552
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :--
ETERNIC.O. 882/11
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH——NOT TO
166
not in possession of a certificate of permanent settlement shall be qualified to have his name entered on the register if he satisfies the requirements of the immediately following Article.
(2) An applicant for a certificate of permanent settlement whose application bas been refused by the officer duly appointed by the Governor may appeal to the Governor whose decision shall be final.
(3) A certificate of permanent settlement may be cancelled or withdrawn at any time if the holder remains absent from the Island continuously for a period exceeding
twelve months.
C. 63230 29 [No. 25].
No. 119.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE to THE GOVERNOR.
(Confidential.)
SIR,
Downing Street. 22nd February, 1930. I HAVE the honour to refer to my Confidential despatch of the 6th February,* in which I enclosed the draft of an Order in Council to amend the Ceylon (Legislative Council) Orders in Council of 1923 and 1924.
2. In connexion with the franchise proposals in this Order, my attention was drawn to the provisions of Article XXVI of the Order in Council of 1923 in regard to the requirement of residence in an electoral district. It has been represented to me that the requirement of residence in an electoral district during the whole of a period of six months immediately prior to the commencement of the preparation of the register, may operate to disfranchise individuals who return to this country on leave during the months prior to the preparation of the register. I do not think that there can be any political objection to the amendment of this provision in order to avoid a hardship which was probably not foreseen. Clause 21 (c) of the draft Order in Council which accompanied my despatch under reference was accordingly drafted in a form which required residence only for a period of six months during the eighteen months prior to the preparation of the register. You will no doubt consider whether any amendment of the property qualification in Clause 20 (a) (b) (2) and (3) is required.
C. 73230/30 [No. 14].
No. 120.
I have, &c.,
PASSFIELD.
THE GOVERNOR to THE SECRETARY OF STATE. (Received 2.8 p.m., 1st March, 1930.)
1ST MARCH.
TELEGRAM.
Your telegram of 5th February.† Draft Order in Council as received by me needs so much consideration that submission of final draft to His Majesty in April appears out of the question. Enactment of separate Order in Council dealing solely with franchise will, therefore, I fear, be necessary. I will submit revised draft of relevant clause(s) as soon as possible.
* C. 63230/29 [No. 21]: not printed. -
† No. 117.
C. 73230/7/80 [No. 1].
167
No. 121.
THE GOVERNOR to THE SECRETARY OF STATE. (Received 9.32 p.m.. 10th March, 1930.)
CONFIDENTIAL.
TELEGRAM.
[Answered by No. 122.]
10th March. My telegram 1st March.* The amendments to
the draft Order in Council which I think it necessary to suggest will be so extensive that the best course appears to be that I should prepare complete revised draft here. I propose to proceed with this at once and hope to be able to complete draft in time to enable me to discuss it with you on my arrival in England early in May. In the meantime, however, I need your instructions on two very important questions of principle (1) Donoughmore Scheme lays down clearly principle of responsibility of individual Ministers and rigidly limits collective responsibility of the Board of Ministers. Draft Order in Council on the other hand, particularly Clauses 106-109, gives collective responsibility to the Board of Ministers and practically introduces Cabinet Government. Unless you instruct me that this radical alteration in proposal of the Commission is to be effected, I propose to redraft the Order in Council so us to conform to original scheme of the Commission. (2) Limitation of power of the Governor imposed by Clause 108 appears to me quite impracticable. Except in exercise of his power under Clause 119 he would have to consult the Board of___- Ministers in all matters although in certain matters he might under Clause 109 act contrary to but not without their advice. In all other matters he would be under explicit statutory obligation to act on their advico That is a position for which I know of no precedent even under most advanced form of full responsible Govern- ment or Dominion status, and it seems irreconcilable with the whole position and functions of the Governor as contemplated in the Donoughmore Report, quite apart from the " unqualified right of veto "mentioned in paragraph 27. page 54, of the Report. One result would be that officers of State who would retain considerable power in respect of Departments entrusted to them, would, if they wished to take orders of the Governor, be obliged to do so through the Board of Ministers, since the Governor could not act without advice of the latter. Consequently powers of officers of State would actually be greater than those of the Governor. It would of course be implicit in the new Constitution that the Governor would normally act on Ministerial advice but I strongly deprecate explicit statutory requirement in that behalf. I should be grateful for very early reply.
C. 73230/7/30 '[No. 2].
No. 122.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE to THE GOVERNOR. (Sent 11.50 a.m., 27th March, 1930)
TELEGRAM.
CONFIDENTIAL. Your telegram of 10th March. I approve the preparation of revised draft Order in Council for personal discussion on your arrival in England. As regards questions of principle raised by you. I agree to omission from the Order ir Council of limitation of power of Governor imposed by Clause 108 of the draft which accompanied my Confidential despatch of the 6th February. As at present advised, however, I consider it necessary to provide in the Royal Instructions for the principle that, except in reserved matters, the Governor shall normally act on the advice of a Minister or of the Board of Ministers. This principle appears to be laid down in the Report of the Special Commission and to be implied in my despatch of the 10th October,§ and the omission of a definite statement or instruction to this effect might excite suspicion and would, moreover, render it difficult to define precisely the matters in regard to which the Governor is free to act in opposition to or without consulting Ministers. To meet particular point raised in your telegram with regard to Officers of State, I should accept definite provision in the Royal Instructions enabling the
* No. 120. † No. 121. ‡ C. 63230/29 (No. 21]: not printed. § Cmd. 3419.
1