CO885-5 — Page 63

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference -

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

C.O. 885/5 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

62

No. 113.

The Secretary to the Royal Commission on the Defence of British Possessions and Commerce

Sir,

Abroad to Colonial Office.

I AM directed by the Royal Commission on the Defence of British Possessions and

13, Delahay Street, January 10, 1881. Commerce Abroad to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 30th November, 1880, and of your further letter of the 23rd December, transmitting the request of the War Office to be informed at an early date of the views of the Commission upon the question of the command of Colonial troops when associated with Imperial troops.

The reference, which is very general in terms, appears to raise questions which are beyond the scope of the Commission.

So far, however, as concerns "the more important sea-ports within Her Majesty's colonial possessions and their dependencies, and of the stations established or required within the said possessions and dependencies for coaling, refitting, or repairing the ships of Her Majesty's navy, and for the protection of the commerce of the Colonies with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland with each other and with foreign countries," the Commission have no hesitation in expressing their opinion that the chief command in such of those ports and stations as it may be ultimately decided to reserve for Imperial purposes should devolve on Imperial officers.

I have, &c.

Sir,

(Signed)

No. 114.

Colonial Office to Treasury.

HERBERT JEKYLL.

Downing Street, January 10, 1881.

I AM directed by the Earl of Kimberley to request that you will state to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, that since the date of the letter from this Department of the 21st December,† inclosing the estimate of the probable expenditure of the Royal Commission on the Defence of British Possessions and Commerce Abroad for the ensuing financial year, his Lordship has further considered the matter, and thinks that it would be sufficient if the item for travelling were placed at the same figure as last year, viz., 8001. His Lordship would therefore recommend that the item should be reduced from 1,000l. to 8001, which will reduce the whole estimate from 2,3001. to 2,1001., or 1001. less than the total estimate of the present financial

year.

I &c.

Sir,

am,

(Signed)

No. 115.

R. H. MEADE.

Colonial Office to the Secretary to the Royal Commission on the Defence of British Possessions and Commerce Abroad.

Downing Street, January 10, 1881.

I AM directed by the Earl of Kimberley to request that, you will acquaint the Royal Commission on the Defence of British Possessions and Commerce Abroad, that the estimate of expenditure of the Commission for the ensuing financial year, which was inclosed in your letter of the 16th December, has been transmitted to the Treasury, but that Lord Kimberley has thought it better that the item for travelling expenses should remain at the same amount as was inserted in the estimate of the present financial year, namely, 8001. The Lords Commissioners of the Treasury have therefore been requested to take a vote of 2,100% on account of the expenses of the Commission for the year ending the 31st March, 1882.

I am, &c.

(Signed)

• Nes. 97 and 110.

↑ No. 109.

R. H. MEADE.

No. 106.

6

No. 116.

Administrator Sir W. O. Lanyon, K.C.M.G., C.B., to the Right Hon. the Earl of Kimberley. (Received January 11, 1881.)

(No. 195.) My Lord,

Government House, Transvaal, South Africa, December 12, 1880.

I HAVE the honour to acknowledge receipt of your Lordship's despatch of the 25th October, in reply to my despatch No. 109 of the 19th August.*

With reference thereto, I have the honour to submit that your Lordship's Circular despatch of the 23rd June, 1880,† referred to a previous Circular despatch, dated the 21st October, 1879, transmitting copy of a Commission appointing certain Commissioners "to inquire into the state of the defences of the more important colonial ports and naval stations, and the best mode of placing them in a thoroughly secure condition."

I would venture to point out that there is no mention made in this Commission of land forces further than in connection with the defence of ports.

I therefore considered that the latter Circular despatch did not apply to this territory, the Transvaal not being a maritime country, and I was accordingly guided in my reply by your Lordship's Circular despatch of the 26th May, 1880,* directing that, "in any case in which a Circular may not apply to the Colony under your Government, you should intimate the fact

I make this explanation, as I fear your Lordship might think I was unmindful of the great importance of the doctrine of self-help and self-defence. But should such impres- sion have been conveyed, I would most respectfully point to the fact that Griqualand West was the first of Her Majesty's Colonies which, by its volunteer forces, and without extraneous aid, put down a serious rebellion and repelled invasion. These volunteer forces I raised, organized, and commanded.

In considering the question of the defence of the Transvaal, I see no reason why it should not undertake more responsibility than it now does, provided that the finances are in a position to bear it. But so long as the States on the seaboard refuse to allow it to participate in the amount collected by way of customs duties on goods consumed in the province, it will be impossible for it on financial grounds to undertake such responsibilities.

Some time ago, I made inquiries concerning the action of Governments elsewhere in regard to such goods in transit through their countries, and I found that in all cases, so far as I could ascertain, goods for inland.States are passed free through their territories by the adjoining Governments. If this comity be allowed by one foreign Government to another, it seems strange that such should not be the practice between one British Colony and another. A foreign Government-Portugal-has acknowledged this international right to the Transvaal in the Treaty lately drawn up, for it has allowed this Government to have its own custom-house at Delagoa Bay when the railway shall have been com- menced. And I would point out that the non-recognition of this system by the adjoining Colonies imposes a very heavy burden upon the British tax-payer, for a large reduction of the present garrison in the Transvaal would be possible were its revenue able to provide a properly constituted police force, and I may add that such a force would be much more useful and efficient for our requirements. But this is not possible so long as its legiti- mate customs dues are withheld. At present, Natal principally, and the Cape Colony to a lesser extent, receive the full benefit of this portion of our revenue. Whilst this practice continues, the Imperial Government is in reality subsidizing those Governments by the amount it has to pay for the protection of the Transvaal. This is a question of serious importance to Her Majesty's Government, for this Government will undertake to raise a sufficient defensive force to allow of a large reduction in the present garrison, if this revenue is forthcoming.

The Imperial Act providing for confederation will expire in 1882, and, judging from the present position of affairs, I doubt whether confederation can be brought about before that time. Consequently, each State will, for some time longer, have to act independently. The claims of the Transvaal on the foregoing points therefore merit consideration, more especially that, even if the railway to Delagoa Bay be started, it will be some years before the benefits to be derived from the establishment of our own custom-house at that port will make any appreciable increase to our revenue.

Meanwhile, our curtailed revenue will necessitate the continued help and protection of the Imperial Government, unless some change can be brought about in the existing system.

* Not printed.

+ No. 23.

have, &c.

(Signed) W. OWEN LANYON.

No. 42 of "Miscellaneous No. 39."