Abstract

The social backgrounds of the European and indigenous members of the Landraad and the nature of their presence in the council highlight the relative powers of the two groups and issues of efficiency. The colonial enterprise of identifying cultural differences through representations of inhabitants was seen to be necessary for realising economic advantages. The relationship of law to the dominant classes is evident, as a result of a small, closely-knit group with cross-cultural connections controlling the Landraad. Yet, despite a professed intention to favour the local normative order, the powers of the local members were secondary to that of the European members. Subtle skirmishes for the consolidation of power that raised tensions were articulations of difference that played out in the council room.

Keywords: Judges, legal elites, protocol, cultural difference, VOC, early-colonial rule.

When a new member was appointed to the Landraad, the standard practice was to formally introduce them to the older members at their first meeting. In 1786, the newly appointed Don Balthasar Dias Abeysinghe Siriwardene, son of the influential mahamudaliyār Nicolaas Dias Abeysinghe, was affronted that the Landraad had failed to follow protocol when council members did not introduce him formally along with another newly appointed local member. The European members had felt uncomfortable escorting local members from the antechamber into the council hall, and there were no local members present to perform the duty. Usually, two of the youngest members of the council performed the task; however, that day, the council chose to avoid the practice altogether and allowed the new members to walk in on their own, much to the consternation of the younger Abeysinghe. However, the Landraad was quick to make amends at a subsequent meeting. This dispute over protocol highlights the subtle tug of war between the local and European members of the judicial forum. Don Adriaan Goonewardene Ponnamperuma, another local member on the Landraad, claimed on a separate occasion that the “white” members took little notice of the opinions of the local members who were regarded as foolish, inexperienced and ignorant. The votes of the headmen were not formally counted; they could only participate in an advisory capacity. Navigating the duty of judging was clearly not an easy task.