(Part 1)
By Tota C. Mangar
( Articles of Capitulation on which a country is surrendered, and the peace by which it is ceded, are sacred and inviolable according to their true interest and meaning)
Introduction
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 D’Urban 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 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 the existing laws, customs and political institutions. This in effect meant that “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 in governmental structure and administration 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
Prior to 1891 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 (5) unofficial and these came from the plantocracy
through indirect elections.
(b) The College of Electors or Kiezers. This body consisted of seven members who were elected for life. It was dominated by the planter class because of 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 of 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 Kiezers, it clearly meant that the plantocracy of the day had an overwhelming majority in the Combined Court. Hence, one could obviously realize the extent of influence this prestigious group exercised over colonial affairs. The late distinguished historian, Dr. Walter Rodney highlights this fact when he aptly describes the Combined Court as the “political fulcrum of planter power”. In even more general terms, historian Brian Moore rightly sees the political constitution as the medium through which that immense power was institutionalized within the society.
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 prolonged struggle. In particular, a pro-reform Governor in Henry Irving 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, 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.
There are various responses to the reforms of 1891. For example, Will sees them as “very moderate” and asserts that: “The planters had shown strong powers of survival, their political ascendancy had been weakened but not destroyed.” According to Lutchman, the changes “resulted in a situation in which the planters had lost the stranglehold which they possessed in the nineteenth century”.
Harper Smith shares a similar view when he said that the reforms “resulted in a virtual decline of the planters from the political field.” A fairly balanced view was given by Carmen Reid when she stated “The Constitutional Reforms did not bring about any immediate or spectacular changes. The Legislature in the period immediately following the reforms still continued to be dominated by white planters but the reforms marked a definite turning point in Guyanese constitutional history. They had the ground work for the inclusion into the system of government of the new urban middle class group consisting primarily of mixed and African professionals and Portuguese businessmen.”
Post-1891 years
In any event there was some manifestation of the decline of planter class power at the 1892 elections. Of the fourteen elected members of the Court of Policy, a classification shows seven (7) planters, five (5) merchants and two (2) barristers. This was of considerable importance as it indicates 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 Court of Policy continued to exercise control of legislation in all non-fiscal matters while the Combined Court attended to fiscal matters including the imposition of taxes, and in practice, the right to control the appropriation of public funds.
The expanded Court of Policy consisted of seven (7) official and eight (8) unofficial or elected members along with the Governor who had the casting vote in order to secure an official majority.
This majority however, in a real sense was more or less theoretical as it was subjected to a political veto at any time on the part of the elected members. For example, if as much as seven elected members abstained from attending any meeting they could effectively prevent the formation of the required “quorum of nine (9)“.
The Combined Court consisted of the Court of Policy along with six (6) Financial Representatives. Interestingly this body was still decisively controlled by the elected section who numbered fourteen (14) as against the official section comprising seven (7) officials and the Governor. The post-1891 years witnessed a growing political consciousness among the populace and in particular the middle class. The introduction of the secret ballot in 1896 further enhanced the situation. This was very evident at 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. While the franchise was again extended in 1908 the constitutional system rested on a very “narrow popular basis”.
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 Clementi 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 Wong 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”.
It was obvious that the nature of the constitution was the subject of intense scrutiny in the early decades of the twentieth century with the Colonial Office attempting to assert its dominance. In my next article I shall continue to focus on Constitutional Developments in Colonial British Guiana: From Dutch Inherited System to Crown Colony Government.
