153
83
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TIITTIC.O. 885
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
31517
No. 38.
CROWN AGENTS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
(Received July 31, 1902.)
SIR,
Downing Street, London, July 30, 1902. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 13th May,* enclosing replies to Mr. Secretary Chamberlain's circular despatch of the 1st of June, 1901, which have been received since your previous letter of the 31st of January.*
The Governor of British Honduras states that he has pleasure in testifying to the care and accuracy displayed in dealing with the financial business, but he gives several instances of delay in the execution of commercial orders. The first of these, which is said to be the worst, is, as we may observe, hardly within the period of the last three years prescribed by the Secretary of State, as the order in question was given in January, 1896. It was an order for certain medical books, and those which were procurable were sent out without delay; others were out of print, or not then issued, and as it happened our suppliers failed to inform us when some of them appeared. There was no delay on our part in giving the order, and it is obviously impracticable for us to note ourselves when such books appear, which is often a considerable time after advertisement; this is the business of the bookseller, and in this case they no doubt overlooked the publication. We regret the inconvenience caused to the Colonial Government, and will take special steps to remind our book- sellers whenever there appears to be a long delay.
The second case referred to by Sir D. Wilson is also of an order given in 1896. He states that this indent was sent "with the intimation that the articles were required at an early date, and a request that they might be sent out as soon as possible"; and he proceeds to refer to the delay in the arrival of some of the articles. This statement is hardly accurate, as it was only some of the articles that were wanted at an early date and a list of these was sent in the covering despatch. All these articles were obtained and shipped on the 12th of February, 1897, one month after the receipt of the indent, with the exception of one item, viz., certain leggings, which were of special pattern, and followed early in April. The Governor goes on to say that the Colonial Secretary wrote on the 30th of July that much inconvenience was being caused by the delay. This representation, however, only referred to one part of the Enclosure indent, viz., clothing. We enclose a copy of the contractor's explanation which we A.. 25th
communicated to the Colony, we fined him about half the full penalty leviable. In September (R. 25121).
this case again we are unable to see any want of promptitude on our part, and we can only submit that a Colonial Government which has been placed in possession of all the facts is not justified in ascribing to us the delays or omissions of the con-
tractors.
We gather from paragraph 5 that no complaint is made as to the delivery of clothing and the like in more recent cases.
this on the
Sir D. Wilson further refers to an indent for certain Trinity pattern buoys; this indent was sent in February, 1897, and is, therefore, like those pre- viously mentioned, prior to the period properly under review. The order was given for "wrought iron" buoys as requisitioned, but it appeared that the contractors supplied steel buoys, and they justified ground that "the term wrought iron buoy' is so often used in contra- distinction to the old wooden buoys, that it has become insufficient to define a special requirement." Our inspector gave a similar answer. We did not accept this explanation, and replied that the contractors should not have departed from the terms of the specification without first obtaining our sanction in writing. The con- tractors then offered either to supply a patent enamel for coating the buoys or to accept a smaller sum for the buoys, and on this offer being communicated to the Colonial Government they accepted, in a letter dated 28th October, 1897, the former alternative.
In the case of the fencing material, the contractors admitted a mistake and paid- compensation. We enclose a copy of an explanation received from them. The fencing
• Not printed.
Enclosure B. Received March 26, 1902. (R. 541).
Enclosure B2. April 24, 1902.
was not inspected, and the mistake was not due to us. I may add that we recently received a letter of thanks from the Colonial Government for our action in the matter. A copy is enclosed. On the whole, considering that a range of six years is taken, we do not think that these cases are very serious, and no delay or mistake appeared to have occurred in any of them in this office. As we have explained in our previous letter, the real cause of delay is the frequent failure of contractors to deliver within the contract time. Sir D. Wilson says that merchants and private persous who order goods from England do not experience the same difficulty as the Government does; this may be the case, but the explanation is that merchants as a rule only deal in trade articles which are in general use and of which stocks are held, whereas we have to order a large number of articles which have to be specially made, or which cannot be obtained from stocks at the makers' prices. We can, however, as we have explained, do much to prevent delays if it is understood that we can buy from stocks whenever this is practicable. Sir D. Wilson's suggestion as to establishing uniformity in many of the articles required by Colonial Governments expresses exactly what we should ourselves desire, and what we endeavour to effect whenever it appears feasible. The difficulty is that different officers have widely varying views of what is suitable, and every Colony has special requirements. Thus British Honduras uses a drabette which no other Colony requires. Until recently each West African Colony followed its own ideas with regard to military clothing and accoutrements, and a great simplification was effected by the amalgamation of their forces; we cannot but think that similar steps in the direction of greater uniformity might be adopted with regard to Colonies where the circumstances are similar. In stationery, different sizes and qualities of paper are demanded to an extent which makes delay inevitable; in this case we are endeavouring to improve matters by preparing and circulating a book of samples which, while giving a sufficiently wide range of choice will, if followed, greatly tend to expedition. In drugs and medical comforts most medical officers have their own ideas, and the demands are very various, leading frequently to much correspondence before we can be sure that the suppliers are providing what is wanted; this difficulty is particularly felt when, as is often now the case, the demand is for a foreign article; in this department, however, there is no doubt good reason for leaving indenting officers to use their own judgment. Such articles as blankets and bedsteads can nearly always be obtained at once if the pattern given is a usual one, or if we are allowed some discretion. Cement has been standardized for some years, but we do not appear to receive any orders for this article from British Honduras.
With regard to paragraph 10 of Sir D. Wilson's despatch, we would observe that we obtain information and make recommendations whenever we are asked to do so; and we are always glad to receive reports from the Colonies as to the suit- ability of particular articles and to utilize such information for the general benefit of the Colonies. We send out any price lists that are requested. We do not see how without largely extending our functions we could advise the Colonies on improvements in manufactures generally, but we are prepared to do so in any particular cases which may be given to us.
The Acting Commissioner of Turks and Caicos Islands reports that the relations between the Government of those Islands and us are entirely satisfactory.
The Administrator of Seychelles states that he is entirely satisfied with the relations with us. He adds that he has only one suggestion to make, viz., that, save under exceptional circumstances, we should not incur expenditure on behalf of a Colonial Government unless the amount has been previously sanctioned by the Colonial Government or the Secretary of State. The case to which Mr. Sweet-Escott refers in connection with this suggestion is that dealt with in your letter, No. 29859/01, of the 2nd of September last, and our reply of the 13th of the same month. The circumstances were that we had been asked by the Colonial Office what would be the probable cost of a suitable second-hand launch, and we accordingly advertized, so as to obtain the information desired. The only point which arose in the subsequent correspondence referred to was whether we had advertized in too many papers, and in our reply to you we agreed that this was the case, and expressed our regret; but this was only a matter of degree, and we do not understand that the general pro- position mentioned by Mr. Sweet-Escott, and which we of course fuily recognise, was involved in this case.
The Deputy Administrator of the Orange River Colony points out that he was unable at that stage to make any comments based on his experience there, but adds
9952