I've been reading up on some of the events in the years that led up to the American Revolution and one of the things that caught my eye was that at William Pitt, the 1st Earl of Chatham, favoured effectively nationalising the East India Company as early as 1767 when its licence and the parliamentary enquiry were being debated, in part related to his belief that all land in India should be under the sovereignty of the Crown. It didn't happen and a compromise was cobbled together where the Company was limited in the size of the dividend it could pay, had to pay the government £400,000 a year, and several other duties. Fast forward several years though and the Company was in dire financial straights thanks to droughts in India, internal mismanagement and corruption. It hadn't been able to make it's yearly payments of £400,000 to the government, owed the Bank of England sizeable sums, and was sitting on a mountain of tea in London that it couldn't sell. This led to the introduction of the Regulating Act of 1773 which again limited the dividends was able to pay until it met its debts, reorganised its leadership, along with other measures. It didn't work and required the follow-on East India Company Act 1784 which gave the government more of a say in the running of the Company. They also introduced the Tea Act of 1773 which caused the fun and games we're all familiar with.
So what if instead of just tinkering around the edges the government for one reason or another decided to not grant the Company any special privileges but simply tell them that they can get their own house in order and pay their debts - unlikely, go bankrupt - personally ruinous in the days before limited liability, or they can take what's behind door number three which is Pitt's original proposal of the government taking over but paying the Company £400,000 a year to administer India for them. It's not quite the Government of India Act 1858 but it's a significant step towards full government control, and realistically much easier to cut the Company out of the picture completely a few years down the line. How do people think India would play out if the British government had been more involved in things 80-odd years earlier?
So what if instead of just tinkering around the edges the government for one reason or another decided to not grant the Company any special privileges but simply tell them that they can get their own house in order and pay their debts - unlikely, go bankrupt - personally ruinous in the days before limited liability, or they can take what's behind door number three which is Pitt's original proposal of the government taking over but paying the Company £400,000 a year to administer India for them. It's not quite the Government of India Act 1858 but it's a significant step towards full government control, and realistically much easier to cut the Company out of the picture completely a few years down the line. How do people think India would play out if the British government had been more involved in things 80-odd years earlier?