It may be noted that though the Company was now under the control of the Government it still had the very considerable power which patronage and special knowledge gave. The special court for the trying of Indian offences, though the subject of further legislation in 1786, has never been made use of.

The great Act had no sooner been passed than it was seen that amendments were necessary. Lord Cornwallis wished for more authority if he was to go out as a GovernorGeneral, and in consequence the Act 26 Geo. III. c. 16 gave the Governor-General the power to decide questions when he considered it necessary to do so even against the opinion of the majority of his council. And another section of the same Act, 26 Geo. III. c. 16, provided that the same man might be Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief, thus increasing his power. And another Act of this session, 26 Geo. III. c. 25, said that the King's consent was not to be necessary for the choice of Governor-General. And yet again 26 Geo. III. c. 57 took away the necessity for the officials of the Company to furnish inventories of their property on their return to England. This was the statute which revised the regulations as to the special court designed by Pitt's India Bill. It also said that all servants of the Company as well as all other subjects of His Majesty resident in India were to be amenable to the Courts of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery and Courts of General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace in any of the British Settlements in India for all crimes and misdemeanours committed in the countries between the Cape of Good Hope and the Straits of Magellan within the limits of the exclusive trade of the Company, and whether committed against any of His Majesty's subjects or against anyone else. It also settled on a new basis the jurisdiction of the Madras Courts, giving them civil and criminal jurisdiction over all British subjects whatsoever residing in the Company's possessions on the Coromandel Coast

"or any other part of the Carnatic, or in the five Northern Circars, including those parts of them within the province of Orissa, or within any of the territories of the Soubah of the Deccan, the Nabob of Arcot, or the Rajah of Tanjore."

A constitutional point of some importance was raised in 1788. The expenses of sending out English troops to India was borne before 1781 by the Home Government. But in the Act of 1781 a definite scale of payment by the Company, two lakhs per annum for each regiment, was agreed upon, provided they were sent out on the requisition of the Company (sec. 77). Some correspondence on the subject of the payments due took place between the Company and the Government in 1785 and 1786, and in 1787 the matter came to a clear issue. The Board of Control through Mr. Dundas informed the Directors that the King had ordered four regiments to be raised for service in India, the Court being allowed to nominate seventy-five officers. There was some difficulty as to the precedence of the officers, so the Directors wished on that ground, and on the ground of economy, that the King would withdraw his order. This the Government refused to do. The Court therefore said that they could not accept the regiments and that they were not liable for the consequent expense. There was a good deal of discussion, and in February 1788 Pitt moved in the House of Commons for leave to bring in a Bill for removing all doubts upon the matter. This took very high ground on the question of the powers of the Board of Control. The number of troops was indeed specified, but the Board of Control were given powers of charging the expenses of those sent out to the Company (28 Geo. III. c. 8); this was the first legislative enactment which settled the number of the King's troops that could be sent to India and maintained from the revenues of that country.

The Company's Charter had been continued till 1793, and when it was renewed an Act was passed of great length which dealt with the whole question of the Company's position. 33 Geo. III. c. 52 was not, it has been pointed out, subjected to much criticism because of the beginning of the Great War. It introduced a considerable number of small changes and a few of importance. The following points may be noted:

The Board of Control (as we may now call it) might include two members who were not Privy Councillors; salaries would be paid

to the Board and their officers, and were to be provided by the Company. The Commissioners and their Chief Secretary might be members of Parliament. The powers of the Board were made very wide and were to amount to the whole ultimate direction of the affairs of the Indian possessions. The views which Mr. Dundas had expressed in the discussions of 1788 were carried out, namely that if it should appear necessary for the security of our Indian possessions, the Board had power to apply the whole of the Revenue of India to purposes of defence, without leaving a single rupee for the Company's investment.

Section 32 provided that the Commander-in-Chief at the three Presidencies when not the Governor-General or Governor might by the authority of the Directors be second member of the Council. If a Governor-General, Governor, Member of Council, or Commander-inChief left for Europe he thereby resigned his office (Section 37). The Governor-General's "power and authority to superintend, control and direct" the Governments of Madras and Bombay" and all other Governments erected or to be erected by the said United Company, within the limits of their said exclusive trade, in all such points as shall relate to any negotiations or transactions with the country Powers or States, or levying war or making peace, or the collection or application of the revenues of the said acquisitions and territories in India, or to the forces employed at any of such Presidencies or Governments, or to the civil or military government of the said Presidencies, acquisitions, or territories, or any of them," is specified in Section 40. The other Presidencies are to obey the orders of the Governor-General at Fort William if not repugnant to the instructions from England (Section 41). Section 51 provided that the Governor-General and the Governors were not to make or carry into execution any order against the opinion of the counsellors of their respective Governments, "in any matter which shall come under the consideration of the said Governor-General, and Governors in Council respectively, in their judicial capacity; or to make, repeal, or suspend any general rule, order, or regulation for the good order and civil government of the said United Company's settlements; or to impose, of his own authority, any tax or duty within the said respective governments or presidencies." But Section 47 continues the power already given of overriding the wishes of the Councils in the case of Governor-Generals and Governors, provided the order would have been lawful if made by the Governor-General or Governor in Council. The Governor-General when absent on tour is to nominate (Section 53) a Vice-President to act during his absence, but he can on his own responsibility issue orders while absent to the Government's officers of any part of India. The Act contained various financial clauses of great importance. The Supreme Court at Fort William was stated to possess Admiralty jurisdiction in criminal matters over offences committed not only on the Coasts of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa but also on the High Seas (Section 156). The Governor-General and Council of Fort William were authorized to appoint covenanted servants of the Company and other British subjects as Justices of the Peace for any of the Provinces or Presidencies (Section 151; not merely for Bengal, Bihar and Orissa as

is often stated). Such Justices were not to sit in Courts of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery unless requested by the Justices of those courts to do so. Coroners might be appointed. The Company's monopoly was continued for a period of twenty years. Appointments to the offices of Governor-General, Governor, and Commander-in-Chief were to be made by the Directors but subject to His Majesty's approbation.

The Charter Act of 1793 following on Pitt's India Bill may be taken to be one of the great dividing points in the history of British india. The English were now in possession of a large territory and were taking steps, many of them still experimental in their nature, to consolidate their system of government. In a work written on the modest scale of this book we can but sketch some of the leading features of the constitutional development which follows.

CHAPTER VI

THE LAST DAYS OF THE COMPANY

THE Charter Act of 1793 had renewed the powers and privileges of the Company for another twenty years; years, it must be noted, which saw the birth of a new Europe, and years in which ideas which could not but have their influence upon institutions like the East India Company became the common property of all thinking men. The few Acts which were passed between 1793 and 1813 show that the condition of India still excited the interest and concern of the British Parliament, even occupied as it was with the more vital matters involved in the struggle for national existence. The Governor-Generals of the time, the Marquis Cornwallis, the Marquis Wellesley, and Lord Minto, were all men of great ability and all devoted to the great task they had undertaken. They differed from each other in many respects, but each in his own way added to the structure of which Hastings, who lived in a less grateful time, had laid the foundations.

37 Geo. III. c. 117 gave the right, under suitable regulations, to be made by the Directors and approved by the board of control, to ships of friendly countries to import goods into India. Another statute of the same session, 37 Geo. III. c. 142, enacted that no British subject could lend money to or raise any money for a native prince of India without the consent of the Court of Directors or the Governor in Council. If he violated this rule he was guilty of misdemeanour and his security void. This statute, as Mr. Cowell has pointed out, had important provisions regarding legislation. It recognized the legislative powers of the