CO882-(8-9) — Page 597

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

PELLIC.O. 882

9

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

36

Enclosure

under formal protest from the unofficial members; and in Sat--Ea- the confirmatory despatch he sent the protest, which closure 2 to followed the usual lines, and subsequently he sent accounts in No. 3! of public meetings held in the Colony to protest against the imposition.

Enclosure

2 in No. 71.

Various protests continued to be received during 1891 4.270. and 1892; in 1891 (November) the vote for 1892 was only carried by the official majority; and a further reasoned appeal for a reduction of the contribution was made by the Governor's despatch of the 2nd of March, Enclose 1892, without result.

A. 334.

in No. ..

On the 30th of November, 1892, the Governor reported Enclosure that the vote for 1893 had again been carried only by the in No. G.

official vote.

In May, 1893, the Colonial Office wrote a long reasoned Enclosure letter to the Treasury showing cause why, on grounds of in No. EL. justice and expediency, the contribution should be reduced

to £70,000 a year. Nothing seems to have happened and

SA

proposal to reduce the cost by substituting Indian for

English troops was negatived by the Colonial Defence No. 74. Committee.

Their In 1894 the Inter-Departmental Committee was re- assembled to consider the question of contribution. report, which was unanimous, was

submitted on the

3rd March, 1894. It stated that the average strength of A. 288. the garrison had been 1,460 instead of 1,555, and the estimated actual cost per annum £144,000; while the authorized strength in 1894 was 1,572 and the estimated cost £154,730. It recommended that the contribution for the five years 1894-1898 should be £75,000, £87,500, £100,000, £112,500, and £125,000, on the general ground that the revenue and expenditure of the Colony would not hear a greater amount, owing to the depreciation of silver. The War Office concurred but the Treasury wanted a scale A. 316. of £80,000, rising by annual increments of £10,000 to No. 79. £120,000, to which the Secretary of State agreed. On the 6th of November, 1894, the Secretary of State informed Enclosure the Governor of this decision, adding that the obligation in 2 in No. 81. respect to land and buildings must continue.

Enclosure in No. 80.

Enclosure

This decision was not well received in the Colony and in No. 88. various Justices of the Peace and unofficial members of Council resigned their appointments, but in February, No. 94. 1895, the Colonial Office proposed to the War Office a system of percentage based on Sir C. Mitchell's despatch Enclosure

No. 93. of the 29th December, 1894, and the Treasury on the in No. 94. 2nd of March agreed to the question being put before the Inter-Departmental Committee.

VI. THE INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COM-

MITTEE OF 1895.

On the 29th of December, 1894, Sir C. Mitchell, Governor of the Straits Settlements, addressed a despatch to the Secretary of State protesting against the proposed scale of contribution for the years 1894-1898 and con- cluded with the following paragraph :

"I conclude by expressing an earnest hope that it may A. 338, "not be too late to deal with this question on the basin P. 29. “(perhaps) of a certain fixed proportion-say 20 per cent.—

"of the Colonial revenue being taken as a contribution for

military and naval defence."

I am aware that such a

**

44

system, by reason of the fluctuation in the dollar value,

46

might to some extent disturb the estimates of receipts by

Pura. 21 el

8E7. of Report

(A. 338).

แ

.

37

the Imperial Exchequer, but this disturbance would be infinitesimal in comparison to the hopeless confusion "into which the calculation of the contribution on a gold basis reduces the budget of a Colony of which that contribution, with other military charges on the 1895 "estimates, exceeds one-fourth of the estimated revenue." As I have stated above, the question was referred to an Inter-Departmental Committee, which reported on the 1st May, 1895.

After once more recapitulating the past history of the contribution in the Straits Settlements, the Committee summed up its views as follows :—

Bearing in mind the following facts,-- "(1) That the object of the Colony in pressing for its "transfer to Imperial rule was to diminish the heavy

military charges it incurred under Indian rule;

(2) That those charges between 1858 and 1866 "varied from 67 to 27 per cent. of its revenue;

(3) That the contribution received from the Colony "between 1867 and 1888 fell gradually from 22 to 6'7 per "cent. of its revenue, the charge to Imperial funds rising

gradually to £74,730 a year in 1894;

"(4) That the Colonial Office, on behalf of those "representing the Settlements, agreed as a condition of transfer, that the Colony should bear the full cost of the garrison required for its defence;

&

(5) That since the revision of 1889, its contribution

"has never exceeded two-thirds, and in 1894 was little

LE

more than one-half, of the cost of its garrison, and that "the average charge on its gross revenues for the years "1889-94 has only been 16:03 compared with 27 per cent. "in 1866 and with about 33 per cent., which would have "been the charge under Indian rule ;

"It cannot be said that the Colony has not achieved "the object it had in view in seeking transfer to Imperial rule, nor that the agreement of 1866 has been "violated to the detriment of the Colony.

"If the Colony had been disappointed in its expecta- "tions; if its military charges under Imperial rule had "exceeded those of its lowest charge under Indian rule,

.L

viz., 27 per cent. of its revenue (in 1866), it might "have had some plausible grounds on which to base a "claim for special consideration, but as long as the military charges for its defence absorb a less proportion "of revenue than that which it voluntarily agreed to on "its transfer, it can have no claim whatever for relief, "except on the ground of inability to meet its necessary

expenditure.

"The Committee therefore consider that the Straits "Settlements when financially capable of bearing the "charge, with due regard to the welfare of the Colony, "should assume the full cost of the garrison necessary for "its defence, and that the objections it has urged for so many years against the principle of charging the cost of "its military defence to local revenues (the Imperial "Government bearing the whole cost of its naval defence) "are inconsistent with the terms of its transfer, and "should not be entertained.

"

"The Colonial contention that it should not be charged, "under the agreement of 1866, with the full cost of its "garrison, has no immediate practical importance. It is

(4

many years since the Colony has defrayed the full cost “of its garrison, and there is, under its existing financial "conditions, little prospect of its being able to do so in