British India. But the contrary alternative was almost tacitly
accepted. The directors were "to remain princes, but no longer merchant
princes," and Ellenborough complained that whereas "hitherto the court
had appeared in India as beneficent conquerors, henceforth they would be
mortgagees in possession". Perhaps the ministry shrunk from provoking
the storm of obloquy which must have resulted from placing the vast
patronage of the company in the hands of the crown. At all events, it
was agreed, with little dissent, that under the new charter the company
should nominally retain the reins of power, checked, however, by Pitt's
"board of control," the president of which, in reality, shared a
despotic authority with the governor-general of Bengal, who was
hereafter to be in name what he had long been in fact, governor-general
of India. The bill strengthened his council, and enabled him to
legislate for all India.

At the same time Europeans were permitted to settle and hold land in
India without the necessity of applying for a licence. Lastly, the
principle was laid down, pregnant with future consequences, that all
persons in India, without distinction of race or creed, should be
subject to the same law and eligible for all offices under the
government. Such was the last charter of the great company. It is
interesting to observe that Grant, in admitting that the government of
India under its sway had not been prone "to make any great or rapid
strides in improvement," paid a just tribute to its eminently pacific
character. "It excited vigilance," he said, "against any encroachment of
violence or rapacity; it ensured to the people that which they most
required--repose, security, and tranquillity." The immense annexations
of territory and far-reaching reforms which have created the British
India of the twentieth century were either most reluctantly sanctioned
by the court of directors or have been carried out since its dominion
was transferred to the crown. Irrevocable as they are, and beneficent as
they may be on the whole, they have certainly imposed difficulties of
portentous magnitude upon the rulers of India, nor would it be
surprising if some native survivors of the olden days in far-off
recesses of the country should remember with sad regret the paternal,
though unprogressive, despotism of the sovereign company.

[Pageheading: _THE BANK CHARTER ACT._]

The bank charter act of 1833, having been superseded by that of 1844