Demerits of the Regulating Act of 1773 with supporting video

 

Demerits of the Regulating Act of 1773

The East India Company was a trading company. It had acquired territories and political authority in India. The company was a traders association permitted to trade in the East under the laws of England. However, it had overstepped its permission and became a political power. By Regulating Act, the Parliament of Britain had tried to resolve the legal confusion by bringing under its supervision the political activities of the government of the company in India. The company was left free to undertake its commercial activities. However, it was also allowed to perform its political role, which it had acquired unlawfully. The political activity was brought under the supervision of the Parliament of Britain and thereby attempted to resolve the situation. However, the provisions that were laid down to execute this balancing act came under strong criticism when the provisions were put into operation. The drawbacks of the Regulating Act in operation vindicated its criticism. The Act was strongly derided by contemporary legal personalities. Some of the significant demerits were as follows.

Demerits:

1. The Regulating Act of 1773 was not able to grant veto power to the Governor General, which made it difficult for him to exercise his authority over his council and the administration. The decisions were taken by consensus. Warren Hastings was regularly outvoted and overruled. Three members of his council formed a group and forced the Governor General to act against his own will. Warren Hastings was so much pushed back that he planned to resign in 1776. However, before his resignation could reach the concerned authorities, Clavering, one of the members of his council, died. Fortunately for Hastings, his posts were not filled. Hastings acquired control over his council by exercising his casting vote whenever his decisions were opposed. However, during this factional conflict within the council, the government of the company in India was adversely affected. All the five members who headed the government under the Regulating Act made earlier years of the operation of the government a tragic affair.

2. The Regulating Act failed to achieve the target of regulating the working of the government of India, which was fully revealed in the case of the revenue administration. It was the priority of Warren Hastings and his council to decide the issue of the revenue settlement and revenue administration. Till 1777, the governor and his councillors did not make any progress on this issue. They kept on fighting among themselves on the issue.

3. The provisions relating to the Supreme Court created another episode full of troubles and tragic situations. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was obscure and defective. The charter of the court did not lay down the qualification of a British subject who could seek legal remedies from the court. The relation between the Court and the Governor-general in Council was also not detailed. The court was not given clarity on the law to be adopted in the case of a plaintiff or defendant. Justice Impey had written that he was baffled to decide upon the law to be implemented in case of different representations brought before his bench. Similarly, the relationship between the Court and the government of Bengal always presented a tricky situation for both parties. No doubt, the disputes between these two bodies propped up now and then. Two cases, Patna Case (1777-79) related to the legality of the acts of an Indian judicial official and Kasijora Case (1779-80) related to Raja of Kasijora were the two important cases that can be cited to mention the tensions which were generated between the two different sections of the administration when they worked under the provisions of the Regulating Act. Impey and Warren Hastings were friends. However, when they operated the provision of registering the legislations and orders framed in the government of Bengal, both of them turned against each other on the issue of the interpretations of orders of the government.

4. The Regulating Act of 1773 was framed to establish a good government in the territories of India. It tried to make the working of the presidencies responsible. It imparted the role of dominance to the Governor General of Bengal over the other two presidencies at Madras and Bombay. However, when the occasions of putting the power of Bengal over the other presidencies in operation, the governor of Bengal was ineffective. The governors of Madras and Bombay started wars and concluded alliances with the Indian princes under the plea of exigencies. They evaded to seek the consul and directions from Calcutta.

5. A missing part of the Regulating Act was identified in the statute by people in London. The court of directors was bound to lodge the accounts and reports on civil and military received from Calcutta within fifteen days of receipt with the Parliament. There was no provision in the Act to establish the machinery which would study and evaluate the documents of the company and, in return, direct the Company and the Government in India on the basis of documents. The Regulating Act envisaged establishing the control of the Parliament over the activities of the company, but it did not materialize in the absence of the required machinery meant for it.

6. Another set of clauses that were directed at correcting the flaws of the constitution of the Company failed to achieve the desired goal. It was one of the priorities of the Act to secure the integrity of the conduct of the Court of Proprietors. It desired to stop the retired company servants from influencing the working of the Company. It failed in its aim. The court of directors turned into a permanent oligarchy. The politics at the time of voting for the election of the officer bearers continued. The company servants continued to buy the stocks of the company and entered the administration of the company.

In conclusion, on the demerits, it can be stated that the Act failed to establish the control of the State over the Company. It failed to establish the controls of Directors over its servants in India. It failed to establish the control of the Governor General over his council. Finally, it failed to establish the control of the Calcutta government over the two presidencies.