527
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TELEC.O.882/11
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
116
subject of the recent acceptance by the Legislative Council of your offer of constitu- tional reform, I have the honour to submit the following observations.
"
2. On the 16th December I conveyed to you by telegraph a communication* from three of the members of the Legislature who had voted against acceptance, Mr. E. W. Perera (Low-Country Sinhalese), Mr. W. Duraiswamy (Jaffna Tamil), and Mr. T. B. Jayah (Muslim). In that communication it was alleged that one of the members who had voted for acceptance had declared that he was doing so virtually under compulsion." The member referred to is Mr. Victor Corea (Low-Country Sinhalese), whose constituency-Colombo Town (North)—covers an area in which the Labour Party is understood to have a large following. I have read very carefully the report of Mr. Corea's speech in which he announced his intention of voting for the Resolution. It will be found on pages 18 and 19 of the uncorrected "Hansard report for the 11th December, of which I have forwarded to you a copy, together with copies of the other uncorrected Hansard reports of the whole debate, under cover of my despatch No. 1041 of the 16th December. I am told by the Colonial Secretary, who was present when Mr. Corea spoke, that the above-mentioned report of his speech is complete and substantially accurate. It contains nothing to indicate any pressure of compulsion beyond a sense of moral obligation to vote in accordance with the wishes of his constituents rather than in conformity with his own personal opinions. If threats of physical violence were in fact addressed to him, he did not refer to them in his speech, and I am not cognisant of any grounds for the assumption that he was actuated by motives other than those which he explicitly avowed.
3. The other member to whom reference was made by Mr. Perera, Mr. Duraiswamy, and Mr. Jayah is Mr. Wikramanayaka (Low-Country Sinhalese). Him they describe as having stated that his views were against acceptance, but that he would notwithstanding vote for it. His speech will be found on pages 7 to 13 of the uncorrected Hansard report for the 12th December. It does not seem to me to bear the construction placed upon it by these three members or by Sir P. Ramanathan in his memorandum. He certainly said that he was not enamoured of the scheme of the proposed reforms and that he had some suspicion and fear of it, and he ascribed to the mandate of his constituents his decision to vote for the Resolution. But he devoted a large portion of his speech to an exposition of his reasons for the modification of his original attitude of uncompromising hostility on several important points, and he stated definitely that, if he felt that the scheme would work to the serious detriment of the permanent population of the Island, he would not vote for acceptance but would resign his seat and say that he was not going to vote according to the mandate of his constituents. He added that he had shown that he had "come down many steps of the ladder," and had given reasons why his opinion had changed. He has since explained his position even more clearly in a letter to the Editor of the Ceylon Daily News, which was published in that paper on the 19th December. I append a copy of his letter. It disposes of the suggestion that his personal views were comprehensively at variance with his vote.
4. If any special significance is to be attached to the attitude and action of Mr. Corea and Mr. Wikramanayaka on this occasion, I should be disposed to see such significance in the evidence which their votes afford of the strength of the popular demand in their constituencies for the acceptance of the Reforms-a demand so strong apparently that they felt unable to resist it.
5. That, however, is not the view taken by Sir P. Ramanathan in the portion of his memorandum which analyses and discusses the division list. He refers not only to Mr. Corea and Mr. Wikramanayaka, but also to Mr. Kannangara, one of the two Low-Country Sinhalese members who voted against the Resolution. So far as his reference to Mr. Corea and Mr. Wikramanayaka is concerned, my own impressions and conclusions, for what they may be worth, are sufficiently indicated above. Mr. Kannangara's speech is recorded on pages 16 to 18 of the uncorrected Hansard report of the 12th December. He complained emphatically of the language used by some of the "acceptionist "} newspapers in their attacks on the Sinhalese members who were believed to be likely to vote for the rejection of the Reforms. I sympathise very fully with his resentment of the discreditable bitterness of such attacks, but I think it fair to say that some of the " rejectionist newspapers also were far from innocent of virulence towards the Sinhalese protagonists on the other side. My impression is that in this respect honours may be regarded as easy. However that may be, Mr. Kannangara was not deterred by imputations and denunciations in the
+ C. 73230/2/30 [No. 1]: not printed.
* C. 63230/7/29 [No. 35]: not printed.
""
117
acceptionist press from voting against the Resolution. Feeling, no doubt, ran high, especially between the two Sinhalese groups. Mr. E. W. Perera, the member for the Kalutara Revenue District, has since the conclusion of the debate seceded from the National Congress. In this secession he was accompanied by Mr. Jayah, and by a few other prominent members of the Congress, mostly lawyers, who are not members of the Legislative Council. Mr. Kannangara did not secede. He attended the Annual Meeting of the Congress, which was held on the 20th and 21st December. At that meeting the following Resolution (of which notice had been given before the debate in the Legislative Council was concluded) was moved :-
"Inasmuch as the continuance of the present Constitution is detrimental to the best interests of the country, the Ceylon National Congress strongly recom- mends the acceptance of the proposed Scheme of Constitutional Reforms as modified by the Secretary of State for the Colonies."
To this Resolution, Mr. Kannangara moved the following amendment :-
**
This Congress re-affirms its demand for full Responsible Government at the next revision of the Constitution, but pending such revision recommends the acceptance for a short period of the proposed Donoughmore Scheme of Constitu- tional Reforms as modified by the Secretary of State for the Colonies."
The amendment was accepted by the mover of the original Resolution and was adopted by the meeting. It will be seen that Mr. Kannangara, notwithstanding his speech and vote in the Legislative Council, can no longer be classified among the opponents of the Scheme.
6. Of the seventeen members who voted against the Resolution, there are others,.. besides Mr. Kannangara, who need not be regarded as opposed to the Scheme. Mr. de Vos (Burgher), one of the three nominated Unofficial Members, expressed himself as generally in accord with the Scheme, except in so far as he thought that the extension of the franchise should be a more gradual process, but said that he would vote against it as in his opinion it ought to be submitted to the electorate rather than to the present Council for decision. His speech will be found on page 19 of the uncorrected Hansard report for the 6th December. I also have good reason to believe that one of the Tamil members who voted against the Resolution was personally in favour of the Scheme, and I think that this might safely be said of at least one of the other Tamils who voted in the minority. There was a general disclaimer of com- munal motive, but it would perhaps not be unfair to surmise that communal sentiment may have had a subconscious influence in predisposing a few, at any rate, of the members of the minority communities to a more critical attitude than they would have been likely to adopt if some assurance of communal representation had been included in the Scheme. On the whole, I am of opinion that Sir P. Ramanathan is unduly pessimistic in his reference to "the impossibility of the Accepting Members to gain the goodwill and co-operation of the Rejecting Members."
"
7. The second point in his memorandum, the alleged irregularity in the process of taking the division in the Council, does not impress me as a point of substance. He contends that the division was invalid because the Vice-President was not called upon to vote and did not either vote or state that he declined to vote. He raised this point in the Council before the close of the sitting on the 12th December. If you will refer to page 29 of the uncorrected Hansard report for that day, you will observe that the Vice-President overruled the objection and explained that the procedure had been that followed throughout the whole of the life of the Council. It is clear that if the Vice-President had wished to vote he would have instructed the Clerk to call upon him to do so. It is clear also that, if he had been called upon, he would have declined to vote. But even if he had voted against the Resolution, there would still have been a majority of one in favour of acceptance.
8. The third point in Sir P. Ramanathan's memorandum is an expression of his disapproval of the introduction of universal suffrage under present local conditions. That, of course, is a matter of opinion, on which I have stated my views fully in my published despatch of the 2nd June.* It is intelligible that apprehensions on this score should be felt, and I believe that they are more widely felt than they have been expressed, but the fact remains that, with very few exceptions, the members who voted against the Resolution, as well as those who voted for it, have explicitly signified concurrence in the proposed extension of the franchise.
9. It would have been preferable if in the Legislative Council the majority for the acceptance of the new Constitution had been larger. but I feel sure that an appeal
* Cmd. 3419.