44
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TILLI C.O. 885
13685
SIR,
14
No. 34,
CROWN AGENTS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
(Received April 7, 1902.)
Downing Street, London, April 7, 1902. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 31st January,* enclosing printed copies of a large number of replies which have been received to Mr. Secretary Chamberlain's circular despatch respecting the manner in which we transact business for the Colonial Governments for which we act.
2. We welcome the opportunity which Mr. Chamberlain's circular has afforded. us of ascertaining the general opinion of the Crown Colonies upon our methods, and of examining those methods in the light of the criticisms made, and we have carefully considered the replies.
3. We desire to express our appreciation of the many friendly and cordial state- ments which are contained in them. We think that it will be gathered that our relations with the Colonial Governments are generally of a satisfactory character. The replies from Bermuda, Barbados, Mauritius, Ceylon, Bechuanaland Protectorate, Windward Islands, Malta and Trinidad express satisfaction with our work in such complete terms that no comment from us is required; but we may observe that our business with Ceylon is much larger than that with any other Colony, and that our work for Mauritius and Trinidad is very extensive and varied. That these important Colonies should see no occasion to impugn our methods is, we venture to think, strong testimony in our favour. The other replies, with two exceptions, find no faults with our methods of business except in respect of slowness of the execution of orders in some cases, and this is a fault which we think we shall be able to show arises mainly from causes beyond our control. Of the two exceptions referred to, the despatch from the Straits Settlements enters into questions of policy which are not determined by us, but by the Secretary of State. The despatch from Jamaica appears to impute to us unbusinesslike methods, but even in this case we do not find that any specific charge is made against our methods, except that of slowness, and the general purpose of the despatch scems to be to contend that the requirements of the Colony can be obtained more conveniently from the United States of America than from this country.
4. We are, at the same time, sensible that some matters require explanation, and that cases have occurred in which the results of our exccution of orders have given rise to legitimate complaints.
5. It may be convenient if we state here the course which we are about to pursue in this letter.
We will first deal with such general questions as to our position and functions as are suggested by the despatches. We will then give the account of our method of conducting business for which your letter asks. After this we will consider the criticisms as a whole, and make such general observations as we think they call for And finally we will deal in detail with the specific cases mentioned by the various Governors.
6. Our general position is referred to only by Sir F. A. Swettenham, who points out that we occupy a position which is not exactly that of an agent, and con- siders that this fact is the main cause of Colonial complaints. This opinion, coming from so competent an authority, is noteworthy. We are, of course, aware that our duties to the Secretary of State on the one hand, and to the Colonies on the other. place us at times in an invidious and difficult position. While in one sense we are simply the agents for the Colonial Governments, and should look to them and carry out whatever orders they give us, we are, at the same time, expected to see that the Colonial regulations are complied with, and to take the directions of the Secretary of State in various cases fixed more or less by precedent and custom.
7. The principle acted on is that the Secretary of State settles the estimates of a Colony, and controls the expenditure in this country, so that it shall be in accordance with those estimates and duly provided for, through us. For instance, if it does not appear from the instructions sent to us that a proposed expenditure in any case is covered by the estimates approved by the Secretary of State, or that the money re- quired is available, it is necessary for us to obtain the authority of the Secretary of
• Not printed.
75
State. This authority is not infrequently refused, and in some cases is only granted after a considerable time; in any case there is a delay. The Colonial Governments are, of course, aware of the system, but individual officers are often not aware of these references, and are, therefore, apt to feel aggrieved by our action. Furthermore, anything in the nature of a check upon their actions, coming from their agents, is naturally not popular with Colonial Governments. If, on the other hand, a Colonial Government places an order locally, or in a foreign country, or (as is sometimes done, though irregularly) directly in this country, no check is applied. There is a con- siderable temptation to take such a course towards the end of a financial year, when it is desired to obtain goods at once, but to charge the cost to the following year; this we are frequently asked to do, but we are precluded by the Secretary of State's standing instructions from complying. In a recent case, for instance, we were asked to supply at once, but not to pay for, an order, dated 7th November, till after the 1st April. It would obviously be more convenient to us, and would save us much unpopularity, if we were relieved of our responsibilities to the Secretary of State and allowed to execute without question all orders coming from a proper quarter.
8. Another feature of the Secretary of State's control is that the responsibility
of placing orders rests with us. Sir F. A. Swettenham's view that we should be bound by the directions of a Colonial Government to buy from a particular firm is, of course, contrary to this policy. This view, it will be noticed, is not based on any allegation that we exercise our discretion badly, but on the broad ground as stated by him that communities like to try experiments, even if they may prove expensive. He names certain cases-a particular purchase, the engagement of a particular officer, and the advice of a named specialist-which seem to indicate that he has some specific cases in mind of these kinds in which the Federated Malay States have had a desire which we have resisted. Any cases, however, which would come under such a description would be very rare. What does occasionally happen is that the head of a Department recommends a purchase of certain stores from a particular firm, and it is only when we have definite reason to believe that we can deal more advantageously elsewhere that we fail to follow the recommendation. These cases are usually not important, and are hardly matters in which the community is interested.
As to the genera question of policy we will only say briefly that the main arguments for the system in force are that we act for many-30-Governments, and have means of collecting in- formation which a Colonial Government cannot possess, and that notwithstanding the high level of the Colonial services it is humanly certain that irregularities would be invited by a system under which Colonial officers would, in effect, place orders them- selves, often at the solicitation of local agents or travellers. We believe that one of the original reasons for constituting this office was the advantage of concentrating the general experience derived from the business of many Colonies in one body. On the other side it might doubtless be urged that it is for the Governors and not for us to see that public duties are properly performed, and that our experience and in- formation would be utilized by Colonial Governments, even if they had the right to direct us to employ specified firms. Here again it would be, as a mere matter of our own convenience, a relief from much work and responsibility if we had to take the directions of a Colonial Government without demur. The whole question is, however, one of policy, on which Mr. Chamberlain will no doubt decide.
9. Another important question is raised by Sir F. A. Swettenham when he states that there have been cases in which we have departed from instructions and thereby caused inconvenience and expense, and he quotes as an example the execution of an order for certain ironwork. This case will be referred to in detail Inter on. but the principle involved is of importance in the conduct of our business. During the execution of indents of a complex character, such as machinery, structural iron- work, and so on, it frequently happens that deviations from the drawings or from the details of the indent appear necessary. Such questions are often reported to us by the Inspecting Engineer or manufacturer concerned, and when circumstances permit we refer them to the Colony for instructions. When, however, the matter is urgent, or the question not so serious as to justify the delay of reference to the Colony, we decide to the best of our judgment, and unless the matter is of a trivial character at once report our action to the Government concerned. The instance cited by Sir F. A. Swettenham was such a case, but on that occasion our Inspector inadvertently omitted to report to us in the usual manner, and hence the Colony was not informed. Had Sir F. A. Swettenham blamed us for omitting to report the change we could only, though the error was the Inspector's and not our own, have repeated our previous
0322
K2
8
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO