Kindly watch the video provided below.
The script of the Pitts India Act which is used for voice-over
Pitt's India Act, 1784
After 1773, Britain as a country and nation remained occupied with her problems in North American colonies. It continued to receive negative reports on the working of the company government in India under the Regulating Act. Some discussions had taken place in the British Parliament on many embarrassing incidences which had taken place in India. However, Britain was disturbed more by the happenings in American colonies and her conflict with France. Finally, in April 1783, Henry Dundas moved a proposal in the Parliament to reform the legislation on the working of the East India Company. However, it ended without any result.
Edmund Burke, who had studied the East India Administration as a member of the Select Committee in 1781, drafted a Bill to reform the working of the company in India. Charles James Fox moved that Bill in the British Parliament. The main feature of the Bill was a suggestion for the formation of a board of seven independent commissioners in London to look after the administration of the Indian government. However, the Fox's Bill was defeated in the House of Lords under the direction of King George III. In 1784, Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger moved the India Bill in 1784 framed after adjusting all the earlier objections. It was passed in both houses and became known as the Pitts India Act.
Causes of the Enactment of the Act
The Indian problems were known to the Parliament for a long time. When William Pitt the Younger became the Prime Minister, he immediately addressed those problems. In the very first year of his tenure, he brought in the parliamentary legislation. There were many reasons which moved the Parliament to pass the legislation. The major reasons and causes are evaluated as follows.
1. Confusion in the Government of Bengal under the Company
The British Parliament had passed the Regulating Act in 1783 and the Indian Administration started its work under it. However, it became the cause of an abominable story in Anglo-Indian history. The Governor General of Bengal remained in conflict with his council. The council was dominated by three political persons from England out of a total of four who were councillors. The executive work of the Indian administration suffered due to their clashes with the Governor-General. The Presidencies were made subordinate to the Governor-General in Council. But, the Governors of the Presidencies did not care to seek directions from him and worked independently taking recourse to the plea of exigencies. The Supreme Court of Calcutta came in conflict with the local courts and the Governor-General and his council. The Supreme Court knew only English Law and that created numerous problems for Calcutta and London.
2. Corruption in the Government of India under the Company
The legislation of 1773 aimed at curbing the corruption in the British Indian Administration run by the Company officials. On this issue also a sordid account was received back in London. Most of the colleagues of the Governor-General in Council and officials of Presidencies were reported to have become fortune-hunters. Barwell, a Councillor in Bengal, was reportedly amassed a wealth of £80000 despite his spendthrift nature. Francis, a Councillor and Justice Impey were equally accused of accumulating huge wealth. In Presidencies, Governor Pigot of Madras received a gift £1200,000 from the Nawab of Carnatic. All such reports were received in the British Parliament with dismay and consternation, and could not remain dormant on this issue for a long time.
3. The Loss of American Colonies
Britain lost all her colonies in North America after the American War of Independence. The economy and trade of Britain suffered huge losses due to the American Revolution. Britain could not let it happen in India as India had more economic potential to cover up and compensate for her losses in America. India was the brightest jewel in the Crown of His Majesty, and the British statesmen directed their attention to preserve it. Such a sentiment was echoed in the speeches of the Prime Minister Pitt the Younger in the Parliament. In short, the loss of American colonies urged the Parliament to focus on saving Indian possessions by constitutional measures.
4. Welfare of the Nation
British politicians like Edmund Burke, Henry Dundas, and William Pitt the Younger were shrewd politicians who fully understood the importance of trade in the creation of wealth for a nation even before Adam Smith had published his classic book The Wealth of Nations. They knew that trade with India had contributed to the wealth of their country. A company of Britain had acquired territorial possessions and a trade monopoly in India in tough competition with Dutch and French companies. Prime Minister Pitt stressed a need in Parliament to bring the activities of the Company and its administration under the control of the State. In addition to that, the British legislators were also concerned with the mishaps and mismanagement under the Regulating Act. The British sensibility did not allow them to tarnish their legal prestige. Therefore, the British Parliament was ready to legislate.
5. Constitutional Crises of 1782
The British Parliament started receiving complaints of maladministration in India soon after the Regulating Act was enforced. The legislative institution of Britain remained engrossed in European problems and troubles across the Atlantic Ocean. Finally, in 1781, the Parliament established a Select Committee and Secret Committee to enquire into the administration of justice in Bengal and the reasons for the war in Carnatic. The British Parliament received the reports of the Committees and passed injunctions against Warren Hastings, the Governor of Bengal and Hornby, the Governor of Madras. The Company was directed to recall their two officers but the Company refused. In the 18th century, the British were highly sensitive about the sanctity and prestige of their Parliament. It was a crisis situation when a Company formed under the laws of Britain resisted the directions of the Parliament. The Company did not recall its officers and Hastings continued as the Governor General in Council. The Parliament learned in 1782 that it did not have control over the Company and its affairs. In 1784, it took an opportunity to establish its authority over all the subjects of Britain, including the Company.
6. Financial Crises of the Company and its Representation to the Parliament
In 1784, the Company applied for financial relief from the British Parliament. The British Parliament used that opportunity to establish its control over the Company and its affairs. There was a detailed debate on every aspect relating to the Company and its affairs. The established brains of the times, like Fox, Burke, Henry Dundas, Lord North and William Pitt the Younger, laid threadbare the working of the Company in the Parliament. Finally, they came out with the India Act of 1784 to provide the remedy for the maladies of the Indian administration of the Company.
The Parliament debated on the Bills and a draft was moved first by Henry Dundas and then Fox in 1783. The Bill moved by Fox was even passed in the lower house. However, King George III dissolved the Parliament in 1783. William Pitt the Younger became the Prime Minister in 1784, and he moved the India Bill in 1784. It was passed in August 1784.
Main Provisions of the Act
Provisions dealing with the Home Government (The Company Government in London)
The India Act of 1784 formed two bodies to regulate the working of the Company at Leadenhall Street, London. It created a Parliamentary Body comprising six commissioners and became popular as the Board of Control. It organised the Court of Directors, which was part of the Company Administration. The provisions for these two bodies are discussed as follows.
Provisions Related to the Board of Control:
1. The India Act of 1784 formed a Board of Six Commissioners to conduct the affairs of India. It was popularly known as the Board of Control. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State and four Privy Councillors were made the members of the Board. They were appointed by the King and could continue in their office at the pleasure of the King.
2. The Secretary of State was made the President of the Board. In the absence of the head of the Board, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to preside over their meeting. The quorum of the Board was fixed at three. If only three members were present in the absence of the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, then the members could choose the seniormost among them to act as the president for a meeting. The President of the Board had the casting vote in case of equal division of the opinion.
3. The Board was empowered to superintend, direct and control all the acts and operations related to the civil or military or revenue administration of the British possessions in the East Indies.
4. The Board was authorised to get full access to the records of the Company. No despatch other than of a commercial nature was allowed to be sent to India without their approval.
5. The Board was authorised to approve, disapprove or amend the letters, orders and instructions submitted to them by the Company and the Company was bound to send such despatches to their servants.
6. The Board was empowered to direct the Directors of the Company to prepare an order or a despatch on any subject. In case such instructions were not complied with within 14 days, the Board could prepare a despatch and direct the Directors to transmit the instructions to the governments of India.
7. The Board of Control was imparted power to send its urgent and secret orders and directions through a Secret Committee of the Directors constituted of up to three members. The Secret Committee of the Court of Directors was bound to transmit them to the governments in India without sharing them with the rest of the members of the Board of Directors. The Board of Control later used this provision in a manner that it became the actual authority.
8. The Board of Control was not given any power of patronage. It meant they could not directly appoint or dismiss any servant from the service of the Company.
9. The Court of Proprietors was forbidden to annul or suspend any resolution of the Directors which had received the approval of the Board of Control.
10. The Parliament had granted itself the right to pay the salaries, charges and expenses of the Board of Control out of the revenues of India. Such payments were restricted to the upper limit of £ 16000.
Provisions governing the Court of Directors:
1. The earlier structure of the Court of Directors, which included 24 members, was retained. The Court of Directors was given commercial privileges. It meant that all the acts and orders related to the commercial activities of the company were the exclusive right of the Court of Directors. In case the directions of the Board of Control encroached upon this privilege of the Directors; the Directors were given the right to appeal to the King-in-Council.
2. The Court of Directors was allowed the right of patronage. This provision gave them the exclusive right to appoint and dismiss their own servants. However, the Board of Control was given the power to recall a servant of the Company. It turned into a crucial feature that made the Board of Control gradually more powerful.
3. A Secret Committee of the members of the Court of Directors was formed. The Secret Committee was given the mandate to work directly with the Board of Control.
Provisions governing the Central Government in India established by the Company
The India Act of 1784 also laid out provisions that worked in India. The British Parliament legislated to exercise its power on the Company administration on the territory of India. A brief of the provisions is given below.
1. The number of members of the Governor-General in Council was reduced from four to three. One of the members was to be the Commander-in-Chief of the Company army in India. The Governor-General was the given the right of casting vote. By this arrangement, the Governor-General's authority over his council was established. It removed the shortcomings of the Regulating Act.
2. Only the Covenanted servants were made eligible for the appointment to the Council of the Governor-General. No public man from England could be appointed to the Council. It was the provision that corrected another shortcoming of the Regulating Act. Earlier, the member Francis, who was a public man, had disrupted the working of Warren Hastings as the head of the executive.
3. The territorial possessions of the Company were designated as the 'British possessions' in India. It changed the nature of those possessions by a provision of the British Parliament.
4. The provisions of the India Act 1784 clearly defined the control of the Governor-General in Council over the Presidencies of Madras and Bombay. The provisions clearly stated that Governor-General in the Council was to have full power and authority to superintend, direct and control the Presidencies in the matters of war, peace and revenue and any other point as might be specially referred to their superintendence and control by the Court of Directors. That part of the legislation extended the direct control of the Board of Control to India without writing any specific provision in the Act. The Board of Control was empowered to direct the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors, and that provision played a major role in framing the history of India.
5. A provision laid the rule that in case of a vacancy in the office of the Governor-General, the senior Councillor was to act in his place till the fresh appointment.
Provisions governing the role of Presidencies
1. The India Act appointed three members each to the council of the governors of the Presidencies of Bombay and Madras. Earlier, their councils consisted of four members each. The Commander in Chief of the forces of each Presidencies was one of the members out of the three stipulated.
2. Only the Covenanted servants were made eligible for the appointment to the Council of the Presidencies.
3. The India Act laid down the rule that the Presidencies of Bombay and Madras were subordinate to the control of the Calcutta Presidency. The Calcutta Presidency was empowered to direct the presidencies on all questions of the war, revenue and diplomacy. The Governor-General in Council was authorised to suspend the governors of the Presidency if they failed to follow the rule of their subordination.
4. The Court of Directors appointed the Governors and the Councillors but could be recalled and removed by the King. The provision corrected the shortcoming in the Regulating Act because of which the Parliament suffered embarrassment when, in 1781, it had directed the Directors to remove such officers, and the latter refused to comply with the Parliamentary direction.
The Provisions to deal with major issues of the Indian government.
1. The company was directed to reduce its expenditure on civil and military administration through retrenchment and reduction. It also advised the Company to put its house in order in London and India.
2. The India Act of 1784 directed the company to stop all the 'schemes' of conquest and extension of dominion. The Act clearly stipulated that "to pursue schemes of conquest and extension of dominion in India were measured repugnant to the wish, the honour and policy of this (Britain) nation."
3. The India Act specifically directed the Company to disallow the servants of the Company to deal in money matters with the native princes.
A Study of the Working of Pitt's India Act 1784 – An Analysis
In this section, a brief survey is done on the working of the India Act in operation on the ground. The India Act clearly had two territorial sections of the Company in view while laying down the rules.
There was a company in London working from Leadenhall Street. It was organised under the law of Britain. It consisted of the owners who had organised themselves as a Court of Proprietors. The Court of Proprietors had entrusted the day-to-day management to 24 Directors. All these arrangements had created an office and administrative setup. The second aspect of this commercial office was related to conduct of trade in India. For that, it established another administrative setup on Indian territory.
The Parliament enacted the India Act to regulate the activities of both sections. The statute established a Board of Control to accomplish it. The Act aimed at bringing the control of the commercial corporation under the supervision and direction of the State. It laid down the rules by which the relations between the Parliament and the Commercial Corporation (the company) were defined. When this statute came into force, it became a story surveyed in this section.
1. The India Act established a 'Compromise'.
The Parliament of Britain had identified three aspects related to the Company that were covered in the legislation of the India Act. Those were the commercial, political and administrative aspects of the Company. The management of the commercial business was left in undisputed charge of the Directors of the Company. The company had developed a substantial angle of political nature while pursuing their commercial interests. The Parliament formed a Board of Control in the Act to subject those political activities of the Company to its control and direction. In a way, it created two offices over the working of the Company which was a Commercial Corporation. One office was a part of the British Parliament, and the other was under the control of the owner of the commercial corporation. It had created a dual system of two governments in London to run the operation of a Commercial Corporation. Both governments represented two separate authorities – one was the Crown, and the other was a Company owned by commoners. The dual government functioned by adjusting the activities of the East India Company to the policies of the Crown. In a way, the Pitt's India Act created a Compromise.
2. Unequal Compromise:
The Board of Control established National Control on the Company
The Pitt's India Act established a compromise, but it was a highly unequal compromise. There were the Board of Control and the Court of Directors. Both were partners in the same activity. They conducted the role of dealers in the activities in India. However, the Board of Control turned into a stronger partner. The Board of Control received more comprehensive powers and influence than the Court of Directors. The Board of Control could superintend the political activities of the Company, change the orders issued by the Court of Directors, and recall any officer holder appointed by the Directors for the Company's administration in India. All these powers had unlimited potential, which was unleashed over the next 74 years. The Board of Control became a supreme power over the political affairs of the Company. It established national control over a private commercial corporation.
3. Previous Communication played in favour of the Board of Control.
The India Act authorised the Board of Control that it could propose to the Court of Directors any order which had to be complied with within 14 days. The procedure adopted to obtain concurrence and execution involved a set pattern that gave the first and the last word to the President of the Board. The procedure involved a verbal discussion between the Chairman of the Court of Directors and the President of the Board of Control over a proposal. The Directors prepared the draft and placed it before the President of the Board. The Board could approve or ask the Directors to modify it and return it for the next approval. During this course of exchange of the draft of the proposal to be sent to India, the President and his Board could impress upon the Directors to incorporate their decision. In this manner, the Board had unlimited power of correction and ultimate power over the conduct of the company in affairs of political matters. The Pitt's India Act backed their authority. If the Court of Directors refuses to oblige the Board, then the Board could exercise its power to frame the order on its own and direct the Company to transmit it to India. Even then, if the Company showed unwillingness to cooperate, the Board could apply to the Court of King's Bench for a writ of mandamus. The members of the Board were appointees of the King and they could avail that power.
4. Case of Mr. Holland.
One incidence which took place in 1784 itself can be cited to explain the working of the unequal compromise. Henry Dundas was the President of the Board of Control in 1784. The Court of Directors appointed Mr. Holland as governor of Fort St. George. However, Henry Dundas did not approve the selection of Mr. Holland and proposed another name in his place. The Court of Directors protested against it and called it an undue interference of the Board. Henry Dundas directly informed Mr. Holland that if he proceeded to India to take over the post, then the Board of Control would exercise its right to recall him. Ultimately, the Court of Directors was coerced to yield to the Board of Control and accept their nominee for the appointment. Similar kinds of incidents will occur in future also.
5. Control over Civil and Military Government was the ultimate power.
The Board of Control was empowered by the Parliamentary Act to control the civil and military activities of the Indian government established by the administration of the Company. The Board of Control had a stronger position in those areas as compared to the Court of Directors. The Governor-Generals were appointed by the Court of Directors, but every appointee understood that the centre of authority rested with the Board of Control in Civil and Military matters. The Governor-Generals continued to adopt an aggressive policy under the support of the Board of Control through their secret support and approval in total defiance of the wishes and directions of the Court of Directors. The Board of Control wielded greater power and influence on a legal basis, and this aspect was emphatically stated by a nationalist historian, R. C. Majumdar while evaluating the policy of territorial expansion by Lord Dalhousie.
6. Court of Directors was not a figurative authority:
The above arguments gathered above may give impressions that Board of Control was the actual authority and the Court of Directors was reduced to a position of non-entity. However, it was not a reality. The Court of Directors was also stronger in administration and commercial dealings.
7. Main Channel of Communication:
The Court of Directors was the main communication channel between the Board of Control and the Governor-General in India. All the dispatches from India were addressed to the Court of Directors or its Secret Committee.
8. The Board of Control gave importance to the Court of Directors.
It was a more practical and sensible requirement for the Board of Control to give importance to the views and opinions of the members of the Court of Directors. The major activity and business of the Company passed through their hand. The Court of Directors had direct experience of the matters dealing with India.
9. Records of Company imparted influence to Court of Directors
All the correspondences passed through the Court of Directors. All the correspondence received from India was collected under the supervision of the administration of the Court of Directors. The documents were kept in the custody of the Company at India House on Leadenhall Street. Therefore, for any fact-based decisions, the archive was the Company. It influenced the Company to initiate the proposal on the basis of the documents.
10. The Right to Initiate the Proposals was with the Court of Directors.
The right to initiate the proposal was with the Company. The India Act ruled that the proposal should get approved by the Board of Control. In practice, the right to initiate the proposal imparted the Court of Directors an influence on Company administration in India. The Company had a permanent staff of civil servants. The Company had employees who had direct experience in Indian affairs. The Board of Control depended upon the advice and experiences of the civil servants of the Company. It imparted a great influence and strength to the Company in practical matters related to government administration in India.
11. The Right to make appointments.
All the appointments, from a lower post to the highest rank, the medical officers and other related personnel for civil and military administration were issued and made by the Court of Directors. The Court of Directors had the power to recall the people posted in India. Similar power was entrusted to the Board of Control. The Court of Directors had exercised its power in the case of Ellenborough when the Board of Control stood in his favour. Therefore, the Court of Directors was not all that ineffective body. However, it was neither practical nor advisable or feasible for both governments to continue to create the situation of conflict or demonstrate their superiority. In short, the Court of Directors continued to play a decisive role till the dissolution of the Company.
Conclusion
In conclusion, and based on the history of the working of the arrangements established under Pitt's India Act, it can not be said that the Court of Directors was less influential. If the Board of Control had emerged as the final authority, the question arises: why did the Company continue to exist? Why did the Court of Proprietors not initiate the dissolution of the Company? The reality was that the Company had obtained many privileges and profitable opportunities from the trade with India. The Proprietors had maintained their efforts in maintaining the Company for the next 74 years. No doubt, from 1784 onwards, the Board of Control continued to increase its authority in the administration of India. The Board of Control had decided the rules of the Charters which were renewed after every twenty years. In practical terms, their mutual relations had worked as a system of Checks and Balances. The working model, which had developed under the India Act 1784, had found reflection in the Constitution of India when it was framed later.
Merits and Demerits of the India Act 1784.
Pitt's India Act established a dual system of government. It was not based on any established principle.
Demerits of the India Act:
1. The India Act of 1784 established a dual government. The Board of Control was the representative of the Crown. The Court of Directors represented the Company. Neither of the two administrations was responsible to the British Nation. The India Act had failed to form a regulating body that could make the Company more responsive to the aspirations of the Parliament and, thereby, to the British Nation. The Board of Control had weakened the administration of the Company. Neither of the two governments was answerable for their deeds to anyone. Gradually, the anomaly was identified by the Parliament. The Parliament found that neither of the two administrations was ruling India and the actual rule had slipped into the hands of the British bureaucracy in India.
2. The dual government established by the India Act was not based on political principles. The Board of Control was established to frame the policies in civil and military administration that the Indian government had to execute. However, the officers who executed those policies in India were appointed by the Court of Directors. If the Court of Directors were reluctant to enforce the policies framed by the Board of Control, it could have created difficulties and delays in implementing those policies. It had happened in practice. However, the other side of the story was that both the parties, viz the Board of Control and Court of Directors, followed the English spirit of reconciliation. The system continued to work till 1858. In the earlier years, Mr Henry Dundas made it function for seventeen years. After that, its system staggered with numerous adjustments for a long period and ended in the dissolution of the Company.
3. One of the major complaints against the dual government established by the India Act was that it was dilatory and cumbersome. On average, it took two years to get a response to a vital despatch directed to the Home Government in London from India. The despatches, which originated in London and headed towards India, repeatedly underwent a dismal procedure. The despatches on important matters kept shifting between the Cannon Row office of the Board of Control and the Indian House office of the Company for final clearance before leaving for India. The process caused a long delay. The essential matters languished or were tackled per the whims and discretion of the bureaucracy in India. Undoubtedly, the India Act had made the Indian Bureaucracy stronger than the government in London.
4. The India Act did not fix the obligation of the Board of Control. The Board of Control became an institution of interference in the working of the Court of Directors. The Board was a part of the Ministry. The Ministry did not take any responsibility for the actions of the Board of Control. The interference of the Board of Control even extended to India. The Board conspired with Governor-Generals in India sidelining the prerogatives of the Court of Directors. The Court of Directors did not remain passive, and they tried to assert their position in reaction. In such a scenario, the administration of India suffered on the sideline while the demonstration of the power play continued in the dual government. There was no one to decide the responsibility of either government.
Conclusion
In short, the Board of Control was established to bring the civil and military administration of the Company under the control of the State. It was meant to regulate the working of the Company as per the British National aspirations and sensibilities. However, it damaged the working of the Indian Administration and extended the influence of a Parliamentary body to India. However, there were some merits of the system also.
Merits of the India Act
1. The India Act established a vigorous system under which the activities of the Company were brought under the control of the State. It did not confiscate the property of the Company in India but secured it for the public of England. It corrected the shortcomings of the Regulating Act without diminishing the charter rights of the men.
2. The direction of the Company affairs was brought under the control of the ministry without hampering the prerogatives of the Company to conduct its commercial activity.
3. The India Act was able to silence the opposition to the existence of the Company, which had termed it as an unconstitutional institution.
4. The Directors of the Company were also satisfied with the arrangement. They knew that the government would hamper their activity on a day-to-day basis. However, they were satisfied that after that sacrifice, they still retained many privileges and patronage over the Company.
5. According to Pitt, the architect of the Act, explained that it was an arrangement based on adjustment and not destruction. The Charter was spared. The private rights of the company were intact. The territorial possessions of the Company were not confiscated. However, the constitution of the Company was modified to serve the national interests.
Significance of the India Act
1. The India Act had brought the Presidencies governments completely under the control of Governor-General in Council. It was specified in a clause of the Act that any disobedience by the Presidencies governors would result in their suspension. In this way, the India Act played a significant role in the unification of the British possession in India.
2. The India Act had dealt a severe blow to the political power of the Court of Proprietors. They were debarred from changing the decisions of the Directors, which had been duly approved by the Board of Control. They could not interfere in the civil and military administration in India. They were left to remain satisfied with receiving the dividends and to participate in the elections of the Directors.
3. The administration of the government in India improved. Hastings was hampered in performing his duty because of the hurdles created by the Councillors. The number of members of the Council was reduced. The Presidencies were made subordinate to the Governor-General in Council. The Governor-General could exercise his authority and make a substantial improvement in the working of the Government in India. It was quite evident during the tenure of Cornwallis.
4. The India Act had brought Governor-General closer to the Ministry at Home. He had direct political relations with the Ministry of the Crown. It increased the power and influence of the post.
5. The India Act gave a new definition to the Company's relationship with the Indian Princes. The Act adopted the policy of non-intervention in the new territories in India. It led to a new politics in India.
6. Finally, the India Act established a system of government in London which conducted the Company's administration in India till 1858.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment