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

89 CHAPTER SEVEN WEBBER: A TRAVELING MAN Texts that are inertly of their time stay there; those which brush up unstintingly against historical constraints are the ones we keep with us, generation after generation. —EDWARD SAID, Freud and the Non-European If I would convert one hundred million tropical heathen[s] to the worship of an UNKNOWN God I would lead them to see a heavy snowfall: not while it was falling for that is monotonous, and it is the accumulated effect that is required. I would lead them, most to the great snow-covered parks, and beautiful pastures where the snow lay. Then I would tell them that the Unknown God had willed such ethereal beauty, such rapturous loveliness, that none may look upon it, but weep at His name, His grandeur and His magnificence. And perhaps then I may have been a greater missionary than Livingstone or Chas. Wesley, or William Booth; or any in this or any other age—and that without book or bigotry. —A. R. F. WEBBER, “New York versus London” WHEN WEBBER TRAVELED TO LONDON IN 1928 toprotesttheproposedchanges in British Guiana’s constitution, he wrote nine sketches about his visits, which he called “From an Editorial View-Point.” These sketches appeared in the New Daily Chronicle from February 19 through June 20, 1928, and discussed his impressions of Trinidad, Barbados, London, and Jamaica. Although Webber hoped to publish these sketches in book form, he never got around to doing so. In his personal notebook, which Edith, his daughter, kept and which is now in the possession of Jennifer Welshman, Webber made several corrections to the copy that appeared in the New Daily Chronicle in anticipation that the sketches would be published eventually. Circumstances, apparently, did not allow him to do so. On this his third trip to London, Webber left Georgetown around January 20, 1928, stopping first in Trinidad, then proceeding to Barbados and Portugal before arriving in London on February 6, 1928. On January 24 he addressed an audience at the Princess Building, in Port of Spain, Trinidad, a report of which was published A TRAVELING MAN 90 in the Port of Spain Gazette the following day. Captain Arthur Cipriani, Dr. Tito Achong, J. Ryan, A. V. Stollmyer, Mrs. Aubrey Jeffers, and the officers of the Trinidad Workingmen’s Association attended his lecture. It is likely that C. L. R. James might have heard this lecture since he was a faithful follower of Cipriani and wrote a biography on him. Webber spoke on the “physio-graphical features of British Guiana,” while Captain Cipriani spoke about the importance of a West Indian Federation. Acting in solidarity with British Guiana against the proposed changes that were to be made in the country’s constitution, Cipriani protested against what he called the “big stick legislation under British rule.” Although Webber discussed his visit to Trinidad in his first sketch, “Bird’s Eye Sketches of Trinidad and Barbados,” he does not mention his appearance at the Princess Building. Unlike An Innocent’s Pilgrimage in which Webber refused to discuss the political aspects of his second visit to London, he devotes a third of “From an Editorial ViewPoint ” (or what he calls his “letters”) to his delegation’s meeting with the Colonial Office and the subsequent debate on the proposed measures on the constitution, particularly in sketches five and six.1 Reading these accounts, one gets an understanding of how the colonial officials functioned. In his sixth letter, “Gathering Up the Ashes,” Webber speaks of the frustration of his discussions of the constitution with officials from the Colonial Office after he cornered them into a meeting. At the conference, they were welcomed by Sir Robert Grindle, undersecretary of state, who counseled his colleagues to discount some of the official criticisms they were hearing about the elected members of Guyana. Webber continued: But, here was I [sic] facing the man who fathered those criticisms; for to me was allowed the venture of trying to convince him of the error of his ways. There was a distant handicap in that there was no immediate finality to the discussion. Except by intuition one could not tell whether to leave well alone, to shift ground, or to pass to another point. Everything was “to be considered.” Our views would be transmitted to the Secretary of State for his decision, etc. A pretty game of make believe, but no doubt necessary under parliamentary institutions and representations. All fight against the Reserve Power had...

Share