2
to their accounts, and advises Her Majesty to with- hold her consent from such of their measures as he may think ill-advised. The Chancellor of the Ex- chequer considers that such wide powers of inter- ference include and cover a right to demand and obtain a fair and reasonable contribution for defence, and, he must add, a right also to fix in the last instance the amount of the contribution. He points out that this right, justifiable in theory, has been established in practice. In the years 1863-64 the Duke of Newcastle and Mr. Cardwell, successively Secretaries of State, imposed upon the Colony of Hong Kong a contribution for defence of 20,0001. a-year, in presence of protests from the Go- vernor, the Acting Governor, the Legislative Council, and various bodies of the colonists themselves. No doubt a power of so peculiar a character must be exercised with fair and full regard for the interests and capacities of the Colonies. But on this point there is no ground for apprehension. The history of the relations between the Imperial Government and the Colonies bears conclusive testimony to the scrupulous consideration which has always been shown to Colonial interests. As a matter of fact the Imperial Exchequer, in discussion of defence contributions, is not so effectively defended as the Exchequer of the Colonies. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has no representative to state his case in the Legislative Councils of the Colonies, but the Colonies have in the Secretary of State a most powerful advocate able and willing to defend their just interests alike in the Cabinet and in Parliament. Her Majesty's Government are about to call on the British tax-payer for increased expenditure on the War Services. No inconsiderable part of the increase will be needed for Colonial garrisons, and, in anticipation of these demands, the Chancellor of the Exchequer asks from his colleagues an expres- sion of opinion that Her Majesty's Government have a right to demand from dependent Colonies a reason- able contribution towards defence, and in the last instance to fix the amount of the contribution,
2. It is a more difficult task to define the principle upon which, with impartial justice to the Imperial and Colonial tax-payer, the contribution should be fixed. Self-defence is the primary duty of every community, and a proper provision for that object should be one of the first charges on the Revenue. The Imperial Government, in its anxiety to consult Colonial interests, has somewhat overlooked this first condition of society, and has taught the
*Idom) dissu *&dow?
from itin
*. I doubt short bi
us tomme al's fact
10.
j
8
75
Colonies that they alone in the world are to be exempted, or exempted to a great degree, from responsibility for their own defence. If a contribu- tion is levied from them, its priority over optional expenditure is not established, and therefore, under pressure, the contribution is probably the first to fall into arrear. It is, in short, by no means an understanding that the proper contribution is to be paid, and that if the existing revenue is insuffi- cient, the Colonial, like the Imperial, tax-payer must submit to fresh taxation for the necessary purposes of government.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer must urge that this policy is not equitable to the Imperial tax-payer. It is surely a doubtful lesson in the art of government for the parent to teach her children. Correspondence between the Colonies and the Colonial Office shows how readily the Colonies have learned their lesson. They are quick to argue that the mother-country is deeply interested in their integrity and prosperity; they are slow to perceive that they also are deeply interested in the integrity and prosperity of the mother-country. In equity, those who`claim privi- leges as citizens of a great Empire should also contribute towards its burthens. Upon that principle each division of the Empire bears its fair share of the total cost of the force which is necessary for the safety of the Empire as a whole. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will put the actual arrangements of the Empire to the test of a few figures based upon this interpretation of Imperial obligation.
The net charge of the army and navy for the current year is 29,800,0001. The total revenue of the United Kingdom from all sources is estimated for 1888-89 at 86,800,0001. Therefore, a sum of nearly 78. out of every pound of income is devoted to purposes of defence.
The tax-payer in Hong Kong contributes to defence at the outside 25,000!. out of a State income of 270,000. That is to say, out of every pound of income he contributes 18. 10d. to defence, as If,
against 78. contributed by the British tax-payer.
however, the coat of self-defence be interpreted in its widest sense, the British tax-payer has not only to pay the cost of the army and navy for the present year, but also to meet the cost of former wars which his ancestors have bequeathed to him. The National Debt amounts in round figures to 700,000,0001. Probably not more than 50,000,0007.
บางก.
1. 1. l. I.
ת.
OFFICE, LONDON ·
Refere
THE
Page 545Page 546