Pitt's Act of 1784.

purpose of managing the details of commerce.

For the first

five years they were given the same security of tenure as the seven commissioners, but vacancies in their body were to be filled by the Court of Proprietors.

The events which followed the introduction of Fox's East India Bill belong rather to English than to Indian constitutional history. Everybody is supposed to know how the Bill was denounced by Pitt and Thurlow as a monstrous device for vesting the whole government and patronage of India in Fox and his Whig satellites; how, after having been carried through the House of Commons by triumphant majorities, it was defeated in the House of Lords through the direct intervention of the king; how George III contumeliously drove Fox and North out of office after the defeat of their measure; how Pitt, at the age of twenty-five, ventured to assume office with a small minority at his back, and how his courage, skill, and determination, and the blunders of his opponents, converted that minority into a majority at the general election of 1784.

Like other ministers, Pitt found himself compelled to introduce and defend when in office measures which he had denounced when in opposition. The chief ground of attack on Fox's Bill was its wholesale transfer of patronage from the Company to nominees of the Crown. Pitt steered clear of this rock of offence. He also avoided the appearance of radically altering the constitution of the Company. But his measure was based on the same substantial principle as that of his predecessor and rival, the principle of placing the Company in direct and permanent subordination to a body representing the British Government.

The Act of 17841 begins by establishing a board of six commissioners, who were formally styled the Commissioners for the Affairs of India' but were popularly known as the

1 24 Geo. III, sess. 2, c. 25. Almost the whole of this Act has been repealed, but many of its provisions were re-enacted in the subsequent Acts of 1793, 1813, and 1833.

Board of Control. They were to consist of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and one of the secretaries of state for the time being, and of four other Privy Councillors, appointed by the king, and holding office during pleasure. There was to be a quorum of three, and the president was to have a casting vote. They were unpaid, and had no patronage, but were empowered to superintend, direct, and control, all acts, operations, and concerns which in anywise relate to the civil or military government or revenues of the British territorial possessions in the East Indies.' They were to have access to all papers and instruments of the Company, and to be furnished with such extracts or copies as they might require. The directors were required to deliver to the Board of Control copies of all minutes, orders, and other proceedings of the Company, and of all dispatches sent or received by the directors or any of their committees, and to pay due obedience to, and be bound by, all orders and directions of the Board, touching the civil or military government and revenues of India. The Board might approve, disapprove, or modify the dispatches proposed to be sent by the directors, might require the directors to send out the dispatches as modified, and in case of neglect or delay, might require their own orders to be sent out without waiting for the concurrence of the directors.

A committee of secrecy, consisting of not more than three members, was to be formed out of the directors, and, when the Board of Control issued orders requiring secrecy, the committee of secrecy was to transmit these orders to India, without informing the other directors 1.

The Court of Proprietors lost its chief governing faculty, for it was deprived of the power of revoking or modifying any proceeding of the Court of Directors which had received the approval of the Board of Control 2.

1 See Digest, s. 14

2

8. 29. The Court of Proprietors had recently overruled the resolution of the Court of Directors for the recall of Warren Hastings.

These provisions related to the Government of India at home. Modifications were also made in the governing bodies of the different presidencies in India.

The number of members of the governor-general's council was reduced to three, of whom the commander-in-chief of the Company's forces in India was to be one and to have precedence next to the governor-general.

The Government of each of the Presidencies of Madras and Bombay was to consist of a governor and three counsellors, of whom the commander-in-chief in the presidency was to be one, unless the commander-in-chief of the Company's forces in India happened to be in the presidency, in which case he was to take the place of the local commander-in-chief. The governor-general or governor was to have a casting vote.

The governor-general, governors, commander-in-chief, and members of council were to be appointed by the Court of Directors. They, and any other person holding office under the Company in India, might be removed from office either by the Crown or by the directors. Only covenanted servants of the Company were to be qualified to be members of council. Power was given to make provisional and temporary appointments. Resignation of the office of governor-general, governor, commander-in-chief, or member of council was not to be valid unless signified in writing 1.

The control of the governor-general and council over the government of the minor presidencies was enlarged, and was declared to extend to all such points as relate to any transactions with the country powers, or to war or peace, or to the application of the revenues or forces of such presidencies in time of war.'

A similar control over the military and political operations of the governor-general and council was reserved to the Court of Directors. 'Whereas to pursue schemes of conquest and extension of dominion in India are measures repugnant to

1

8. 28. See Digest, s. 82. This was probably enacted in consequence of the circumstances attending Hastings' resignation of office.

the wish, the honour, and policy of this nation,' the governorgeneral and his council were not, without the express authority of the Court of Directors, or of the secret committee, to declare war, or commence hostilities, or enter into any treaty for making war, against any of the country princes or States in India, or any treaty for guaranteeing the possession of any country prince or State, except where hostilities had actually been commenced, or preparations actually made for the commencement of hostilities, against the British nation in India, or against some of the princes of States who were dependent thereon, or whose territories were guaranteed by any existing treaty 1.

The provisions of the Act of 1773 for the punishment of offences committed by British subjects in India were repeated and strengthened. Thus the receipt of presents by persons in the employment of the Company or the Crown was to be deemed extortion, and punishable as such, and there was an extraordinary provision requiring the servants of the Company, under heavy penalties, to declare truly on oath the amount of property they had brought from India.

All British subjects were declared to be amenable to all courts of competent jurisdiction in India or in England for acts done in Native States, as if the act had been done in British territory 2. The Company were not to release or compound any sentence or judgement of a competent court against any of their servants, or to restore any such servant to office after he had been dismissed in pursuance of a judicial sentence. The governor-general was empowered to issue his warrant for taking into custody any person suspected of carrying on illicit correspondence with any native prince or other person having authority in India 3.

1 s. 34. This enactment with its recital was substantially reproduced by a section of the Act of 1793 (33 Geo. III, c. 52, s. 42) which still remains unrepealed. See Digest, s. 48.

Re-enacted by 33 Geo. III, c. 52, s. 67. See Digest, s. 119.
This section was re-enacted in substance by 33 Geo. III, c. 52,
See Digest, s. 120.

A special court, consisting of three judges, four peers, and six members of the House of Commons, was constituted for the trial in England of offences committed in India 1.

The Company were required to take into consideration their civil and military establishments in India, and to give orders 'for every practicable retrenchment and reduction,' and numerous internal regulations, several of which had been proposed by Fox, were made for Indian administration. Thus, promotion was to be as a rule by seniority, writers and cadets were to be between the ages of fifteen and twenty-two when sent out, and servants of the Company who had been five years in England were not to be capable of appointment to an Indian post, unless they could show that their residence in England was due to ill health.

The double government established by Pitt's Act of 1784, with its cumbrous and dilatory procedure and its elaborate system of checks and counter-checks, though modified in details, remained substantially in force until 1858. In practice the power vested in the Board of Control was exercised by the senior commissioner, other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer or Secretary of State. He became known as the President of the Board of Control, and occupied a position in the Government of the day corresponding to some extent to that of the modern Secretary of State for India. But the Board of Directors, though placed in complete subordination to the Board of Control, retained their rights of patronage and their powers of revision, and were thus left no unsubstantial share in the home direction of Indian affairs 2

1

ss. 66-80. The elaborate enactments constituting the court and regulating its procedure were amended by an Act of 1786 (26 Geo. III, c. 57), and still remain on the Statute Book, but appear never to have been put in force. In 149 B.C., on the proposal of Lucius Calpurnius Piso, a standing Senatorial Commission (quaestio ordinaria) was instituted to try in judicial form the complaints of the provincials regarding the extortions of their Roman magistrates.' Mommsen, 3, 73.

2 As to the practical working of the system at the close of the eighteenth century see Kaye's Administration of the East India Company, p. 129.