Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:30:42.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ‘Little Parliament’: The General Court of the East India Company, 1750–1784

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Huw V. Bowen
Huw V. Bowen
Affiliation:
Rugby School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The historical verdict on the General Court of the East India Company has often been an unfavourable one. The Court, the ultimate sovereign body within the company, has invariably been described in terms similar to those which used to be applied to the eighteenth-century house of commons: it has been seen as a corrupt, disorderly, and disreputable political institution. Macaulay set the general tone in 1840 when he painted a typically vivid picture of proceedings at the General Court in the mid-eighteenth century. ‘The meetings’, he wrote, ‘were large, stormy, even riotous, the debates indecently virulent. All the turbulence of a Westminster election, all the trickery and corruption of a Grampound election, disgraced the proceedings of this assembly on questions of the most solemn importance’. This unflattering and somewhat impressionistic sketch has occasionally received uncritical acceptance from modern-day historians, and indeed it may be endorsed by contemporary observations of particular events at the Court. In 1767, for example, a first-time visitor to the Court room at India House in Leadenhall Street was appalled by what he saw, and he came away with the impression that this was ‘the most riotous assembly I ever saw’. And yet, on numerous other occasions commentators were full of praise for the good order and high standards of oratory at the Court. This has prompted two of the leading modern authorities on the history of the company in Britain to comment favourably on the quality of debate at India House during the eighteenth and early-nineteenth century.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , December 1991 , pp. 857 - 872
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Adair, James, ‘Draft of an intended pamphlet on East Indian affairs’, (?) 02 1773, British Library, Additional MSS, 50830, fo. 68Google Scholar.

2 Macaulay, T. B., ‘Lord Clive’ (1840)Google Scholar, reprinted in G. M. Young (ed.), Macaulay: prose and poetry (2nd edn, London, 1967), p. 350.

3 Chaudhuri, N. C., Clive of India: a political and psychological essay (London, 1975), p. 307Google Scholar.

4 Cozens-Hardy, B. (ed.), The diary of Sylas Neville, 1767–1788 (London, 1950), p. 7Google Scholar. During the 1760s General Courts were held at Merchant Taylors' Hall as well as at the Court room in India House, Leadenhall Street. Facilities at South Sea House were used once, on 12 March 1764. For a full discussion of issues related to the venue and timing of Court meetings see Bowen, H. V., ‘British politics and the East India Company, 1766–1773’ (unpublished Ph.D dissertation, University of Wales, 1986), pp. 25–32Google Scholar.

5 See, for example, the reports of debates at the Courts of 30 December 1768 and 20 November 1772 in the Gazetteer of 31 Dec. 1768 and the London Evening Post of 19–21 Nov. 1772. During this period the debates at the General Court were fully reported in the London press.

6 Sutherland, L. S., The East India Company in eighteenth-century politics (Oxford, 1952), p. 35Google Scholar; Philips, C. H., The East India Company, 1784–1834 (Manchester, 1940), p. 3Google Scholar.

7 Chaudhuri, K. N., The trading world of Asia and the English East India Company, 1660–1760 (Cambridge, 1978), p. 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 For brief details on the conduct and organization of the Court between 1784 and 1834 see Philips, , East India Company, pp. 2–4Google Scholar.

9 Walpole, to SirMann, Horace, 19 July 1769, Lewis, W. S. (ed.), The Yale edition of Horace Walpole's correspondence (48 vols., New Haven, 1949–1984), XXIII, 133Google Scholar.

10 Chaudhuri, , Trading world of Asia, pp. 19–77Google Scholar; idem, ‘The English East India Company and its decision-making’, in K. Ballhatchet and J. Harrison (eds.), East India Company studies: papers presented to Professor Sir Cyril Philips (Hong Kong, 1986).

11 Chaudhuri, , ‘The East India Company and its decision-making’, p. 99Google Scholar. Between 1702 and 1709 the ‘old’ and ‘new’ East India companies had merged to form the United Company of Merchants Trading to the East Indies.

12 The ten sub-committees of the Court of Directors were those of correspondence, law suits, treasury, warehouse, accounts, buying, house, shipping, private trade, and prevention of private trade. A ‘secret’ committee was established during times of political or military crisis. Much information on the directors and their responsibilities is to be found in Parker, J. G., ‘The directors of the East India Company, 1754–1790’ (unpublished University of Edinburgh Ph. D dissertation, 1977)Google Scholar and Shearer, T., ‘Crisis and change in the development of the East India Company's affairs, 1760–1773’ (unpublished University of Oxford D.Phil, dissertation, 1976)Google Scholar.

13 Chaudhuri, , ‘The English East India Company and its decision-making’, pp. 99–100Google Scholar.

14 All holders of £500 stock or more were entitled to vote at company ballots and elections before 1773. After that the company adopted a system of proportional voting (one vote for £1,000 stock, two for £3,000 etc.) similar to that used by the Bank of England and the South Sea Company.

15 Such was the case in 1771–2 when serious financial malpractice in the form of a stockjobbing operation was perpetrated by a group of directors. This was only revealed after persistent and detailed inquiries were made in the General Court by a small number of well-informed proprietors such as Governor George Johnstone and William Crichton. This scandal served to ruin a number of political and business careers, most notably that of the chairman of the company Sir George Colebrooke. For full details of this episode see Bowen, , ‘British politics and the East India Company’, pp. 511–31, 597–9Google Scholar.

16 Chaudhuri, , ‘The English East India Company and its decision-making’, p. 100Google Scholar.

17 Figures derived from India Office Library and Records, General Court minutes, B/255–8.

18 For the events of 1732–3 see Chaudhuri, , ‘The English East India Company and its decision-making’, p. 101Google Scholar and Sutherland, , East India Company, pp. 49–50Google Scholar.

19 For details of the methods and techniques used by the directors to effect control over the General Court before the 1750s see Sutherland, , East India Company, pp. 33–9Google Scholar.

20 Ibid. pp. 66–73.

21 Holwell, Zephaniah, Important facts regarding the East India Company's affairs in Bengal from the year 1752 to 1760 (London, 1764), p. 159Google Scholar.

22 Sutherland, , East India Company, pp. 81–137Google Scholar; Bowen, , ‘British politics and the East India Company’, pp. 122–219Google Scholar.

23 For details of the campaigns to raise the dividend see Bowen, H. V., ‘Lord Clive and speculation in East India Company stock, 1766’, Historical Journal, XXX (1987), 905–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Beauchamp, to Walpole, Horace, Walpole correspondence, XXXIX, 81Google Scholar.

25 For details of newspaper coverage of company politics see Bowen, , ‘British politics and the East India Company’, pp. 88–92Google Scholar.

26 SirAnson, William (ed.), Autobiography and political correspondence of Augustus Henry, third duke of Grafton (London, 1898), p. 237Google Scholar.

27 Laurence Sulivan to Warren Hastings, 28 April 1773, B.L., Add. MSS, 29133, fo. 535.

28 Anonymous, author of A letter to a late popular director (L S Esq. [Laurence Sulivan]) relative to India affairs and the present contests (1769), p. 3Google Scholar.

29 As for note 17.

30 For a discussion of ‘splitting’ see Sutherland, , East India Company, pp. 100–8Google Scholar.

31 In March 1773 the total number of proprietors (or, more correctly, stock accounts) stood at 2,826. For a full discussion of attendance and participation at the Court see Bowen, , ‘British politics and the East India Company’, pp. 47–55Google Scholar.

32 For analysis of changing patterns of stockownership see Bowen, , ‘Investment in Empire in the later eighteenth century: East India stockholding, 1756–1791’, Economic History Review, 2nd ser. XLII, 2 (1989), pp. 186–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 The alliance between Clive and Grenville is examined in Lenman, B. and Lawson, P., ‘Robert Clive, the “Black Jagir”, and British politics‘, Historical Journal, XXVI (1983), 810 ffGoogle Scholar.

34 Bowen, ‘British politics and the East India Company’, ch. 7.

35 Robert Jones to Lord North, 1 Mar. 1770, B.L., Add. MSS, 61866, fo. 2; Thomas Whately to George Grenville, 12 Apr. 1770, ibid. 57817B, fo. 153.

36 Sulivan to Colonel Wood, undated, Bodleian Library, MS Eng. hist. b. 190. fo. 8. Internal evidence indicates that the letter was written shortly after the company election in April 1774.

37 Sutherland, , East India Company, pp. 265–7, 274–80Google Scholar.

38 Edmund Burke was conspicuous by his absence from the General Court during the early-1770s. Although his cousin William made a handful of speeches at the Court during this period, Edmund did not become a stockholder until 1780. He made his first speech at India House on 23 November (reported in London Evening Post, 23–5 Nov. 1780) and contributed regularly to the proceedings for a short time thereafter.

39 Bowen, , ‘British politics and the East India Company’, pp. 93–111, 239Google Scholar.

40 Public Advertiser, 26 Nov. 1772.

41 Bowen, , ‘British politics and the East India Company’, p. 584Google Scholar.

42 See note 15.

43 London Evening Post, 19–21 Sept. 1780.

44 In 1781, for example, he was elected as vice president of the Artillery Company, served as a member of the committee ‘for receiving subscriptions for the relief of West India sufferers’, and was to be found nominating governors of Christ's Hospital (St James's Chronicle, 30 Jan.–1 Feb., 1–3 Mar., 4–6 Oct. 1781).

45 London Evening Post, 16–19 Sept. 1780.

46 Ibid. 19–21 Sept. 1780.

47 Public Advertiser, 3 Aug. 1782.

48 Walsh to Clive, 5 Apr. 1765, I.O.L.R., MSS Eur. G. 37, box 34 (no foliation).

49 Speech to the house of commons, 27 Feb. 1769, as reported by Sir Henry Cavendish, B.L., Egerton MSS, 218, pp. 163–4. Burke had one eye on the ongoing debate about annual parliaments.

50 Clive to Russell, 10 Feb. 1769, National Library of Wales, Clive MSS, vol. 61 (no foliation). The letter continues in vol. 62.

51 ‘Laurence Sulivan's paper to Lord Shelburne on the condition of the East India Company and an outline of a plan of reform’, William L. Clements Library, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Lansdowne MSS, vol. 90, fo. 84.

52 Chaudhuri, , ‘The English East India Company and its decision-making’, p. 100Google Scholar.

53 This was done in the Regulating Act (13 Geo. III, c. 63).

54 Philips, , East India Company, p. 3Google Scholar.

55 London Evening Post, 20–2 Aug. 1772.

56 Public Advertiser, 31 Mar. 1769.

57 7 Geo. III, c. 49, ‘an Act to regulate certain proceedings of the General Court of the [East India Company]’. The terms of this Act were later extended by 10 Geo. III, c. 47.

58 For the history and use of the previous question in the house of commons see Thomas, P. D. G., The house of commons in the eighteenth century (Oxford, 1971), pp. 178–82Google Scholar.

59 See, for example, General Court minutes, B/256, p. 301 (13 Mar. 1764) and the Gazetteer, 15 Nov. 1766.

60 London Evening Post, 20–3, 25–7 Feb. 1773.

61 Ibid. 25–7 Aug. 1772.

62 Public Advertiser, 26 Nov. 1772. For similar criticism of other stockholders see ibid. 11 Nov., 5 Dec. 1772 and London Evening Post, 17–19 Nov. 1772.

63 London Evening Post, 22–5 Aug. 1772.

64 The appointment of a commission to supervise the company's affairs in India was, for example, discussed on 30, 31 August and 1 September 1769. Discussion of proposals to be put before the house of commons took place on 17, 19, 25 February and 1 March 1773.

65 The chairman or his deputy acted as the ‘speaker’ of the General Court.

66 London Evening Post, 22–4 June 1773.

67 7 Geo. III, c. 48.

68 This was done at the Court meetings of 21 and 27 July, 29 September, 13 and 29 October.

69 By-laws, constitutions, orders, and rules of government of the East India Company (London, 1774)Google Scholar, B.L, T. 765.