265
24
THE SECRETARY OF STATE: My difficulty is rather this. The Kandyans are divided on this question. You may say there is a political division of the Kandyans, some of them taking the same view as the low-country and some taking a different view on general political questions. If you have a general electorate on the same basis everywhere it is quite possible that the view of that section of the Kandyans who do not share your view will not be represented at all because although they might get a majority of Kandyans in some districts they will not get a majority of the total population anywhere.
MR. MOLAMURE: But they do. As I say, the Kandyans in the Kandyan dis- tricts predominate as against all others.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE: You do not follow my point, but it does not matter. I quite see your point, which is more important. Your point is that Kandyans of sorts will get in in the Kandyan districts: where there is a Kandyan majority a Kandyan will be elected.
SIR P. ARUNACHALAM: Yes.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE: Is there anything else you wish to say?
MR. PEIRIS: There is also the difficulty of defining a Kandyan, if you want to form an electorate. We are looking at the question from the point of view of the persons who will get in the Council rather than from the point of view of the electorate, those who have to vote.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE: The thing that matters is the person who gets in. MR. PEIRIS: From their point of view.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE: No, from everybody's point of view. The people who get in are the people who matter. The point is the character of your Legisla- tive Council.
MR. PEIRIS: Yes, but the Kandyans would be in the majority on this question and they will have no opportunity of sending the best men to represent them.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE: I daresay proportional representation will meet the case better than anything else.
SIR P. ARUNACHALAM: Yes.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE: I think these are the two main points really, about the Executive Council and the non-communal representation, so to speak.
MR. PEIRIS: Yes. There is also the question of a non-official elected majority in view of the fact that at present any measure can be got through the Legislative Council in opposition to the wishes of those who are nominated. We say that the use of the official block should be got rid of, that the Governor should have power to carry through legislation which is essential to the best interests of the country. THE SECRETARY OF STATE: You mean if there was a non-official majority and
it would not pass the Budget, would not vote money, he should have power?
MR. PEIRIS: He should have power of certifying it and passing it. At present the Government view is carried out only by means of the official majority. We say the responsible person, the Governor, should have power to do it, of course, subject to appeal to the Secretary of State, and that the machinery of the official block should not be used.
SIR P. ARUNACHALAM: I have been an official, and I can express the views of many officials. Under the present system our experience and our advice is lost on the Council. We are not able to express any opinion. We have simply to vote according to wishes, to support the spokesman of the Government for the time being. It is humiliating to us and is not good for the country. Some of my col- leagues have great sympathy with the people, but their opinions do not come in at all On matters of Imperial interest their views. I understand, can be overruled, but on general questions there are many who feel very sorely on the point. I do not think it was intended that the official vote should be used.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE I do not think it is a good plan, if it can be avoided, to tie your official. I have had some experience of that myself. For a brief period in the Transvaal before the War we had an official majority, and I always had a great dislike to using it.
SIH P. ARUNACHALAM: It is done systematically in Ceylon.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE: It may have to be done. It is not a good thing if you can avoid it. Your suggestion is that the officials should, like the elected mem- bers, be free to have their own views.
SIR P. ARUNACHALAM: Except on Imperial questions.
MR PEIRIS: That is not quite our point. Our point is that there should be a non-official elected majority and that instead of using the official block the Governor
25
should be given the power of certifying that a measure is necessary, and carn through on his responsibility, which is really only another way of doing the same thing.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE: No, it is a very different thing.
MR. PEIRIS It does not discourage the elected members so much as the present system does.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE It gives him immensely more power. MR. PEIRIS: It does. What I mean is, if the Governor acts on his own respon- sibility the elected members will be free to express their views and to carry resolu tions in accordance with their views.
SIR P. ARUNACHALAM: The present system is a sort of camouflage; it is really the wish of the person who for the time being speaks for the Government, that prevails; and all the officials are supposed to be on his side, which in fact they are not.
THE SECRETARy of State: Of course it is a very common form of Government in the British Empire.
SIR P. ARUNACHALAM: Yes. If it was restricted to Imperial and essential interests there would be no objection; I think it would be very desirable; but not when it becomes a matter of ordinary procedure of the Council. It may happen in the course of discussion. The Attorney-General frequently, as the spokesman of
the Governor, gets up and expresses an opinion, and all of us have, like sheep, to follow him, whether we agree or not.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE: I think there is a good deal to be said from the point
of view of official members for your plan, of what I may call the Governor's veto
in the last resort, because it makes the official members also much more free.
SIR P. ARUNACHALAM: That is so.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE: They can act much more freely.
MR. GOLLAN: The only point on that is this, that you may have two classes
of measures, one class of measure passed by the advice of the Legislative Council,
and the other class of measure passed by the Governor of his own motion. I think
it would be unfortunate if you had two such classes of measure.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE: It is objectionable to have two classes of measure,
but then, of course, one hopes it will not often happen.
MR. GOLLAN: That is 80.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE: If the elected members would agree it would never happen, but it would not matter; of course we have known cases, not infrequently. where there has been friction, and where the line taken by the Legislative members has been an obstructive one. Government has to be carried on, and with a reasonable position on both sides it ought never to happen.
MR. PEIRIS: This is our position, my Lord. At present there is a Finance Committee composed of the Colonial Secretary, the Treasurer, and all the unofficial members, and the Budget is always passed without controversy. I say the same will be the result hereafter because the elected majority in Council know that the Governor has power to pass it. Your Lordship said there was no analogy between the Ceylon Government and the Central Government in India, but, as you are aware, there is the elected majority now under the Bill adopted in England.
The Secretary of State: In provincial councils.
MR. PEIRIS: In the Central Government, too.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE: Yes, but there you have the Viceroy.
MR. PEIRIS: The old machinery has now been abandoned, and there is now, on the Joint Committee's Report, an elected majority in both Councils. That has been a well-considered scheme.
The SecretarY OF STATE: Is there any other point?
MR. PRIRIS: There is a point with regard to the representation of distinct interests apart from communal. We say that should not be encouraged because it will be very difficult to draw the line between the interests that should be represented and the interests that should not. The strongest instance of that would be the religious interests. I myself am a member of the Church of England. Christians have no idea of asking for a separate electorate on the ground that they fear any- thing will be done to their disadvantage by the vast majority of the electors, who would be Buddhists. If that is not to be regarded as an interest then I say other interests should not be regarded.
The Secretary OF STATE: There is no religions controversy, is there? MR. PEIRIS: No. We are content that we should have a general electorate, that there should be no separate electorate, as in Madras, for Christians.
}
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
ITT I CO. 882/10
ח !
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH--NOT TO
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON