CO885-(11-12) — Page 523

443

CEPITO

RECORD OFFICE

Reference

C.O.882/12

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BF REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NO110|

| PUBLIC-RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

108

proceeded to state that this scheme would be for a definite period of years-four years- and it was also stated that the whole question be considered again at the end of five years in the light of events.

In 1929 Government in honouring that position appointed a Committee to recon- sider the question. The majority of that Committee reported that all officers, including Ceylonese officers, should be granted passages to England. Government was not pre- pared to accept that recommendation, and again referred the question to the Salaries Committee. That Committee reported that free leave passages should be granted once in five years.

The Government refused to accept this recommendation and proceeded to grant passages as before.

When the Budget for 1930-31 was referred to the Select Committee that Committee made provision for the grant of passages only once in five years, and reduced the vote placed in the Budget accordingly. When the Budget was reconsidered in the Legisla- tive Council on 24th September, 1930, the Honourable the Colonial Secretary moved to substitute the sum of Rs. 4,713,134 for the sum shown in the Appropriation Bill at the time it emerged from the Select Committee. This was intended to restore the items of Rs. 100,000 for Passages and Rs. 253,000 for Holiday Warrants. The motion of the Honourable the Colonial Secretary was debated and was lost. Twenty-two members voted against and 16 voted for it. Of those who voted for it 12 were officials. In spite of this the Government proceeded to grant passages as before and Supplementary Vote was asked for in the State Council on the 29th July, 1931, shortly after inauguration and the vote was turned down, the voting being as follows: viz., 37 noes and 14 ayes.

Thereafter the Board of Ministers decided to grant passages once in five years, and included provision for such amount, but during the Budget debate the Leader of the House intimated that the Board of Ministers had decided to withdraw that item from the Estimates, as His Excellency the Governor did not agree to the proposal of the Board. No provision was therefore made in the current Appropriation Bill for leave passages.

On the 16th and 17th day of March, 1932, without any previous notice, the Honour- able the Financial Secretary introduced a motion under Article 22 of the Ceylon (State Council) Order in Council, 1931, asking for Supplementary provision for the sum of Rs. 250,000, being cost of leave Passages, and a sum of Rs. 470,000, being cost of Holiday Warrants. The motions were defeated without a division, and the Honourable the Financial Secretary declared that His Excellency had authorized him to state that these votes were essential to give effect to the provisions of the Order in Council.

The undersigned Members of the State Council protest against the act of certifica- tion of His Excellency the Governor and the grant of the passages for the following

reasons:-

(a) The leave passages were first granted as a temporary measure during the

War, and the difficult times immediately after the War.

(b) A guarantee was given by the Government that the question of the further payment of these passages would be reconsidered by the Legislative Council. (c) The Legislative Council decided to grant the passages once in five years. The Government was guilty of a breach of faith in refusing to accept the con- sidered view of a Salaries Committee and the Legislative Council.

(d) We fail to see how the payment of these passages is essential to give effect

to the provisions of the Order in Council.

Colombo,

18th March, 1932.

HENRY L. DE MEL, Member of State Council for

Puttalam,

and 23 others whose signatures are

appended hereto.

109

Colombo, 18th March, 1932. We, the undersigned Members of the State Council, join in the annexed state- ment of objections, under section 23 of the Order in Council to be forwarded to the Secretary of State through His Excellency the Governor :-

SIR,

W. T. S. KARALLIÄDDA.

R. S. TENNEKOON.

A. RATNAYAKE.

H. W. AMARASURIYA.

A. E. GOONESINHA.

D. WANIGASEKERA.

E. A. P. WIJAYARATNE.

D. J. WIMALASURENDRA.

GEO. E. DE SILVA.

J. C. RATWATTE.

G. R. DE ZOYSA.

(Illegible).

• S. A. WICKREMASINGHE.

G. E. MADAWALA.

S. W. DASSENAIKE.

M. M. SUBRAMANIAM,

D. P. JAYASURIYA.

G. C. S. COREA.

V. R. ScпокMAN.

HENRY L. De Mel.

The following Members have authorized their names to be appended :—

S. W. R. D. BANDARANAIKE.

P. B. NUGAWELA.

D. H. KOTALAWELA.

F. A. OBETESEKERA.

Enclosure 7 in No. 45.

In terms of paragraph 2 of Article 23 of the Ceylon (State Council) Order in Council, 1931, I have the honour to submit my statement of objections to the declarations under paragraph 1 (b) of Article 22 of the said Order made by Your Excellency on the 16th and 17th of March, 1932, as follows:-

An Ordinance to amend the Income Tax Ordinance.

1. I am not satisfied that the Governor is moved altogether by his concern for the credit of this country in declaring Clause 5 of this Bill to be of paramount importance. Public opinion is in favour of the supposition that the Governor is pro- tecting the interests of the non-resident subscribers to the loans which he seeks to exempt from Income Tax.

2. It may be presumed that the principal Bill would not have passed the House if the Governor had insisted on the inclusion of this Clause. It is not fair, there- fore, for the Governor to insert this Clause under his paramount power after he had put it beyond the power of the State Council to reject the Bill altogether. We take it that the Governor would not have declared the principal Bill of paramount importance, with or without Clause 5, as he had omitted to do so in 1931 when the first Bill was rejected by the Legislative Council.

3. Paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Royal Instructions states that the Governor "shall not assent " to any Bill whereby the rights and property of non-resident British subjects may be prejudiced. Having assented to the Bill he cannot now seek to amend the same on the ground of prejudice.

An Ordinance to enable a Temporary Levy to be imposed on the Salaries and Wages of Persons employed in the Public Service.

4. This Bill was introduced in defiance of the expressed wishes of the Council

and was summarily thrown out. The Governor declares it of paramount importance

having regard to the serious state of the finances of the Government."

*