PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O. 882
The three Settlements are one Colony for all purposes and the general revenue must be the basis of the contribution. It appears to me to be indisputable that the history of the Eastern military contributions shows that the dis tinction between garrison for purely local and garrison for Imperial interests has been recognised; that reductions trom the full cost have been made in accordance with that view; and therefore that the answer to the question is that a Colony is not bound to pay the full cost of its garrison irrespective of the reasons for its size and cost.
A further point is whether Crown Colonies ought to pay a contribution towards the general defence of the Empire. This of course can only be a matter of opinion : Instorically, the question has only arisen, to my knowledge. in one instance, Ceylon.
As
Reference to pp. 16 and 17 of this memorandum will Show that the Treasury in 1884 tried to claim a naval contribution from Ceylon ; and that the Secretary of State and the Colony declined to agree to the demand. regards the case of the Eastern Colonies, there are two reasons why the answer should be in the negative. The first is that to exact such a contribution from one or two Crown Colonies while the rest go scot free is obviously unfair; and that therefore no part of the military con- tribution should be considered as being a contribution towards general defence until the other Crown Colonies also contribute. The second reason is that a general contribution of this kind would be a glaring instance of taxation without representation.
It therefore, the Eastern Colonies should not be taxed for the general defence of the Empire; and if as I hope I have shown, they are not bound to pay the full cost of their garrisons, but only such a proportion as may be regarded as local and not Imperial, it follows that that proportion of the contribution which represents expenditure for purely Imperial purposes is an exaction which is not warranted by justice or even expediency : and that the contributions should be reduced so as to represent such expenditure as represents the cost of the p. 16. force maintained, in the words of the Treasury, "for internal and external defence of the Colony," the force maintained for purely Imperial purposes being paid for by Imperial funds.
With regard to the particular cases of the four Eastern Colonies, I think that there can be no doubt that Mauritius In the period is lightly toxed for defence purposes. 1901 2 to 1909-10, the last year for which the actual figures are available, the highest contribution has been Rs. 441,550 (in 1905-6) and the lowest
Even if these figures are Rs. 8,722,727 (in 1907-8), taken as the average (whereas they represent the extreme case) the contribution only represents 5:06 per cent. of The actual figures showing the cost the gross revenue.
revenue
of the garrison have never been supplied by the War But the estimated cost in Office in the case of Mauritius. 1907-8, when the garrison was at its lowest point, exclusive of expenditure under the Military Works Act, eu transport, ammunition and stores and non-effective charges, was £125,760, according to the Army Estimates. With the rupee fixed at 15. 4d., a contribution of Rs. 441,550 is equivalent to £29,436, or 234 per cent. of the cost. Even making allowances for the fact that the troops are there partly for Imperial purposes, as a link in the Cape route to the East, it can hardly be maintained
69
that Mauritius is overburdened. In fact, as I have pointed t, the Royal Commission discovered that the contribution was considered to be very moderate.
The same remarks would apply to Ceylon but for the fact that, so far as internal defence is concerned, the Colony does not want the native regiment now stationed there, and would not use it in case of internal trouble until it had exhausted the use of the police, the white volunteers, and the native volunteers. The sole use of the garrison is therefore to defend Colombo, which, as a naval base, is distinctly a matter of more than purely colonial interest. For this reason I think that while the War Office may technically be right as regards the maximum contribution since the abandonment of Trincomalee, any proposal to increase the maximum beyond three-quarters of the cost of the garrison, or 9 per cent of assessable revenue, should be resisted as a matter of principle, as well as one of expediency. As to this latter point it may safely be asserted that an attempt to force a measure increasing the maximum contribution through a Council composed partly of elected members would result in the resignation of the unofficials, followed by either the abandonment of the proposal or a forced reconstitution of the Council en the basis of an unofficial majority; and in this case the result would probably be that the reconstituted Council would refuse to vote any contribution whatever.
The table, which forms an appendix to this Memo- randum, shows that the cost of the garrison of the Straits Settlements has increased from £152,032 in 1901-2 to £298,338 in 1909-10, and the last actual figures available show that the cost in 1910-11 was £296,091. The strength of the garrison in the same period has declined from 2.719 men of all ranks to 2,359 of all ranks: the average cost over this period was £256,166, and the average contribution was $1,643,669. As for a part of the time the dollar had no fixed value, it is not easy to make an accurate calculation; but roughly, the fixed exchange On this basis the value of 2s, 4d. may be adopted.
The enormous was £188,428. average contribution increase in the cost, and the reduction in the size of the garrison, are mattera in which the Colony has had no voice whatever.
For the preservation of internal order the troops are practically unnecessary. The Colony has therefore paid in ten years an average of £188,428 out of an average total cost of £256,166, leaving £67,738 to be found by the Imperial Government. I do not think that, however difficult it may be to apportion exactly the value of the Imperial and Colonial interests respectively in the defence of Singapore, it can seriously be maintained that the payments made during these ten years in any way approximate to the value of the respective interests. I would not go so far as to say that the proportions should be reversed, since I should think that the defence of Singapore might not unreasonably cost the Colony a maximum of £100,000, but that sum should be the limit of contribution.
The question of the Hong Kong contribution is more difficult. From the table which is annexed to this Memo- randum it will be seen that the contribution, large though it is, is out of proportion to the cost of the garrison for the four years during which separate accounts for ex- penditure on the Hong Kong garrison have been rendered. The cost has varied between £412,045 and £323,130,
1
6
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
I