service of the said Company to be elected or appointed, or to become directors or managers thereof; any thing contained in the said act of the thirty-third year of his present Majesty's reign, or any other act of Parliament, to the contrary thereof in anywise notwithstanding. (4) Provided always, and be it further enacted, that No judge to be a Director. no judge of any of the said courts of justice in India, established by his Majesty's charter, shall be capable of being appointed to or holding the office of the director or manager of any such bank or corporation. LAWS. 1807. 47 Geo. 8, c. 68, § 9. § 10. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THE c. 65, § 34. PREVIOUS to 1781, the affairs of India were administered by the East-India Company, without any direct control on the part 21 Geo. 3, of his Majesty's Government. In that year it was enacted by Parliament, that the Court of Directors should deliver to the Lords of Treasury copies of all letters and orders relating to the revenues of the Company, and to one of his Majesty's Secretaries of State copies of all letters and orders relating to the civil and military government and affairs of the Company, or of their servants in India; also that the Court should be bound by such instructions as they might receive from his Majesty, through one of the Secretaries of State, so far as related to the conduct and transactions of the Company and their servants with the country powers in India, as well to the levying war as to making peace. This arrangement continued in force until the year 1784, when it was superseded by the act of 24th Geo. III, cap. 25, under which the Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India was first constituted. The following statement of the circumstances which led to the institution of that Board, may afford a useful introduction to the various enactments which prescribe the nature and extent of the powers with which it is invested. About the year 1780, various discussions upon points connected with India took place in the House of Commons, and were continued with great earnestness during the two succeeding years. In 1782 a select committee of the House of Commons was appointed, for the specific purpose of inquiring into the state of the administration of justice in India, and of considering how the British possessions in the East could be held with most advantage to Great Britain, as well as to the native population of India. The session of 1782 closed without any measure being proposed to Parliament; but the affairs of the Company, and the necessity of framing some regula 66 66 66 tions for the future management of them, formed a prominent feature in the King's speech upon the opening of Parliament in the year 1783" The situation of the East-India Company will require the utmost exertions of your wisdom to "maintain and improve the valuable advantages derived from our Indian possessions, and to promote and to secure the happiness of the native inhabitants of those provinces." On the 18th of November in that year, leave was given to bring in a bill for vesting the affairs of the Company in the hands of commissioners, for the benefit of the proprietors and the public; and also another bill for the better government of the territorial possessions and dependencies in India. These bills were subsequently formed into one, well known as "Mr. "Fox's East-India Bill." The following is a brief outline of the nature of the bills, their objects, and the grounds upon which they were brought forward and opposed. By the former of these bills the whole government and management of the territorial possessions, revenues, and commerce of the Company, together with all the powers before vested in the Courts of Directors or Proprietors, should be vested in Seven Directors named in the act, for four years. The persons nominated in the Committee to be Directors were, Earl Fitzwilliam, Mr. Frederick Montagu, Lord Lewisham, Mr. Geo. Aug. North, Sir Gilbert Elliott, Sir Henry Fletcher, and Mr. Gregory. Nine Assistant-Directors, being proprietors of £2,000 stock each, were to be appointed, for the sole purpose of managing the commercial concerns of the Company-to act under the orders of, and be subject to the seven Directors before named. All vacancies in the office of Directors were to be filled by his Majesty, and those of the Assistant-Directors by the Proprietors, at an election by open poll. The Assistant-Directors were to be removeable by five Directors; the Directors and Assistant-Directors were to be removeable by his Majesty, upon an address of either House of Parliament. The Directors were to have authority to remove, suspend, appoint, or restore any of the officers in the Company's service, either civil or military. It provided for the speedy and effectual trial of all persons charged with offences in India, and for the prevention of all parties so charged from returning to India before an examination had taken place:-each Director was to enter upon the journals, and subscribe his name, with the specific reasons for his vote on the particular case. A decision was to be had on any differences or doubts which might arise amongst the members of the Governments in India, within three months after the account should have reached the Directors. If any delay in such decision, their reasons were to be entered for not coming to a determination. The Directors and Assistant-Directors were not to hold any office whatever in the service of the Company, or any place of profit from the Crown, during pleasure. The Directors were not disqualified from sitting in the House of Commons. Each Assistant-Director was to receive a salary of £500 per annum from the Company. The second bill went to explain the powers vested in the Governor-General and Council by the act of 1773, and forbad the exchange, acquisition, or invasion of any territory in India; declared the acceptance of presents illegal; prescribed a mode for adjusting the disputes between the Nabob of Arcot and the Rajah of Tanjore, or between them and their British creditors; explained the powers of the Governor-General in Council over the other Presidencies, as to war, peace, and treaties; disqualified the agent of any protected prince, and all persons in the service of the Company, from sitting in the House of Commons during their continuance in such employment, and for a certain time after their quitting such service; lastly, it directed that all offences against the proposed act might be prosecuted in the courts in India, or in the Court of King's Bench. The arguments urged in opposition to the bills were, first, the arbitrary defeasance of the chartered rights of the Courts of Proprietors and Directors, without a justifiable plea of necessity; and, secondly, the dangerous power lodged in the hands of the new commissioners. The supporters of the bill, with regard to the first objection, referred to the acts of 1773, depriving the £500 stock-holders of the right of voting, and to the act of 1781; which, it was contended, contended, all interfered, more or less, with the Company's chartered rights. They remarked, that it was admitted on all sides that some revision was requisite, and asked how it was possible to attempt any regulation without violating the Company's charter. On the other side it was contended that, though some reform was necessary, the extent of the remedy went infinitely beyond the extent of the necessity; that the disfranchisement of the members of the Company, and the confiscation of their property, could only be justified by acts of delinquency legally established. It was replied, that the bill vested it in the Company in trust for the sole benefit of the Proprietors. But to whom, it was asked, were the Proprietors to apply for relief in cases of the grossest abuse of the trust? It could only be to Parliament; where, in any dispute, the corrupt. influence created by the bills would readily procure to any minister a majority in his favour. In support of the bills, accounts were brought forward to shew that the Company were on the verge of bankruptcy: whilst, on the other side, it was averred that these accounts were absolutely false; and another account was presented to the House, prepared by the Court of Directors, shewing a balance of nearly four millions in the Company's favour. The second head of abuses brought forward related to the government in India. Three points were noticed as affected by the prevailing system: first, the independent powers of that country, against whom, it was contended, extravagant projects and expensive wars had been entered into by the Company, for the purpose of extending their dominions: secondly, the states in alliance with us, or dependent on us, towards whom a ruinous interference had been exercised, their rights invaded, aids and tribute unjustly exacted, and the enormous peculations of the Company's servants, and disorders and rapacity of the military; and, thirdly, our own territorial possessions, governed with the single view of transmitting wealth to Europe. Although the evils were allowed to exist, still the picture drawn of them was deemed to be much exaggerated; but whilst remedies were admitted to be necessary, a total change of system |