Report of
9--11.
4
9. Sir Hercules Robinson, who was sent to Singapore in 1863 to investigate 1888, paras. the question, reported that the necessary military expenditure would absorb 26 per cent. of the revenue, and that the cost of the garrison should be borne by the Colony.
Ibid, paras. 12 and 18.
Ibid, para. 17.
10. The Colonial Office failed to satisfy the Treasury that "the transfer could be effected without entailing expenditure on Imperial funds," and it was not carried out.
11. In 1864-65 memorials were addressed to the Colonial Office by merchants and others interested in the Settlements, stating that the revenue increasing and that the military expenditure might be decreased.
was
12. The Colonial Office, in again bringing the matter to the notice of the War Office, said-
"As it is an essential condition of the transfer that the revente should be able to meet its entire expenditure, military as well as civil, Mr. Cardwell would suggest whether some reduction may not be made in the amount of force recommended."
and suggested that the European Infantry, if required, might form part of the Hong Kong force, and not be charged to the Colony.
13. About the same time there was a discussion as to the Hong Kong garrison, and it was decided that one wing of an Infantry regiment belonging to Hong Kong should be kept at Singapore, but liable to be removed at any moment for Imperial purposes, and, therefore, that no charge should be made to the Colony for it.* In addition to this the cost of the garrison was estimated at 46,200%, Ibid, para. and Mr. Cardwell submitted to the Treasury that a contribution of that amount should be accepted, and that the Colony should also provide barrack accom- modation for the whole garrison, or for any greater number that may be demanded for the defence of the place.
18.
Ibid, para. 19.
Ibid, No. 20 and 21.
Printed
corres- pondence
relating to Singapore, No. 17, paras. 51-
55.
14. The Treasury, on 12th May, 1866, pointed out that the estimate was defec- tive, and that the real cost would probably be 59,3001. a-year. Mr. Childers, said--
"I am desired to observe that from the first it has been a condition insisted upon by this Board, and repeatedly acknowledged by Mr. Cardwell in the correspondence respecting these Settlements, that their transfer was to entail no expense whatever on the Imperial Exchequer. It would therefore follow that the proposition contained in your letter does not meet the case an now put forward, and as my Lords must adhere to the determination not to impose on the Imperial Exchequer any charge on account of the Settlements, the transfer of which is not desired by this country, but by the inhabitants of the Settlements themselves, their Lordships would not feel justified in giving their assent to the introduction of the bill until they are satisfied that no charge whatever will be entailed on the finances of this country."
15. Mr. Cardwell, "after consulting those who are interested in the transfer of the Straits Settlements," agreed to a contribution of 59,5001. for five years, the maintenance of the barracks for the wing of the Hong Kong Regiment being paid for out of Imperial funds.
*The quartering of a wing of the Hong Kong Regiment was authorized, not because the Imperial Government recognised that there were Imperial obligations connected with the defence of the Straits, it having distinctly and repeatedly declined to assume any responsibility for either the civil or military expenditure of the Colony, but because, on sanitary grounds, Singapore was more suitable for European troops than Kong Kong, and was yet sufficiently within reach of that station to admit of a portion of its garrison being kept at Singapore, while its being there entailed no extra cost on the Imperial Government, for had it not been at Singapore it must have been maintained at Hong Kong. Without, therefore, departing from the principle it has so repeatedly asserted, that no expense should be entailed on the Exchequer by the transfer, the Governinent was enabled to give relief to the Colonial revenues by an arrangement which, while it permitted the Straits garrison to be kept at the lowest possible strength, supplemented that strength without additional cost to the Colony or to the Exchequer. It was distinctly understood, however, both under the agreement of 1866 and under that of 1871, when this arrangement was repeated, that the wing of the Hong Kong Regiment formed no part of the permanent garrison of Singapore, and that it was liable to removal whenever necessary without giving rise to any reduction in the Colonial Contribution, which covered no portion of its cost. This arrangement, which for 23 years has given such large relief to the Colonial Exchequer, is no longer practicable. It is now necessary that the garrison of Hong Kong should be complete in itself, and the detachment of a wing of oue of its Infantry regiments to Singapore, even in time of peace, can no longer be authorized, and Singapore must now rely entirely upon its own garrison. It is a mistake therefore to suppose that the Government, by the arrangements of 1866 and 1871, recoguise that there were Imperial obligations in regard to the military expenditure of the Straits Settlements, or that any obligations, as regards the wing of the Hong Kong Regiment 'exist at the present time, and have just as much effect now as in the years referred to. That arrangement. was a temporary one, dependent for its coutinuance on conditions which have ceased to exist; but while it was a very favourable one to the Colony, it in no wise invalidated the general principle, accepted by the Colony in 1866, that its transfer should not entail any expenditure on the Exchequer for its civil or military establishments."
5
1888, para. 22.
Ibid, No. 24 and 25. Ibid, paras.
16. In 1866, the military expenditure of the Colony absorbed 27 per cent. of Report of its revenues.
17. For the five years 1867-71, during which this arrangement was in force, the Colonial military expenditure averaged 22 per cent. of its revenue.
18. The Committee of 1871, following the principle laid down in 1866 that the Colony should bear the whole cost of its garrison, except the wing of the 28-31 regiment belonging to the Hong Kong garrison, recommended not only that it should bear the charge for the garrison, but that it should provide barracks for the whole garrison, and that the total cost of the defences then contemplated, including works, armaments, and torpedoes, estimated at 30,000, should "devolve upon the Colony." The Council objected to the latter charge on the ground that the detence of Singapore "against external attack is an Imperial Ibid, para. duty," but Lord Kimberley, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, declined to admit that plea and upheld the recommendation of the Committee.
32.
35.
19. In reviewing these transactions, the Committee of 1888 stated that they Ibid, para. understood the broad general principle underlying the foregoing arrangements to have been that the Colonial Government was to defray the full cost of the garrison required for its defence.
20. In 1871 the Colony commenced the series of protests against being Vide charged the full cost of its garrison, which have continued until the present references to para. 2. time, and which in terms are almost identical with previous protests made while the Settlements were under Indian rule.
21. Bearing in mind the following facts-
(1.) That the object of the Colony in pressing for its transfer to Imperial rule was to diminish the heavy military charges it incurred under Indian rule;
(2.) That those charges between 1858 and 1866 varied from 67 to 27
per cent, of its revenue;
(3.) That the contribution received from the Colony between 1867 and 1858 fell gradually from 22 to 67 per cent. of its revenue, the charge to Imperial funds rising gradually to 74,7301. a-year in 1894;
(4.) That the Colonial Office, on behalf of those representing the Settlements, agreed, as a condition of transfer, that the Colony should bear the full cost of the garrison required for its defence; (5.) That since the revision of 1889, its contribution bas never exceeded two-thirds, and in 1894 was little more than one-half, of the cost of its garrison, and that the average charge on its gross revenues for the years 1889-94 has been only 16-05, compared with 27 per cent. in 1865, and with about 33 per cent., which would have been the charge under Indian rule;
it cannot be said that the Colony has not achieved the object it had in view
in seeking transfer to Imperial rule, nor that the agreement of 1866 has been violated, to the detriment of the Colony.
22. If the Colony had been disappointed in its expectations; if its military charges under Imperial rule had exceeded those of its lowest charge under Indian rule, viz., 27 per cent. of its revenue (in 1866), it might have had some plausible grounds on which to base a claim for special consideration, but as long as the military charges for its defence absorb a less proportion of revenue than that which it voluntarily agreed to on its transfer, it can bave no claim whatever for relief, except on the ground of inability to meet its necessary expenditure.
23. The Committee, therefore, consider that the Straits Settlements, when financially capable of bearing the charge, with due regard to the welfare of the Colony, should assume the full cost of the garrison necessary for its defence, and that the objections it has urged for so many years against the principle of charging the cost of its military defence to local revenues (the Imperial Government bearing the whole cost of its naval defence) are inconsistent with the terms of its transfer, and should not be entertained.
24. The Colonial contention that it should not be charged, under the agreement of 1866, with the full cost of its garrison has no immediate practical importance. It is many years since the Colony has defrayed the full cost of its garrison, and there is, under its existing financial conditions, little prospect of its being able to do so in the immediate future. At the same
(237)
B
506