CO882-(8-9) — Page 595

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 882

9

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE. LONDON

32

be about £30,000, which they understood would devolve opote the Colony to provide: they estimated the cost of garrison, including home effective and non-effective Services, at £91,595; and they recommended that the Home Government should continue to pay the cost of the wing of the liritish regiment. Sir H. Ord conurred in the report, but asked that, as in other cases, the Imperial Government should pay for the armaments: and that as the cost of the wing of the regiment was £40,000 the contribution should be fixed at £51,595.

The Treasury approved the proposed contribution in A. 129. December, 1871. but the question of the cost of the pt. defences was left unsettled at the time, since the War Office would not accept Sir H. Ord's proposal. The thud. Secretary of State in February, 1872, agreed with the War Office and requested Sir H. Ord to refer the whole matter to his Council and invite its opinion.

4.

+

The Council's view was communicated to the War Ibid. Office in January, 1873. They had resolved that :- Singapore being merely an entrepôt, its defence against external attack is an Imperial duty, seeing that from its position both strategically and as a great coal depût it is the key of the Eastern seas, of vital importance to the trade of Great Britain with China and Japan, a postal and telegraph centre, and in the event of war with an European or American Power, would become the most important naval station in the East. For these reasons the Council is unanimously of opinion that the proposed permanent works of defence should be undertaken at the cost of the Imperial Government."

It may be useful here to remark that, as pointed out by A. 129, Mr. Bramston in 1848, conditions had changed greatly p. 37. between 1866 and 1871. In 1866 the port of Singapore was isolated, with a large local trade it is true, but out of the direct line of traile between Europe and the East. But in 1869 the opening of the Suez Canal gave it a new value as a port of call for European trade, and a strategie importance greatly in excess of what it previously possessed. In fact, what was applicable in 1866 was no longer applicable in 1871.

That conditions had changed was clearly realised by the Secretary of State, who informed the Governor in March, 1873, that Her Majesty's Government are quite A. 129,

*

"unable to entertain the proposition laid down by the p. 60.

* Council in their resolution that the defence of Singapore

The

is an Imperial duty, in so far as it may thereby be intended to assert that the local revenue should be "relieved from what may be determined to be a reasonable

contribution towards the cost of such defense. "Straits Settlements have a large and increasing revenue, "derived from the great commercial advantages of their "position, and the charge of protecting the population "and commerce of Singapore could not fairly be thrown upon the people of this country. The suggestion there- "fore that the proposed permanent works of defence "should be constructed entirely at the cost of the Home The italics » Government cannot be accepted

•

in the above quotation are mine, but they tend to show that it was no longer a question of the Straits Settlements providing the whole of the cost of garrison and defences.

In 1873 the Royal Engineer establishment was with- drawn, the maintenance and repair of the barracks being undertaken by the Colony, and the contribution reduced by £1,450.

A 129, pti0-61.

P. 6).

A. 129,

P. 84.

p. 83.

D. 62.

A. 129,

p. 3.

33

Owing to the war-scare in 1878 hasty preparations for defence were made by the War Office on the suggestion of the Colonial Office, at an estimated cost of £43,400, of which the Secretary of State proposed that the Colony should pay £30,000 as their share. The Colony was never consulted as to the incidence of the cost of these works. The question was allowed to drag on unsettled, and in November, 1881, it was proposed that the War Department should take over all works, buildings, and landa. The Governor agreed; but in June, 1883, the War Office proposed that the Colony should take charge of all the works of 1878-9 and subsequent works as they did of buildings and work prior to that date. New works were then under construction and the question was allowed to drop till they were completed.

These new works were undertaken as the result of Lord Carnarvon's Royal Commission and the recommendations of the Inspector-General of Fortifications. The decision is set out in a letter from the War Office dated the 19th March, 1884, which enclosed a summary of the recommendations; these were as follows:-

"The possession of Singapore keeps open to our fleets "and commerce the Straits of Malacca, and the highway from India to the further East and Australia. The "defence of Singapore may be limited to such works and "armaments as are necessary to secure the 'New Harbour' "and deny the Man-of-War' anchorage to an enemy. "Works £75,000, Armament £49,000; Total £124,000." In their letter the War Office said that "it appears "reasonable that the cost of these defences should be "borne by the local Governments, or if Lord Derby is of opinion that the whole cost cannot be equitably charged against them, the armaments might be provided by the Imperial Government." The Secretary of State informed the Treasury that "Lord Derby is of opinion that the "entire cost of the proposed works and armaments could "not in any circumstances have been borne by the 44 Colony."

46

L

The new works meant an increase of garrison: and in addition to the enhanced charge on the Colony from this source, the War Office claimed that the Colony should maintain them. The Governor protested that this was not part of the original arrangement; and the War Office then appear to have taken refuge in a statement that the question had not been decided, but that, following the analogy of 1871, the Colony should maintain the works and also provide for new barracks for the incressed garrison. This question was referred to the 1888 Inter- Departmental Committee, together with questions as to the cost of the submarine mining defences provided in 1884-5, the adjustment of expenditure on barracks for the garrison maintained in excess of the 1871 agreement, and the loss to the Imperial Exchequer caused by payment of the contribution in dollars at rates above their value.

(3) 1889-1895.

The Inter-Departmental Committee reported on the 9th of July, 1888; and, as in the case of Ceylon, the Colonial Office representative submitted a separate report. It is perhaps unnecessary to examine the premises which the majority of the Committee laid down as leading to their conclusions.

38993