PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
بالتسيبيا
Reference :-
C.O. 882
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
| ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
34
They recommended, in accordance with the suggestions of the Colonial Defence Committee, that the garrison should consist of two batteries of Royal Artillery, some Royal Engineers, a battalion of British Infantry, and sotre Native Artillerymen and Engineers-1,589 of all ranks, the estimated annual cost being £129,178; but they also recommended that the War Department should resume the maintenance of fortifications and barracks, in respect of which the Colony should pay another 16,976 a year, making £136,154 in all; that the Colony should provide barrack accommodation, storehouses, &c., for the garrison and grant a lodging allowance if quarters were deficient.
The contribution, however, they suggested, should be £100,000 for 1889, £115,000 in 1890, and £136,154 in 1891 and onwards, the agreement being revised in 1893.
Mr. Bramston took the view adopted by the Governor A. 129, in 1885 that the increase in garrison over the numbers p. 24 and arranged in 1871 was for Imperial purposes and should P. 45. therefore be paid for by the Home Government.
Correspondence between the three Departments concerned. A. 201, followed at some length. In August, 1888, the Secretary of No. 4. State said that he saw no likelihood of being able to accept Ibid. the majority report, and in September he followed up this No. 5. with some strong remarks which are worth quoting :-
แ
It is of course difficult, if not impossible, to assign to England and her Colony the exact proportion in which both are interested in the defence of Singapore, or to
assign to each the precise money value of such a pro portion if made; but his Lordship is satisfied that it "cannot reasonably be contended that the interests are "wholly colonial in the case of this great Imperial "Coaling Station, second only, if not equal, in importance I am to point out "to the Cape of Good Hope. "that the agreement on which the majority of the Com- "mittee on Military Contributions rely is not admitted by the Colonial Government, and the correspondence "shows that there are good grounds in support of this "view. It cannot, in Lord Knutsford's opinion, be fairly “contended that an engagement to bear the cost of the “local wants of the Colony na they existed in 1866 can "be treated as an undertaking to defend a place, which, "by subsequently becoming a first class Imperial Coaling He "Station, has acquired a totally different character." added that he would recommend the Colony to pay half the cost.
The Treasury, having considered the question at leisure, bi
Enclosure sent to the Colonial Office on the 10th August, 1889, a portentous epistle reviewing ancient history and stating in No. 7. the conclusions arrived at in a conference of the Parlia- mentary heads of the three Departments. The agreement was that
(1) The contribution for 1889 was to remain at £50,145, but the Colony was also to pay £28,976 as one half of the loss which had fallen on the Home Govern- ment owing to the contributions having been paid in dollars, and also the cost of barracks in that year.
(2) For 1890-93 the contribution was to be £100,000
a year, including ordinary repairs of barracks and works;
and the Colony would provide new barracks.
(3) The Colony would provide police required for military services and bear the cost of volunteers and militia.
(4) The money was to be paid in sterling unless the
Hed. En-
closure in
No. 8.
35
Treasury agreed to take payments locally in dollars at the Treasury rate.
(5) The Inter-Departmental Committee assemble in 1893 to revise the arrangement.
WAS to re-
If the agreement were carried out the Treasury under- took not to press claims for past defence works, &c.
The Colonial Office reply, of the 18th of September, 1889, regretted that "the letter under acknowledgment
看着
แ
48
not only reopens the controversy from the beginning, restating the Treasury side of the case as if it were the only one, and omitting all reference to facts which support the Colonial Office view, but it contains state- ments the accuracy of which cannot be admitted," and explained that as it was impossible to send out the Treasury letter as it stood, the gist had been. embodied in a draft despatch which was submitted to the Treasury d. Ea and War Office. The despatch as finally settled went to
the Governor on the 13th of December, 1889.
closure in No. 11. Ibid. En- closure 1
in No. 12.
Enclosure
2 in No.
12.
Ibid.,
No. 22.
Ibid.,
No. 23.
Ibid. En
closure 2
to No. 28.
Ibid., En- closure in No. 35.
The vote of £100,000 for 1890 was carried in the Legislative Council in the face of the strong opposition of all the unofficial members, as Sir Cecil Clementi Smith reported in a despatch of the 15th February, 1890; in a subsequent despatch of the 19th of February he forwarded minutes by the Executive Council, a copy of the debate in the Legislative Council, and set forth his own views at considerable length and with great ability. One point to which I shall have to refer hereafter was that the Colony as a whole was charged for the defence of one of its settlements.
The Executive Council were unanimous in disagreeing with the demands inade by the Imperial Government, but were, of course, compelled to vote as directed by the Governor. In the Legislative Council the six unofficial members voted against the motion, and the Council unanimously carried a resolution that £100,000 was more than the Colony should pay, having regard to the fact that the protection of Singapore as a naval station, independently of any advantage to the Colony, was of paramount necessity to the maintenance of the Empire in the East.
Much correspondence between the Colonial and War De- ques. partments followed, the chief point of which was the tions whether the Straits Settlements had paid (a) the 1889 contribution, viz., £30,145 plus £28,976 for arrears, and (b) the £100,000 due for 1890. On the 22nd November, 1890, the War Office was informed that the 1890 contri- bution had been duly noted by the Colony, but that as regards 1889, the Secretary of State had consulted the Treasury on the 31st of March and had only received a reply on the 28th of October, and consequently nothing had been settled.
While matters were in this uncertain position the Colonial Office sent the War Office correspondence with the Treasury, showing that the Penang opium farmers had failed, and that the Treasury still clung to their pound of flesh. After further correspondence a despatch was sent to the Colony on the 10th of January, 1891, demanding that the pound of flesh should be exacted.
The arrears appear not to have been paid with that readiness which the War Office would have desired to see, for further departmental correspondence took place in February, 1891, culminating in a telegram from the Governor of the 6th of March in which he reported that the vote had been carried only by the official majority and
28990
1
2
H