CO885-11 — Page 447

444

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

PLC.O.882/11

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

148

maintained at a lower strength than would otherwise be necessary, and, when the cost of the garrison determines the military contribution, may thus indirectly affect its amount. While, therefore, the Council naturally wish to encourage Colonies to contribute to their own defence by the formation of local Forces, and would be sorry to see the measures to that end now in contemplation in Mauritius prejudiced, they are unable to admit the principle that the cost of such forces should be directly allowed for in reduction of the amount payable as a Colonial contribution.

The Council accordingly are of opinion that the question of the Colonial contribution payable by Mauritius should be considered on its merits and should be divorced from the consideration of the question of the formation of the local Defence Force; and in the present letter they propose to confine themselves to the former question.

The general principles on which the system of Colonial contributions is based have been indicated above. These principles guided the deliberations of the Haliburton Committee of 1889 upon whose recommendations the existing basis of the contribution of Mauritius rests, and it is clear from their Report, and from that of the same Committee sitting in 1895, which introduced the system of calculating the amount of the contribution upon a percentage of revenue, that the Committee did not draw any distinction in principle between Mauritius and other Colonies such as the Straits Settlements or Hong Kong, and that they started from the assumption that, like those Colonies, Mauritius was primarily liable for the full cost of its garrison. In dealing with Mauritius the Committee were chiefly concerned in assessing the amount the Colony could afford to pay, and they stated that it was owing to the comparative poverty of the Colony and the period of depression from which its finances were then emerging that they had fixed the percentage for Mauritius at a figure (51) substantially lower than that fixed for other Colonies. In approving the recommendations of the Committee the Treasury at the time expressed a hope that an improvement in the financial conditions of the Colony might in time justify an increase in this percentage. When the Contribution Ordinance came to be drafted, the alternative over-riding limit of the cost of the garrison, included in similar Ordinances elsewhere, was omitted; the disparity between the percentage of revenue and the then cost of the garrison was such as to render it improbable that such limit would ever become operative.

Proposals are now put forward in the Governor's despatch of 24th June, 1933*, that the contribution should be limited to half the cost of the garrison or 5 per cent. of the revenue, whichever is the less, or, alternatively, in your letter under reply, that its amount should be fixed at a sum of £25,000 for a period of years.

As shown above, Colonial contributions have been assessed generally on the basis of the full cost of the garrison or a percentage of the Colony's revenue whichever is the less. The former alternative limit may be regarded as the measure of the Colony's primary liability and the latter as the measure of its capacity to pay.

In the past, for the reasons outlined above, the cost of the garrison has not entered directly into the determination of the contribution paid by Mauritius. The Army Council agree that in present circumstances it is right that it should do so, and they are prepared to accept it, subject to Treasury sanction, as a limit to the Colony's contribution for the future. As the Secretary of State for the Colonies will understand, however, they are not prepared to depart from the principle laid down in the past by accepting something short of the whole cost of the garrison on the ground that it serves Imperial as well as local purposes. The proposal to fix half only of the cost of the garrison as a limiting factor is therefore not acceptable.

The other limiting factor, namely, the fixed percentage of revenue, is designed to ensure that the contribution is within the Colony's capacity to pay, and if any modification of the present rule is desirable on the score of poverty it should take the form of a modi- fication of the fixed percentage. As stated above, however, the percentage for Mauritius Had was fixed originally at a specially low figure on account of the Colony's poverty. not the garrison been substantially reduced since then, it would have been open to the War Office, in view of the Colony's increasing prosperity in recent years, to raise the question of an increase of the percentage to make it more comparable with that of other Eastern Colonies. As things are, the Council see no reason to make any further con- cession to the Colony in this matter on the score of poverty, especially as with the change proposed above the Colony will at present be called upon in fact to pay only the cost of the garrison, which will probably be appreciably less than 5 per cent. of the revenue. It will be apparent from the conclusions reached above that the Army Council would not be prepared to accept a flat-rate contribution of £25,000 a year as suggested by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Apart from the insufficiency of the amount, they

• No. 100.

149

doubt the expediency in the case of Mauritius of adopting the method of a flat rate, which it is proposed to adopt in quite different and very special circumstances in the case of the Straits Settlements.

The Army Council wish to commend the views set forth above very strongly to the consideration of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, as being founded on principles which have stood the test of experience, and as embodying that due recognition of the Colony's ability to pay for which appeal has been made on the Colony's behalf.

The Council hope that the concession they offer in regard to the contribution will also enable Secretary Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister to support their view that the Defence Force, as to which semi-official correspondence is proceeding separately, should be dealt with on its own merits.

A copy of this letter has been sent to the Treasury.

14565/33 [No. 20].

MY DEAR SAMMY,

No. 104.

SIR H. J. CREEDY (WAR OFFICE)

to

SIR S. WILSON (COLONIAL OFFICE).

I am, &c.,

H. J. CREEDY.

War Office, London, S.W.1, 6th November, 1933.

You will remember the correspondence ending with Shuckburgh's letter of 16th September to Paterson regarding the extension of Lieutenant-Colonel Hutchison's tour in Mauritius. The raison d'être for this extension was that Hutchison's influence and experience might be available in connexion with the raising of a local Defence Force.

We are to-day sending you an official letter in reply to Colonial Office letter of 30th August covering a despatch from the Governor on the subject of the military contribution and the proposed formation of a Defence Force. Our letter explains why we are unwilling to regard these two questions as mutually interdependent, and why we are unable to agree that the amount of the contribution payable should be abated in consideration of the formation of a local Force.

At the same time we are anxious that our letter should not be regarded as throwing - cold water upon the project of a Defence Force, which has our entire sympathy. We are most anxious to encourage Colonies to form efficient local Defence Forces capable of supplementing our necessarily limited regular garrisons in the event of an emergency.

We trust that after full consideration of the views expressed in our official letter the Colonial Secretary will be disposed to use his influence to induce the Colony to proceed with the formation of a Defence Force, and that the Mauritius Government, for their part, will not wish to abandon a project which, apart from its desirability on defence grounds, cannot fail to enhance the prestige of the Island.

'The question of Hutchison's extension is, of course, intimately linked with the decision as to the Defence Force. If the scheme is dropped, there is no ground for keeping Hutchison out in Mauritius beyond the period of his present tour, which expires at the end of the year. I hope, therefore, it may be possible to arrive at a favourable decision as to the Defence Force in the near future.

I may mention that if, as we hope, the Island decides to go ahead with the scheme, we can avoid employing a civilian substitute in his place in England, so that the only extra cost falling on the Colony will be the comparatively trivial amount of the difference between Home and Mauritius allowances.

Yours, &c.,

HERBERT CREEDY.

• 14565/39 [No. 15]; not printed.

† No. 102.