PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
CO.
Reference :-
882/10
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
74
those documents, and that if it was necessary that the consent of the authors should be obtained, which we deny, the Government should have obtained it, and that the Government was wanting in courtesy in referring them to the authors of the documents in question.
11.
We might in this connexion suggest the desirability of a definite ruling as to whether Members of the Legislative Council are entitled to have access to documents filed of record to which reference is made in reports of Committees of the Council.
12. As is indicated in the answer of the Colonial Secretary, the Memorandum referred to has been published by the Ceylon Daily News, which had succeeded in procuring a copy, although, from the answer of the Colonial Secretary, it is clear that both the Government and the authors of the document intended that it should never see the light of day.
13. In the first place, we would urge that it was not proper for members of Council, who took part in a discussion in Council and had the opportunity of expressing their opinions fully in open debate, and did actually do so, to submit a confidential document to the Governor for transmission to the Secretary of State, in which the question discussed in Council is again reviewed, the opinions expressed by other members criticized. and proposals made which were never submitted to Council, and that it was not proper for the Government to agree to treat it as confidential.
14. How indiscreet this action of the Government was is shown by even a cursory glance at the contents of this document, which teems with misrepresenta- tions and charges of breach of faith against members of Council and allegations that they were actuated by unworthy motives which they were not to be given an opportunity to rebut.
15. Although we are prepared to concede that the Government has the right of addressing confidential communications to the Secretary of State regarding pro- ceedings of Council and public matters generally, we question the right of private individuals, even if they be members of Council, to forward to the Secretary of State through the Government confidential communications of the nature of the Memorandum referred to.
16. It is noteworthy that although the Memorandum professes to be a joint memorandum of the European, Burgher, Tamil, Mohammedan and Indian Members of the Council, that the Tamil member for the Eastern Province was not a party to it, did not sign it, and has publicly condemned the scheme of distribution of seats contained in it, and that the only other elected Tamil member, the Member for the Northern Province, whose private telegram to Sir P. Ramanathan is attached to the Memorandum, says in a statement in the Public Press, that he refused to sign it, and that he disagrees with many of the principles enunciated in it, and that the President of the Ceylon Muslim Association, whose letter is attached to the Memo- randum, says that "he did not see the Memorandum, that although he was promised a copy he was never given one, that if he had seen it he would have been the first to repudiate many of the statements contained therein." and that Members of the Committee of the Burgher Electorate and the Ceylon Muslim Association also deny that their Committees had seen or approved the memorandum or the Scheme of Distribution. Sir 8. C. Obeyesekere, who sat in the Legislative Council for a long period as the Senior Singhalese Member and, who is referred to in the Memorandum as being in sympathy with its authors and as opposed to the Congress demand for a territorial majority, has in an interview in the Press expressed himself as dis- tinctly in favour of such a majority. Other communications in the Press from members of Communities other than Singhalese and the Resolution of the Committee of the Colombo Tamil Association to the effect that "The scheme formulated by the Minorition Conference embodied in ita Memorial reduces the Tamils of the Island to a position of political impotence.
This Association expresses its unqualified disapproval of that scheme," shows that the Memorandum in question was hatched in secret and does not represent the views of several of the Com- munities for whom it professes to speak, and that its authors would not have made the many misrepresentations contained in it if they anticipated that it would be ever made public in this country.
17. The authors of the Memorandum have the temerity to ask you to believe that the Singhalese Members of the Council, who have been elected to represent the whole of the Island except the Northern and Eastern Provinces, have no claim to speak for anybody but themselves. In view of the above disclosures regarding the
75
way in which this Memorandum was prepared unknown to the Communities con- cerned, and the repudiation of it by those on whose behalf it professes to speak, it may well be asked whether the Signatories to it can claim to speak for anybody but themselves.
18. While we do not think it necessary to pass any comments on the many misstatements and misrepresentations contained in the said Memorandum, we would wish to make a few observations on certain points connected with the main object for which it was submitted to the Government, viz., to induce it to take a retrograde step in regard to Constitutional Reform in Ceylon; but before doing so, we would draw your special attention to the following paragraph in that document, as it has an important bearing on the report of the Allocation Committee. the six Communities are now agreed on the question of allotment and distribution "As five out of of the elected, nominated and official seats, it would be waste of time and energy to wrangle once again with persons who will not be convinced, and whose aim is to subject to their own will the will of all the other Communities. We do not want a Committee of the Council to decide a matter about which we have now very clear views. We respectfully submit them to the Government."
19. In the face of this strong expression of opinion by the authors of the Memorandum in February last of the futility of the Committee, it is surprising that the Ceylon Government sought for and obtained the Secretary of State's approval for the appointment of an Allocation Committee, and nominated four (4) of the Signatories to serve on it, with the full knowledge that they had already made up their minds regarding the question of the allocation and distribution of elected, nominated and official seats," and it is equally surprising that those members supported the appointment of the Committee and agreed to serve on it.
20. The scheme of Allocation and Distribution advocated in the Allotment Committee by the four (4) members in question is practically that suggested in the Memorandum, and it is evident that they made no attempt to distribute seats according to any principle, and that the allotment of four (4) seats to the Northern Province and a reserved seat for the Tamil Community in the Western Province as against four (4) seats for the latter Province (the importance of which was recognized by the Government by the allocation in the present Order in Council of three (3) seats to it as against one seat to the Northern Province) was the result of an understanding between the authors of the Memorandum and certain members of the Tamil Community, is apparent from this significant passage in the said Memo- randum, "We, the undersigned members of the Legislative Council, were able to secure the adhesion of the Tamil leaders by recognizing the importance of the Tamils settled in the Western Province."
21. In view of the above and of the conflicting suggestions contained in the report of the Allocation Committee, we feel sure that you will not be influenced by it in arriving at a decision regarding the Reforms, in the constitution which this country is entitled to.
22. With reference to the recommendation regarding allocation of seats made in the Memorandum, it is alleged that it is made in response to the advice given by His Excellency the Governor at an interview which the Communal members had with him on the 4th November, 1921, before the Reform Debate, when it is stated that His Excellency advised the different Communities "to decide themselves what adequate representation of seats should be and place their views before Government."
23. It is a matter for comment that although these Communal members made it clear in the Debate in Council in December that they were opposed to a territorial majority, they did not put forward by way of amendment to the motion under discussion any scheme showing how the adequate representation of their Com- munities could be secured. On the contrary they accepted section two (2) of the motion brought forward by the Member for Colombo which specified the number of seats to be allotted to them and eagerly welcomed the provision in section nine (9) which gave them votes for the election of members to represent the territorial electorates in addition to any vote they may have in respect of any Communal electorate, a privilege which does not exist in India or in any of the Colonies.
24. Without putting forward such a scheme openly in Council, which they had ample opportunity to do, and after His Excellency the Governor had under- taken to forward the proceedings in the Reform Debate to the Secretary of State, they formulated in a secret and confidential memorandum a scheme for the repre- sentation of the whole Island on a communal basis. For although certain territorial
368