CO882-(8-9) — Page 519

29250

SIR.

94

No 120

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS

WAR OFFICE to COLONIAL OFFICE

(Received August 15, 1907.)

[Copy to Governor, 20 August, 1907. No. 231.

[Answered by No. 122.}

L.F.]

War Office, London, S.W, 15th August, 1907 WITH reference to your letter 22793/07, dated 2nd ultimo,* regarding the Straits Settlements military contribution, I am commanded by the Army Council to acquaint you that the statement by the Acting Treasurer forwarded therewith, regarding the over-payment for the calendar years 1904 and 1905, is concurred in.

The refund to the Colony of $207.046 (£24.155 7s. 4d.) will be effected locally, and instructions are accordingly being issued to the District Paymaster.

With regard to the concluding paragraph of the Acting Treasurer's statement, in which he contemplates the final adjustment of the contribution for 1906 this year, I am to draw attention to the fact that the estimate on which the monthly payments in 1907 are based includes (under the procedure hitherto in force) a sum of $51.249 in respect of an estimated under payment in 1906 tride Colonial Office letter 471×0/06. dated 22nd January, 1907).†

The Council note that the method proposed in War Office letter dated 26th June. 1907.‡ will be adopted in future

I am, &c..

34606

No. 121

R. I BRADE

95

6 With regard to the further suggestion contained in my despatch of the 13th June, that the statement should show that it has been audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, the reply is that the Army Council is not prepared to admit the necessity for any such confirmation of the figures officially furnished by a Depart tent of His Majesty's Government

J

7 It is not. I believe, unusual for statements of charges recoverable by one department of His Majesty's Service from another such department to be audited and certified by an independent authority before settlement.

-

The Legislature of this Colony may I submit, fairly claim that it is entitled to a certificate by an independent authority that the monies which it pays over to the War Department for certain specific purposes have been expended in accordance with the requirements of the law, and I should be glad if the matter may be referred again to the War Office for the favour of further consideration by the Army Council.

I have, &c..

34606

SIR,

No. 122.

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.

JOHN ANDERSON.

COLONIAL OFFICE to WAR OFFICE.

[Answered by No. 123.]

Downing Street, 2 October, 1907. WITH reference to your letter of August 15th,† I am directed by the Earl of Elgin to forward to you, for the consideration of the Army Council, the enclosed copy of a despatch from the Governor of the Straits Settlements with regard to the military contribution of that Colony.

I am, &c.,

C. P. LUCAS.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 882

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO

(No. 372.) MY LORD,

STRÁITS SETTLEMENTS.

THE GOVERNOR to THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Received September 30, 1907.) [Answered by No. 124.]

Government House, Singapore, 5th September, 1907. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge receipt of your Lordship's despatch, No. 217, of the 2nd August,§ forwarding copies of correspondence between the Colonial Office and the War Office on the subject of the payment of the Defence contribution annually appropriated from the revenues of the Colony.

2 In my despatch of the 13th June, No. 259,|| I asked for a return to be obtained from the War Office (in somewhat greater detail than that forwarded with your Lordship's despatch, No 138, of the 10th May¶), showing the amount expended under each heading separately, and not, as in some cases in that return, the total of the expenditure on several items combined under one head with the word

cetera.

** et

3. My reason for this request was, as stated in that despatch, that such a return would tend, by placing the public in possession of full information as to the manner in which the contribution is spent, to avert local criticism, and I am strongly of opinion that the publication of such a return would be sufficiently to the public interest to justify the increased clerical labour which its preparation might involve. when employed in the return is used only 4. I note that the word " et cetera

as an abbreviation of the title of the vote concerned, but would suggest that in a Home Effective detailed statement of the kind requested in the case of such votes as Charges for depôts, &c.. “Provisions, Fuel and Light, and Colonial Allowances,” &c., covering several classes of charges of which it is presumed separate account is kept, the principal classes of charges might with advantage be separately stated, as well as the total expenditure under the general vote.

5. I should be glad, in any case, to be supplied with information as to the basis upon which the share of the home and non-effective charges is assessed to this Colony

• No. 115.

↑ No. 104.

No. 116.

✰ No. 113.

No. 119.

¶ 16205: not printed.

37272

SIR,

No. 123.

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.

WAR OFFICE to COLONIAL OFFICE. (Received October 22, 1907.)

War Office, London, S. W., 21st October, 1907.

I AM commanded by the Army Council to acknowledge Colonial Office letter of the 2nd instant, No. 34606 1907, covering a copy of a further despatch from the Governor of the Straits Settlements on the subject of the Colony's military con- tribution.

In view of the full explanations furnished by this Department in 1901 and 1902 as to the charges referred to in paragraph 5 of the despatch, and of the in- formation referred to in paragraph 5 of the despatch, and of the information given on other points as shown by the correspondence referred to in the enclosed précis, I am to request you to inform Lord Elgin that the Council feel that they have already done all that can be reasonably required in this direction.

The Council are aware that an active movement is at present on foot in the Colony for the purpose of agitating for a reduction in the military contribution, and it appears possible that an impression exists that the sum now paid by the Colony is so close to the limit imposed by the Ordinance of 1899 (the cost of the garrison) that elaboration and investigation of details might conceivably result in some abatement. But, as the facts stand, the sum contributed in respect of the year 1905-6 (the latest year for which figures are available) fell short of the cost of the garrison by nearly £70,000 (War Office letter of 6th May, 1907||).

I am to add that no other Colony has made such requests for details, or for independent certification of the figures officially given by this Department.

I am, &c.,

R. H. BRADE.

• No. 116.

↑ No. 120.

‡ No. 121.

§ No. 122.

16205: not printed.