MELIC
PECORD OFFICE
Reference -
WANNAC.O.882/12
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE. LONDON:
|ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BF REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- |
|COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOI TO||
66
3. As it would be desirable for us to have competent advice, which is now not available in the Department, as to the measures to be taken adequately to survey our resources and to make such use of them as will enable them to be regarded as a real revenue-producing asset, I would strongly impress upon Your Excellency the necessity of requesting the Colonial Office to place at our disposal, as early as possible, the services of a thorough expert of high standing who will study our con- ditions and recommend the steps requisite for the purpose we have in view. I am prepared to apply to the State Council for the necessary money provision to meet the cost of this expert's investigation.
4. In view of this and in view of what I have already intimated to Your Excellency in my letter of the 2nd August, the assurance asked for by the Secretary of State as to the future policy of the Forest Department, may, I submit, be readily given.
5. I would suggest that the Secretary of State be informed accordingly by telegram.
His Excellency
The Governor.
!
P.F. 19365 [No. 109].
No. 36.
I have, &c.,
D. S. SENANAYAKE,
Minister for Agriculture and Lands.
THE OFFICER ADMINISTERING THE GOVERNMENT
to
THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
(Received 2.26 p.m., 7th December, 1933.)
7TH DECEMBER. No. 206. My No. 190.* This Government would be grateful if scheme of study proposed by Jayawardena for Carnegie Scholarship and forwarded to you with my despatch of 21st February, No. 128,† could be amended to include Utilization Course under direction of Research Laboratory, Princes Risborough.
II. NEW CONSTITUTION.
(1) Memorandum commenting on the working of the New Constitution and on Indian Constitutional Reform.
No. 37.
MEMORANDUM BY SIR B. H. BOURDILLON DATED 27TH MARCH, 1932, COM- MENTING ON THE WORKING OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION.
1. THE BOARD OF MINISTERS.
(a) The Board. Being firmly convinced that one essential for the successful working of the new Constitution was that the Board of Ministers should develop a
+9150/1/33 [No. 1]: not printed,
* P.F. 19365 [No. 107]: not printed.'
"
67
far greater solidarity than is actually laid down in the Constitution itself, I put my views on this matter before my colleagues at our first meeting, and found them in whole-hearted agreement. It is true that the Minister for Labour held a different view of "
corporate responsibility" to that held by the other Ministers, and actually suggested that even when the Constitution demanded that he should vote with the majority of the Board, he should retain the liberty of explaining in open Council what his personal views were. The other Ministers were solid against him, and if he had not given way they would probably have made things so unpleasant for him that he would have been forced to resign. His attitude arose merely from his in- satiable desire to justify himself;" a desire which has made him a nuisance upon several occasions, and he has been as ready as any other Minister, if not more so, to consult the Board upon difficult questions arising in his Committee and to endeavour to assure himself of their support before going to the Council. Generally speaking, the Ministers have shown what I consider a very healthy tendency to bring up for discussion in the Board important matters of policy arising in their respective Com- mittees, even when there is no immediate financial implication, and consequently no collective responsibility under the Constitution. They might perhaps have been a little more active in helping each other out of difficult situations in Council, and if there have been a good many occasions when I have felt that the Leader of the Council might, with advantage, have taken a more active part in supporting his colleagues in debate, but, on the whole they have been distinctly loval and helpful. not only to each other, but, on more than one occasion, to the Officers of State.
The whole atmosphere of the meetings of the Board has been excellent. There has been a genuine and honest desire to work the Constitution in the proper spirit, relations between the Ministers and the Officers of State are exceedingly friendly, and they have done their best to recognize and to minimize each other's difficulties in the Council. The spirit of real co-operation and mutual understanding has been most marked. There have been many occasions on which the Board has not hesitated to champion, in pursuance of their convictions, what they have known to be a losing cause, and they have faced with considerable courage the abuse in the Council, and still more in the Press, which they knew would be the result of their action. It cannot however be denied that they have, on occasions, surrendered their convictions to political expediency. The weakness of their position inherent in the Constitution has made this inevitable.
The weakness of the Board of Ministers lies, of course, in the fact that its members belong to different parties, and that it is often impossible to forecast what measure of support in the State Council will be received by any measure put forward or supported by the Board of Ministers. The facts (a) that the Council as a whole has Executive powers, and (b) that the Ministers are elected by the members of the Council in their various Committees emphasize the subservience of the Board of Ministers to the Council. Reference in indignant tones to the Ministers as creatures who must do what we tell them were frequent during the discussion of the Appropriation Bill.
1
"our
(b) The Ministers Individually.—It is universally recognized (except perhaps by one or two Ministers who would never have obtained portfolios under any other system) that the election of Ministers by the various Executive Committees has not led to the selection of the best man in all cases. The election was preceded by a great deal of intrigue and bargaining, and in one case at least, the presence in one Committee of two strong candidates, neither of whom would give way to the other, led to the election of a lazy and incompetent (albeit pleasant and gentlemanly) nonentity. I am fully aware that any other system would tend to produce the very result which the Donoughmore Commission were anxious to avoid, namely, a Board composed entirely of members of one party. My own opinion as to the desirability of this result is diametrically opposed to that of the Commission.
As Chairman of their Committees the Ministers have, with one notable exception, failed in leadership. That one, the Minister of Agriculture and Lands, is superior to his colleagues in both energy and administrative capacity. He has definitely laid himself out to dominate his Committee, and has succeeded admirably. None of the cther Ministers has established a similar ascendency over his Committee, and, in general they appear to consider it their duty to ascertain the opinion of their Committee rather than to guide and assist them in forming their opinion. Some are better than others, and they do not all go so far as the Minister of Labour. Industry, and Com- merce, who, when placing before his Committee a memorandum compiled by himself
422
.com