Constitutional developments in colonial British Guiana 
Sir Benjamin Durban (Wikipedia image)
Sir Benjamin Durban (Wikipedia image)

by Tota Mangar

— from Dutch-inherited system to Crown colony government

THE former Dutch colonies of Essequibo, Demerara and Berbice were finally ceded to the British through conquest in 1803. Formal cession was effected by the 1814 Treaty of Paris and in 1831 the three colonies were united into the “Colony of British Guiana” with Sir Benjamin Durban as its first Governor.
As a consequence the British inherited the Dutch system of government — a system which was to remain in force for a very long time. Such a situation was allowed to persist largely through Article One of the 1803 Capitulation Treaty which stated that the colonists were to retain existing laws, customs and political institutions. This in effect meant that the ‘the laws and usages of the Colony shall remain in force and be respected, the mode of taxation be adhered to and that no new establishments should be introduced without the consent of the Court of Policy as the Legislature of the Colony.’
A rather strict interpretation of this peculiar provision leads to the conclusion that the Crown had precluded itself from exercising any right, which under English law she was entitled to exercise, in relation to conquered territories, and that the Crown had no authority to legislate for Guyana. No doubt it was the very nature of the inheritance that assured planter class dominance of political power and which led to our constitution being referred to as ‘ unique in the Empire.’
For the most part, only minor amendments were made and these came mainly through various Orders-in-Council. It was not until 1891 that some significant change was made to the constitution of British Guiana.

GOVERNMENT

The main governmental institutions which were in existence during almost the entire nineteenth century were as follows;
(a)  The Court of Policy; this was the oldest political institution in the colony and was made up of both official and unofficial members and presided over by the Governor. The official members were the Chief Justice, Attorney- General, Colonial Receiver’s General, Government Secretary and the Immigration Agent-General. There were five unofficials and these came from the plantocracy through indirect elections.
(b)  The College of Electors or Keizers; this body consisted of seven members who were elected for life. It was dominated by the planter class due to the very high property qualification for voting. The principal objective was to nominate members to fill vacancies in the Court of Policy.
(c)  The College of Financial Representatives; this body was elected by direct ballot every two years. Its primary function was to raise taxes in conjunction with the Court of Policy to meet the annual estimates and to examine the accounts of the Colonial Receiver’s General for the preceding year.
(d)  The Combined Court; This institution exercised control over the finances of the colony and it comprised members of the College of Financial Representatives and the Court of Policy. With planter power firmly established in the College of Financial Representatives and the College of Keizers, it clearly meant that the plantocracy of the day had  over-whelming majority in the Combined Court.. Hence one could obviously realise the extent of influence this prestigious group exercised over colonial affairs. Our late and distinguished historian, Dr. Walter Rodney, highlighted that fact when he aptly described the Combined Court as the ‘political fulcrum of planter power.’ The high degree of power enjoyed by the plantocracy inevitably led to abuses, controversies and political stalemate in the nineteenth century and all of these contributed to the numerous calls for constitutional reforms.

REFORM BILL

In the end the Reform Bill of 1891 entitled ‘Ordinance Number One of 1891 — An Ordinance to Alter and Amend the Political Constitution of the Colony’ was read and passed for the final time on February 3, 1891.
This reform had come at long last and was the result of an intense and prolonged struggle. In particular pro-reform Governors in Henry Irving and William Gormanston and a number of complementary factors including a tolerant and responsive Colonial Office, a depressed sugar industry, economic diversification, village development, a keen and vibrant reform group, a demanding and sympathetic public, a growing middle class, a somewhat radical professional and commercial class, an adventurous group of prospectors and a partly encouraging press all contributed to constitutional change in 1891.
In the main some of the material changes which were embodied in the 1891 Constitutional Bill were the enlargement of the Court of Policy, the abolition of the College of Electors or Kiezers, direct election of the unofficial section of the Court of Policy in the respective constituencies, the widening of the franchise, an additional property qualification for electives of the Court of Policy, the right of the Governor to dissolve the Court of Policy at any time and a specified quorum.
These reforms marked a definite turning point in Guyanese constitutional history. They laid the groundwork for the inclusion in the system of government of the new urban middle class group consisting primarily of mixed and African professionals and Portuguese businessmen.

POST 1891 YEARS

The post -1891 years witnessed a growing political consciousness among the populace and in particular the middle class.  At the same time there was some manifestation of the decline of planter class power at the 1892 elections. For example, of the fourteen elected members of the Court of Policy, a classification shows seven planters, five merchants and two barristers. That development was of considerable importance as it indicated that interest groups other than that of the plantocracy were gradually entering the political arena at the highest level —- a far cry from that of earlier decades in the nineteenth century..
The introduction of a system of secret ballot in 1896 further enhanced the situation. This was very evident  in the 1897 election when black and coloured sections of  the    community were able to capture a considerable portion of  the elective seats of both the Court of Policy and the Combined Court and in effect altered the political balance from a previous almost exclusively white domination. This was the start of a progressive transfer of power from Europeans to the natural leaders of the people.
At the turn of the twentieth century defects in the constitution continued to surface. Moreover, there was a gradual exclusion of the elected members from participating in executive functions. The financial system was also clouded in controversy and elected members of the Combined Court could impose their will on matters of taxation and expenditure. Commenting on the latter situation Cecil Clementi, Colonial Secretary of British Guiana between 1913 and 1922, was of the view that an executive which could not command a majority in the chief body politic “might reign but could not rule ” This view was supported by Professor Hume Wrong when he stated ” it is not a satisfactory solution of the problem of government, for responsibility is openly and obviously separated from power in the realm of finance.”

MAJOR  WOOD’S REPORT   

There was a major review of the constitutional system when   Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the colonies, Major E.F.L.  Wood, visited in 1922, as part of his wider investigation of Government of the British West Indies. Elected members of the Court of Policy in particular highlighted a number of issues including the Governor’s casting vote, the filling of vacancies among elected members of the Court of Policy, the exclusion of elected members from the Executive Council and the right of unofficials to initiate agenda. In his report Major Wood explained; “The Constitution of British Guiana is unique in the Empire. It provides for a bare official majority in matters of legislation, but in questions involving finance there is an elected majority….This constitution is founded upon the articles of capitulation …”
The constitution was the subject of further discussion in the late 1920’s. There was a great deal of friction between elected members of the legislature on the one hand and the Colonial Government and the Executive Council on the other. The elected members of the Legislature were by this time predominantly “professionals and businessmen of African, Indian, Portuguese, Chinese and Mixed descent, while the Executive Council was dominated by planters of European descent.”

In October 1926, Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. L.S. Amery appointed a Parliamentary Commission to visit British Guiana and ” to consider and to report on the economic position of the colony, the causes which have hitherto retarded and the measures which could be taken to promote development and any facts which they may consider to have a bearing on the above matters.” The eventual Snell–Wilson Report offered a critique of the general constitutional issue and made some important suggestions on reform. It contended “Under the new order the practical difficulty of working the old constitution is increased. The Government of British Guiana has never been able to govern…….It is a moral and necessary feature of the political system that power, in the last resort, should reside in the Governor under the control and direction of the Secretary of State.” Of added significance, the Report criticised the division of the Legislature into the Court of Policy and the Combined Court thus:  “This   peculiar constitution is the result of the accident of history and not of logic or sound theory. There seemed nothing to be gained by the existence of two classes of elected members, one of which is precluded from dealing with all matters not relating to taxation and expenditure. The mere existence of this distinction constitutes in itself a potential source of friction and there is much to be said for merging the functions of the two bodies into a single Legislative Council.” It was obviously clear that further constitutional change was in the making.

THE 1928   REFORM

A local Commission was subsequently appointed to examine the existing constitution. It made several recommendations which became the basis of the 1928 Constitution. In particular, it recommended the abolition of the existing Court of Policy and Combined Court and the substitution of a single legislative body.
On March 28, 1928 the British Parliament proceeded to enact the British Guiana Act, 1928. Under this Act the British Guiana [Constitution] Order- in -Council came into being. With effect from July 18, 1928, the Order-in-Council abolished the old Dutch – inherited Court of Policy and Combined Court and introduced a Legislative Council as well as an Executive Council. It would seem that the 1928 Constitution achieved what it set out to do. It was “an advanced form of Crown Colony government.” It transferred all power from the hands of elected members to the Governor and the Colonial Office.  It reversed the trend of greater political democracy that had started with the 1891 reforms. It tended towards the consolidation of Imperial Government as an effective instrument of stability and political control over its colony, the then British Guiana.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.