« ПретходнаНастави »
of the Court of Directors, to declare any such part open, and remove the obligation of a licence.
Another section expressly enabled any natural-born subject of the Crown to acquire and hold lands in India.
The regulations as to licences have long since been abolished or fallen into desuetude. But by s. 84 of the Act of 1833 the Governor-General in Council was required, as soon as conveniently might be, to make laws or regulations providing for the prevention or punishment of the illicit entrance into or residence in British India of persons not authorized to enter or reside therein. Effect has been given to this requirement by Act III of 1864, under which the Government of India and local Governments can order foreigners to remove themselves from British India, and apprehend and detain them if they refuse to obey the order. Under the same Act the Governor-General in Council can apply to British India, or any part thereof, special provisions as to the reporting and licensing of foreigners 1.
An echo of the fears expressed in 1813 as to the dangers likely to arise from the free settlement of interlopers is to be found in the section which, after reciting that 'the removal of restrictions on the intercourse of Europeans with the said territories will render it necessary to provide for any mischief or dangers that may arise therefrom,' requires the GovernorGeneral in Council, by laws and regulations, to provide, with all convenient speed, for the protection of the natives of the said territories from insult and outrage in their persons, religions, and opinions 2.
Section 87 of the Act declared that ‘no native of the said territories, nor any natural-born subject of His Majesty resident therein, shall, by reason only of his religion, place
See Alter Caufman v. Government of Bombay, (1894] I. L. R. 18 Bombay, 636. As to the general powers of excluding aliens from British territory, see Musgrove v. Chun Teeong Toy, (1891] L. R. A. C. 272 (exclusion of Chinese from Australia), and an article in the Law Quarterly Review for 1897 on “ Alien Legislation and the Prerogative of the Crown.'
? See ss. 295-298 of the Indian Penal Code.
of birth, descent, colour, or any of them, be disabled from holding any place, office, or employment under the Company.' The policy of freely admitting natives of India to a share in the administration of the country has never been more broadly or emphatically enunciated.
And finally, the Governor-General in Council was required forthwith to take into consideration the means of mitigating the state of slavery, and of ameliorating the condition of slaves, and of extinguishing slavery throughout the Indian territories so soon as such extinction should be practicable and safe, and to prepare and submit to the Court of Directors drafts of laws on the subject 1. In preparing these drafts due regard was to be had to the laws of marriage and the rights and authorities of fathers and heads of families.
The sections of the Act which follow these broad declarations of policy are concerned mainly with regulations relating to the ecclesiastical establishments in India and increasing the number of bishoprics to three, and with regulations for the college of Haileybury.
The Act of 1833, as sent out to India, was accompanied by an explanatory dispatch from the Court of Directors, which, according to a tradition in the India Office, was drafted by James Mill 2.
During the twenty years' interval between the Charter Act Legisla
tion of 1833 and that of 1853 there was very little Parliamentary between legislation on India.
1853. An Act of 1835 (5 & 6 Will. IV, c. 52) suspended the provisions of the Act of 1833 as to the division of the Presidency of Bengal into two presidencies, and authorized the appoint
See Act V of 1843 and ss. 370, 371 of the Indian Penal Code. See also Mr. Cameron's evidence before the select committee of the House of Lords in 1852, and Minutes by Sir H. S. Maine, No. 92.
? Kaye, Administration of the East India Company, p. 137.
3 By s. 15 of the Charter Act of 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 95) this suspension was continued until the Court of Directors and Board of Control should otherwise direct.
Charter Act of 1853.
ment of a lieutenant-governor for the North-Western Provinces 1. The project of establishing an executive council for the Bengal and North-Western Provinces was abandoned.
An Act of 1840 (3 & 4 Vict. c. 37) consolidated and amended the Indian Mutiny Acts, and empowered the GovernorGeneral in Council to make regulations for the Indian Navy.
An Act of 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 21) enacted for India a law of insolvency, which is still in force in the presidency towns.
In 1853, during the governor-generalship of Lord Dalhousie, it became necessary to take steps for renewing the term of twenty years which had been created by the Act of 1833, and accordingly the last of the Charter Acts (16 & 17 Vict. c. 95) was passed in that year.
It differed from the previous Charter Acts by not fixing any definite term for the continuance of the powers, but simply providing that the Indian territories should remain under the government of the Company, in trust for the Crown, until Parliament should otherwise direct.
The Act reduced the number of the directors of the Company from twenty-four to eighteen, and provided that six of these should be appointed by the Crown.
It continued indefinitely, until the Court of Directors and Board of Control should otherwise direct, the suspension of the division of the Bengal Presidency contemplated by the Act of 1835, but authorized the appointment of a separate governor for that presidency, distinct from the governorgeneral ?. However, the Act went on to provide that, unless and until this separate governor was appointed, the Court of Directors and Board of Control might authorize the appointment of a lieutenant-governor of Bengal. The power of appointing a separate governor was never brought into operation, but the power of appointing a lieutenant-governor was exercised in 1854, and has been continued ever since.
· The first appointment was made in 1836.
2 Under the Act of 1833 the Governor-General of India was also Governor of Bengal, but during his frequent absences from Calcutta used to delegate his functions in the latter capacity to the senior member of his council. See the evidence of Sir Herbert Maddock and Mr. F. Millett before the select committee of the House of Lords in 1852.
By the following section, power was given to the directors either to constitute one new presidency, with the same system of a governor and council as in the Presidencies of Madras and Bombay, or, as an alternative, to authorize the appointment of a lieutenant-governor. In this case also the former power was never exercised, but a new lieutenant-governorship was created for the Punjab in 1859.
Further alterations were made by the Act of 1853 in the machinery for Indian legislation. The 'fourth ' or legislative member of the governor-general's council was placed on the same footing with the older or ordinary' members of the council by being given a right to sit and vote at executive meetings. At the same time the council was enlarged for legislative purposes by the addition of legislative members, of whom two were the Chief Justice of Bengal and one other supreme court judge, and the others were Company's servants of ten years' standing appointed by the several local Governments. The result was that the council as constituted for legislative purposes under the Act of 1853 consisted of twelve 1 members, namely
The four ordinary members of the governor-general's council.
The Chief Justice of Bengal.
Four representative members (paid) 2 from Bengal, Madras, Bombay, and the North-Western Provinces.
The sittings of the legislative council were made public and their proceedings were officially published.
? Power was given by the Act of 1853 to the governor-general to appoint, with the sanction of the Home Government, two other members from the civil service, but this power was never exercised.
* They received salaries of £5,000 a year each.
The Indian Law Commission appointed under the Act of 1833 had ceased to exist before 1853. It seems to have lost much of its vitality after Macaulay's departure from India. It lingered on for many years, published periodically ponderous volumes of reports, on which, in many instances, Indian Acts have been based, but did not succeed in effecting any codification of the laws or customs of the country, and was finally allowed to expire 1. Efforts were, however, made by the Act of 1853 to utilize its labours, and for this purpose power was given to appoint a body of English commissioners, with instructions to examine and consider the recommendations of the Indian Commission 2.
And, finally, the right of patronage to Indian appointments was by the Act of 1853 taken away from the Court of Directors and directed to be exercised in accordance with regulations framed by the Board of Control. These regulations threw the covenanted civil service open to general competition 3.
In 1855 an Act was passed (18 & 19 Vict. c. 53) which prohibited the admission of further students to Haileybury College after January 25, 1856, and directed the college
to be closed on January 31, 1858. Establish- In 1854 was passed an Act 4 which has had important ment of chief
administrative results in India. Under the old system the commissionerships. 1 As to the proceedings of the commission, see the evidence given in
1852 before the select committee of the House of Lords on the East India Company's charter by Mr. F. Millett and Mr. Hay Cameron. Mr. Millett was the first secretary, and was afterwards member of the commission. Mr. Cameron was one of the first members of the commission, and was afterwards legislative member of the governor-general's council.
? The commissioners appointed under this power were Sir John (afterwards Lord) Romilly, Sir John Jervis (Chief Justice of Common Pleas), Sir Edward Ryan, C. H. Cameron, J. N. Macleod, J. A. F. Hawkins, Thomas Flower Ellis, and Robert Lowe (Lord Sherbrooke). They were instructed by the Board of Control to consider specially the preparation of a simple and uniform code of procedure for Indian courts, and the amalgamation of the supreme and sadr courts. (Letter of November 30, 1853, from the Board of Control to the Indian Law Commission.)
3 They were prepared in 1854 by a committee under the presidency of Lord Macaulay.
4 17 & 18 Vict. c. 77.