CO882-(2-3) — Page 129

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference →→→

TICO. 882

2

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE

BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO|

12

Buckingham, quoted in this letter, which they do not admit of. The Duke's words that he considered that the Imperial Government was under no obligation whatever to furnish fortifications or their accessories in the Straits Settlements, must be interpreted by reference to the view consistently held by the Colonial Office that the understanding upon the transfer was, that these "accessories," being in Lord Kimberley's words "assets of the Colony," were to be transferred free of charge with the Colony. Fortifications and their accessories are placed by the Duke of Buckingham in the same category. It is agreed that the Imperial Government was under no obligation to provide fortifications, for this reason, that they were to be transferred by the Indian Government free of charge; and the Duke treated the accessories of the fortifications as coming within the same reason.

The deduction of the War Office that, because no obligation in the matter lay on the Imperial Government, therefore a question as to the purchase of the stores arose for the Colony, was a deduction made in forgetfulness of the circumstances of the transfer, and of the obligations considered by the Colonial Office to lie upon the Indian Government; and the suggestiou of the letter must be read simply as a suggestion thrown out in self- defence.

It is further submitted that the India Office is not in a position to draw any argument from this letter. The letter is, as is apparenton its face, part of a correspondence beginning as early as April, before the arrival in this country of the Report of the Committee of Valuation, between the War Office and the Colonial Office. How can such a correspon- dence, to which the India Office is not a party, be referred to by that Office, as offering any argument in its favour, and, still more, how can one letter of such a correspondence be referred to apart from the rest, without which its subject-matter is uncertain? The subject- matter is, in fact, the only question relating to the Settlements which can be in issue between the Colonial Office and the War Office, namely, whether the Settlements are liable to the War Office, or the War Office is liable to the Settlements, for fortifications. and their accessories.

The India Office has been led, by the character of its own adininistration, to over- look the fact, of which it is scarcely necessary to remind the Arbitrator, that, under Imperial administration, Colonies have relations with both the Colonial Office and the War Office; and that the War Office, in supplying military establishments in a Colony, seeks to make the Colony liable in turn to supply certain immoveable requirements for military service, so far as the defence of the Colony and local interests are concerned; and that hence, not unfrequently, a question arises between the Colonial Office, acting on behalf of the Colony, and the War Office, as to the extent of this liability. It is obvious that no decision upon this liability, however adverse to the Colony, can affect a question between the Colony and a third party. The Straite Settlements may be liable to supply fortifications and accessories for the use of the War Department, while, in turn, they have the right to demand those very "fortifications and accessories" from the Indian Government.

As, however, the India Office has dragged this letter into the discussion, the Colonial Office submits that the only use which can be fairly made of it, is in favour of the Colony,. as it shows the view of the War Office to be that "accessories of fortifications are placed in the same class as fortifications.

The Colonial Office thinks it due to the War Office to add that, in the numerous. discussions between the two Offices upon the liability of Culonies to the War Department, the War Department has never made such a claim as that now put forward by the India Office, regard being had to the nature and circumstances of the "armaments and stores in question; and the Colonial Office will further show, in a later part of the case, that the opinion thus supposed by the India Office to be entertained by the Secretary for War, that the Straits Settlements are liable to their former administrators, the Indian Govern- ment, for the armaments and stores in question, is inconsistent with the settled practice of the War Department upon giving up the military defence of Colonies.

In the autumn of 1868, Ordnance stores, as selected and valued by the Committee of Valuation, were handed over by the Indian Government to the Imperial officers of the War Department in the Straits' Settlements. Their value was put by the War Office and the India Office at 31,6431. They consisted of the armaments and stores in dispute, and of those described in the terms of submission as paid for by the War Department on Imperial

account.

It is not the intention of the Colonial Office to offer, in the present case, any remarks upon the valuation, or upon the proportion which these two parts of the Ordnance stores bear to each other, but to call the attention of the Arbitrator to the general principles only, which, it is submitted, ought to determine the rights of the parties.

13

Returning to the correspondence, on the 6th of April. 1869, a letter was addressed Appendix 8. from the War Office to the Colonial Office on the subject of the armaments; and on the 27th of April a copy of this letter, and a copy of the above War Office letter of the 4th of August, 1868, were transmitted by Earl Granville, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, to the India Office, with a letter containing the following passage :-

"Lord Granville trusts that the Duke of Argyll will concur with him in thinking that the Colonial Government cannot properly be called upon to pay for the armament of the fortifications.

"It appears to him that the principle laid down in my letter of the 28th January, 1867, and concurred in by the Government of India, ought to be applied to the ordnance in the forts, and that in accordance therewith it should be regarded as property belonging to the local Government, and as such be handed over to that Government by the Govern- ment of India, free of cost on the transfer of the control of the Colony to this Department." After receiving this communication the India Office, according to the information subsequently given by that Office to the Colonial Office, addressed references, commencing from the 20th October, 1869, to the Indian Government inquiring whether they were disposed, in accordance with the suggestion from the Colonial Office in the above letter of the 27th of April, 1869, to transfer the armaments, together with certain stores forming the equipment of the armaments, to the Colonial Government free of cost.

No answer to these references was communicated by the India Office to the Colonial Office until the 22nd of November, 1871, at which date a letter was written from that Office, to be quoted presently.

It will thus be observed that six months were allowed at the India Office to pass before the above communication of the 27th of April, 1869, was referred to the Indian Government, and another period of two years elapsed before the Colonial Office received the answer of the Indian Government.

Before, however, quoting the above-mentioned letter from the India Office of the 22nd of November, 1871, it is necessary to call attention to what took place in the interval.

Appendix T.

On the 26th of November, 1869, the Colonial Office, moved by the War Office, wrote Appendix U («). to the India Office requesting information on the subject, and an answer was sent by the Appendix U (b). India Office on the 3rd of December, 1869. Again, on the 29th November, 1870, the Colonial Office, at the instance of the War Office, called the attention of the India Office Appendix U (c).. to the matter.

Up to this time the principals in the transaction had been the India Office and the War Office. The India Office handed over the Ordnance stores to the officers of the War Department, and the War Department has, it is admitted, made a payment on account of some of them. The Colonial Office now came in, under an arrangement with the War Office. In the course of the year 1870 the War Office found it inconvenient to retain the custody of the stores in dispute, and, in consequence, came to an arrangement with the Colonial Office which was embodied in a letter of the 17th of February, 1871, Appendix V. written from the War Office to the Colonial Office to the effect that the question of handing over the armaments, and of the extent of the equipments of the guns which should follow the armament, was to be settled between the India Office and the Colonial Office without further reference to the War Office, on the understanding that no stores forming the equipments of the armaments, and which were included in the India Office claim of 31,6434, made by that office on the War Department, should remain in custody of Imperial Officers or be charged to Imperial funds.

This letter was communicated to the India Office by the Colonial Office on the 28th Appendix X. of February, 1871.

It may be added, as a fact, that the armaments and stores in dispute have remained in custody of Imperial Officers pending the result of this arbitation.

After the receipt of the above letter of the 28th February at the India Office there was a further correspondence between the Colonial Office and the India Office, of which the following are the material portions:---

On the 30th March, 1871, Mr. Merivale wrote from the India Office to the Under- Appendix Y. Secretary of State for the Colonies that he was directed by the Duke of Argyll to acknow- ledge the receipt of the above letter of the 28th of February, and to state that, as no answer had yet been received from the Government of India to the references addressed to that authority from the 20th of October, 1869, a further despatch would then be addressed to India again directing the attention of the Indian Government to the subject.

He added-

"Should the state of the finances of India not warrant that Government in entertain- ing your proposal respecting the armaments and equipments, I shall, in accordance with

[132]

E

J