Pitt’s India Act 1784

Pitt’s India Act 1784

Pitt’s India Act 1784

George III was responsible for the rejection of the Fox India Bill in the House of Lords and he also dismissed the Coalition Ministry on 18^th December 1783. Having done so he invited Pitt, the younger, to form the new Ministry. Pitt introduce his own Bill in January 1784. He did not command a majority in the House of Commons at the beginning and consequently got the parliament dissolved at the appropriate moment and was able to secure a good majority. He reintroduced his Bill with certain modifications and was able to get the same passed in August 1784. The Bill is known as Pitt’s India Bill. It is to be noted that Pitt took the precaution of neutralizing the opposition of the English Company. The result was that the Bill was introduced in Parliament fortified and recommended by the consent of the Company. The Bill was essentially the same as that of Fox. However, he did not touch the patronage of the Company. Pitt himself pointed out that while the Fox India Bill ensured permanency of men, his Bill meant a permanency of the system.

Provisions of Pitt’s India Act.1784

1. Pitt’s India Act provided for a Board of Control of six Privy Councillors. The Board was given comprehensive powers of supervision, direction and control over the Indian administration. All the dispatches from India were to be submitted to them and they were to have the right of modifying any instruction sent by the Directors of India. They were empowered to call the old files and thereby review the administration. Regarding the composition of the Board, it may be stated that real power fell into the hands of the president of the Board of Control from the very beginning. Two of its members, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Secretary of State, never attended its meetings. Out of the remaining four members, only the senior member attended and the other three members absented themselves. The president of the Board of Control managed to get the signatures of the Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer.

2. A Committee of Secrecy, consisting of three Directors, was appointed to take the place of the Court of Directors in Political and military matters.

3. Directors were to retain the right of making appointments to different offices in India. They were also given the power of revising and reviewing the acts of the Indian administration.

4. The Court of Proprietors was deprived of its right of overriding the decisions of the Court of Directors.

5. Governor-General-in-Council was given the power of superintending, controlling and directing the several Presidencies. Formerly the Executive Council of the Governor-General consisted of four members. Pitt’s India Act provided that the Councils of Governor-General and Governors were to consist of 3 members and one of them was to be the local Commander-in-Chief.

6. It was declared that the official offenders were not to be pardoned if they were found guilty of having committed any offence. Better provision was made for the trial in England for offences committed in India. For the purpose of dealing with those cases, a special Court of 3 Judges, 4 Peers and 6 members of the House of Commons was created.

7. The Act disapproved the policy of intervention as followed by the servants of the Company in India. The following clause was inserted into the Act: “ Whereas to pursue schemes of conquest and extension of dominion in India are measures repugnant to the wish, the honour and the policy of this nation, the Governor-General and his council were not without the express authority of the Court of Directors or of the Secrecy Committee, to declare war, commence hostilities, or enter into any treaty for making war, against any of the Country, provinces or states in India….”

8 Governor-General was to be appointed by the Directors with the approval of the Crown. However, no such approval was required in the matter of the appointment of the Governors of the Presidencies and their Councils and also the members of the Governor-General or the governors.

The importance of the Pitt’s India Act lies in the fact that it introduced what is known as the system of dual control from England. The president and the Board were destined to be the future Secretary of state for India and his council. The Act helped the unification of India by making the Governor-General supreme over the Governors of the other Presidencies. The deletion of one member from the Executive council of the Governor-General made his position stronger. He could act according to his judgement by using his casting vote. The same was the case with the Governors. The British parliament claimed supremacy over the possessions of the Company in India. The new provisions for trying persons of British descent committing offence in India was a novel one. The proprietors lost their original importance and position. The Committee of Secrecy was given independent powers as apart from the Court of Directors.

Criticism of Pitt’s India Act

There are certain defects in the Pitt’s India Act. The Government of India was vested in the majority of a constantly “changing Council.” The result was that even a weaker member like Mr. Macpherson could become Governor-General. President of Board of Control could afford to be irresponsible as he was not required to submit his accounts to Parliament. The Director became meek and submissive before the President of Board of Control. Nothing was said with regard to the relationship between Board of control and the Directors. According to Ilbert, “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, thought modified in details, remained substantially in force until 1858. In practice the power vested in the Board was exercised by the Senior Commissioner other than the Chancellor of 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 secretary of state for India.”

According to Lord Palmerston, “The functions of Government and the responsibility have been divided between the Board of Control, the court of Directors and the Governor-General in India, and among these authorities it is obvious that dispatch and unity of purpose can hardly by possibility exist. Before a dispatch upon the most important matter can go out to India, it has to oscillate between the Common Row and the India House.”

Milan Tomic

Hi. I’m Designer of Blog Magic. I’m CEO/Founder of ThemeXpose. I’m Creative Art Director, Web Designer, UI/UX Designer, Interaction Designer, Industrial Designer, Web Developer, Business Enthusiast, StartUp Enthusiast, Speaker, Writer and Photographer. Inspired to make things looks better.