Latest / The Rise of Colonialism: How Europe Divided the World — Fexingo History / The Regulating Act 1773: Britain's First Attempt to Control the East India Company
Transcript
- Lucas: So we've covered how the East India Company got the diwani in 1765, and how they ran Bengal into the ground with dual government and the famine. But what happened when the British government back in London started paying attention? Luna: I imagine they weren't thrilled about the famine reports. Lucas: Exactly. By the early 1770s, the Company was in financial trouble and news of the Bengal Famine had reached Britain. Edmund Burke and others were furious. So Parliament passed the Regulating Act of 1773—the first real attempt to assert control over the Company. Luna: What did it actually do? Lucas: It restructured the Company's government in India. The big change was creating a Governor-General for all of Bengal, with a council of four to advise—and potentially overrule—him. Warren Hastings got the job. It also established a Supreme Court in Calcutta, with a chief justice and three judges sent from England. Luna: So they wanted more oversight and a court to check abuses. Lucas: That was the idea. But the act had serious flaws. The Governor-General could be outvoted by his own council. And the Supreme Court's jurisdiction was vague—did it cover Indians? Company servants? The result was a power struggle that nearly paralyzed the government. Luna: Sounds like a recipe for conflict. Lucas: Oh, it was. Hastings arrived in 1774 to find a council full of enemies. The most vocal was Philip Francis, a sharp-tongued politician who hated Hastings and everything he stood for. Francis led the majority on the council and voted down Hastings's policies constantly. Luna: Why did they hate each other so much? Lucas: Partly personality, partly principle. Francis saw Hastings as a corrupt despot; Hastings saw Francis as an arrogant meddler who knew nothing about India. They clashed over revenue policy, military campaigns, and almost everything else. It was personal and bitter. Luna: So the act meant to control abuse actually created gridlock? Lucas: Exactly. And the Supreme Court made things worse. Its chief justice, Sir Elijah Impey, was an old friend of Hastings—which Francis's faction saw as a conspiracy. The court started hearing cases that challenged Company authority, like questioning the legality of the diwani itself. Luna: That must have been chaos—who had the final say? Lucas: Nobody knew. And it came to a head with a dramatic trial in 1775. An Indian nobleman named Maharaja Nandakumar—who had been a rival of Hastings—accused Hastings of taking bribes. The council backed Nandakumar, hoping to bring Hastings down. Luna: So what happened to Nandakumar? Lucas: Hastings struck back. Nandakumar was arrested and tried for forgery—an old charge that had been dormant for years. The trial was presided over by Impey and a jury of Englishmen. They convicted him and sentenced him to death by hanging. Luna: That seems... awfully convenient. Lucas: Many contemporaries thought so. Nandakumar was executed in 1775. The case became a scandal back in Britain. Critics said Hastings used his friend the chief justice to murder a political opponent through a sham trial. Francis certainly believed it. Luna: Did anyone in London try to stop it? Lucas: The Company's directors were horrified, but by the time news reached London, Nandakumar was already dead. The Regulating Act had created a system where the Governor-General and the court could combine against enemies—exactly the kind of abuse the act was meant to prevent. Luna: So the first attempt at oversight actually made things worse? Lucas: In many ways, yes. The act didn't fix the fundamental problem: the Company was still a profit-driven corporation governing millions of people. Hastings survived, but his reputation was damaged. Francis kept fighting him until 1780, when they fought a duel—and Francis was shot. Luna: A duel? Over Company politics? Lucas: A duel. Francis took a bullet in the shoulder. Hastings wasn't hurt. After that, Francis left India, but he continued his campaign in Parliament. His writings helped fuel the impeachment of Hastings a few years later. Luna: And the Regulating Act—did it get replaced? Lucas: It was superseded by Pitt's India Act of 1784, which created a Board of Control in London and gave the Governor-General more power over his council. But the 1773 act is important because it set a precedent: the British government could not ignore what the Company was doing in India. Luna: It's a perfect example of good intentions going wrong. Lucas: And it shows how hard it is to govern an empire from thousands of miles away. The act tried to impose checks and balances, but instead it created a toxic mix of personal feuds, unclear authority, and legal confusion. The Nandakumar case still haunts the history of British justice in India. Luna: It really makes you think about how much of history is shaped by individual personalities. Lucas: Absolutely. And speaking of keeping independent history alive—this show is entirely listener-supported. If you've been enjoying these deep dives, a couple of dollars a month at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo genuinely makes a difference in keeping us ad-free and going. Luna: It really does. Every bit helps us keep researching and sharing these stories. Lucas: So back to the aftermath—Hastings survived the council wars, but his troubles weren't over. The Regulating Act also set the stage for his impeachment, which began in 1788 and lasted seven years. That trial became a sensation, with Burke delivering famous speeches against Hastings. Luna: Was Hastings ultimately convicted? Lucas: No, he was acquitted on all charges. But the trial itself was a milestone—it forced the British public to confront the realities of empire. And it all traces back to that flawed act of 1773, which tried to control a company but ended up exposing the deep problems of colonial rule.