390
C. 92052/32 [No. 3].
SIR,
40
No. 22.
COLONIAL OFFICE
to
WAR OFFICE.
Downing Street, 29th February, 1932. I am directed by Secretary Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister to refer to the Confidential despatch of the 24th of December, 1931*, from the Governor, Straits Settlements, regard- ing the rejection of the Straits Settlements Defence Contribution Bill, a copy of which has already been forwarded demi-officially, and in accordance with paragraph 10 thereof to request that the Army Council will arrange for an adjustment to be made at an early date as desired by the Governor in respect of the contributions for the years 1927, 1928, and 1929, respectively.
C. 92052/32 [No. 4].
to
I am, &c.,
"
J. A. CALDER.
41
Committee, and were approved by the Cabinet, as a basis for negotiation by the Colonial Office with the local Government. The Peel Committee recommendations were rejected by Unofficial Members of the Legislative Council, who maintained that the Colony should not be liable for the cost of manning and maintaining the new military defences of the Naval Base. They were strongly supported in their views by the then Governor, Sir Hugh Clifford.
3. In 1928, a fresh basis of settlement was suggested, i.e., payment on the basis of Ordinance No. 64, subject only to (1) exclusion from the cost of garrison of initial capital expenditure on the new Naval Base and (2) reduction of revenue limit from 20 per cent. to 174 per cent., if the Unofficial Members agreed to make such a proposal. The Unofficial Members, however, refused to consider this basis of settlement until they had received a reasoned reply to their contention that the Colony was liable only for the cost of local defence. A memorandum was then prepared by the War Office, which, it was suggested, might be used by the Governor as a basis for a reasoned reply to the case of the Unofficial Members, but Sir C. Clementi preferred not to use the memorandum as he considered that any announcement in the sense suggested would provoke a storm of indignation. Sir C. Clementi came on leave in 1931 and negotiated a provisional settlement on the basis of a fixed contribution of $5,000,000, but that settlement has now been rejected by the Legislative Council.
4. In these circumstances I am to suggest, for consideration of the Army Council, that for the present the Straits Settlements contribution should be assessed on the basis suggested by the Peel Committee as one suitable for negotiation by the Colonial Office with the local Government, it being understood that that is without prejudice to the question as to what is the strict liability of the Colony under Ordinance No. 64 and that negotiations may be reopened at a convenient opportunity.
I am, &c.,
H. R. COWELL.
SIR,
No. 23.
WAR OFFICE
COLONIAL OFFICE.
[Answered by No. 24.]
The War Office, London, S.W.1, 18th May, 1932.
I am commanded by the Army Council to acknowledge your letter of 2nd May, 1932†, on the subject of the military contribution payable by the Government of the Straits Settlements, and to inform you that before dealing with the several points raised therein they would be glad to receive the remarks of your Department on the Governor's despatch of 24th December, 1981, relating to the general basis of the contribution.
As explained in the last paragraph of War Office letter of 1st March, 1932§, the Council desire to have these remarks in order that they may consider the disposal of the sum of £87,320 advanced by the Colony in 1927.
C. 92052/32 [No. 5].
No. 24. COLONIAL OFFICE
to
WAR OFFICE. [Answered by No. 25.]
I am, &c.,
A. E. WIDDOWS.
Downing Street, 8th June, 1932.
SIR,
I am directed by Secretary Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 18th of May, and to refer to paragraphs 8 and 10 of Sir C. Clementi's Confidential despatch of the 24th of December, 19314, in which he states that the defence contribution will continue to be paid in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 64.
2. As the Army Council are aware, there has been a divergence of view as to the liability of the Colony under the terms of that Ordinance. The War Office included in their estimates of the cost of the Straits Settlements garrison in 1927-28 a sum of £142,500 representing the capital expenditure on land, works, and armaments for the military defence of the new Naval Base. That claim aroused strong opposition in the Colony and after considerable correspondence certain recommendations were made by the Peel § C. 92064/32 [No. 4]; not printed.
No. 21. † C. 92064/32 [No. 8]: not printed. No. 21.
Il No. 28.
No. 21.
C. 92052/32 [No. 10].
(Secret.)
SIR,
No. 25.
WAR OFFICE
to
COLONIAL OFFICE.
The War Office, London, S.W.1, 22nd July, 1932.
I am commanded by the Army Council to refer to your letter of 8th June*, regarding the military contribution of the Straits Settlements.
2. In view of the terms of the Governor's despatch of 24th December, 1931), the Council agree that the Governor's proposal for the payment of a fixed contribution, in lieu of that recommended in the Report of Lord Peel's Committee of 1927, cannot be proceeded with further at this stage.
3. As regards the basis on which the contribution should be assessed for the present pending the reopening of negotiations, I am to observe that, on the basis of the Peel Committee Report, capital expenditure to the amount of £471,792 between 1927 and 1930, which the Committee recommended should be borne by Army Funds, has been excluded from the cost of the garrison, and so from the military contribution leviable, on the assumption that the Colony on their part would accept, in principle, their liability under the Committee's recommendation for the cost of manning the new defences. As the Colony have not so far accepted this liability, it will be necessary to settle each year's contribution for the present without any agreement on the general questions in dispute, and for this purpose the Army Council share the view of the Secretary of State for the Colonies that the best course will be for the initial capital expenditure to remain on Army funds and for the Colony to continue to pay the cost of maintenance of the garrison.
"
4. The Committee of Imperial Defence at their 256th Meeting on 9th June recom- mended (Conclusion 1 (ii) (c)) that immediate steps should be taken to complete the "First Stage
of the Singapore defences, and when this recommendation has been approved by the Cabinet, the installation of the new, and further modernization of the old defences, will be resumed as funds permit. It is, however, necessary to maintain the new defences
* No. 24.
† No. 21.
(C38051)
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O.882/11
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- | COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO