446
14
sale of property), but Sir A. Haliburton's Committee say that this estimate may be exceeded. These two sums together come to 262,000£.
"It is proposed, as my Lords understand the proposal, that the Imperial Government shall sell land it now holds, valued at about 125,000£, to the colony, that this money shall be applied towards the new barracks, reducing their net cost to about 137,000£; that the Imperial Government shall pay two-thirds of the charge, or about 92,000£, and that the Colonial Government shall pay the balance, or about 46,000£, providing also sites for the new barracks on Crown lands. The proposal therefore means that the Imperial Government should give up sites worth 125,000£ and spend 92,000£ in cash; that the colony should find new sites on Crown lands, and should spend 46,000£ in cash, in addition to the value of the lands they purchase from the War Department."
4279
I am to refer you to the War Office letter of this day's date, Hong Kong 2, in reply to the Treasury letter of the 12th October, raising some of the points alluded to in this letter.
The only other point raised in the Treasury letter of the 12th ultimo is in regard to the provision of the first outfit of furniture, and in regard to that query I am to state that all fixed barrack furniture will be included in the cost of providing the barracks, and that movable furniture, such as bedsteads, tables, brushes, &c., is not included therein, but is provided for in the general estimate of the cost of the garrison, which formed the basis on which the annual contribution to be paid by the colony was fixed.
I have, &c.,
The Secretary to the Treasury, S.W.
Sir,
40248
154
W. ST. JOHN BRODRICK.
Colonial Office to War Office.
Colonial Office, Downing Street,
17th October 1889.
I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid before the Secretary of State for War, copy of a letter which has been addressed to the Treasury respecting the Hong Kong military contribution, in reply to their letter of the 28th of September, which is understood to have been communicated to the War Office.
Lord Knutsford would be obliged if he can be informed whether a more complete estimate has yet been made of the cost of the new barracks, and generally to be informed of the position in which the question of their construction now stands. His Lordship would also observe that whatever estimate is finally made must necessarily form the basis of the demand upon the colony, for it cannot be expected that the colony will consent to provide more than the sum which is first asked for, or to allow that sum to be increased at the will of the military authorities, in whose arrangements it will have no voice or control.
The Under Secretary of State,
War Office,
I am, &c.,
JOHN BRAMSTON.
COPY of enclosure with Colonial Office letter of 17th October 1889 to the War Office.
Sir,
Colonial Office to Treasury.
Downing Street,
17th October 1889.
13191
I am directed by Lord Knutsford to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, 88 of the 28th of September, respecting the Hong Kong military contributions, in which their Lordships state that they are prepared to accept for two years the contribution of 40,000£ a-year, which was the annual sum recommended by the Committee, and accepted by the Secretary of State.
2. I am, however, to request you to recall their Lordships' attention to your letter of the 10th of August, relating to the Straits contribution, in which their Lordships state that, so far as the two colonies of the Straits Settlements and Hong Kong are concerned, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for War, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, have in conference arrived at an understanding
* The portion of this letter relating to barracks is marginally noted by a black line.
15
upon the amount of contribution to be paid in this and the next three or four years. This concurs with Lord Knutsford's recollection of what passed at the conference, and he is not, therefore, prepared to agree that the payment by the colony of 40,000£ a-year should be demanded for less than the five years, commencing from the 1st January 1889, recommended by the Committee and accepted at the conference on the 3rd of June.
3. As regards the barracks, his Lordship is enquiring from the War Office whether any more definite estimate of cost has been prepared since July 1888, when the Committee made their report, and a further communication will be addressed to you on the subject.
4. Lord Knutsford has referred to the Report of the Select Committee of 1861 on Colonial Military Expenditure, and observes that it was instructed to enquire and report whether any and what alterations may be advantageously adopted in regard to the defence of the British Dependencies and the proportions of cost of such defence as now defrayed from Imperial and Colonial Funds respectively." It does not appear that the Committee, as stated in the 3rd paragraph of their Lordships' letter, "was directed to inquire whether the most wealthy and important colonies might not, with due regard to justice and to their own interests, defray a larger proportion of the cost of their military defence than up to that time had been laid to their charge." This passage found in a letter of 25th April 1863, from Mr. Elliott, of this department, to Sir Hercules Robinson, who was then in England, summarising the nature of the enquiry. The next sentence which their Lordships quote, as the advice of the Committee, is taken from the same letter.
5. As far as concerns Hong Kong, the report begins by classing it among "military garrisons, naval stations, convict depôts, and dependencies maintained chiefly for objects of Imperial policy," and in the 9th paragraph the report states that "as to the second class of dependencies above defined (i.e., military garrisons, naval stations, &c.), the responsibility and main cost of their defences properly devolved on the Imperial Government."
6. This principle will be seen to run through the correspondence between the Duke of Newcastle and the Governor respecting the contribution of 20,000£ a-year, and although their Lordships, in the 12th paragraph of their letter, "demur to this assumption," the position, in the opinion of Lord Knutsford, holds equally true at the present time.
7. The Imperial Government has the control of peace and war, and has decided that Hong Kong must be defended with powerful forts and held by a garrison costing 280,000£ a-year. It cannot be supposed that in fixing this garrison Her Majesty's Government was specially concerned for the safety of the alien Chinese who frequent the colony, or even of the British merchants who have established themselves there, and there can be no doubt that the colony has been selected as a coaling station solely on account of its harbour. This harbour is of great value to the Empire, apart from the welfare of the people living on its shores, and the real ground for defending Hong Kong is its importance as a naval station where Her Majesty's ships may refit and where they may obtain coal necessary to keep the sea and protect the British shipping engaged in the trade between the mother country and the Empires of China and Japan - a trade which is mainly independent of Hong Kong, and which is carried on for the benefit of the mother country and the British taxpayer. Hong Kong is also defended in order that its harbour may not fall into the hands of a foreign enemy, and be used as a naval base from which to destroy the ships owned in the mother country, and engaged in carrying on this trade with the East. And as a guarantee against such a misfortune its increased strength and additional garrison are demanded by the increasing strength of Russia at Vladivostock, and by the presence of large French forces in Tonquin and Cochin China.
8. Lord Knutsford agrees with their Lordships that comparison between the sums expended by different countries on certain services is always difficult, and in the present case the comparison seems misleading, for the countries to which their Lordships refer in the 21st paragraph of their letter, are Sovereign States, whose defences are maintained solely for the protection of those interests which they themselves administer. But Hong Kong, as Mr. Stanhope pointed out in the War Office memorandum of the 15th of December last, produces nothing, and it seems impossible to make any satisfactory comparison between the tax-paying capacity of its mixed population and that of the population of producing countries such as their Lordships refer to.
9. Nor is there any real analogy between the circumstances of Hong Kong and of the Australian Colonies to which their Lordships refer. These great dependencies are concerned only for the defence of themselves and of their own trade and produce, and their contributions to the Navy are required for the protection of the very considerable