452
BIN
PCCORD OFFICE
Reference-
C.O.882/12
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BF REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO]
!
126
put before you in this 26. I earnestly hope that in the light of the considerations despatch you will feel able to review the opinion of the constitutional position expressed in paragraph 6 of your Confidential despatch of the 14th May, 1932, and to decline the request of the Acting Minister for Agriculture and Lands formally to place the subject of "Cadres of Staffs" in the charge of Executive Committees by an interpreta- tion of the Schedules to the Order in Council. I trust you will feel able to inform the Acting Minister that you can find nothing in the Order in Council which limits the executive responsibility of the Governor for the efficency of the Public Service and that the subject of "Cadres of Staffs "has consequently no place in the Second
Schedule.
C. 93140/32 [No. 1].
I have, &c.,
IV. STATE COUNCIL.
(1) Debates on Motions.
No. 52.
GRAEME THOMSON,
Governor.
THE GOVERNOR to THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
(Confidential.)
SIR,
(Received 17th October, 1932.)
Ceylon, 22nd September, 1932. WITH reference to paragraph 2 of my Contidential despatch of the 24th of May. 1932,* on the subject of amendinents to the present Constitution in which I referred to certain motions on the State Council Agenda standing in the name of Mr. E. W. Perera, Member for Horana, I have the honour to inform you that the debate on these motions took place between the 21st of June and the 20th of July last. I annex for your information a list of the motions together with particulars showing the number of members who spoke on each motion, and the results of the divisions on each of them. I also enclose copies of Hansard† in which the debate is recorded.
2. The first of these motions claims the exclusive control of the public purse as an inalienable constitutional right, and demands the repeal of Articles 22, 61, 37 (1) and (4), and 91 of the Order in Council. The motion was opposed by the European nominated members, Mr. T. L. Villiers (see Hansard, page 1542), Mr. G. K. Stewart (page 1555), and Mr. E. C. Villiers (page 1585). The speech of Mr. H. R. Freeman (page 1603) gave the impression that he was opposing the motion, but he subsequently stated that he would not oppose the motion but would not vote for it (page 1606). The Acting Chief Secretary (page 1551) and the Acting Attorney- General also spoke (page 1564). Sir D. B. Jayatilake gave the motion qualified support (page 1596) stating that, while in sympathy with the object of the motion; he supported it up to a point and only to express his opinion that the power of certification should not be exercised. The motion when put was agreed to without a division. The Chief Secretary informs me that there is no doubt the majority did not take the motion seriously as raising a practical issue, but few of the Ceylonese members would have been willing to incur unpopularity by voting against it. Mr. Bandaranaike endeavoured to challenge a division in order to force the timorous into an appearance of unanimity, but the Speaker's ruling that as Mr. Bandaranaike had himself said Aye he could not call for a division, was, I believe, hailed by not a few with relief.
3. The second motion was put and agreed to without debate or division and aroused little interest. In the third motion Mr. Perera endeavoured to maintain that the proviso to Article 72 of the Order in Council is unconstitutional. The Acting
* C. 93011/32 [No. 3]: not printed.
↑ Not reprinted.
127
Attorney-General (see Hansard, page 1634) gave a most able exposition of the law, and entirely demolished Mr. Perera's case. The supporters of the motion were non- plussed, and had the debate been continued then the motion would probably have been lost. The Council, however, adjourned immediately after the Attorney-General's speech, and at the next meeting an amendment was proposed substituting for the assertion of an imagined constitutional right a demand for the repeal of the proviso to Article 72. Mr. Perera refused to accept the amendment, but he found no support for his motion and the amendment was carried with four dissentients, one inember declining to vote, and seven members absenting themselves from the division. By this time the interest in the motions had largely evaporated, and possibly the speech of the Acting Attorney-General on the last motion had added to the opinion held by many as to the uselessness and unreality of the debate on these motions, the conviction that Mr. Perera was supporting a bad case. The next three motions were put and agreed to without a division and with little debate.
4. The last motion, on the Committee System, was felt to raise a real practical issue, and the debate lost the air of unreality which had often tharacterized the proceedings on the earlier motions. The consensus of opinion was strongly in favour of the Committee System. Mr. Perera was supported only by five members. Three Ministers, Messrs. Panabokke, Batuwantudawe, and Peri Sunderam declined to vote, although nominally members of Mr. Perera's Liberal League which strongly supported his motions.
5. As to the attitude of the Officers of State towards the debate, I might explain that in accordance with instructions issued by me in view of the nature of the motions, they did not take part or intervene except to assist the Council or to correct mis- statements either of law or of fact.
to
6. I had anticipated that further representations would be made to me by members of the State Council with regard to these motions, but up to the present none have been received. I have little doubt that further action is contemplated, and I gather that failure to take it, up to the present, is partly due to some division of opinion among the Councillors as to the course to be adopted. Possibly also, members desire to await the findings of the National Committee which has been set up secure for Ceylon full responsible Government with the status of a self-governing dominion as defined by the Westminster Act of 1931 I attach for your information an extract* from the Ceylon Daily News giving some particulars of this National Committee. It was formed on the 18th of June last, and consists of representatives from practically all political associations in Ceylon. I understand that the European Association was invited to send representatives, but they declined to do so on the grounds that any amendment of the Constitution was premature. The Youth League of Ceylon is also said to have declined the invitation on the ground that the League's object is complete independence, and that it would not be satisfied with dominion status. A number of meetings of the Committee was held soon after its inception, but latterly interest in it appears to have waned. Representatives of the minority com- munities have raised the communal issue, and no little friction has resulted in consequence.
7. At an interview with me on the 26th August Mr. E. 4. P. Wijeyeratne, Member for Kegalle, sought my views upon a proposal which he had in mind, namely, to give notice of a motion in the State Council for the appointment of a deputation from the Board of Ministers to proceed immediately to England to discuss with you :—
(4) The question of commutation of pensions and pension schemes of the future. (b) The retrenchment proposals of the Commission now sitting.
(c) The question of amending the present Constitution to give effect to the
decisions of the State Council on certain of Mr. Perera's motions.
I enclose for your information a note of that part of the interview relating to the proposed deputation. The note contains my own views with regard to it and the view which I thought you would be likely to take of any proposals for amendments to the Constitution at the present time. Mr. Wijeyeratne has not yet placed his proposal before the State Council.
* Not reprinted.