PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TLC.O. 882
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON]
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
26550
(Private.)
MY DEAR Cox,
224
No. 188.
SIR G. BOWER to MR. COX.
(Received July 28, 1904.)
Le Réduit, Mauritius, June 29, 1904.
A CRISIS has arisen here which I fear you will consider a nuisance or worse, and I am anxious to explain as far as I can how it arose. In my opening speech I referred to the probable deficit, and to the necessity for extra taxation to meet it. We have had a succession of deficits for three years, and have met them by drawing on the Treasury balances, or what we call here our reserve.
This was no longer possible, so I suggested extra taxation and economy. I believed until about ten days ago that this would be accepted with a grumble.
But shortly after the arrival of last mail I learnt that three letters had been received in Port Louis from three different persons in London, stating that I had done my best to prevent the postponement of the planters' instalments on their loan, but the situation had been saved by the intervention of Sir Charles Bruce and other friends at the India Office.
So far as Sir Charles Bruce is concerned I was aware that the planters owed him a debt of gratitude, and I took the somewhat unusual course of referring to his intervention in the opening speech. The course was unusual, but I wished to do an act of justice to a man who had shown me kindness and sympathy.
But it is not the fact that I opposed postponement. On the contrary I favoured postponement from the first as the only means to avert a financial crisis.
Nevertheless, the report did me harm, and weakened my position, coming as it did from three separate sources, each professing to be in touch with the Colonial Office, it could hardly do otherwise, and though I informed Leclézio that whilst I believed Sir Charles Bruce deserved his gratitude, it was untrue to say that I opposed postponement.
Leclézio had already told me he intended to ask to be allowed to meet the deficit with a loan as the estimates could no be cut down much more. I told him I did not think you would agree, and I would oppose it. However, the Press and the unofficials took up the cry of "no extra taxation."
The estimates were reduced in Council, and I accepted all possible reductions. But with my desire to cut down I found we were confronted with a deficit of Rs. 420,000.
On Wednesday, 22nd, Leclézio proposed his motion for a loan, which I opposed. I was the only speaker on the Government side; firstly, because I did not wish to waste time and secondly, because I did not wish to delegate the duty of pleading an unpopular course to others.
The report of the debate will be sent home as soon as I can get it ready. We won by my casting vote.
I telegraphed to you to ask for instructions, and just as I was going into Council yesterday received two telegrams, one relating to Piggott's leave,t the other refusing the loan. I had not collected the previous papers, and on first reading thought they related to the same subject, i.e., the loan, and that you asked for a suggestion. I accordingly telegraphed home at once, suggesting that the Widows' and Orphans' Fund be used to swell the reserve. I see by the papers this has already been done
in Jamaica.
However, having missed the meaning of the telegrams, I went into Council, and found that the one vote on which the Government majority depended, namely, that of Edgar Antelme, was doubtful. He had voted against Leclézio's motion for a loan, but pressure had been brought to bear, and he was wavering. Moreover, we had two
men away.
• No. 172.
↑ Not printed.
+ No. 174,
§ No. 175.
225
Leclézio proposed to take a division on the third reading of the Appropriation Ordinance and challenged a trial of strength.
I appealed very strongly to the Council not to do anything which might impair the dignity of the Council, and informed them that I was communicating with you on the subject. I wished to gain time to see if I could bring the leaders to reason.
I will report progress later on, but meanwhile, if I have to make a mea culpa, and acknowledge that in the hurry of the preparation for Council I mixed up the true meaning of two separate telegrams, I must also say that you have, in referring to my confidential telegram of the 24th* in a public telegram put me in a difficulty.
The papers are sure to be called for, and I am not free to refer to what Leclézio told me confidentially in Executive Council. I was bound to inform you confidentially of what I took to be a threat, but I cannot make it public. Firstly, because the conversation was confidential. Secondly, because if I do I cut off all chance of Leclézio's retreat. I do not wish to do this, but on the contrary I wish to find him a bridge to retreat over. For every reason I beg you to keep my telegram re Leclézio
secret.
He is very confident in his majority, and it is possible that he may either defeat the Appropriation Ordinance or at least limit us to two months' supply or something of this sort. I have told him and the Council that I am anxious to push conciliation to its furthest limits, and that if a crisis is to come I will not be to blame; the whole responsibility must rest on those who provoke the crisis.
But I may tell you that I feel that a crisis, if it is postponed, will be merely post- poned. We were very near it last year, and only averted it by arrangements which
am not prepared to repeat.
I do not yet know whether Leclézio and his friends are really determined to push things to extremities and to strain the Constitution in a way that must endanger its continued existence.
But my feeling is that I cannot trust to any assurance.
Leclézio distinctly led me to believe that he would not oppose the expenditure, but would oppose the increased taxation. He agreed to the estimates-to the second reading of the Appropriation Ordinance. He allowed the Committee stage and the Schedule to pass without debate, and then on the third reading, finding we were two men short, challenged a division, the effect of which, if we had been defeated, would have been that I could not after to-morrow have fed a single patient in the hospitals or a prisoner in the prisons without breaking the law. I call this playing the fool with the Constitution, and I sent for Leclézio and Ritter to day to speak to them on the subject; they said that they did not mean to bring the administrative machine to a standstill; that they knew I had sent messengers to fetch Trotter and the General, and that we would talk till they arrived. They say that they did not know which way Antelme meant to vote, and that they will pass the Appropriation Ordinance to-morrow if I will promise not to introduce extra taxation. They say that if I will give them an assurance that I will endeavour to cut down the expendi- ture to the amount realised by revenue they will still vote the Ordinance. But they will not vote the Appropriation Ordinance as it stands unless they are assured there will be no extra taxation.
I would be only too glad to cut down expenditure if I could, but I find it hard to reduce further the establishment's debt, and pensions take more than half the expenditure. I cannot reduce the food of the prisoners, the medicine of the patients, or the coal for the railway engines. I must provide for the necessary repairs.
Thursday, 30th June. I have just received your telegram of 29th June,t refusing my proposal to utilise the Widows' and Orphans' Fund. I do not doubt that you are right, and I only made the proposal because I am like most Englishmen, in love with a compromise. Our French friends here are fond of saying de deux choses une. always reply of two things a third. However, I have asked you not to write your promised despatch.
19231
• No. 173,
† No. 177.
2 F
I