CO882-(8-9) — Page 520

| PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

། ། །

4

Reference:

6

C.O. 882

9

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON ||

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH--NOT TO

96

Enclosure m No 123

PRECIS of correspondence between War Oilice and Colonial Office in connection with roque 1- made from time to time by Governor of Straits Settlements for

formation re cost of garrison

Colonial Office to War Office, 13th November. 1900 36222 1900), forwarding despatch from Governor asking for a complete statement of total military expendi ture for 1999 and similar statements, as soon as available, for 1900, &e

War Ollice to Colonial Oflee. 15th Jammary, 1901, giving total expenditure for 1899 1900, under Army Votes

Colonial Otlive to War Office, 25th June, 1901 20865 1901), forwarding des patch from Governor, asking for more detailed information, e g., re transport item.

War Office to Colonial Othee, 20th (15th) September, 1901, sending statement showing expenditure under Army Votes, and also according to place and mode of isstie Full explanations were given of general charges," comprising charges for transport Home charges for depôts and other expenses of training and discharging soldiers, pensions, de It was also suggested that if the Governor wished to ascer tain more exactly the nature of the local expenditure, an officer acting on his behalf could inspest the accounts of the Army Paymaster.

Colonial Office to War Office, 3rd January, 1902 (45195 1901), forwarding des patch from Governor, with memorandum by Mr T E Earle, criticising figures furnished by War Office, especially charge for pensions

War Oflice to Colonial Office, 20th March, 1902, giving very full explanations on points raised in despatch, pointing out fallacy in Mr Earle's deductions on subject of pension charge, and dealing further with home effective charges and Also stating that Officer Commanding is being instructed to give transport item facilities for inspection of the Army Paymaster's accounts.

War Office to Colonial Office, 6th May, 1907, giving usual information re mili- tary expenditure for 1905-6.

Colonial Office to War Office, 23rd May, 1907 (17785-1907), forwarding des- patch from Governor, asking for the figures relating to "expenditure not ascertain able locally" in respect of garrison for 1905 and 1906

War Office to Colonial Office, 3rd June, 1907, saying that particulars asked for in respect of calendar years cannot be given, and sending copies of recent corres- pondence in which General Officer Commanding was informed that there was no objection to his supplying information to Colonial authorities as to local expendi- ture, but that it was undesirable for him to attempt to supply the Colonial Govern- ment with information as to expenditure which does not pass through the books of his command

•

Colonial Office to War Office. 11th June, 1907 (19775 1907), asking for informa- Transport of troops tion under head “ Expenditure not ascertainable locally,” i.e., from England, Capitation rate for Native Infantry recovered by India Office from War Office, and freight on stores received from England" for the last two financial years.

War Office to Colonial Office, 24th June. 1907, pointing out undesirability of attempting by piecemeal collection of figures to anticipate the official statement of cost annually furnished.

Colonial Office to War Office, July, 1907 (18205/1907), forwarding despatch from Governor, asking for a more detailed return for the calendar years 1905 and 1906, audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

War Office to Colonial Office, 29th July, 1907, explaining that proposed expan- sion of the statement would increase clerical labour, and that the necessity for certification by the Comptroller and Auditor-General of figures officially furnished

admitted. by a Department of His Majesty's Government could not

Colonial Office to War Office, 2nd October, 1907 (34806/1907), forwarding des- patch from Governor, renewing request for more detailed return, and asking to be informed in any case as to basis upon which the share of Home and non-effective charges is assessed to the Colony, and also again asking that statement of expendi- ture may be certified by an independent authority.

37272

SIR,

(No. 306)

97

No. 124

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE to THE GOVERNOR

Downing Street, 25 October, 1907. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch, No. 372 of September 5th.* with regard to the military contribution paid by the Straits Settle-

ments

2. Your despatch was referred to the War Office, and I enclose a copy of the reply which has been received from that Department.

I have, &c.,

38419

SIR.

No. 125

CEYLON.

WAR OFFICE to COLONIAL OFFICE. (Received 1 November, 1907.)

[Answered by No. 127.]

ELGIN.

War Office, London, S. W., 31st October, 1907. I AM commanded by the Army Council to acquaint you, for the information of the Secretary of State for the Colonies that, in connection with the recent with- drawal of the Imperial garrison from the port of Trincomali, they have had under consideration the question of the military contribution payable by the Colony of Ceylon, which under present arrangements is limited to a maximum of three-quarters of the cost of the garrison.

This question has formed the subject of frequent discussion in the past between the Home and Colonial Governments, and it will perhaps be convenient to briefly review the steps leading up to the arrangements at present in force.

2

3 The principle that Ceylon, when financially competent, should bear the whole cost of the garrison necessary for its defence was laid down in the first des patch written to Ceylon by a Secretary of State (in 1801), and, after confirmation by successive Ministries and Committees of Enquiry, was once more asserted by the majority of the Colonial Contributions Committee of 1890. In the discussions which have taken place from time to time between the Home Government and the Colony, the main question at issue has been whether the garrison of Trincomali should properly be regarded as part of the garrison required for the defence of the Colony; the Colonial Government holding that this port was defended, primarily at all events, as an Imperial coaling station, and that the cost of its garrison should be an Imperial charge. This view received the support of the Colonial Office representa- tive of the 1890 Committee, who, however, agreed that the whole cost of the garrison of Colombo and Kandy should be borne by Ceylon.

4. In view of the difference of opinion as to the incidence of the cost of the Trincomali garrison, and also having regard to the unsatisfactory state of the Colony's finances at the time, the contributions payable by the Colony for the years 1890-4 were ultimately fixed on an ascending scale, the average payment for the five years (£75,400) representing very nearly the then estimated cost (£75,586) of the garrison of Ceylon, exclusive of Trincomali. At the Colony's request, this was subsequently modified to four equal payments of £81,750 for the years 1891-4.

5. The Colonial Contributions Committee of 1895 recommended that the con- tribution should be fixed at a definite percentage of the revenue of the Island, and that the maximum contribution payable should be the cost of the garrisons of Colombo and Kandy, together with half that of Trincomali. The cost of the garrison at this time was estimated at £151,250, and on the assumption that in time of war half the garrison would be at Trincomali, the maximum contribution would thus be £113,437, or roughly £115,000, which was the figure actually recommended by the Committee. In 1895 the fixed percentage of the revenue was estimated to yield about £81,558, a sum slightly less than that paid for each of the four previous years, but exceeding by nearly £6,000 the estimated cost of the Colombo and Kandy garrisons. It was subsequently agreed, at the suggestion of your Department (Colonial Office letter, 11155 of 27th June, 1898), that, in order to avoid raising

‡ Not printed.

• No. 121.

24658

↑ No. 123.

או!