'Hereditary Guardians of the Nation': The House of Lords and the East India Company in the Age of the American Revolution.

The reform of the East India Company following its acquisition of vast territories in Bengal in the mid 1760s raised hopes that it could provide Britain with a fund to alleviate the burdens of the national debt in the wake of the failure of American taxation. Concomitantly, it elicited genuine fears...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Parliamentary History Vol. 39; no. 1; pp. 159 - 190
Autores principales: Connors, Richard, Gilding, Ben
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Wiley-Blackwell Feb2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=141660267&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 141660267
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        02642824
        8N5
      jtl: Parliamentary History
      issn: 02642824
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Feb2020
      vid: 39
      iid: 1
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
    artinfo:
      ui:
        141660267
        10.1111/1750-0206.12483
      ppf: 159
      ppct: 31
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: C
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 1.3MB
      tig:
        atl: 'Hereditary Guardians of the Nation': The House of Lords and the East India Company in the Age of the American Revolution.
      aug:
        au:
          Connors, Richard
          Gilding, Ben
      su:
        Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords
        American Revolutionary War, 1775-1783
        East India Co.
        Public demonstrations
        Tahiti (French Polynesia : Island)
      sug:
        subj:
          Tahiti (French Polynesia : Island)
          Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords
          American Revolutionary War, 1775-1783
          East India Co.
          Public demonstrations
      keyword:
        constitution
        East India Company
        Fox‐North coalition
        house of lords
        King George III
        parliament
        politics
        protests
        reform
      ab: The reform of the East India Company following its acquisition of vast territories in Bengal in the mid 1760s raised hopes that it could provide Britain with a fund to alleviate the burdens of the national debt in the wake of the failure of American taxation. Concomitantly, it elicited genuine fears that the acquisition of such revenues and patronage by the state would radically augment the already overgrown 'influence of the crown'. Studies of the parliamentary debates surrounding East India reform have consistently emphasized the house of commons as the principal scene of action. Inspired by the work of Clyve Jones in reasserting the centrality of the house of lords as a 'pillar' of the 18th‐century constitution, this essay seeks to redress the balance, arguing that the Lords was a key arena through which co‐ordinated parliamentary and extra‐parliamentary activities and press campaigns altered the trajectory of the regulation and reform of the East India Company. Through the use of its distinct privileges, such as the right of opposition lords to protest any vote of the House and the right of peers to an audience with the monarch, as well as its determination to uphold its status as a mediator between the powers of the crown and the Commons, the upper chamber played a crucial role in shaping debates in the 1770s and 1780s over the future of the East India Company and its place in a burgeoning British Empire.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Copyright of Parliamentary History is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
      item: Parliamentary History
      holder: Wiley-Blackwell
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2020
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N