CO882-(8-9) — Page 541

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 882

35139

SIR,

No. 166

CEYLON,

WAR OFFICE to COLONIAL OFFICE

(Received 26 October, 1909.)

[Answered by No. 167.]

War Office, London, SW, 25th October, 1909 THE Army Council have fully considered your letter 21531 of 6th August, 1908.* with its enclosed copies of two despatches from the Governor of Ceylon with regard to the proposal that the maximum of the military contribution payable by 1 Colony should in future be`the whole (instead of three quarters) of the cost of the garrison, and command me to offer the following remarks.

2 In paragraph of his despatch dated 23rd May, 1908, the Governor contends that, when the principle that Ceylon should bear the whole cost of its garrison was first laid down in 1801, the circumstances of the Colony were altogether different from those which obtain now. But he appears to ignore the fact that the same principle has been repeatedly asserted since that date.

As

3 The Council find it a little difficult to follow the argument of paragraph 6 of the despatch, that because Trincomali was abandoned for Imperial reasons, its abandonment raises no question of revision of the Colonial contribution. explained in War Office letter of 31st October, 1907.† the only ground for fixing the maximum limit of the contribution at three-quarters (rather than the whole) of the cost of the garrison was the alleged peculiar position of Trincomali as an Imperial naval base Although, as stated in your letter of 6th August, 1908,* the manner in which this limit was arrived at was not explicitly communicated to the Colony, the Colonial Government can hardly have been ignorant of the fact that it represented the full cost of the garrisons of Colombo and Kandy plus half the cost of that of Trincomali. (The figures for each station had in fact been already furnished to the Colony.) On the abandonment of Trincomali the position is as though that station had never been occupied, ie, the maximum limit of the contribution becomes the whole cost of the troops in the island.

4 In paragraph 7 of the despatch, exception is taken to the proposed revision on the ground that no indication was given in 1895 that the arrangement then arrived at was dependent on the maintenance of the conditions then obtaining in regard to the composition and distribution of the garrison. But it can hardly be contended that such an explicit indication was ever necessary to justify the removal of an anomalous limit to the contribution when once the fact that gave rise to the anomaly had ceased to exist.

5 In paragraphs 8-11 the Governor alleges that Colombo has now taken the place of Trincomali in regard to Imperial strategy, as distinguished from purely local defence, and that any grounds on which part of the cost of Trincomali was formerly borne by the Imperial Government now apply to Colombo. On this point the Governor appears to have been misinformed. Trincomali was a naval base, and was abandoned because it was decided that such a base was no longer necessary in those waters. Colombo, on the other hand, was, and remains, a fortified coaling station The withdrawal of troops from Trincomali was accompanied by a reduction in the total garrison of the island, but no increase was made in the garrison of Colombo. The Colonial Government appears always in the past to have accepted liability for the cost of the garrison of Colombo, as being necessary to the defence of the Colony, and, whatever may have been the reasons for special treatment in the case of Trincomali, the circumstances of Colombo are in no way exceptional.

*

6 The statement in paragraph 10 that the War Office is asking the Colony. thus deprived

of one of its main defences, to pay an enhanced contri-

bution for that which remains to it," will not bear a moment's examination. The Colony has always protested that it wanted no garrison at Trincomali for Colonial purposes, and the Colonial contribution, if revised as now proposed, will be much less than it was before the troops were withdrawn from that station.

• No. 139.

↑ No. 135.

+ No. 125.

139

* As regards paragraphs 12-13, in which the circumstances of Ceylon are contrasted with those of flong Kong and the Straits Settlements, I am to say that the considerations mentioned by the Governor, while they doubtless affect the size of the respective garrisons, do not appear to support any claim to preferential treat- It is, however. ment in the case of Ceylon in the matter of incidence of cost. worthy of notice that the contribution which Ceylon is now asked to pay is, in proportion to its revenue. only about quarter of the corresponding payments made by Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements.

5.

In paragraphs 14-15 the Governor suggests that the Colony is invited" to forgo the sole advantage gained by these new arrangements (ie, the reduced garrison), viz., the reduction of cost, in which the Imperial Treasury also shares." The Council fail entirely to see how the Governor has arrived at the conclusion that under the proposal made by this Department the Colony will gain no financial advantage from the reduction of the garrison. Taking average figures for the five years, 1900-1 to 1904-5, before the reduction, the annual cost of the garrison (exclu- sive of new works) was £221.000, of which the Colony paid £136,000 (=`94 per cent. of revenue). The average cost is now about £115,000. If this is paid by Ceylon, as now proposed, the Colony's funds will still gain by no less than £21,000 a year from the reduction in the garrison. The Council have looked in vain for any recog- nition of this important fact in the Governor's despatch.

9. The Council are unable to understand how the Governor can have been led to make the statement in paragraph 17 that, by accepting the same maximum limit of the contribution as the other Eastern Colonies, Ceylon would become liable for whatever expenditure might result from possible future changes of military policy, and would thus be signing a blank cheque on its Treasury. As in the past, 9 per cent. of the Colony's revenue would of course be the utmost limit of its contri- bution.

10.

In conclusion, I am to ask you to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for the Colonies to War Office letter dated 25th instant,* with regard to the case of Sierra Leone, and to the broad principle repeatedly asserted by preceding Secretaries of State, to the effect that so long as a Colony makes no contribution towards the cost of its naval defence it may fairly be asked to bear the full cost of its garrison and of maintaining its land defences, provided that charge does not absorb any undue proportion of its revenue.” It certainly cannot be maintained that in the case of Ceylon the military charges under the proposed basis would " absorb any undue proportion of its revenue,' and the Army Council cannot but think that, on further consideration, Lord Crewe will agree that there is no longer any ground for making the maximum limit of the contribution other than the full cost of the garrison, as in the case of the other Eastern Colonies.

35139

SIR,

No. 167.

CEYLON.

I am, &c.,

COLONIAI. OFFICE to WAR OFFICE. [Answered by No 173.]

E. W. D. WARD.

Downing Street, 4 November, 1909.

I AM directed by the Earl of Crewe to acknowledge the receipt of your letter

of the 25th of October,† with regard to the military contribution paid by the Govern- ment of Ceylon; and to request you to inform the Army Council that his Lordship considers that the question is one which should be discussed by the Interdepart- mental Committee the formation of which has been suggested to the Council and to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury.

2. In these circumstances Lord Crewe proposes to defer consideration of the letter under acknowledgment.

I am,

&c., H. BERTRAM COX.

• 35138: not printed.

↑ No. 166.

6

|PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON:

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO