimate to throw the larger part of the defensive works on the Colony in the proportion of three to two. In effect, this proportion has been more than reversed. My Lords do not presume to criticise the principle upon which the estimate was based; they are willing to believe that error was unavoidable, but it is unfortunate that the errors in such
3
cases should be always against the British taxpayer. They may at least plead that had they not been misled by these erroneous estimates they would to the best of 颟
their power have insisted upon a more equitable basis of partition. But the War Office does not even carry out its own rule of division, for it proposes to charge upon the British taxpayer the cost of submarine mining (about 9,0007), works, merely because the whole item of submarine mining had been omitted from the original estimate. It appears to my Lords neither logical nor equitable to panish the British taxpayer because the science of submarine mining was un- developed at the time when the original estimate was framed.
Barracks.
10. It will be necessary to provide additional barracks at Hong Kong for double the existing garrison. The rough and preliminary estimate of cost is 212,000, apart from the value of a new site estimated at 50,000.., but Sir A. Haliburton's Committee say that this estimate may be exceeded.
It is proposed, as my Lords understand the proposal, that the Imperial Govern- ment shall sell land it now holds, valued at 140,000Z., to the Colony, that this money shall be applied towards the new barracks, reducing their net cost to 72,000%, that the Imperial Government shall pay two-thirds of the charge or 48,000l., and that the Colonial Government shall pay the balance or 24,000%., providing also the land for the new barracks, estimated at 50,000%. The proposal therefore means that the Imperial Government should give up sites worth 140,000, and should spend 48,000%. in cash; that the Colony should find a new site costing 50,000, and should spend 24,0001, in cash. The Committee do not say how they would provide for the excess which they anticipate upon the estimate.
Recommendations.
11. Secretaries of State for the Colonies in despatches to the Colonial Government have admitted the probability of the garrison of Hong Kong being in part maintained for Imperial purposes," adding, however, that "such purposes are closely connected with the prosperity of the Colony "; they have gone further and said that," the larger part of the garrison is maintained for Imperial purposes.' Sir A. Haliburton's Committee take the latter of these two statements apparently as their guide in forming an opinion upon the amount of the contribution to be asked from the Colony.
12. My Lords must, however, demur to such an assumption. The Secretary of State for the Colonies is the advocate and representative of Colonial interests in the Imperial Councils, and my Lords cannot be bound by a statement to which they, as representing the British taxpayer, were not parties. It must not be held a financial instruction for all time that the "larger" part of the garrison of Hong Kong is maintained for Imperial purposes. On the contrary, my Lords strongly hold that if they are to lay down a principle it ought to be that as the Imperial Government undertakes the naval defence of the Colony, the Colony itself should provide the larger part of the cost of its military defence.
13. Sir A. Haliburton's Committee state that the revenues of the Colony would not admit of its bearing any large proportion of the cost of its garrison, and they point out that the revenue of 1888 was estimated at 266,000%, while the cost of the future garrison will amount to 283,000. Taking as their starting-point the arrangement made in 1865, under which the Colony contributed one-sixth of its revenue to military expenditure, and thereby defrayed one-fifth of the cost of its garrison, they show that one-fifth of the cost of the future garrison would be 56,000, or rather more than one-fifth of the estimated revenue for 1888. But though they do not think such a charge excessive in itself, they point to the expenditure which the Colony has incurred on defences, to the expenditure which may incur on barracks and on local militia and volunteers, and they suggest that one-fifth of the cost of the regular garrison would in these circumstances press hardly on the Colony. They propose accordingly that the contribution should be fixed at 40,000. for five years from 1st January 1889, and that at the com- mencement of 1893 the contribution should be reconsidered, with a view to its readjustment in 1894.
it
72 59784.
A 2