CO129-516-3 Military contribution of Colony assessmenet of contribution 13-3-1929 - 28-3-1930 — Page 73

-

78

Committee fixed percentages on "gross revenue" they did not have in their minds any definition of a 11 gross-revenue- in-itself" but teok the gross revenue as they found it in each Colony, i.e., in the straits exclusive, and in Hong Kong inclusive, of municipal revenue; they then fixed a parcentage designed to yield much about what the Colony were paying at the time in relation to the garrison. The percentage was so fixed on the assumption that "no importan change in the existing revenue systems" of the Colonies or in the method of bringing the revenue to account, which would have the effect of reducing the military contributions, will be autheriged without the special concurrence of the Treasury." The contrast between the treatment of "municipal" revenues at Hong Kong and the Straits was pointed out by the Treasury in a letter to the Colonial office, No 7868/95 dated 14th June, 1895, approving the proposal of the Haliburton Committee for making a percentage of revenue a maximum limit of military contribution. The Haliburton Committee proposed 17 for both the Straits and Hong Kong.* / The Treasury proposed for the Straits a limit of 18% on various grounds peculiar to the Straits, but they "further believe that it will be easier to reconcile Hong Kong to the payment of 17%, if a somewhat larger percentage be asked from the Straits, because in the former Celany there is no distinction, as there is in the Straits, between municipal and general revenue". Treasury, however, did not press their contention, in deference to the strong views of the Colonial office. Meanwhile the Governor of Hong Kong was raising the question of assessing "municipal" revenues in a despatch dated 28th August, 1895, and he proposed the exemption from assessment of a series of revenues similar to those proposed for exemption in the Colonial despatch of lat November, 1928. In a despatch dated 26th October, 1895 (No.258) the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr.Joseph Chamberlain with the concurrence of the War office and Treasury reject ad the Colony's claim. "With reference, he said, "to the inclusion in the Hơng Kong revenue of certain receipts which are of a municipal character, and are not included in the general revenue of the Straits Settlements, because municipalities exist in that Colony, I have in the first place to point out to you that the municipal revenues at the Straits Settlements are only about 20 per cent. of the gross revenues (general and municipal), and that for the sake of comparison between the two Colonies I could not regard as "municipal" several of the items specified in the second enclosure to your despatch under acknowledgment which altogether amount to over 30 per cent. of the

revenue

The

Further, the cases of Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements cannot be regarded in this matter as on the same footing, since, although there are separate municipal revenues in the latter Colony, on the other hand the expenses of general administration are propertionately greater than in Hong Kong, partly owing to the larger area of the Colony, which is more than 50 times as large as Hong Kong, while the gross revenues (including municipal receipts) are less than three times those of Hong Kong,

and/

A

+ Haliburton Report, Section X1, 1895, paragraph 66.

The 17 was increased to 20% in both cases later on in commutation of certain liabilities for lands and buildings:

-15