505
J
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference:-
TILLHC.O.882/11
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
72
conviction that the grant of passages to overseas officers is unjustifiable, that influenced the majority of the members who spoke against the Vote. In short, the refusal of the Vote, if the speeches made against it give a correct indication of the motives of those who formed the majority in the division, was a gesture of protest against what was represented as contemptuous indifference to a perfectly reasonable decision of the late Legislative Council in regard to the Passage scheme and an attempt at coercion.
7. Only one of the Ministers, the Honourable Mr. D. S. Senanayake, the Minister for Agriculture and Lands, spoke in favour of the Vote. He made a not very success- ful attempt to dissociate the Vote from the question of a reduction of passage privileges by suggesting, without much justification, that exhaustion of the original Vote was partly due to the provision of homeward passages for retrenched railway officers. The position of the Ministers was, of course, extremely delicate. Several of them had actively participated in the attacks on the Passage scheme made in the late Legislative Council and, so far as action in the Council is concerned, I think that in recording their votes for approval of the Supplementary Estimate they did as much as it would be reasonable to expect of them in the circumstances. I must confess, however, that I was disappointed that the Ministers, having unanimously approved the presentation of the Supplementary Estimate, had neither contrived to secure a larger measure of support for it in the Council, nor, if they found that impossible, forewarned me of the danger of rejection.
8. It was, of course, impossible during the debate to gauge how far the con- stitutional considerations to which I have referred in paragraph 3 of this despatch influenced the members who did not speak on the subject, but no effective reply could have been made to the criticisms of those who spoke unless it dealt with the aspect of the matter which was most prominent in the debate. It was the opinion of the Financia Secretary, who was in charge of the motion for approval of the Supplementary Estimate, that any attempt to deal with the constitutional issue would have been regarded merely as another provocative reminder of the limitations on the powers of the late Legislative and the present State Council against which the members of the Council who had spoken had expressed such strong resentment, and would have driven into opposition to the Vote any members whose attitude to it might be uncer- tain, while there was not the remotest chance that it would convert any of those who had made up their minds to vote against the proposal. In these circumstances he decided that it was the wiser course to let the matter go to the vote without replying. He informs me that he reached this decision after a necessarily hurried consultation with the Leader of the House as to the probable effect of the arguments which he could properly urge in support of the Vote. As the event proved, the Vote was fore- doomed to rejection and it would have been better, in the result, if the Financial Secretary had made a statement of the views of the Governor on the question at issue. On the other hand, of course, it was quite impossible for him to foresee in a House containing so many new members that defeat of the Vote was a certainty. I am there- fore of opinion that no exception can properly be taken to the course which he pursued. 9. While I do not at present apprehend any immediate political consequences of a serious character from the incident described in this despatch, it has brought into prominence one of the greatest difficulties which the successful working of the new Constitution presents. I refer to the separation of responsibility for maintaining unimpaired the conditions of service of Public Officers, which is vested in the Governor, from responsibility for providing the necessary funds essential to the discharge of the first responsibility, which is vested in the State Council. Almost all the regulations affecting the conditions of service of Public Officers are necessarily worded with customary official caution which deliberately avoid conferring upon servants of the Crown absolute legal rights co-extensive with the rights which it is in fact the well understood, though unexpressed, intention to confer. Consequently when members of the State Council take any of the numerous opportunities presented by the necessity for asking them for votes for salaries, &c., to attack conditions of service, it will be rarely if ever possible to counter the attack by the one argument "legal bias, viz., that which would appeal strongly to minds having a strong impairment of the conditions of service would involve a breach of a contract between the Crown and its servants.
10. The Board of Ministers has requested an interview with me to discuss the situation created by the action of the State Council in regard to this supplementary vote for Passages and I have promised to see the members of the Board on Monday, the 10th instant. I understand that the Ministers propose to request me to seek your authority for an amendment of the passage regulations which will give effect to the intention of the late Legislative Council that passages should be granted at intervals
of 5
73
years instead of 4 years. If, after consideration of 'such a proposal, you should decide that existing passage privileges should be preserved, it will be necessary for the Board of Ministers to consider whether or not they are prepared to propose the necessary expenditure to the State Council in the Budget. If the Board should decide that they are unable to go to the Council with such a proposal, a situation will arise upon which it will be necessary for me to address you further. In any event 1 shall, of course, communicate with you as soon as the interview has taken place.
11. I do not wish, of course, to express a linal opinion on the proposal which I anticipate from the Board until I have heard what the Ministers have to say in favour of it. As at present advised, however, I am strongly of opinion that for European officers serving in Ceylon, leave out of the tropics once in four years at least must be regarded as an absolute necessity and that unless passages are provided at these intervals at Government expense the majority of European oflicers cannot possibly afford to take the leave which is indispensable to their health and elliciency. As it is, officers are frequently obliged, for health reasons or owing to the exigencies of leave arrangements, to take leave before they have qualified by four years' unbroken resident service, and in such cases they are required to make a contribution to the cost of their passages proportionate to the deliciency in the period of their current tour of resident service. I am not prepared to advise that an additional burden of expense should be placed on European officers in connexion with their leave either by an increase of the period qualifying for a full passage grant or in any other way.
12. Apart from my own strong opinion that the present passage privileges are not excessive, I have to bear in mind the effect on the European members of the Publie Service which any impairment of their conditions of service would have at the present time. They know perfectly well that passages are granted once in four years and in some cases far more frequently by many of the Governments under your control and they could not be brought to believe that even a relatively small reduction of this concession in Ceylon, such as that involved in extending the qualifying period of residence to five years, had been decided upon purely on its merits and had not been influenced by political considerations. The fear that their interests may be sacrificed to placate Ceylonese opinion is almost an obsession on the part of a considerable number of European public servants in Ceylon. That they have some excuse for this is suffi- ciently clear from certain passages in the report of the Donoughmore Commission (cf., pages 125-127 and in particular the second paragraph on page 126). but whether their fears are justifiable or not they are real and are an important factor in the problem which has to be taken into consideration.
13. I annex a statement in writing submitted to me by Sir Henry de Mel, the member for Puttalam, in accordance with Article 23 (2) of the Order in Council, setting forth his reasons for objecting to the declaration under Article 22 made by the Financial Seoretary by my authority and on my instructions. I have received no statement under Article 23 (2) from any other member and the period of 7 days which the Article allows as the period within which a statement may be submitted has already expired.
"
14. It will be seen that Sir Henry de Mel's objections are based on the intention of the Legislative Council that passages should be granted once in five years instead of four years and, as he claims, that they should not be granted for the families of officials; on the decrease of the revenue of the Island brought about by the depression and accentuated by the recent remission of export duties; on a statement that the salaries of officials are high and "living costs low; on the rediction of the cost of passages; and on the absence of any explanation as to why the Vote was essential to give effect to the provisions of the Order in Council. In the preceding paragraphs of this despatch which were written before the receipt of Sir Henry de Mel's statement, I have dealt with practically all the objections which he has urged. I should add, however, that I do not know what justification Sir Henry de Mel has for the assumption that the Legislative Council in reducing the Vote for Passages in the current year's Budget by one-quarter intended to prevent the grant of passages to the families of officers. On the contrary, I think it is clear that the Legislative Council at that time contemplated only an increase of the qualifying period by one year.
15. Before concluding this despatch I think it right to mention a constitutional point which, though it has come to my notice in connexion with the rejection of the supplementary vote for passages. has a very important bearing upon the whole question of financial control exercised by the State Council. Article 65 of the Order in Council does not contain the provision based on the second paragraph of Colonial Regula- tion 281 which the third revise of the Ceylon draft of the Order includes as Clause (3) of that Article. It would consequently appear that, according to a strict construction of the Order in Council standing by itself, it was not necessary to seek the authority