here. We also agreed in the light of our discussion
to drop the idea of the omissions to paragraphs 2,
9 and 115 of your despatch which we had suggested in'...? paragraph 8(1) of our savingram No.32 of the 29th April.
In regard to the question whether the process
4.
of handing over of functions to the Municipal Council
should be described as one of delegation rather than of
transfer, which is referred to in paragraph 3(0) of the
despatch, we have examined again the minutes on this
point in the light of our discussion.
As I explained to
you, whilst we entirely appreciate the necessity of
avoiding any impression that the Municipal Council is
to have a mere shadow, and not the substance of power,
we should feel great difficulty about the notion of à
complete surrender of powers to the Municipality.
I hope, however, that you will not feel too much
difficulty in accepting the second sub-paragraph of
paragraph 3(o) in view of the revised wording in paragraph 3(g).
As regards the second sub-paragraph of paragraph 3(1),
where the same principle is involved, I think the wording
now proposed brings out more clearly our concept that it is
in the field of rates that the Municipal Council must be
In our discussion you drew attention
allowed discretion. (In
to paragraph 2(h) of our telegram No. 329 of the 21st February.
This, however, was drafted Hefore Roberts-Wray had had an
opportunity of studying the subject in detail. When he
had done so he pointed out that it is from rates and
licence duties that local authorities obtain the bulk of
their revenues, and that it would, in fact, represent a
most unusual departure from normal Colonial constitutional
principle to empower a Municipality to levy taxes, in fact
it would be quite exceptional to delegate even to a Legislature
freedom to raise money in this way, and dispose of revenues
thus obtained. The importance which we feel must be bound to
attach to the principle that control of finance must be
retained
(30)
(4)
Page 190Page 191