So, is it possible for the East India Company or similar to get a seat in Parliament? Perhaps akin to the old university ones?
What affect would that have on colonial representation?
What affect would that have on colonial representation?
A Company Seat in Parliament
- Thread starter The Professor
- Start date
That is a surprisingly interesting suggestion, and if timed well could influence the entire development of modern western democracy in a way so radically different from ours that it's mind boggling! 
I urge you to do a timeline on this! Someone has to!
I urge you to do a timeline on this! Someone has to!
Have a company officially hire someone to run for public office and then spend a ton of money to get that person elected. Once that happens, back that person with a lot of money, who will then in turn represent the company's interests. For extra security, form a political party based around this idea and get a majority in the legislature. Get that party to be a majority in the legislature by essentially purchasing the elections. Once the majority party is in control, have the corporation get the party together (which is essentially a department within the company) and form a new government. Kiss the hand, and it's formal.
That is a surprisingly interesting suggestion, and if timed well could influence the entire development of modern western democracy in a way so radically different from ours that it's mind boggling!
I urge you to do a timeline on this! Someone has to!
Thank you.
Too much for me to attempt but hopeully this thread weill inspire someone!
But we need a fairly permanent seat for the company.
Too convoluted. THought the idea of a Company Party is interesting.
But not officially. It's almost like saying the MP for Norwich North could controls all the Welsh MPs - he's still not officially the MP of those seats.
MAlexMatt
Banned
Why would they need one seat when they've already got the whole Parliament in their pocket?
Whilst it is one thing to have a specific person gain a seat in the house of Lords, it is an entirely different one for permanent representation be given to whoever-holds-a-specific-position-in-a-specific-company.
Then again, I cant see it being significantly different (as the OP mentioned) to the position of Bishops in the House of Lords, though with a more formal representation of corporate interests in the political process, I would suspect that more stringent legislation would emerge to curtail their dominance. Perhaps something along the lines of 'the corporate lords can make contribution to debates, but cant vote' or more general limits on the contributions companies can make to political campaigns, sooner?
Then again, I cant see it being significantly different (as the OP mentioned) to the position of Bishops in the House of Lords, though with a more formal representation of corporate interests in the political process, I would suspect that more stringent legislation would emerge to curtail their dominance. Perhaps something along the lines of 'the corporate lords can make contribution to debates, but cant vote' or more general limits on the contributions companies can make to political campaigns, sooner?
Yes, but those seats are in the Lords, when it seems to me that the asker is wanting Company seats in the Commons. If we exclude those in the pocket of the Company, and widely acknowledge at the time to be Company seats, this seems very hard to do, as the Commons is based around constituency elections.
"Diamond" Pitt (Pitt the elders grandfather) was an ex head of the East India company in India, he made his pile of gold (or diamonds in his case) and retired to England where he bought a seat in parliment. The East India Company had loads of the members of Board of Governors (sorry can't remember the exact name of the upper board) in both parlimnet and the Lords.
Given the unique nature of the EIC, I think it would be more interesting if the governors of the various colonies had a representative in either the Lords or the Commons (in the same way Porto Rica does in the US today).
Given the unique nature of the EIC, I think it would be more interesting if the governors of the various colonies had a representative in either the Lords or the Commons (in the same way Porto Rica does in the US today).
Perhaps along the lines of the university constituencies?
Ie that there is a Company Constituency voted for by Company members/shareholders.
Surely there's a rule that one can only be a member of one constituency, though? So the only people voting in the Company constituency would be the overseas employees?
Which is actually an interesting back-door way to give the colonies seats in Commons...
If the HEIC gets one, surely the Hudson's Bay Company does as well? And perhaps the African or West Indies companies, depending on the date?
Which is actually an interesting back-door way to give the colonies seats in Commons...
If the HEIC gets one, surely the Hudson's Bay Company does as well? And perhaps the African or West Indies companies, depending on the date?
What's so convoluted about buying a bunch of politicians and giving them a ton of money to win elections?
Curiously enough, there wasn't one until as late as 1948 (!), when plural voting was abolished by the Representation of the People Act, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1948 It was that very act that got rid off the twelve remaining university constituencies, for the record.
Still, this doesn't mean that company constituencies could not provide a backdoor for giving the colonies some form of representation. Well, if you adhere to the belief in virtual representation, then they had representation all along and the American Revolution was completely unjustified...
Very well, if you won't do it, then I'll do it if I ever finish my long Vinlandic timeline (which has yet to formally commence!). The PoD would be that when Charles II introduces several acts to extend the rights and privileges of the East Indian Company in 1670 (the right to mint money, acquire territory, command troops), he also gives them a few seats in the House of Commons.
Last edited:
Well I guess there were thousands of British men who would have been eligable to vote under the conditions allowed at the times but who were living abroad working for the Company. You would need to find out whether there was some form of absentee vote if you where not in your home electorate and also what about the army and navy which also had a number of men out of the country during elections. Distance would play a big part until the telegraph became wide spread how long was it between calling an election and the vote?
No one's defining a corporation as a person. It's being defined as a place, a shire within Britain. Whose inhabitants are entitled to representation.
Or at least, that's the far more likely approach. It's hard to imagine the House of Lords assenting to increase their number with a corporate "Lord", since that person would undoubtedly be one of them already.
Or, is that a sly incentive to have the Company give its senior positions to more persons of low birth?
Nothing about that.
But it's convoluted to buy politicians to form a Company party and get them into power to give the Company more power rather than just buy them to do your will no matter what party they are in.