Watch the Video developed with the Script provided after the display.
The Charter Act of 1833
It is an established view among scholars that the Charter Act of 1833 holds a place of importance in the development of the Indian constitution between Pitt's India Act of 1784 and the Act for the Better Government of India of 1858.
Circumstances at the time of enactment of the Charter Act of 1833.
During the period of the 1830s, and with a broader perspective, the Metternich era in European history had a unique nature. It was a period of liberalism and aggressive reforms. The Doctrine of the Rights of Man was the dominant sermon of the contemporary thinkers. Britain did not escape the historical trend.
Reasons for passing the Charter Act 1833
1. The British Parliament aggressively debated the Rights and Dignity of Man. The legislative institution passed liberal measures such as the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, the Poor Laws 1834, the Factory Act 1833, and numerous similar laws. The House of Commons had turned into an aggressive institution for making reforms. In such an atmosphere of changes, the company had completed the period of its validity that the Charter Act of 1813 permitted. The Directors of the Company had approached the British Parliament for the renewal of the Charter. The company had contacted the parliament when there was an all-out public outcry against the mercantile interests of the company that had survived under the Parliament's patronage, and there was a persistent demand to abolish them. Under the prevailing spirit of effecting reforms, there was a counter demand for reforming Indian laws. One of the specific demands was introducing changes in the Indian educational system.
2. The Directors of the Company were fully alive to the wave of reforms in England. They had tried to adopt a policy of reforms in the Indian government before seeking the renewal of the Charter of their company. They had appointed William Bentinck, a known liberal of his day. Governors like Elphinstone and Munro implemented similar reform policies in their presidencies. In a way, the Directors had developed a case to facilitate acquiring the fresh renewal of the Charter. One of the views is that the reforms carried out by William Bentinck were influenced more by the reformist spirit of the day. Overall, the reformist zeal of the time decided the nature and possibility of the renewal of the Charter Act of 1833.
3. Charles Gray, the Prime Minister of Britain from 1830 to 1834, James Mill, and Thomas Babington Macaulay, who were directly associated with the Company, were the leading personalities of the time. They were famous for their zeal for reforms and free trade policy. Macaulay, as the Secretary of the Board of Control, was the chief negotiator with the Directors for the renewal of the Charter. James Mill was the chief examiner of the correspondence at India House, the office of the Company. All of them were known as reformists.
4. Debate between Mr James Silk Buckingham and Lord Macaulay in the Parliament:
The Bill for the renewal of the Charter was introduced in the British Parliament in July 1833.
James Silk Buckingham had spent time in India and founded the Calcutta Journal in 1818. As a Member of the British Parliament, he openly suggested that the Crown administration should bring the Government of India under its direct rule. A section of the Parliament indicated that the position of the Company as a union of traders and the sovereign should be ended. James Buckingham even proposed that the Governor-General include representatives of the British and Indian population in his council. It was suggested that a representative institution be established in India.
However, Lord Macaulay was vehemently opposed to such extreme reforms. His finely worded speeches and proposals carried the day and influenced the renewal of the Charter. He delivered a highly effective speech on July 10, 1833. He pointed out to the House of Commons that it did not have enough time to devote to Indian affairs. Therefore, it was not advisable to transfer the government of India from the Company to the Crown. He was blunt and straightforward in pointing out to the House of Commons that the members had not given serious attention to the affairs of the Indians whenever they were taken up in the House in the recent past. He similarly emphasised that the British public was more concerned with issues related to Britain than with India. In addition to that, he stressed the benefits of retaining the Company to run the government of India. He played intelligently on the existing political divisions among the members of the House and promoted the idea of extending the term of the Charter to the Company. While countering a suggestion of Mr Buckingham for establishing a representative body with representatives of Indians, he stated that the Indian had not matured for a representative institution, and the House of Commons did not have the right information on and experience about the Indian executive work, which was available only with the servants of the company.
The arguments presented by Macaulay won the day in favour of granting the company a new Charter with a twenty-year tenure.
Main Provisions of the Act
The historians recognise the Charter Act of 1833 for two main features. First, the Charter Act 1833 changed the position and status of the East India Company. Second, it laid down a broad principle of British policy towards Indian employment. The provisions that brought about the mentioned changes and other necessary rules are studied as follows:
Changes in the Home Government (The Administration in London)
1. The Charter Act of 1833 granted the Company the territorial possession it had acquired in India and the administrative and political powers to run the government of India for the next 20 years.
2. The Charter Act renewed the monopoly of the Company over the China Trade and Tea Trade. In addition to that, the Act instructed the Company to close all other commercial business at the earliest and wholly concentrate on the administration in India. In short, all other trade monopolies of the Company were abolished.
3. The Act instructed the company to declare a dividend of 10.5 percent to shareholders out of the revenue of India. The Company was also told to raise the fund of 12 million pounds (1.2 crores) to purchase the Company's stock (a buyback like that of present-day practice). A provision was incorporated in the Act which instructed the company to raise the fund to repay the capital of the East India Company in forty years or earlier (that means by 1873 or before it), should the company be deprived of its rule over India.
4. The Act of 1813 had laid the rule that under a licensing system, all Europeans were permitted to enter India. This rule was removed and replaced by an instruction to adopt the method of scrutiny for the free admission of Europeans in India to avoid any disorder.
Changes in the Central Government in India (Governor-General's office) under the Company rule.
1. The Governor-General of India in Council was made an all-powerful legislative institution in India. (Earlier, Governor-General was Governor-General in Council of Bengal. From 1833 onwards, the Governor-General of India was the designation. In other words, the first Governor-General of India was William Bentinck.). It made the Governor-General of India all powerful in India.
2. The superintendence, direction and control of the whole civil and military government (-Remember the three terms were used to define the role of Board of Control. In the Act, it was also used for the post of Governor-General in India.-) over the territories under the Company's rule was vested in the Governor-General in Council.
3. The Charter Act 1833, established a post of Law member. The Law member was deputed to assist the Governor-General and his Councillors in legislation matters. The task of the person as a law member was to remove legal prohibitions that were marked as illegal. The Law member was authorised to participate only in such meetings when the process of lawmaking took place in the Council. However, the Law member was not allowed any say in the ordinary executive matters. He was to be an English Jurisconsult (Jurisconsult was a person authorised to give legal advice. Such professionals were quite popular during the nineteenth century. However, he is not to be equated with Advocate General as some of the textbooks had suggested.) Mr T. B. Macaulay was appointed as the Law Member to the Council.
4. A provision of the Act of 1833 authorised the Governor-General in Council to appoint a commission to be known as the 'Indian Law Commission'. Such commissions were empowered to inquire into the jurisdiction, powers, and rules of the existing courts of justice and police establishments, the nature of all laws, and make reports on them.
Changes in the Presidency Governments
1. The Governments of Bombay and Madras were denied the power of legislation. The power to legislate was allowed only to the Governor-General in Council.
2. The financial matters were brought entirely under the control of the Governor-General in Council. It meant that the Governors were not allowed to create any new office or grant any new salary, gratuity, allowances, etc., without the permission of the Governor-General.
3. In the case of Bengal Presidency, it was divided into two Presidencies – one was the Presidency of Fort William and the other, the Presidency of Agra.
Indianisation of the Civil Services – Section 87
In the section 87 of the Charter Act, it was written that 'no native or natural born subject of His Majesty resident in India, shall, by reason only of his religion, place of birth, descent, or any of them be disabled from holding any place, office or employment under the said Company.'
It is evident that it was an essential principle of British policy towards Indian employment. William Bentinck supported the Indians' involvement in the administration. This attracted the Indians' attention and stimulated them to work according to British laws.
Abolition of Slavery
A provision was made for the removal of slavery in India, instructing the Governor-General in Council to take steps in that direction.
Significance of the Charter Act of 1833
Legislative Centralisation as Introduced by the Charter Act of 1833.
A centralised authority in the hands of the Governor-General in Council was established and exercised by the Regulating Act 1773. The Governor-General became stronger after the enactment of Pitt's India Act, as Presidencies were reduced to the position of subordinates to the Governor-General. It further established a centralised government in India. The process of centralisation of power in the Governor-General and his council reached its culmination in the Charter Act of 1833. The Presidency governments lost all their legislative and most of their financial powers, which were then handed over to the Governor-General of India and his Council. A Supreme Government at the Centre, which ruled from Calcutta, continued till 1864. In the Council Act of 1861, the process was reversed and the policy of decentralisation was adopted. Hence, from the perspective of making the Constitution later, these changes and the record of their working had influenced the making of the Constitution.
Reasons to introduce Centralisation:
The Supreme Government could not take timely action due to practical modalities.
The Pitt's India Act had given the Governor-General in Council the authority to supervise, direct, and control the Presidencies. However, it did not materialize on the ground in the true spirit. There were some practical reasons behind it. One, the Supreme Government at Calcutta hardly exercised its power because the Presidencies took the benefit of distance and the exigencies plea. Second, the Supreme Government always felt helpless when money matters. The Presidencies spent money on their initiative and later informed the Supreme Government. In both circumstances, the Supreme Government could not take timely action to curtail the activities of the Presidency governments.
Multiplicity of the statutory bodies:
In practical terms, five statutory bodies could issue laws and rules in India before the enactment of the Charter Act of 1833. It had created confusion and resulted in inefficiency in the administration. There were Charter Acts; Parliamentary Acts enforced even during the tenure granted to the Company rule; the Governor-General and his Council issued rules; the Presidencies also issued rules, and there were Supreme Court orders and judgements. All these statutory bodies issued their laws and orders, which resulted in numerous difficulties and confusion.
The Europeans were allowed to enter India, live there, buy property and do business. This right was further extended in the Charter Act of 1833. There was every possibility that the inflow of Europeans would increase further. There was thus a need for the smooth running of the administration that they lived under the control of the same laws enacted by the same Supreme Government in India.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment