In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

47 CHAPTER FOUR WEBBER’S POLITICAL ASCENDANCY, 1921–25 His Excellency: What is that? Mr. Webber: I said, sir, that he [the former governor] is now sitting in a quiet corner of London fiddling. I know he was fond of the fiddle. His Excellency: I do not see what the observation of the Financial Representative has to do with the removal of a magazine. Mr. Webber: In [the] process of time Your Excellency and your Lieutenant will also go into peaceful retirement in the happy possession of a pension and the people of the Colony will still be here bearing their burdens. —EXCHANGE BETWEEN GOVERNOR GRAEME THOMSON AND WEBBER, Combined Court, May 1925 As long as the Colony remains under a paternal sort of Government, manned chiefly by Administrators from abroad, the Citizens have to acknowledge their moral and intellectual inferiority to the peoples of the World and even to the neighbouring South American Countries. If the Citizens have within them pride and patriotism and above all else self-respect they cannot be satisfied forever to remain in the present subservient and ignominious state. Self-Government ought to be the Colony’s ultimate aim. —NAIVA TASYA, “Entre Nous” WEBBER’S ELECTION TO THE COMBINED COURT IN 1921 coincided with strong calls throughout the West Indies for more representative government and the visit of the Hon. E. F. L. Wood, parliamentary undersecretary of state for the colonies.1 During the early months of 1921, even before Webber was elected, the Daily Chronicle raised several issues about the constitution. On August 21 the newspaper criticized a policy in which the “colony’s financial and economic policies are in the hands of one man, and at that, a bird of passage, with the inevitable result that there is no continuity of policy.”2 On October 2 the newspaper called for the greater participation of the Electives in running the country and argued: “The burdens of this country have to be borne by the men in the country. If the Colonial Office is prepared to foot the bill caused by the errors of the professional POLITICAL ASCENDANCY, 1921–25 48 administrations sent us, we may smile and pass on; but since the course and charges have to be faced by us, it is only reasonable to contend that some control of Executive action should be vested in the hands of the electives.” A. V. Crane, an African lawyer who later became a member of the Court of Policy, railed against the “antiquated” nature of the constitution and noted that an autocratic form of government was antithetical to the development of the country.3 In 1922 the economic situation worsened in Guyana. Webber noted that “the depression caused by the sugar slump was at its greatest depth,” and so there was much misery in the colony.4 In 1923 there was a severe economic dislocation in the country. Approximately 15,000 Guyanese were out of work, and businesses lost as much as $300,000. In January 1923 the police force went on strike, and by April of the following year the famous Ruimveldt Riot took place, when the dockworkers went on strike to protest the rising cost of living, a condition that was particularly harsh on working people. What began in Georgetown as a peaceful demonstration to protest “the inevitable wage question” resulted in the deaths of thirteen persons, twelve of whom were East Indians. One was African or Afro-Guyanese. Webber insists that what started as peaceful picketing was disrupted by unruly elements [who] invaded private homes for the purpose of driving out domestics and compelling them to join in the demonstration. . . . Meanwhile, similar demonstrations were being made on the East Bank, and the demonstrators decided upon a march to Georgetown to appeal to CROSBY, or the Governor, or probably anyone else. The Police resolved to prevent the demonstrants [sic] from joining forces with disorderly elements then threatening the city. The military formed up to hold the road at Ruimveldt. The Mounted Police charged the crowd rather than passively wait on its advance: stoning commenced, and the officer in charge ordered pot shooting at those he thought deserving it.5 Ravi Dev interprets this event in racial terms and argues that “the Indians were so traumatized by the incidents at Ruimveldt that there were no strikes recorded [by Indians] for the next three years. They also lost all faith in Critchlow’s BGLU. The killings torpedoed a Colonisation Scheme, which envisaged re-opening Indian...

Share