CO882-(8-9) — Page 612

‛| ?། །

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

CO. 882

6

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

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

CA

Inter-Departmental Committee should be appointed to enquire into the operation of the method upon which the military contributions paid by Crown Colonies are now Treasury, naressed, in view of the actual and prospective changes in 18612 the circumstances of Culonies since the present method was established, and how far it furnishes an equitable apportionment of the burden of defence between the Imperial and local exchequers. It therefore becomes necessary to put forward what may be called-

VIIL THE CASE FOR THE EASTERN COLONIES.

The general consideration involved may be stated as follows :-

Is it the duty of a Crown Colony to pay for the whole cost of its garrison, irrespective of the reasons which have led to the size and costliness of that garrison? Colony If the answer to this question is that a ought not to be called upon to pay the proportion of the cost which represents the Imperial as opposed to the local needs of the station, then it must be held either that any contribution in excess of the local proportion is really paid as a contribution to the general defence of the Empire. or that the Colony is being overcharged.

The question whether Crown Colonies, with or without an Imperial garrison, should pay a contribution towards the general defence of the Empire is outside the scope of the terms of reference, quoted above, but I mention it for the sake of completeness. (See page 68.)

So far as the Eastern Colonies are concerned, I think it can be shown that there are good grounds for holding that The contribution should not be based on the maximum cost of the garrison, but on the local as opposed to the The Select Committee Imperial needs of the situation.

p. 4. p. 12.

1.

of the House of Commons of 1861 considered that in the case of military garrisons and places maintained chiefly for objects of Imperial policy, the responsibility and main cost of their defence properly devolved on the Imperial Govern- See p. ment. In 1864 the Governor of Mauritius was informed that, sooner or later, the Colony would be called upon to pay the whole cost of so much of its garrison as could be fairly assigned to the purposes of securing it against internal commotion and piratical attack. In 1866 Her Majesty's Government recognised that Trincomalee's fortifications were not required for any purely Colonial purpose, and undertook accordingly to pay the cost of construction; and in 1874 the War Office agreed to regard the cost of the Trincomalee garrison as an Imperial charge. The pp. 13, 14.

p. 16. Treasury in 1884 distinguished between forces maintained for the internal and external defence of the Colony and for purely Imperial purposes, though it is true that they maintained it to be the duty of every portion of the Empire to make some contribution towards defence expenses of the Empire. Similarly in the case of Hong Kong, it was admitted in 1863 that the garrison would be maintained in p. 21. part at least for Imperial purposes; the Committee of 1888 p. 25. did not deny that that admission still held good, though they left the question_undecided; the Committee of 1895 again recognised that Trincomalee was not defended merely p. 41. for Colonial interests, but was considered essential as an p. 40. Imperial naval base; the contribution was fixed at a sum equivalent to the full cost of the Colombo and Kandy garrisons and half the cost of the Trincomalee garrison as p. 41.

1. 19.

P. 32.

P. 33.

p. 37.

67

a compromise, which however acknowledged the Imperial as opposed to the local interest of the port.

From these facts I think it clearly follows that allowance has been made in the past for Imperial needs in fixing the

contribution.

It is, of course, true that Secretaries of State, after con- sultation with the two other Departments and in loyal acceptance of the decisions thus arrived at, have informed the Colonies that it was prima facie just that each Colony should pay not only for its own special land defence but also for part of the cost of the fleet, or that they ought to pay the whole cost of land defence, leaving naval defence to the United Kingdom; but that is not a strong argu. ment against the contention, since a Secretary of State is bound to defend, as best he can, the decisions of the Home Government.

As regards the Straits Settlements the same reasoning applies; and the only argument ever adduced by the Treasury or War Office in support of making the Colony pay the whole cost of the garrison is that it was taken over from India on the distinct condition that it should cost the Home Government nothing. To this argument they have always clung in spite of the fact that the whole strategic position was alterel by the opening of the Suez Canal and the consequent conversion of a port which had hitherto been merely the centre of a local trade, lying out of the main trade route, into a place commanding the highway to the Far East and Australasia, which it was necessary to fortify and garrison as an important link in As the chain of ports guarding lines of communication. was admitted by the War Office in 1884 "the possession "of Singapore keeps open to our fleets and commerce the "Straits of Malacca, and the highway from India to the

further East

19

The Committee of 1895 put forward views which were entirely in favour of charging the Colony with the full cost of the garrison. Their argument appeared to be that as the Colony had agreed to bear the full cost of its garrison if transferred from India, and as the percentage of revenue absorbed by the contribution was less than in 1866, it had no claim to relief. I have discussed above the question of the terms of transfer; the argument as to percentages of revenue appears to me to be quite unsound. At the time of transfer the Straits Settlements were burdened with military charges which were confessedly unfair, e.g, the convict contribution; therefore no valid conclusions can be drawn from taking the percentages in 1866 and 1993. The point is that in 1866 a sum of £59,300 was considered adequate to cover the military charges, and that in 1894 the estimated cost of the garrison was £154,730. The growth of revenue during this period is irrelevant to the point at issue; if it had reached the present level of the Ceylon revenue (nearly £3,000,000) the fact that the Colony was paying nearly three times what it had to pay when transferred and that the increase had been due to the decisions of the Home Government would remain unaffected.

There is a further point, to which reference was made on page 35. The Colony is charged with military con- tribution on the whole revenue while only one of the three Settlements is defended. I think that it is not possible to argue, as the Governor in 1890 urged, that the contribution should be paid on Singapore revenue alone.

25993

I 1