PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
61
Reference :-
TTILNC.O. 882
سلئسلسانلس
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
9 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
14
4. The receipt of your telegram of the 28th ultimo,* the first communication on the subject which I have received since writing my Confidential despatch of the 31st of May last, § left me in some doubt as to the proper course to pursue. Mr. Leclézio, since his return to the Colony in August, had on several occasions sought my views on the subject of his proposals, and had endeavoured to secure my unqualified support of the scheme, which, if given, would have meant the support of the official members of the Council. This, I told him, was not possible; but I added that if his scheme was endorsed by the unofficial section and appeared to me to be feasible, I would give it my personal recommendation when transmitting it for your Lordship's consideration; but, as will be seen from my observations in the Council, I did not refrain from warning him of the many difficulties in view, whilst I carefully abstained from giving any colour to the assumption that it would be sanctioned by your Lordship.
5. His series of motions appeared on the Order Paper for discussion on the 22nd of October, but at that sitting of the Council their consideration was post- poned until the 5th current; and in the meantime their terms were altered by the mover, his intention being to counteract all opposition and to meet the views of those who feel that immediate assistance for carrying on the cultivation of the estates is the more necessary.
6. I have little reason to doubt that the delay in bringing the matter forward in the Council was due to uncertainty on Mr. Leclézio's part as to the measure of support which he would find amongst the unofficial members, and I have cause to believe that he wished to enlist my unqualified endorsement of it before it was developed by him in the Legislature, and that in his endeavours to overcome all opposition he allowed it to be understood that I had promised to afford him such support.
7. In the meantime, that is to say, between the meeting of the Chamber of Agriculture held on the 7th of May and the date fixed for the discussion in Council (22nd of October), I believe that the opposition to his scheme both within and out- side the Legislature had appreciably increased, not only on account of the feeling with regard to the need for immediate assistance, but on account of many local objections to the principles involved, and in this connexion I append a copy of a letter which I have received from Mr. Gibson, the manager of a group of sugar estates here, giving his views and those of his directors on the subject.
8. Had the subject gone to discussion in the Council of the 22nd of October, I believe that four or five unofficial members would have opposed it; and there can be no doubt that the communication which I made to Mr. Leclézio on the 29th of October, after the receipt of your Lordship's telegram of the previous day, which he promptly published, has had the effect of strengthening the opposition; whilst I am given to understand that the number who would now vote against it has been increased to seven unofficial members, or perhaps more.
9. With regard to making that communication, I beg to state that, whilst observing the private nature and tenour of your telegram, I could, after careful consideration, see no preferable course open to me. To inform those opposed to the scheme of your Lordship's views in the matter and to allow Mr. Leclézio to remain in ignorance of them until he had developed his motion seemed to be undesir- able. It was impossible to ensure that such information would have been treated as confidential, the purport of it would have been imparted to others, including, perhaps, Mr. Leclézio himself, and he would, I am convinced, have jumped to the conclusion that he had been purposely misled by me in the matter. Moreover, I felt that I was not justified, after what had taken place previously between us, in with- holding from him the knowledge which had reached me of your Lordship's views. and which you desired me to make clear.
10. Mr. Leclézio, on hearing my communication, stated that he would with- draw his proposals, but he subsequently changed his mind, and he has since informed me that it is his intention to proceed with them. With the object, therefore, of getting them fully before your Lordship without further delay, and of obtaining a reasoned reply to them, I advised him to proceed at the meeting on the 5th of this month. This, however, he did not see fit to do, and, as already stated, his motion stands over until the 3rd proximo.
11. My suggestion to publish a portion of the correspondence was based on the assumption that the enclosures in my despatch of the 31st of Mayt had furnished
• No. 2.
↑ No. 1.
15
information sufficient for a conclusion to be arrived at on Mr. Leclézio's proposals, and I was not, and am not, aware that he will advance any arguments in favour of them which will differ materially from those already before your Lordship, and which are to be found in his observations to the Chamber of Agriculture on the 7th of May last. In compliance, however, with your wishes in the matter, have made the statement suggested, and have endeavoured to dispel any impression that a decision had been or would be taken against the proposals until they may have been brought more fully and formally before you,
12. If Mr. Leclézio insists on pressing the question, I am of opinion that the local opposition, strengthened by recent events, will remove any difficulty which may have been apprehended in dealing with it, and will facilitate the negative reply which I understand your Lordship, apart from any such opposition, will find it
necessary to return.
YOUR EXCELLENCY,
Enclosure 2 in No. 16.
I have, &c.,
CAVENDISH BOYLE.
The Anglo-Ceylon and General Estates Company, Limited,
Mauritius, 21st October, 1907. As the representative in Mauritius of a Company which during the past twenty-one years has invested a large amount of capital in the purchase and improve- ment of sugar estates in the Colony, I venture to address Your Excellency on the subject of the proposals now being made that Government should raise £600,000 and lend out this money to factory owners to enable the latter to purchase new installations of machinery.
The points to which I would especially desire to allude briefly are:-~~
1. The justification for such an intervention of Government in industrial affairs.
Less than six months ago a number of local sugar estate companies were paying dividends, and it is well known that many privately-owned estates, whose accounts are not published, also made fair profits last year, notwithstanding the fact that the prices realised for the year's sugar were the lowest on record. No doubt the crop was a large one, but there surely is, or ought to be, a long way between the dividend- paying stage and such a state of things as to call for Government assistance in so radical and permanent a fashion as is contemplated.
The case for Government assistance is based upon the alleged inferiority of our machinery as compared with that of other countries. Mr. Leclézio, in his speech at the Chamber of Agriculture on the 7th May last, referred to the condition of things ten years ago, at which time he estimated the average extraction of the Island was only about 65 per cent. of the sucrose contained in the cane. This may have been the case ten years ago, but it is emphatically not so now, and I believe Mr. Leclézio did not give sufficient prominence, in the subsequeut course of his speech, to the undoubtedly great improvements which have since been made not only in machinery, but in methods of working and scientific control.
The Chamber of Agriculture asserted in a resolution (on the subject of the Brussels Convention) unanimously voted at a meeting held on the 4th of June, 1907, that "Great efforts have been made, and much new and expensive machinery introduced, with a view to improve the manufacture.”
Last year the average extraction of the three factories of this company under chemical control was, in pure sugar, 80 21 per cent. of the total sucrose in the cane, or 8201 per cent. expressed in commercial sugar. I believe this compares fairly with modern practice anywhere.
We have no pretension that our figures are better than those of many other good factories now working in the Island, and it is probable that the great bulk of the Mauritius sugar crop is now being produced in factories which are fairly well equipped and doing very fair work as judged by modern standards. I think I am right in saying that we are, on the average, considerably ahead in point of machinery of the average in Demerara and the West Indies.
It is, I submit, misleading to cite the isolated case of Ewa factory in Hawaii. The wonderfully favourable local conditions there are unparalleled in any other sugar-producing country, and the output of Hawaii is too small to rule the world's prices for sugar.
Let us turn to Java, our great competitor in the East, a country which takes
E