0248
301
Sir,
9528
91
14375
REC?
WAR OFFICE,
17 JUL 91
203
10th July, 1891.
I am directed by the Secretary of State for War to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 27th May, covering protests by the Colony of Hong Kong, and by the China Association, against the payment of a military contribution of 40,000%. a-year, on the ground that the full garrison, estimated to cost 280,0001. a-year, is not yet quartered in Hong Kong.
2. It appears to be admitted that the Colony is well able to hear a charge of 40,000%; that the claim is not unduly large; and that it would have been cheerfully paid if the complete garrison had been present, instead of a portion of the garrison only, which portion, however, costs about 170,0001. a-year, or more than four times the Colonial contribution towards its cost.
3. The main objection to the charge appears to be, that the Colony considers that it has been deceived in the matter, inasmuch as Lord Knutsford's despatch, of 20th January, 1890, led the Colony to believe that the contribu- tion of 40,000l. was considered to be the proportion which the Colony should pay towards a garrison costing 280,0001.
4. A reference to the despatch above quoted does not seem to justify any such misunderstanding. In paragraph 15 the principle was clearly stated that "it is difficult to lay down any other broad principle for dividing the cost of Colonial defence except that of the Mother Country undertaking the sea defence of the Colonies by means of her Navy, and of the Colonies, as far as their means allow, respectively providing for their own land defence."
5. It was evident, therefore, that the Government did not regard the contribution of 40,000l. as the amount that a Colony should pay towards the provision of a garrison estimated to cost 280,000l., but as the amount which the revenues of Hong Kong admitted of its paying, at that time, without undue pressure.
6. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of your despatch it was clearly shown that when the contribution of 20,000/ was established, in 1868, it was the declared intention of the Government to increase it at the end of five years, an intention which, however, it omitted to carry into effect, while it was further shown that the garrison and its cost had been largely augmented since the original contri- bution was fixed in 1863-65.
7. To state therefore, as the Members of the Council do, that the contri- bution was originally demanded "on the sole ground that the garrison was about to be largely increased," and "that no other grounds for the increase were even hinted at in the Secretary of State's despatch," is inconsistent with the whole tenor of the despatch.
3. It is true that it was pointed out that, in addition to the large increase which had already been made to the garrison since the contribution was fixed in 1863-65, a still further increase would be made--but nowhere in the despatch was it stated that the increased contribution was not to take effect until the cost of the garrison reached 280,0001. a year, or sevenfold the contribution asked for from the Colony. Such a stipulation would have been manifestly contrary to the general principle laid down in paragraph 15 of the despatch above quoted.
9. It was stated in the debate in the Council that "there is a distinct
(8913)----115wo
To the Under Secretary of State,
Wo
95216
Colonial Office,