WI: Fox's India Bill passes?

In 1783, Charles Fox wrote an East India Bill that transferred Indian lands to crown authority, under a Board of Commissioners. It passed with a big majority in the Commons, but George III put pressure on the Lords to stop it. What if it had passed? What would be the effect of the Raj happening so much earlier?

Faster or slower conquests? It's worth bearing in mind the trading side of the company is still there.

I'd also be interested if anybody has more detail what was in the bill. I can't find that much online.
 
well the east india company would have gone apeshit over it..especially as they pratically controled india until the mutiney...if it had all gone to crown lands they wouldve folded or rebelled themselves and could see larger priacy in the area and a much ealier mutiney over the indian princes losing power
 
Because if it ain't broke don't fix it. The purpose of India at this point wasn't to shade large areas of the map pink but to make a profit and to enrich that nations trade. The East India Company ticked all the boxes. It was very efficient, very profitable and did wonders for the nations exports and didn't cost the Exchequer a penny. By taking large chunks of land into direct management the government would have to grow, more staff would have to be hired etc.
 
Why did George III object to it?

Did he think India wasn´t worth the trouble?

George III hated Charles Fox and was doing his best to destabilise his ministry - the controversy over this act was seen as his chance. Also all seven proposed comissioners were supporters and relatives of either Fox or North, so they would control the patronage network of India.

Because if it ain't broke don't fix it. The purpose of India at this point wasn't to shade large areas of the map pink but to make a profit and to enrich that nations trade. The East India Company ticked all the boxes. It was very efficient, very profitable and did wonders for the nations exports and didn't cost the Exchequer a penny. By taking large chunks of land into direct management the government would have to grow, more staff would have to be hired etc.

By the 1780s, company rule was widely considered corrupt and unjust. Various stories caused people like Edmund Burke to turn from protectors of the EIC under the name of proerty rights to wanting to regulate it for fear of how authoritarian it was becoming. There was a lot of worry that tyrannical rule in India would end up being transported back to England: lots of nabobs were returning with fortunes from the sub-continent to buy seats in parliament with extreme Tory views on the lower classes. Like I said, it passed the Commons with a huge majority, despite the opposition of the King.
 
Top