Sessional_Paper_1890 — Page 383

(Copy)

No. 403$8.

209

War Office to Colonial Office.

WAR OFFICE,

379

SIR,

PALL MALL, S.W., 14th July, 1890.

I am directed by the Secretary of State for War to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 23rd May, covering a despatch from the Governor of Hongkong, together with proceedings of the Legislative Council on the subject of the revised Military Contribution payable by that Colony in aid of the cost of its Military Defence.

Although the contribution had been voted, the Government of the Colony adopted resolutions objecting to the immediate payment of the full contribution on two main grounds:-

1st. That the Armament to be provided by the Imperial Government

was not yet in position.

2nd. That the full garrison had not yet been provided.

It was further objected that while your despatch of January last led the Colony to expect a Garrison of 2,515 Europeans, it was understood that one of the Batta- lions of Infantry was now to consist of Indian Troops.

1. Armament.—Out of a total of 92 guns only 10 are wanting to complete the Armament of Hongkong. The enclosed statement shows that of them, the most important are 4 10-inch B.L. Guns. One of these is now awaiting shipment, another will be ready for shipment in August, and the remainder (2) will be issued during the course of this year. The delivery by the Contractors of the six 3-pounder 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.

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. The contribution paid by Hongkong 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 of 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 Hongkong 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 Hongkong costs so much more than the contribution it pays, there can be no claim to a reduction of that contribution on the ground of deficient numbers.

When the contribution of £20,000 a year was fixed in 1863, with the inten- tion of increasing it at the end of 5 years, an intention which was never carried out, the garrison consisted of 1000 of all ranks, its cost was £100,000 and the revenue of the Colony was about 567,615 dollars. The garrison now present in Hongkong according to the latest returns, is 1574 of all ranks; the cost is about £170,000, while the estimated income of the Colony for 1890 is 2,184,943 dollars, or more than three times the revenue of 1863. In your despatch of January, the charge of £40,000 was estimated to amount to 17 per cent of the revenue of