CO885-11 — Page 543

537

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

ELEC.O.882/11

| ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

136

will denounce such an arrangemerit, just as we understand Indian Associations in Ceylon have already done. We are not aware that such conditions are imposed for acquisition of franchise in any part of the Empire. Indian opinion will not be slow to discover this, and resentment against the new departure in Ceylon will be intensified by the fear that this embarrassing precedent may form the basis of similar legislation elsewhere.

Part 3.

3. We hope you will be able to place considerations urged in preceding para- graph before Colonial Office, and induce them to take no final decision until matter has been further examined in the light of our views and views of Indians in Ceylon. That Office probably did not consider it necessary to give us opportunity for making representation(s) as promised in letter No. 53429/28 of 24th January, 1929 (copy forwarded to us with India Office letter E. and O. 597/29, 1st February), because But proposals criticised by us do not apply specifically or exclusively to Indians. fact that in practice they will affect Indians of labour class mainly gives them in effect a discriminatory character. India and Ceylon have an age-long friendly intimacy of cultural and economic association, and we earnestly hope that nothing will be done to mar this tradition of amity.

C. 73230/30 (No. 1].

No. 80.

THE GOVERNOR to THE SECRETARY OF STATE. (Received 2.53 p.m., 15th January, 1930.) TELEGRAM.

[Answered by No. 81.]

CONFIDENTIAL. 15th January. New Constitution. Qualification for franchise. I am advised that the domicile clause without any limitation would possibly admit to the electorate many Indian immigrants with less than five years' residence who might be able to prove domicile according to ordinary law. I do not think that this possi- bility was appreciated by the Legislative Council when accepting my proposals as approved by you and it is certainly not in accordance with the intention of paragraph 35 of my despatch of 2nd June.* I think that there would be serious and justifiable dissatisfaction if this possibility were fulfilled and if in consequence the number of Indians entitled to vote proved to be larger than it would have been under the recom- mendations of the Special Commission

I consider therefore that arrangements should be made to exclude from the fran- chise Indian emigrants as described by Section 2 of the Indian Emigration Act, No. VII of 1922, except those possessing the qualifications required by the 1923 Order in Council. Although the exclusion of such Indians eo nomine would, in my opinion, be fully justified by their special status I feel that specific mention of Indians might give handle to the Indian agitators and embarrass the Government of India.

I suggest therefore that the franchise provisions Order in Council should contain general provision declaring that no persons not possessing Ceylon domicile of origin shall be deemed to have acquired domicile for the purpose of the franchise unless he shall have resided in the Island for a period of not less than five years.

I should be grateful for telegraphic notification of your decision on this point and I hope that the draft of this part of the Order in Council may be forwarded to me at the earliest possible date as the preparation of the voters' list and election forms must be in accordance therewith.

* Cmd. 3419.

0.73230/30 [No. 2].

137

No. 81.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE to THE GOVERNOR.

(Sent 3.30 p.m., 28th January, 1930.) TELEGRAM.

[Answered by No. 84.]

Your telegram of 15th January.* Franchise proposals. I should deprecate There seem to be two alternative methods of any specific reference to Indians. meeting difficulty. One to provide that five years' residence is a necessary qualification in all cases. This would of course exclude many Europeans qualified under property and literacy qualifications based on Article 26 of existing Order in Council from which it is undesirable to depart. Two to restrict merely the qualification of domicile to those possessing Ceylon domicile of origin. Report by telegraph which alternative you consider preferable.-PASSFIELD,

C. 73230/30 [No. 4].

No. 82.

MR. H. R. COWELL (Colonial Office) to SIR H. STANLEY (Governor of Ceylon). [Answered by No. 87.]

DEAR SIR HERBERT STANLEY,

Downing Street, 30th January, 1930.

I ENCLOSE, for your private information, a copy of a Private and Personal telegram from the Viceroy of India to the India Office on the subject of the proposals for the franchise in Ceylon, in so far as they affect Indians. This telegram is, I understand, in reply to a private and personal telegram which Dr. Shiels sent to the Viceroy while he was Under-Secretary of State for India, a copy of which is also enclosed.‡

We shall no doubt receive official representations from the Government of India in due course, but it may be useful to you to have this telegram in anticipation of the official telegram, in order that you may prepare without delay your observations on the Indian Government's representations.

My personal view, for what it is worth, is that it is a complete answer to the representations in this telegram to say that no reform scheme would have had any chance of acceptance by the Ceylonese which contained provisions for a wider enfran- chisement of Indians than is now under consideration, and that failing the acceptance of such a reform scheme, the Indians would have been left as at present with a very small percentage of their number in possession of the franchise. Moreover, the present proposals do not in any way differentiate between Indians and other British subjects in Ceylon, and it is open to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with due regard to Ceylonese opinion, to lay down any reasonable requirements as a condition precedent to the grant of the franchise to persons not domiciled nor permanently settled in Ceylon.

You will no doubt consider whether any weight need be attached to the implied threat that the Government of India will impose restrictions on the further emigration of Indian labourers to Ceylon. This threat appears to be a double-edged weapon, since while any restrictions imposed on the free immigration of labour would be preju- dicial to estate owners, they would no doubt be welcomed by a large body of opinion in the Legislative Council. Further, it is open to question whether in fact the Govern- ment of India could, except with great difficulty, entirely prevent the migration of labour, and any attempt to do so would probably result in evasions and abuses.

As regards the reference in the telegram to the Colonial Secretary's statement in the Council with regard to the right of labourers to a minimum wage, &c. I think there must have been some misunderstanding. It is possible that the renunciation of the protection of the Indian Government might technically result in the candidate for the franchise losing his status as an immigrant labourer," but it is surely not intended that he should thereby be deprived of the benefits acquired by him under a Ceylon Ordinance. If necessary, it should be possible either by administrative action or by amendment of the Labour Ordinance to make it clear that the acquisition of a vote

* No. 80.

64

† No. 83.

Not printed here.