216
APPENDIX IX.—continued,
had begins by saying (861) that “for things I could go and order myself," e., the sort of things that can be got in shops, the Crown Agents have done better than any private firm could have done. He can hardly suppose that price or quality would-be improved by buying such things from shops instead of from manu- facturers. The larger and more important things which the Crown Agents buy are not sold in shops, but are only made when ordered. It is obvious that it is impossible to get from a shop such articles as those specified, i.e., locomotives or steel rails.
He goes on to say (980) "the delay sometimes has been terrible." Probably he has in mind the dredger to which he referred in his despatch 610 of the 28th November, 1901. Dredgers cannot be bought in shops, and Sir F. Swettenham has never said what he thought the Crown Agents ought to have done. As was ex- plained at the time, the delay was due first to the time taken by the Consulting Engineers in preparing the design; and, second, to the time taken in manufacture. The intervention of the Crown Agents had nothing to do with it, and the Crown Agents venture to say that the same will be found of any case of importance which can be brought forward.
Sir F. Swettenham touches (943) on a supposed desire of the Crown Agents to "show their superior position" by departing from instructions. The Crown Agents have, of course, no such foylish desire, and Sir F. Swettenham has given no instance to justify his supposition. But the Secretary of State, and we believe Colonial Governments, expect of the Crown Agents what is expected of any intelligent agent, that they shall not buy things which are obsolete, extrava gant or unsafe. This understanding necessitates the exercise of judgment and occasional departure from the letter of indents. If any Colonial Government should instruct the Crown Agents to comply with the strict letter of its indents regardless of circumstances, and the Secretary of State should approve, they would do so.
The Crown Agents can only say that for such methods to be satisfactory indents will have to be much more carefully prepared than they often are at present, and ambiguous or incomplete descriptions altogether eliminated.
As to our methods of obtaining men (925-935), it is only necessary to say that the Crown Agents constantly advertise.
A striking statement, which appears at first sight to lear upon the position and powers of the Crown Agents, is (910-917) that the Crown Agents unasked sent an engineer to the Malay States to report upon the railway. The facts are that in 1897 the Resident- General, Sir F. Swettenham, asked the Governor- General of Java to lend an engineer to report on certain railway matters in the Federated Malay States. On 19th December Sir F. Swettenham. who had come home on leave, wrote as follows to Sir M. Ommanney, then senior Crown Agent: "
The idea of getting an advising engineer from Java for six months has fallen through. As he has failed, we had better now get a man from England, and I ask for these qualifications" (here followed the qualifica- tions). The matter was referred to the Colonial Office, and the Secretary of State authorised the engagement of the engineer now referred to by Sir F. Swettenham. Subsequently Sir F. Swettenham wrote home, "he appears to me to be just the sort of adviser we wanted, and I thank you and the Consulting Engineers for selecting him." From the remainder of his letter, however, it transpired that there had been some misunderstanding as to the duties of the engineer. Sir F. Swettenham wanted him to advise in the States as to certain railway matters, and to make his reports direct to the Resident-General, whereas the engineer's instructions were to report to the Consulting Engineers for the information of the Secretary of State. Exactly how this misunderstanding arcse our records do not show, but the transaction is obviously quite a different thing from the statement of Sir F. Swettenham that an engineer was sent out by the Crown Agents unasked and undesired by the Government. Sir F. Swetten- ham's statements as to financial matters are dealt with in Sir E. Blake's evidence (3937–3043).
Sir R. B. Llewelyn said: "I do not say that the Crown Agenis make an undue number, but they have made mistakes, and some big ones, which I know about." He gave two cases. One was the case of a buoy, which, when put into the water, turned turtle. The explanation is simple, and there is no question as to the facts. The water bailast which is necessary to
keep a buoy upright was put into the wrong place, The Secretary of State, after considering the case, found the inspector to blame for failing to supply the Colony with instructions how to put in the ballast, but there was no fault in the buoy. Sir R. B. Llewelyn says that he did not hear the result of the corre spondence, as it was just when lie left the Gambia, The other was the case of a towel which was sent from the Colony as a pattern and not returned; as to this Sir R. B. Llewelyn observed, "that when it takes about six months to get a towel back one gets disgusted." It is not usual to return a pattern, but
to retain it here for future guidance, and in this case the return was not requested in the first instance; subsequently the Colonial Government asked for its return or the value, and the value was credited to them. These are the only specific cases produced by Sir R. B. Llewelyn as the fruits of 37 years' experience, and, as they are put forward as "some big mistakes which I have known about," it may be replied that he did not fully “know about" the first and that the second was not "big." It is hardly possible to avoid the conclusion from this and other parts of the evi- dence, that Sir R. B. Llewelyn has not thought it worthwhile to pay much attention to his relations with the Crown Agents. Thus he states that the Crown Agents "tell us they give the full discounts, and yet they are self-supporting," and when it was put to him "are the Colonies not charged a percent- age?" he replied: "The only charge I know of is that at the end of every quarter there is a charge for stationery. They charge a percentage on the amount of stationery you buy," and "I have never seen direct charge on the gross sum in the accounts." The quarterly charge for stationery is mythical—there is no such thing, but in every monthly account a debit of 1 per cent. on stores supplied is entered, and hundreds of these accounts must have passed through Sir R. B. Llewelyn's hands. When then, he says, "I do not know who buys them, or what they get, or any thing about them," no doubt this is true, and the result is that to him the Crown-Agents are a "mysterious body," but it is only possible to preserve this attitude by ignoring the monthly accounts, a series of despatches from the Secretary of State, a Parliamentary return, and the standing notice in the Colonial Office list. Sir R. Llewelyn's statements (1028) as to the Crown Agents' shipping charges are dealt with in the separate memorandum of 24th September,
A
Mr. '. V. Bellamy said that the Crown Agents and their staff always do their best, but that complaints arise due to want of local knowledge. He cited the case of a "mammoty" (650), and said, "if you speak to one of the inspecting engineers in the Crown Agents' Office he will not know in the slightest what you mean, but if you spoke to a retired officer from a public works department of a mammoty he would know exactly what you meant." This is hardly
correct.
"Mammoty" is an Eastern name for a kind of hoe, and is well understood to the officials of this department, who attend to the supply of such articles to the Eastern Colonies. Mr. Bellamy, who has served in Ceylon, ordered certain mammoties when in West Africa, but without indicating in the indent that this was an Eastern term; it is not a West African term, and the word was not understood by the official dealing with the West African work. Mr. Bellamy explained that "Sir Walter Egerton (who had also served in the East) was very anxious to introduce this mammoły hoe in West Africa, and the indent was sent home accordingly, and the question then arose what was a mammoty hoe." The ordinary West African public works officer, however, would not know what it was, and the case, therefore, has no application in support of the contention that local experience is wanted. It is submitted that the indent should have specified that the tool wanted was as used in the East. Mr. Bellamy further stated that he was dissatisfied with the character of certain ironwork sent to Lagos for the roofing of the court-house there. He says the joints were badly fitting and badly made, and hence the "construction "
was very expensive indeed, Crown Agents can only say that these serious defects were never brought to their notice. They received a complaint that the cast-iron rainwater pipes, quite a subsidiary part of the contract, were not in proper lengths. The contractors admitted themselves in fault, and offered to send out at their own expense what was necessary to make good their error. The Crown
The
Agents sent this offer to the Colony, but their letter
APPENDIX IX.-continued.
was never answered, and no claim for damages was made. No complaint was made as to the fitting of any other part of the work; indeed, in commenting on the rainwater pipes, Mr. Bellamy expressly stated, by way of contrast, that the columns and friezes for the verandah fitted accurately.
Sir H. F. Wilson said that the work is thoroughly well done, and referred to the only occasion which he remembered when there was considerable complaint (2437). This was a case of certain pianos. A previous supply had been sent to the Transvaal, and not a single complaint was received; on the occasion of the Orange River Colony a similar supply would have been sent out, but the Secretary of State intervened and tenders were invited, with the result that other firms got the order. The result was very unfortunate. The Crown Agents' experience is that in the case of technical or artistic articles the best policy is to make a bargain with a first-class firm; it is not possible to inspect them at all points, and the purchaser must pay a fair price and rely largely on the reputation and self-interest of the makers. This case is a strong illustration of the soundness of this view. The corre- spondence is in the Colonial Office.
Mr. E. Walker referred to a case of tenders for certain grain sheds for Ceylon, as to which he said (1777) that "Clearly the Crown Agents or the Colonial Office had ruled that the Colonial Government had gone out of its way in receiving even a tender from a Tocal Colonial firm." The Crown Agents are unable to follow why this is clear, but it may be sufficient to remark that the decision to reject the local tender appears to have been taken in the Colony without reference to the Colonial Office or to the Crown Agents. The Crown Agents do not appear to have been in- formed of the reasons for this, but presume that the Colonial Government may have had other considera. tions besides that of price to take into account. Mr. Walker gave, and was examined at some length on, some cases of buildings erected by the Ceylon Govern- ment, but as it was not suggested that the Crown Agents had anything to do with these directions, no comment seems called for.
It may, however, be pointed out that some cases in which local contracts have been let of a somewhat similar character do not point to the employment of local contractors being advantageous. Thus a contract for the supply and erection of a terminus station building in the Federated Malay States was let to the Penang Foundry Company. They sub-let the manu- facture of the building to an English firm, Messrs. John Birch and Co., who in turn contracted for its Imanufacture with Messrs. Dorman, Long and Co. Thus there were two intermediaries between the Government and the actual manufacturers, and it is not likely that either of them were content with the I per cent, which the Crown Agents would have received for doing the same work.
In another case large contract for steel wire was let by the Central South African Railways to two Johannesburg firms, part of the order being taken by each. Both the firms sub-let their orders to Messrs. Findlay, Durham and Brodie, of London, who in their turn placed the orders through a firm of London agents, Messrs. W. F. Dennis and Co., with Messrs. Felten and Guilleaume, of Muhlheim am Rhine. It was afterwards found that the latter firm, i.e., the actual makers of the wire, had never seen the specifica- tion issued by the Central South African Railways.
217
This might in some cases have led to serious difficulty and delay.
The evidence of Mr. J. D. Rers and Sir Bradford Leslie is based entirely on the case of the contract for the construction of the Nyasaland Railway. This construction is under the contract subject to the approval of a certain technical authority, and the only function of the Crown Agents is to see that the contractural requirements are carried out. This was clearly recognised by Sir Bradford Leslie, who said, "being professional matters, we went to Mr. Eyles; we have not troubled the Crown Agenta directly be cause they simply act on his advice." The qualifica- tions of Mr. Eyles are, as the Chairman observed, be- side the question, and that being so, it is difficult to see what other course the Crown Agents could have adopted than to take action as required by the con- tract, in accordance with his findings. The whole of the evidence seems to be irrelevant as regards the conduct of the Crown Agents under this contract. It would be relevant to the question whether another system would be preferable, but this is a matter pre- sumably outside the present reference.
The Crown Agents submit, in view of suggestions that their relations with the Secretary of State are anomalous, that there is no difficulty or doubt in practice. The control of the Secretary of State is complete, and it is for him to say how far in detail it shall be exercised. The references to the Secretary of State could, of course, be greatly increased, but the Crown Agents have had no reason to think that this is desired. Long practice and experience govern the matter, and there are no complaints from the Colonial Office that the Crown Agents act too independently. The constitutional position seems to be similar to that at the India Office, which is not a Civil Service Office, and is maintained entirely from fndian funds, but there is the substantial difference that nearly all the Colonies possess representative institutions, and it appears reasonable that they should have their agents in London and possess power to instruct them. The arrangement is not one
which sets up a real antagonism between three parties; it is in the in- terests of the Colonies that the Governor instructs the Crown Agents and the Crown Agents consult the Secre- tary of State; at the same time the fact that a Colonial Government does not nominate the Crown Agents enables it to criticise their action much more fully than it would if responsible for their appoint. ment. The objection to the position does not come either from the Colonial Office or the Colonial Govern- ments, but from persons interested in concessions or contracts who think that some alteration of the machinery would facilitate their objects. Thus Mr. Rees's ideal appears to be that the Colonial Office, where he met with "extreme kindness and considera- tion," should alone deal with an applicant for a con- cession;
not only are the Crown Agents to be eliminated, but also the Governor, and he strongly assented to the question whether in the smaller Colonies at all eventa public works should in no case be contracted for by the Governor of the Colony. This ideal was realised in the Congo State. So far as con- cessions are concerned, however, the establishment of the Colonial Office Committee on Concessions displaces the old practice of referring such matters in the first instances to the Crown Agents.
Crown Agents' Office,
APPENDIX X.
5th October, 1908.
MEMORANDUM HY THE CROWN AGENTS ON THE EVIDENCE TAKEN BY THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON SHIPPING AND PACKING ARRANGEMENTS.
The Crown Agents beg to thank the Committee for giving them the opportunity of reviewing the evidence taken by the Sub-Committee on Shipping Arrange-
ments.
They gather that the Sub-Committee have had in view the question whether all the shipping arrange- ments should be carried out by the Crown Agents themselves. This is a suggestion which naturally arises in the consideration of the details of the system,
• 21
and it has often been discussed in this office, but there are serious obstacles to its adoption. In the first place, the Crown Agents could not find accommodation for the necessary staff in Whitehall Gardens, and a change in the system would involve their taking premises in the City, engaging a staff to work there, and arranging for the supervision of its operations. Under the present system they are frequently engaged in reviewing the operations of the shipping agents,
N
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O.885
19 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
i
EE