42
the most important are four 10-inch B.L. guns. One of these is now awaiting shipment, another will be ready for shipment in August, and the remainder (two) will be issued during the course of this year. The delivery by the contractors of the six 3-pr. quick-firing guns has been delayed, owing to a strike in the trade, but they will all be delivered by the end of this year.
The
2. Garrison.-If the Colonial Contribution covered the whole cost of the garrison, there would undoubtedly be just grounds for claiming the rebate for deficient numbers, which is generally granted under such circumstances. contribution paid by Hong Kong bears such a small proportion to the total cost, not only of the garrison ultimately to be provided, but of that which is actually present in the Colony, that no such claim arises in this case.
In your despatch in January last, it is stated that "in dealing with the great question of the defence of the Empire it is difficult to lay down any other broad principle for dividing the cost of Colonial defence, except that of the mother country undertaking the sea defence of the Colonies by means of her Navy, and of the Colonies, so far as their means allow, respectively providing for their own land defence." The contribution of Hong Kong was not fixed at 40,000% because that sum was considered all that a Colony should contribute towards the up-keep of a garrison costing about 280,000%, but because that contribution was considered to be all that the Colony at that time could be called upon to bear. As long as the garrison at Hong Kong costs so much more than the contribution it pays, there can be no claim to à reduction of that contribution on the ground of deficient numbers.
When the contribution of 20,0001. a-year was fixed in 1863, with the intention of increasing it at the end of five years, an intention which was never carried out, the garrison consisted of 1,000 of all ranks, its cost was 100,0001, and the revenue of the Colony was about 567,615 dollars. The garrison now present in Hong Kong, according to the latest returns, is 1,574 of all ranks, its cost is about 170,0001., while the estimated revenue of the Colony for 1890 is 2,184,943 dollars, or more than three times the revenue of 1863. In despatch of January the charge of 40,0001. was estimated to amount to 17 per cent, of the revenue of 1888. Owing to the subsequent growth of the revenue, and the appreciation in the value of silver, the charge now only represents 114 per cent, of revenue, as against 164 per cent. when the contribution of 1863 was fixed.
your
Under these circumstances Mr. Stanhope does not consider that any grounds exist for delaying the payment of the full contribution of 40.0001
With regard to the misunderstanding which has arisen as to the composi- tion of the garrison, it is to be regretted that the correction of the term "British Infantry" in the appendix to your despatch of January last, suggested by this department, was not extended to similar expressions in the appendix and in the body of the despatch, which were calculated to mislead the Colony as to the intended composition of its garrison. As Lord Knutsford is aware, was decided, before that despatch was written, that one of the Infantry battalions would in all probability consist of Indian troops. The Secretary of State for War is in communication with the Government of India on the subject, and Lord Knutsford will be informed, as soon as it is determined, from what parts of India the native troops required for the Eastern Colonies shall be recruited. A further communication will be made to you on the subject of barracks, referred to in paragraph 4 of your letter under reply.
RALPH THOMPSON.
43
establishment to Kowloon, I am directed by the Secretary of State for War to transmit, for the information of Lord Knutsford, a copy of a letter which has been addressed to the General Officer Commanding Hong Kong on the subject, and I am to request that you will be so good as to move his Lordship to cause the Governor to be instructed in accordance therewith.
Enclosure in No. 27.
RALPH THOMPSON.
War Office to General Officer Commanding Hong Kong.
War Office,
21st July, 1890. Sir,
With reference to previous correspondence, respecting the extension of the Praya. Wall, Hong Kong, and the proposed removal of the naval establishment to Kowloon," I am directed by His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief to transmit, for your information, the accompanying copies of letters from the Colonial Office and Admiralty on the subject, and I am to request that you will confer with the Governor and the Naval Commander-in-Chief on the China Station, with a view to a report being furnished concurrently by the naval, military, and Colonial authorities.
The removal of the naval establishment to Kowloon would vitally affect the proposal of the Colonial Government in regard to the military establishments; for in order to locate the former at Kowloon it would, it appears, be necessary to hand over to the Admiralty part of the War Department property at that place, whilst the remainder of it would have to be retained for barracking a body of troops for the protection of the dockyard. Besides this, a line of land defences across the Kowloon Peninsula may also, ultimately, be considered necessary.
It, therefore, appears that the Colony instead of obtaining a large amount of War Department property at Kowloon (the value of which is rapidly increasing) in order to meet some of the expenditure at Causeway Bay, would receive none of it.
The gist of the proposal of the Colonial authorities seems to be to place the naval and military establishments at Causeway Bay, where land is of comparatively little value, and to obtain possession of the very valuable land in Victoria and Kowloon.
It is, therefore, obvious that any proposed modification which retains land in Victoria or Kowloon tends to clash with the scheme put forward by the Colonial authorities.
It appears, moreover, to have escaped notice that wherever the dockyard is, there also must be stationed troops for its defence.
If the dockyard remains at Victoria, it seems almost certain that the Causeway Bay scheme would be rendered impracticable. For the naval authorities would require North Barracks and the Commissariat buildings, or the greater part of them, for the extension of the naval yard, and at the very least, Murray Barracks would have to be retained for the accommodation of the troops necessary to protect the dockyard, although it is probable that considerably wore War Department property would have to be retained for this purpose.
Whitfield Barracks, Kowloon, would most likely also have to be retained for the protection of the naval yard and coal stores at that station.
In such circumstances, there would not remain sufficient War Department property to surrender in order to meet the cost of carrying out the Causeway Bay scheme for the rest of the garrison.
I am to request that you wil suspend all steps for building under the Imperial Defence Loan at Victoria, and that you will concentrate your attention on the question of providing barracks at Lyemun and Belcher's Point, and on getting possession of the Lazaretto at Stonecutter's Island.
LOTHIAN NICHOLSON, I.G.F.
LANDS.
No. 27.
War Office to Colonial Office.
Hong Kong
8
1257.
Sir,
War Office,
26th July, 1890.
With reference to your letter* of the 9th May, respecting the extension of the Praya Wall, Hong Kong, and the proposed removal of the naval
* No. 22.
195
No. 28.
LANDS.
War Office to Colonial Office.
Sir,
War Office,
29th July, 1890. With reference to paragraph 4 of your letter of the 23rd May, respecting the land at Hong Kong occupied by barrack buildings, I am directed by the
40248
209
* No. 24.
(138)
K
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.