PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O. 882
9
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
42360
No. 25.
STRAITS SETTLEMENTS. TREASURY to COLONIAL OFFICE.
(Received 28 December, 1900.)
No. 19.] [Copy to Governor, January 17, 1901.
SIR,
Treasury Chambers, 27 December, 1900. IN deference to the recommendation of Mr. Secretary Chamberlain contained in Mr. Lucas's letter of the 20th instant,* the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury sanction the proposal to exclude for the present from the general revenue of the Straits Settlements for the purpose of calculating the military contribution of the Colony the revenue derived from Christmas Island, recently annexed to the Colony. Their Lordships' sanction as above is given on condition that the question is brought up for reconsideration five years hence in the light of the experience of the Island's financial position in the meantime.
1037
No. 26.
I am, &c.,
STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.
FRANCIS MOWATT.
WAR OFFICE to COLONIAL OFFICE.
(Received 9 January, 1901.)
[Copy to Governor, January 17, 1901. No. 19.]
SIR,
War Office, London, S. W., 8th January, 1901. In reply to your letter of the 20th ultimo, No. 40311/1900,* I am directed by the Secretary of State for War to acquaint you that he concurs in the proposed exclusion of the revenue of Christmas Island from the general revenue of the Straits Settlements in connection with the calculation of the military contribution on the conditions stated in the Treasury letter of 27th ultimot to your Department, viz.. that the question is reconsidered in five years' time in the light of the Island's financial position in the meantime.
I am, &c.,
39081
SIR,
(No. 417.)
No. 27.
FRANK T MARZIALS.
STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.
THE GOVERNOR to THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
(Received October 26, 1903.)
[Answered by No. 40.]
Government House, Singapore, 30th September, 1903. WITH reference to my despatch, No. 341, of the 17th ultimo, reporting the reletting of the revenue farms for the next triennial period, 1904-06, I have the honour to point out that the arrangements recently made will result in an increase of revenue from this source alone amounting to nearly £400,000 a year, on which it would be necessary, in accordance with existing arrangements, to pay a military contribution of nearly £80,000 a year.
2. I am aware that it can be urged that the Colony has consented to a military contribution of 20 per cent. of its revenue, on the understanding that it shall in no
+ 34873: not printed.
• No. 24.
↑ No. 25.
submit that £240,000
single year pay more than the actual cost of the garrison; but a year is an excessive contribution from the Straits Settlements, that it could never have been anticipated that the Colony would have to pay £80,000 more in any one year than had been paid in the previous year, and that as the Colony has no control over either the constitution of the garrison or the framing of the bill of cost (which includes such items as proportion of pensions, and proportion of transport of reliefs, ammunition, &c.), it is very unlikely that the bill will ever amount to less than an estimated 20 per cent. of the Colony's annual revenue.
3 Further, I desire to point out that within recent years, and since the conclu- sion of the arrangement referred to, the Colony has greatly increased its local forces and no spends a large sum annually upon its volunteers, who are counted upon to assist in the defence of the Colony. Quite recently a corps of volunteers has been raised in Penang and another in Malacca, and in the former place a company of the Malay States Guides is stationed.
4. If a comparison is instituted between the area. population, resources and military contribution of this Colony and similar figures elsewhere I doubt whether it is possible to show that any of His Majesty's Colonies makes so large a proportion- ate contribution towards the cost of its garrison as is the case in the Straits Settle-
ments.
5. For all these reasons I trust you will concur with me that the time has come to so far revise the existing arrangements as to fix a maximum sum beyond which the Colony shall not be liable to contribute towards the cost of the garrison, and I strongly urge that that sum shall not exceed £150,000 per annum.
6. As matters stand the Colony is not only liable for an absolutely unlimited contribution, but, so far as I am aware, there is no assurance whatever that the military authorities will not take advantage of the terms of the arrangement to quarter in Singapore a number of troops, either European or native, or both, greatly in excess of those which have hitherto been considered sufficient for the defence of the place. I do not pretend to be able to judge, but I have heard it stated by soldiers that the staff even now employed in Singapore is larger than necessary. I believe also that one of the conditions on which the Colony finally consented to pay so heavy a military contribution was that there should always be stationed in Singapore a British regiment of full strength. As you are aware, there was no British regiment in Singapore for a long period, and the one now here is of little more than half the usual strength.
7. In the consideration of this question, which is of so much importance to this Colony, I trust it will not be forgotten that these Settlements (and the Malay States, with which they are so closely allied) are all free ports, where manufactures imported from Great Britain are never taxed, while the produce exported hence is equally free. The prosperity of this Colony and of the Federated Malay States is of the first importance to British manufacturers and British consumers, against whom there is no hostile tariff of any kind, and that prosperity depends upon the continued power to develop the country by means of useful public works. I submit that because the Colony is prosperous and has means, that is not a sufficient reason to compel it to pay an excessive military contribution for services which are at least as Imperial as they are local. The interests of the Empire as a whole, and even of the British taxpayer, may best be served by exacting from the Colony only a fair proportion of the cost of its garrison, while still leaving it with ample funds for further develop- ment and for the provision of those facilities for dealing expeditiously with every kind of business which modern trade and shipping require.
8. I enclose a return which shows that in the last four years this small Colony has paid the Imperial Government $4,634,389 towards the cost of its garrison, that payment being entirely exclusive of all local expenditure on local forces-which during the same period rose from $14,216 48 to $81,392:46 per annum.
I have, &c.,
F. A. SWETTENHAM.
Enclosure 1 in No 27
30
Names of all British Colonies, Crown and Constitutiona).
Area in
Square Miles.
Ktimated
Population.
Value of Trade. 1901.
Tonnage of Shipping in 1901.
Ravenue,
1901.
Expenditure
1901
Straits Settlements
Hong Kong
Labuan
Ceylon
Mauritius
1,542
572,249
$576,934,364
330
30
283,975
8,411
2.929,900
25.331
705
3,576,990
[Rs. 202,536,214
8,487,940
16,289,704
19,325.384
365,628
$7,041,685
4,213,893
46,283
Rs. 26,437,102
$7,315,000
4,111,722
63,684
Rs. 29,216,726
―
Rs.271.162
378,195
48,201,279
Seychelles
148
19,343
2,632,891
798,998
169,502a.
9,140,754
9,043,066
Cost of Local Military Force (Volunteers).
$81,392
50,000
Military Contri
bution to Imperial Government
*1,443,224
$21,193
Rs. 2,176,492
£29,051
486,323
401,821
Gibraltar
13
27,460
8,330,622
£71,107
£63,112
Malta
Bermudas
116
184.742
20
British Guiana
104,000
17.535
300,748
£18,598,380 599,195
3,248,393
7,076,355
385,698
394,508
5,000
932,253
51.436
38.640
125,867
531,506
British Honduras
7,562
37.479
Canada
3,048,711
5.371,315
538,000
$414,431,881
414,795
60,150
522,631
51,210
£5,545
$14,047
14,543,062
852,514,701
$46,866,368
Newfoundland
$2,200
217,037
Falkland Islands
6,500
2,043
Bahamas
5,150
53,735
£3,254,001
183,059
524.660
1,408,293
£423,407
£416,086
3,000
193,889
15,476
17,639
1,692,336
78.231
84,282
Barbados
Jamaica
166
195,588
1,971,854
1,476,166
179,972
175,350
£2,725
158
95
4,287
755,730
3,695,063
1,992,130
874,104
893,464
Leeward Islands
701
127,434
665,574
123,450
132,897
NA2
Trinidad and Tobago
1,86%
273.898
5,097,251
1,326,087
712,394
731.160
6,334
Windward Islands
524
163,000
1,247,127
2,748,230
164,052
162,548
Gold Coast
71.300
1,486,433
2,360,860
1,416,855
693,893
469,459
Lagos (including Protectorate)
28,910
1,500,000
1,646,517
975,446
275,021
235,495
23.308
Gambia
69
Sierra Leone
30,000
13,346
126,835
Australia, viz., New South Wales
310,700
1,359.422
486,313
852,296
52,569,673
285,071
1,249.808
43.726
48,518
8,521,2:34
Victoria
87.884
1,201,341
37,799,437
6,715,491
192,138
10,612.122
7,712,099
179,70!
Queensland
668,497
503,266
15,639,171
1,685,820
4.242.295
South Australia
903,690
362,604
14,879,574
3,964,198
Western Australia
975,920
184,124
15,309,495
3,714,263
2,667,560
3,686,019
Taamania
26,385
172,475
British New Guinea
90,540
350,000
New Zealand
104,751
772,719
Fiji
8,045
117,870
Cape Colony
221,311
2,433,000
Natal
Orange River Colony
35,019
48,326
925,118
207,503
Transvaal
Saint Helena
113,642
47
870,000
3,663
3,012,854
72,129
24,699,339
899,988
32,135,939
13,695,795
3,113,557c
d
110,369
1,432,725
30,301
2,139,180
205,301
18,899,833
3,594,428
826,163
15,114
5,803,451
113.853
9,072,755
2,970,742
271,999
217,634
173,457
10,729,741
7,672,780
4,674,235
2,650,876
3,490,026
870,442
22,849
5,895,915
104,973
10,350,000
2,480,932
226,588
23,707
No information No information £295,461
No information £19,566
No information
£311,879
2,686
468,8396
1,455
It is sad that Australia has undertaken to pay annual Naval Contri-
bution
£240,000.
uf
e
253,602
24,614
14.927
a. Vemel- “entered” only.
. Incindes War Expenses £300,000
r. Value of Imports and Exports for 1898
d For first 10 months of 1902 the Importa amounted to the valu. of £9.241 131
• The Estimate of Revenue of the Traneval for 1902-3 was £1,700,000; the Extimate of Expenditure for the same period £4,494,