29
and partly to the distance of the several settlements from each other, requiring, in some branches of the Government Service, the maintenance of a double or triple staff of officers as compared with the staff required in the compact Colony of Hong Kong." Mr. Chamberlain again refused to accede to the Colony's requests in a despatch dated 8th June, 1896, and on 18th November, 1896, he insisted on acceptance of "17% of the gross revenue (less land sales) as at present brought to account"
22.
·
The comparison with the Straits is thus irrelevant because "revenue" meant different things at Hong Kong and Straits Settlements at the time the percentage was fixed; and Hong Kong's renewed claim falls to be dealt with under the general practice in such cases that "no items which were included in the assessable revenue when the percentages were fixed, should be excluded, and no claims of receipts should be withdrawn from revenue without a corresponding adjustment".d
23.
The principle stated in paragraph 22 and now
again raised by this reserved claim, which Hong Kong suggests making, if its proposal that the assessment should be made on rateable value and not on revenue is rejected, formed the subject of lengthy discussion between the Treasury, Colonial office, and War office with reference to a claim by the Straits settlements in 1909-12. The Straits' claims were;-
(a)
that certain revenues of the newly created
Education and Hospital Boards should be deemed "municipal" revenue and thereby exempted from assessment;
(b)
that rents from Government property should be
assessed on "net receipts";
(c)
that the proceeds of the new petroleum tax should
not be assessable until the losses of the new opium policy were made good;
The Straita proceeded to operate these claims and the arrears from 1907 to 1912 amounted to £34,478. The Colonial Office in the end abandoned the claim for assessment of receipts from buildings let for profit but they succeeded in forcing reference of the other's claims to a Committee. This (the McKinnon-Wood) Committee (1914) in their report did not deal at length with these claims; they did, however, recommend that receipts from buildings let for profit should be included in the assessable revenue. The War office and Treasury representatives protested in a minority report against the concession of any of these claims. The Straits have, however, succeeded in maintaining their practice, if not their claims, as regards (a) and (b), (despite the abandonment of the latter by the Colonial Office). The war shelved the McKinnon-Wood report, and discussions since the war have taken another turn; the Straits have been paying the actual cost of the garrison, and for a time arguments about the precise composition of the Straits' gross revenue lost their importance. The Straits Settlements, however, in their
annual
Minority report by the War office and Treasury representatives on the MØKinnon-Vood Committee, 1914.
76