575
>
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TELLICO. 882/11
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO |
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
C. 83301/31 [No. 27].
212
No. 173.
THE GOVERNOR to THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
(Confidential.)
MY LORD,
(Received 14th September, 1931.)
Queen's Cottage, Nuwara Eliya, 24th August, 1931. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Confidential despatch of the 16th July,* relating to the appointment of the first nominated members of the State Council.
2. With reference to the second paragraph of your despatch, I am advised that the possibility that the legality of the provisional appointments could be successfully questioned is not sufficient to require precautionary action. Having regard to the generality of the terms of Article 12 of the Order in Council, my Legal Advisers do not consider that it could be successfully argued that Article 14 definitely excludes a provisional appointment except where a vacancy has occurred after the first appoint- ments. They are of opinion that a Court would require stronger evidence of an intention to exclude the provisional appointment of the first nominated members than can be derived from Article 14 before deciding that appointments made and confirmed were illegal.
I have, &c.,
C. 83301/31 [No. 30].
No. 174.
GRAEME THOMSON,
Governor.
THE GOVERNOR to THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
(Confidential.)
SIR,
(Received 2nd November, 1931.)
[Answered by No. 175.]
Queen's House, Colombo, 14th October, 1931. WITH reference to my Confidential telegram No. 212 dated 13th October, 1931, a copy of which is annexed hereto, I have the honour to enclose a copy of a letter addressed to my Private Secretary by the Honorary Secretary of the Muslim Political Conference, together with copies of the enclosures to that letter.
2. The deputation referred to in the third paragraph of the first enclosure to the letter waited upon me at Government Lodge on 6th October, and requested me to press you to afford a sympathetic consideration to the claims which will be urged by the deputation which is proceeding to England. I pointed out to them that the decision to abolish communal representation had been arrived at after the most careful consideration of all the consequences involved, the Muslims themselves having made full representation both to the Donoughmore Commission and, subsequently, to the Secretary of State. It appeared to me, therefore, that they would be wasting their tine in again approaching the Secretary of State unless they could prove, by concrete instances, that the interests of their community had actually suffered by the change in the Constitution. I asked them if they could inform me of any such specific instances. They replied that their rights had been infringed by the reduction of the number of Muslim Members of the Legislature from three to two, and by the fact that neither of these members could properly be said to represent the community, one having been nominated and the other elected on a territorial basis.
3. Upon my pointing out to them that these two facts did not in any way prove that the community had actually suffered by the change they were compelled to admit that the State Council had so far neither taken any action prejudicial to the interests of the community nor refused to take any action desired by that community; but they argued that, under the present system of representation, the community were reluctant to approach the State Council through the two Muslim Members. I pointed out that if the community failed to make use of their representatives in the State Council they had only themselves to blame, and asked them if they could quote any instance in which these representatives had refused to lay the views of the community, or any section thereof, before the State Council. They replied that the two Muslim Members had refused to join them in the representations which they were now making to me
+ C. 83301/31 [No. 28]: not printed.
* C. 83301/31 [No. 16]: not reprinted.
213
and which they intended to report to you. The Chief Secretary, who was present at the interview, stated that the only Muslim complaint which, had, in so far as he was aware. been made to the State Council or any Committee thereof, under the new Constitution, was a small matter in which the Moors of a certain village had objected to being described as "Marakkala" in a notice issued by a headman. In that instance one of the two Muslim Members had attended a meeting of the Home Affairs Committee and supported the views of the petitioners. He further stated that the fact that the Board of Ministers had suggested that one of the five directors of the State Mortgage Bank should be a Muslim appeared to indicate that the majority com- munities had no desire whatever to ignore Muslim interests. No such desire had been evinced by the old Legislative Council, and he was convinced that the community would receive perfectly fair treatment at the hands of the State Council. He asked the Deputation if they could recall any instance in which either the Legislative Council or the State Council had shown any tendency to act unfairly by the Community.
4. The leader of the Deputation replied that the Legislative Council had made difliculties over passing the Muslim Law Amendment Ordinance of 1930. The Chief Secretary stated that the one desire of the Council had been to pass an ordinance acceptable to the whole community, and that the delay in passing the Ordinance had been due solely to sharp divergencies of opinion within the community. As soon as those had been settled the Ordinance had been passed. Postponements had been at the request of the Muslim Members. The leader of the Deputation then stated that certain members of the State Council objected to a supplementary vote for the Malay Colony at Hambantota. The Chief Secretary stated that the vote had been strongly pressed for by the Committee of Agriculture and Lands (of which no member is a Muslim), and that it had been passed without a division.
5. The reasons for which I found it impossible to nominate a third Muslim Member to the State Council have been fully set forth in the seventh paragraph of my Confidential despatch of 1st July, 1931.* The Deputation, who presented their case with a marked lack of ability, wholly failed to convince me that there is any danger that Muslim interests will be disregarded by the State Council. The objections of the deputation to the present state of affairs appeared to me to be purely theoretical, and I have little doubt that the movement to approach you in the matter has been largely engineered by Messrs. Jayah and Abdul Cader, who are disappointed at not having obtained seats in the State Council themselves.
6. Before the Deputation left I informed them that I considered that it would be a waste of time for a deputation to wait upon the Secretary of State so soon after the inauguration of the new Constitution, and while they were not in a position to prove that the interests of the community had actually been prejudiced by the change. I stated, however, that I would inform you of their intention to send a Deputation to England, and would request you to give them a hearing.
I have, &c.,
Enclosure in No. 174.
GRAEME THOMSON,
Governor.
THE GOVERNOR TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE. (Sent 13th October, 1931.) Telegram.
No. 212. CONFIDENTIAL. My despatch of 1st July, Confidential (2), para- graph 7. Muslim community has decided to send deputation with Memorial to wait upon you to press claims for better representation in State Council. Deputation will arrive London about 3rd November. Despatch follows with copy of Memorial and my comments by mail of 14th October.
* No. 170.
可