373
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O. 882/10
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIÇ- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
48005
(No. 588.) SIR,
84
No. 43.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE to THE GOVERNOR.
Downing Street, 6th October, 1922.
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch, No. 507, of the 5th September, transmitting a letter addressed to me by certain unofficial members of the Legislative Council of Ceylon, on the subject of Constitutional Reform.
2. I shall be obliged if you will inform the writers that their letter has been received, and that their views will receive my careful consideration.
48005
SIR,
my have, &c.,
No. 44.
WINSTON S. CHURCHILL,
THE SECRETARY OF STATE to THE GOVERNOR. (Confidential.)
1
In my numbered despatch of even datet I have replied to your despatch
Downing Street, 6th October, 1922. No. 507 of the 5th September enclosing a letter addressed to me by certain Unofficial Members of the Legislative Council of Ceylon on the subject of Constitu- tional Reform. I do not think it necessary to discuss in detail the arguments raised in this letter. I do not, of course, accept the view expressed in paragraphs 13 and 15 of the letter, since it is open to any individual to address the Secretary of State through the Governor in a proper manner. Such a communication may, if the signatory so desires, properly be treated as confidential; but I think it is difficult to hold that, when the contents of such a communication have been referred to in a document published by the Government, the communication can itself be withheld from publication. I have therefore felt some doubt as to the propriety of the attitude adopted by the Acting Colonial Secretary in reply to the questions addressed to him; but in the absence of complete information as to all the facts, I do not wish to express a definite opinion on the matter, which has no doubt received your careful consideration.
I gather that there is some doubt as to the extent to which the Joint Memo- randum§ has received full support from the communities represented by the signatories, but whatever may be the facts as to this I must, of course, necessarily attach importance to a memorandum signed, as that was, by seven Unofficial Members of the Legislative Council.
I have, &c.,
52438
No. 45.
WINSTON S. CHURCHILL.
THE GOVERNOR to THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
(No. 557.) SIR,
(Received 23rd October, 1922.) [Answered by No. 46.]
t
Ceylon, 3rd October, 1922.
I HAVE the honour to transmit a memorial, dated 20th September, 1922, which has been addressed to you by the Executive Committee of the Ceylon National Congress, on the subject of constitutional reform. I have already dealt with the subject matter of the present memorial on several previous occasions, and there is therefore no necessity for me to animadvert further on the various points raised by the memorialists.
I have, &c.,
W. H. MANNING,
Governor, &c.
• No. 41.
# No. 48.
Enclosure in No. 8.
To
The Right Honourable
85
Enclosure in No. 45.
Winston Spencer Churchill, P.C., M.P.,
His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies,
Downing Street, London.
SIR,
WITH reference to the cablegram dated the 18th of August, 1922, a copy of which is annexed hereto marked A, forwarded to you through His Excellency the Governor, your Memorialists beg to submit the following observations on the “Joint Memorandum of the European, Burgher, Tamil, Mohammedan, and Indian members of the Legislative Council of Ceylon on the reconstitution of that Council.' Memorandum was first published in a Colombo newspaper on the 16th of August, This 1920. Its contents had been kept secret till then, in spite of a demand made in the Legislative Council for its publication. Memorandum, which His Excellency the Governor stated in Council has been duly Your memorialists feel that this forwarded to you, will create an entirely false impression on your mind as to the views of the people of Ceylon in regard to the question of reform. In these circum- stances they consider it incumbent on them to submit to you on behalf of the Ceylon National Congress the following observations on the Memorandum for your information.
1. This Joint Memorandum is a very misleading document. In the first place its description of itself is inaccurate. In the present Legislative Council there are three members who are by race Tamil--two elected for territorial constituencies and one nominated by the Governor. Mr. E. R. Tambimuttu. the member for the Eastern Province, refused to subscribe Of the two elected members, the Honourable to this Memorandum or to accept the scheme of representation proposed by its authors. He has since the publication of this document publicly dissociated himself from the views expressed therein. (Vide Appendix B.) The other elected member, the Honourable Mr. W. Duraiswamy, the member for the Northern Province, has repudiated the Memorandum in interviews granted by him to local newspapers. (Vide Appendix C.) Sir P. Ramanathan, who has signed this document which is notoriously his handiwork, is Tamil by race and a nominated member of the Council, but he has not been nominated to represent the interests of the Tamils in Council, and it is well known in Ceylon that a large body of the Tamil population is not in sympathy with him and would resent his claim to speak on its behalf. It is therefore grossly and deliberately misleading to claim that this Memorandum represents the views of the Tamil members of the Legislative Council. The Jaffna Association and the Ceylon Tamil Mahajana Sabha, communications from whose Committees are appended to the Joint Memorandum, represent the views of certain small sections of Tamils residing mainly in the Northern Province. Their claim to voice the views of the Tamil community generally has been publicly repudiated by prominent Tamils in different parts of the Island, amongst others by the Tamil Association of Colombo which perhaps represents the most enlightened and progressive elements in that community. (Vide Appendix D.)
In regard to the assent given on behalf of the Ceylon Muslim Association by Mr. Kamer Cassim, two members of that Association have publicly repudiated his right to act on its behalf, inasmuch as he had in February, 1922, ceased to be its President. Mr. Kamer Cassim himself has since stated in the press that he never saw or knew the contents of the Joint Memorandum when he expressed agreement with the scheme of representation given in it. (Vide Appendix E.)
So far as the memorialists have been able to ascertain, the Burghers of Ceylon repudiate the action of Mr. Arthur Alvis and the Committee of the Ceylon Burgher Electorate Association in accepting the scheme of representation formulated in the Joint Memorandum. The Ceylon Burgher Electorate Association itself is politically an unimportant body which has not been recognized by the leading Burgher inhabí- tants of the country. It will thus be seen that the claim that the Joint Memorandum represents the views of the Burgher. Mohammedan and Tamil population of Ceylon is wholly misleading and not justified by facts.
2. The Ceylon National Congress obviously forms the main object of attack in the Joint Memorandum which seeks to disparage it and misrepresents its aims and policy partly by suppressing the truth and partly by distorting facts. Reference, for example, is made in the second paragraph of the Memorandum to certain resolutions passed at the session of the Congress held in December. 1920, but no mention is made of the very important fact that those Tamil associations, whose
* See No. 81.