|
1
44
of Her Majesty's Government." The despatch very clearly shows us in what direction the consideration was given. That despatch cominences almost by telling us of their deep regret a regret I verily believe to be real--a regret that they cannot increase the charges. (Cheers.) Particular care is apparently expended in giving us to understand that we could only expect this reduction to be a temporary thing. From the beginning to the end there is not a word of regret, save that the charges cannot be increased. Not a word of hope, but that the revenue may presently be raised to enable them to increase those charges. No recognition, gentlemen, of the just claim of the Colony for the proper apportionment of the interests of the Home Government and of the Colony. The despatch reaffirms the principles of the original transfer, and brings forward that fussy document-the original agreement. What was it? In the first place it provides that these Settlements are not taken over with a view to hold them for Imperial station; secondly, that the amount of forces is to be determined by the wants and means of the inhabitants, it being a sine quâ non condition that the transfer is to cast no additional burden on the Imperial Exchequer; thirdly, the sum to be charged to the Colony is to cover the total cost of the garrison to be maintained more exclusively for the military protection of the Settlements; fourthly, that any Imperial forces liable to be removed for Imperial purposes are to be a cost to the Imperial Government; fifthly, that the cost of any barrack accommodation for troops stationed here for Imperial purposes is not to fall upon the Settlements. These were the conditions of the original concession, and at the revision of the military arrangements made in 1871 these conditions remained unaltered. We have never disputed that with the growth of the population and importance of the Colony, with new relations which exist with regard to our Imperial interests, we should be called upon to pay more. It was a gross error on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said in 1891 that we objected to pay more than we did in 1866. It was worse that an error. He had before him in fact the resolution unanimously passed in Legislative Council to the effect that the Colony was prepared to pay half the cost of the military here, and, providing that the charge was not increased, that we would pay the cost of the barracks. Our complaint, and our bitter complaint, is and has been the foisting upon us of that old agreement applying to conditions totally different, and to a very different state of affairs. (Cheers.) Now they hold us liable for the whole cost of the garrison, no matter for what purposes the troops are stationed here. We do not seek for any grace at the bands of Her Majesty's Government. All we ask is for simple justice." (Loud cheers,) We are quite willing to pay for the cost of protecting our owu trade; we are willing to assist in conjunction with other Colonies in paying a just apportionment of our Imperial obligation, but we protest, as a grow injustice, against being called upon to pay for the protection of what it practically wholly and entirely the British commerce and trade which passes through these waters to other ports. (Hear, hear.) Far clearer words than I can employ are those of a Secretary of State in a letter from the Colonial Office to the War Office, dated 4th May, 1888, in which he says:--
"I am to request you to intimate to Mr. Secretary Stanhope that, in the opinion of Lord Knutsford, the arrangements made between the Imperial aud Indian Governments in 1866 and the agreement with the Colony in 1871, related to settlements which then had little if any importance beyond that derived from their local trade, consisting as it did mainly in the collection and distribution of the produce of the Natives States and islands in the neighbourhood. The wonderful change which would follow the opening of the Suez Canal was not foreseen in 1866, and apparently not realized in 1871; there appears to be nothing in the correspondence to indicate that either the Home Govern- ment or the Colony, in concluding the agreement of 1871, contemplated the possibility of Singapore becoming place of vital importance to the Empire as the principal coaling base of the Navy in the Eastern seas; as well as a coaling station for the whole trade of the far East, which, unless Lord Knutsford is mistaken, in 1866 did not pass Singapore at all, and in 1871 had not attained its present development. To his Lordship it appears that, in placing a meaning upon the above-mentioned arrangement and agreement, regard must be had to circumstances as they existed at the time; and that an agreement relating to the defence of a local port of trade cannot possibly be read as a promise to provide for the coaling station which subsequent and unforeseen events, independent of the local trade, have called into existence for supplying the wants of the Empire."
Now, it is perfectly true that the Secretary of State later on tried to got out of that declaration by asserting that inasmuch as the troops stationed here in 1866 for military purposes were liable to removal, therefore the military troops which are now permanently stationed could no longer be regarded as here for military purposes, but had become a local garrison. Let me ask you, gentlemen, for what other than military purposes are the troops stationed here? (Hear, hear.) Far more important than in 1866 is the commerce which passes through these waters, far more now than in 1866 is this port a naval station. (Cheers.)
The Employment of Troops.
Some of you may doubtless have noticed a despatch which was recently addressed by the Secretary of State to the Colony of Cyprus in reply to the complaints of the people
45
that the troops were being withdrawn. He pointed out that the old policy of keeping troops for supporting civil power was rapidly being done away with, and that the policy now was to place troops in various parts of the Empire where they would be able to carry out the laid down systems of defence, and that these were placed in quarters for military purposes. What the Secretary of State affirms to Cyprus he denies to us. (Cheers.) You are aware that in 1866 we had troops stationed here to assist the civil power, but since 1871, with our military police and improvements in our own police, it is not too much to say that the troops quartered in this Colony are absolutely unnecessary to support the civil power. (Hear, hear.) As we know--from official correspondence--the military are here because this is a coaling and naval station. And yet the Secretary of State insists upon charging us with the whole cost of a military garrison, without recog- nising, in the slightest degree, the Imperial interests. Over the constitution and cost of this garrison we have not the slightest control, and in its management are permitted no voice. You will see from the despatch that the cost is now 154.000% a-year, but reference to the papers laid on the table of the House of Commons will show that about one-third of that amount is paid locally in dollars for the purpose of meeting local charges, and that one-third is not affected by exchange. Therefore the sterling amount should be reduced by so much instead of being increased. (Loud cheers.) We are supporting here an expensive and extravagant military staff, at a cost which, I am told, is sufficient for a whole German division. (Renewed cheers.) If this garrison is of more Colonial interest than of Imperial interest surely we have the right, or ought to have the right, as Sir Cecil Smith did, to call for economy in its administration. We should be allowed to eliminate from it its present extravagant features. (Hear, hear.) Paragraph II. of the Secretary of State's despatch says that the Colony is bound to house the troops-and I don't know what else. (Laughter.)
Finance.
And now permit me to turn to the financial side of the question. You will recollect that the revenue upon which this contribution was raised was the revenue of 1889, which amounted to 3,858,900 dollars. The contribution of 100,000 taken at an exchange of 38. to the dollar is 660,000 dollars, or 17 per cent. of the revenue. Now the Secretary of State in his despatch tells us that, taking the quinquennial period ending 1893, the average is only 16 per cent,, as if to say, "What are you complaining of?" but if you bear with me for a moment you will see that that average was arrived at under conditions which cannot again obtain. They were very well aware that the opium and spirit farms had been let at an increase, making the revenue of 1889 4,400,000 dollars and 1890 4,269,000 dollars. The latest returns showed that in addition to a balance of revenue there were laid aside reserves of 1,364,000 dollars, which had been provided to meet emergencies which may arise in the future owing to bad seasons, depression of trade, or other calamities" The latter is a very comprehensive tenn which may possibly include the present action of Her Majesty's Government. (Laughter and cheers.) And in the third place this percentage was arrived at during au abnormal rise in exchange. Therefore this 16 per cent. average was reached by exceptional exchange, and by a great increase of revenue in two years, which neutralized the fall in 1891. Even then the claims in arrears could not be met by the revenue, but had to be paid by the appropriation of the reserves. The reserves were taken at the time when the legitimate purposes for which they were formed were first brought into play. They wasted away in 1891 when the depression of trade was upon us, when the revenue was falling off, and when the farms had been let at a loss of 500,000 dollars. With these funds exhausted, with exchange falling to a very low point in 1893, will not you admit, will not you say, that then the Colony was less able to bear this military burden than in 1888 ? (Heur, hear.) In what manner, I ask, has Her Majesty's Government reviewed and considered this matter? In 1894 the contribution is 80,000, in 1895, 90,000%, is the amount to be paid, equal to about 900,000 dollars, or about 22-85 of the estimated revenue as against Lord Ripon's 16 per cent. (Cheers.) This is the relief which the despatch informs us is to be given to the Colony, and when the benchman of the Secretary of State says that the contribution is settled on a fair and equitable basis it becomes a mere travesty, a mere mockery of words, a pure misrepresentation of circumstances, and is misleading to the House of Commons. (Loud cheers.) Gentlemen, the real question that is before us now is not a matter of percentages, not how much the Colony can afford to pay, but how much they can take from us? (Hear, hear.) Paragraph after paragraph in that despatch is devoted to considering the balances which may be obtained from year to year. The cost of the civil administration is to be reduced to 3,000,000 dollars; anything and everything above that is to be taken. Worse still the amount at the end of the five years is to be 120 000%, which you may depend, unless wiser counsels prevail, Her Majesty's Government will continue to charge against us. We are not to be relieved of one penny of our charge, aggravated as it is by low exchange. Let me read the paragraphs again. In 1888 the revenue is 3,888,900 dollars and the contribution is 660,000 dollare. In 1895 the estimated That is to revenue is 3,973,500 dollars, and the contribution is 900,000 dollars.
say, the increase of revenue is 115,000 dollars, and the increase of contribution is 240,000 dollars. Now to arrive at the cost of our civil administration and bring it within 3,000,000 dollars we have to go back to 1884 and 1885. The salaries alone in
(237)
M
526