EAST INDIA COMPANY LOBBY IN BRITISH PARLIAMENT, 1763–1813: COMPOSITION, EVOLUTION OF STRUCTURE AND POLITICAL ACTIVITY
A. V. YESMAN a
aBelarusian State University, 4 Niezaliežnasci Avenue, Minsk 220030, Belarus
In the article author, based on the created database, which includes various information about 838 members of the lobby, analyses the quantity, composition and changes in the structure of the lobby of the English East India Company in British Parliament from the end of the seven-year war to the abolition of its monopoly in 1813. Methods of statistical analysis and sample processing used to obtain the result. The author concludes that the companyʼs lobby, depending on the level of its memberʼs involvement of into its affairs, can be divided into 4 main group. The article also analyzes the quantitative results of voting by members of the lobby on a wide range of issues discussed in the British Parliament during the designated period. It revealed that the greatest activity and quantity of East India Companyʼs lobby in the British Parliament observed in the late 1760s – first half of 1780s. However, the Company and its lobby nevertheless did not have sufficient influence to fully broadcast and defend their interests in the Parliament of Great Britain. Moreover, in most cases, members of the lobby, in particular the former stockholders of the Company, held positions opposing the active Ministries.
Key words: East India Company; Great Britain; Parliamentary history; Modern history; XVIII century; XIX century.
East India Company (EIC), being an important subject of Great Britain, performed as not only a trade and economic unit, but it also played an important role as a political subject of Great Britain. This manifested itself not only in its role as the conqueror of new lands for the British Empire, but also as an important part of the British political agenda. EIC appears in many issues in the parliamentary discourse of the United Kingdom of that time, beginning the formation of the UK budget [1, p. 1055–1600; 2, p. 359], its mentioning in connection with gaining independence of the British Colonies [3, p. 1165; 4, p. 119], and ending with a stormy debate over its role as the manager of a part of the British Empire [5, p. 225–255; 6, p. 644–646; 7, p. 191–194; 8, p. 1071–1072; 9, p. 129–131] superior in size to the metropolis. It even caused the overthrow of the Fox Ministry and the entire political course of the whole country. Therefore, we can say with confidence that the EIC played a particular role in British policy and consequently influenced it. The only question is how successfully it was. Therefore, in order to solve this problem, the author decided to analyze the activities of the EIC in the British Parliament, as the supreme authority of Britain along with the Crown.
Qualitative aspects of the influence of the EICʼs lobby on British policy were considered most fully by C. H. Philips [10] and L. Sutherland [11] in their fundamental works, but a quantitative analysis of this phenomenon has not yet been conducted.
East India Company lobby can be called with confidence as the conductor and the instrument of influ-
ence of the EIC in the British Parliament. Therefore, to determine the extent of its influence, first it will be appropriate to consider the composition and evolution of the structure of its lobby in the British Parliament. Based on the specifics of the subject of research, the Companyʼs lobby in the British Parliament will be appropriately divided into three main groups, depending on the level of involvement of its members in the affairs of the Company and the level of attachment to it (Company)1.
The first such a group should be attributed to the directors and chairman of the Company, whose certain number were in parliament permanently. In our calculations, we will also take into account the former members of the Companyʼs Court of Directors. This group can be characterized by the most direct attitude of its members to the activities and affairs of the Company. They also were its governing body, and were responsible for its welfare and development to the members of the General Court of Proprietors, and later to the Parliament and to the Board of Control [12, p. 441].
The second group consists of members of parliament associated with the Companyʼs military activity, who were, the military commanders of the EIC forces and presidencies or served in the Bengal or Madras army establishment of the Company in East Indies, their adjutant, personal assistants etc. This group also includes civil servants of the Company, such as writers, traders of various ranks in Indian and Chinese establishments of Company, captains of the companyʼs ships and other employees in the maritime service of
1 All data for the quantity and composition of members of the Companyʼs lobby in Parliament based on a database made by the author. It is based on the East India Company Main Stock: Stock Ledgers, 1761–1818 (Vol. 13–35), Registers of subscribers to the £ 800,000 stock of 1786 (1786–1787) (Vol. 246–247) containing information on all EIC stock transactions for the period under investigation. Identification of MPs made in accordance with information from CCR, CCK, RK, GCA records. Information about directors and their terms of service are taken from Parker J. G. The Directors of the East India Company, 1754–1790; Philips C. H. The East India Company: 1784–1834; Namier L., Brooke J. The History of Parliament: The House of Commons, 1754–1790; Thorne R. G. The History of Parliament: The House of Commons, 1790–1820. Data on membership in the companyʼs civil or military service taken from MPs biographies from Namier L., Brooke J. The History of Parliament: The House of Commons, 1754–1790; Thorne R. G. The History of Parliament: The House of Commons, 1790–1820. In general, the database contains data on 838 members of the EIC lobby in the Parliament in the period from 1763 to 1813.
71
the EIC, as well as representatives of the administration staff, courts, committees etc. All people who made their careers and fortunes during the service under the EIC, in most cases had strong connections with each other, but a lower level of self-organization [13, p. 228].
The third major group of the lobby includes members of parliament who owned stock of the Company at the time they were members of parliament, or who owned its stock before they were elected as MPs. It was the largest lobby group on one hand, and on the other, had the most insignificant connection with the Company in due to the nature of their belonging to the EIC, based mainly on the economic factor or in the interest of participation in the companyʼs internal life [14, p. 39–40], with a weak translation of its interests within the parliament.
We should notice that we did not include in the composition of lobby relatives, close friends and colleagues of active members of the lobby due to very hypothetical the nature of such a relations and in Companyʼs affairs. Author also does not include in the composition of lobby the persons associated with shipping interest within the Company because the information on it is fragmentary and cannot objectively reflect the reality.
It should also be noted that each of these lobby groups had its own structure and development, therefore their importance throughout the period of research has constantly being changed.
The directors group of lobby was composed of both active and former directors of the EIC. The analysis of EIC directors amount, shows us that this value was not so big and had an average value of 10,27 members per year, which did not exceed 1,4–1,7 % of the total number of MPs (558 before and 658 members after the 1st January 1801 under the «Acts of Union 1800»). 5,3 and 4,9 of mentioned below persons were, respectively, active and former directors. It should also mention that such a small number of members is not sufficient to form even a small group of interests, apart from a separate political grouping; also, the situation was often complicated by the presence of discrepancies in opinions between directors themselves, associated to their different affiliation with interest groups within the EIC itself [15, p. 97].
Mention should be made of the variation on the number of directors, for example, during the Parliament of 1761–1768 the number of directors was at the level of 6–8 such a members.
However, in the next Parliament from 1768 to 1774 the same value was between 11–14 members, except for the period before the elections to the Court of Directors in April 1769. When this value dropped to 7 MPs. The peak value for this period was 14 members, reached in May 1772 and lasted until the elections to the Court of Directors in the April 1773.
During the next two Parliaments (1774–1784), the size of the Directors Group in the parliament was constantly changing. The analysis of quantity of directors
in Parliament helps us to detect two main trends in its development of this period. The first trend aimed at decrease, has a period from the election to the Court of Directors in April 1775, when there were 14 directors to December 1780 – January 1781, when its value reached 7 members. After this point, the second trend begins, tended at a constant increase in value of Directors lobby, reached again by August 1784, just in time of the discussion of Bill Pitt, the value of 14 members.
During the next 3 parliaments (1784–1801), the amount of the Directors Group stabilized and was at the level between 10–13 members. In the same period, we can also see a constant trend to the reduction of the former EIC directors in the Parliament and their rotation by active ones. Thus, if in January-April 1789 their value was 8 out of a total 12 members, then by May 1800 this ratio was already 2 to 8, respectively. Moreover, it held out at this level until January 1801. For previous Parliaments, from 1763 until November 1774, the ratio of former to active directors was on an average level over 60 %.
After the Union of Parliaments in early 1801, the quantity of the Directors lobby in Parliament raised, in June-December 1805 it reached a maximum for the entire study period level of 15 members.
Later, after the elections of 1806, the situation for the Company is drastically changed. Almost half of the directors from the previous General Election did not pass into the new Parliament, and in May 1807, their number drops to 7 members. The same quantitative distribution can be applied for the value of former directors, making up more than 60 % of the total Di-rectorʼs Lobby of the Company until the next election to the Court of Directors in April 1809. After such a huge reduction of its lobby, Company tries to rectify the situation in the election to the Court of Directors by increasing her lobby to 10 people, by increasing the number of active directors in the lobby to the 75 % of the total value by June 1811 – April 1812. However, until the end of 1813, this group of lobby is constantly decreasing, stopping at the value of 6 MPs by 31 December 1813 and reaching the level of almost 50 years ago value, as it was in 1766–1767.
The second group of the lobby consisted of the Companyʼs representatives of military and civil service, and was much more numerous than the Direc-torʼs lobby. The annual average number of members of this lobby was 21,46 MPs, which is twice more than the number of the Directorʼs lobby.
It is also interesting to analyze the evolution of its structure, which allows us to identify with confidence 3 main stages in changing of the quantity of the lobby subgroup related to the civil or military service of the Company and possessing stock at the time of their presence in the Parliament. The first stage from January 1763 to July 1802 characterized by a constant increase in the number of members presented in this lobby; the maximum value was reached in March –
72
April 1794 and had a value of 27 MPs. After that moment, we can see a gradual decline in the quantity of the lobby, reaching by 1 of July 1802 the value of 15, almost twice times less than 8 years ago.
The second stage begins from August 1802 and lasted until the end of October 1806, completely covers the period of 1802–1806 the Tory Parliament, headed by Henry Eddington. The average number of that subgroup in this period is 32,8, reaching a peak of 36 MPs in July-August 1804, and not falling below the value of 30 members throughout the entire period.
The next period covers the activities of the three parliaments (from 1806 to 1813), and much differs from Parliament to Parliament. During the Parliament of 1806–1807, subgroups representativesʼ value reduced to 23–25 members. In the parliament of 1806– 1812, its value falls to 15 in May – July 1807, reaching a minimum of 13 by August 1808 – February 1809. After this moment, there we can see a constant increase of members of the subgroup to 20 by August 1812. The Parliament we after the General Election of 1812 characterizes by a stable constant number of members of the subgroup with a value of 16–18 MPs.
In addition to the members of subgroup, who held the Companyʼs stock at the time of their membership in parliament, there were two other subgroups – former stockholders, who have got rid of them for some reason, and those employees of the company who have never owned its stock. Last group subgroup was significantly smaller, compared to the one former stockowners, their annual average value was MPs, or 2 times less than those who owned stock.
In general, the changes in the quantity of these two subgroups of the lobby is described identical to the previous group (active stockowners), with the only significant difference in the times of the parliament of 1802–1806, when this value drops to 2–5 people throughout the entire stage. This is especially noticeable among a group of former owners of shares, in which only one person remained.
It is also necessary to mention the belongings of these subgroups to the civil or military service of the company. For example, in a subgroup of stockholders employees of the Company with experience in civil service occupied more than 2/3 of the total, until the second half of the 1790s. The rest had military experience or having both civil and military together. Later the situation changed and the number of people who had military experience or both military and civil experience increased, but civil servants still constituted a majority with an value of 50–60 %, the situation changed only slightly during the Parliament of 1802– 1806 when these figures returned to level up for 1790s.
In a subgroup of people who never owned stock, the situation looks somewhat different, there, on the contrary, until 1807 there was a parity between the two mentioned groups. That parity tended to move toward civil servants, as was in the late 1780s – early 1790s,
or in the direction of military or civil-military servants as it was in the first half of 1770s – beginning of the 1780s. Only after the General Election of 1807, the situation changed in favor of the civil service, who at that time constitute over 70 % of the total amount. In the subgroup of former stockholders, the advantage was also on the side of civil servants, the number of former military or who had both civil and military experience did not exceed two people throughout the whole period under research.
The last and the largest group of the lobby consist of the stockholders of the company with the exclusion of people mentioned above. Quantitative composition of this lobby is expectedly the largest of all others. It shall also be noted that it could be divided into 2 large subgroups: members of parliament who owned stock being the members of parliament, and members of parliament who had owned stock in the past and by the time they were elected to parliament they got rid of it.
The first subgroup is more numerous in comparison to the second; almost constantly prevailing in the number, with the exception of a short period of first half of 1780s, and its average annual value was about 70 people. Quantitatively changing throughout the period, this subgroup of lobby has its own distinct stages, for example, from 1763 up to the General election of 1780 its value is constantly growing, reaching a peak of 99 people in May April 1775.
After it begins the period of the decline started from the 1780s to the General Election in May – June 1796, the average number of members of this subgroup in this period is 67 people.
The next period from 1796 to 1802 was the most stable in the quantity of the lobby; the number of members of this group seldom falls below 70 people, averaging 73,7 MPs annually. Later on, until the end of the period under investigation, the number of members of this group constantly falls, reaching in 1812 the level of 1768 year with the exponent of nearly 80 members.
The second subgroup includes the members of the British Parliament, who previously owned the EIC stock during the period under investigation, but at the time of their being as MP already sold all of it. The average annual number of this group during the entire period is about 50 people.
The changes in the quantitative composition of the subgroup resembles the composition of first subgroup; it also has a period of gradual increase in the number, combined with cyclical kickbacks up to the elections of 1790. This is especially noticeable in parliaments 1768–1774, 1774–1780, 1780–1784. The peak value in this period, which is also the peak value for the entire period under study, was reached in September 1773 with a value of 74 members. However, the period of 1790–1813, is essentially looks like a mirror image of the corresponding period of the stockholders subgroup.
73
In general, analyzing the total number of the members in this group of lobby, we can make a conclusion that it reached its maximum by the second half of the 1770s, with the value of 161–162 members by March 1778 – August 1779. Since the General election in 1780, the number of members of the lobby has constantly been decreased with the exception of rare periods of growth and stabilization during the time of the Parliaments of 1796 – 1807, stopped at the end of the period under study with the value at around 100 people.
Knowing the quantity and composition of the lobby during the whole period, we can begin to analyze its influence on the decision-making process in the Parliament of Great Britain. The constant struggle of parliamentary factions for political power in the Parliament, which can be contingently divided into two main groups – the parliamentary majority and the opposition, was one of the main aims in political system of Great Britain. Therefore, the struggle to drag the MPs with undefined position, and small parliamentary groups can be characterized as one of the main activities in the British parliamentary world. The lobby of the EIC, as was shown above, was quite significant force in the parliament, so the tug of its members to the side of one of the two groups was an important action for the leaders of the Tories and Whigs [16, p. 22–23].
To determine the direct contribution of the com-panyʼs lobby to the voting process, we have analyzed all the votes of the members of the Companyʼs lobby and divided the results into groups according to their grades for EIC lobby groups within the parliament. So based on the results we can clearly distinguish 2 main periods in their main trend for all the major groups of lobby1.
The first period has a chronological framework in the years 1763 – 1790. It covers the period of activity of the first five Parliaments under consideration, and characterized by the highest level of activity of EIC lobby members in the British Parliament, the number of votes in it is significantly higher than in the second period. It should also be noted that there is a clear visible division of the lobby into the support and opposition, with their up and down periods, depending on the lobby group.
In this period of activity of the Directorʼs lobby can be characterized by the constant presence in the voting of opposition members. Therefore, from the 28 questions discussed in the parliament at this time, at least one directorʼs voice in 20 cases investigated belonged to the opposition, while the main ministers supported only in 10 cases.
Analyzing the structure of the answers in those cases when the directorsʼ votes were divided between support and the opposition, there exact value is 9 ques-
tions, the preponderance was in majority of cases on the side of the current Ministry. With the exception in May 1769, when in the voting for Lutrell Declared Duly Elected their votes divided equally (6 to 6). Thus, we can say that during the time of the parliaments of 1761–1774. The opinion of the directors was mainly on the side of the opposition, and this was unanimous opinion, in the cases when the directors voted together with the acting ministry, their own colleagues usually opposed them, although the last ones were in the minority.
In the time of the next three parliaments, covering the period from the beginning of 1775 to 1790, the situation changed. For almost every recorded issue there was a small number of directors (from 1 to 5 people) who were in opposition to the acting ministry. Directors were against the will of the ministry for some 31 issues out of 43 issues considered in the parliament in this period.
The situation with the directors supporting the ministry are completely different, their importance and influence has been constantly growing from 1775 to 1790, in 20 out of 43 issues the directors voted with the Ministry, which was almost half of the total number of questions against one third in the previous period. It is also worth noting that in all these issues the preponderance was always on the side of supporters the Ministry, with the exception of voting on the question about pensions granted by the Crown on February 21, 1780, when the votes were divided equally (3 to 3). However, in the second reading in 2 weeks, the preponderance was already on the side of the supporters of the ministry with a ratio of 3 to 1. This support is particularly noticeable during the time of the Parliament of 1784–1790, after the fall of the Fox Ministry, when in 5 out of 11 recorded cases the majority of directors were on the side of the Ministry and only in one case (Irish Commercial Proposition held on 12 May 1785) with the only 1 director voted with opposition.
We also need to highlight the vote of the EIC directors on the Fox and Pitt East India Bills. On November 27, 1783, during a voting on the Fox Bill, the directors took the side of the Ministry by voting with a majority of votes (5 against 2, out of a total number of nine directors who were at that time in Parliament) against the introduction of Foxʼs bill. There is only data on the vote of 2 directors out of 14 present who voted against the introduction Pitts India Bill, but we should say that their votes, together with the votes of the other MPS, were in the minority and with the result 273 against 62 bills was passed [17, p. 5].
After the General elections in 1790, a new period in the activity of the Directorʼs group in Parliament begins. During this period, in the overwhelming majority
1 The statistical data for the voting results of 838 members the East India Company lobby in British Parliament in 1763–1813, analyzed below, compiled on the basis of the above-mentioned database of members of the EIC lobby, with theirs correlation with over 12 thousand voting record taken from the Ginter D. E. Voting Records of the British House of Commons, 1761–1820.
74
of the issues, the votes of the directors were against the position of the Ministry. The level of the direc-torsʼ involvement in the parliamentary elections also changed. Until the end of 1798, directors participated only in 42 out of 78 questions on which the voting took place in the parliament. Only in two of them having the directorsʼ votes on the side of the ministry, in June 1797 on the question about Loan subscription, and in January 1798 on the question about postponement of Assessed Taxes [18, p. 414–420] with a contribution of 2 and 7 votes respectively.
From the beginning of 1799 to the beginning of 1805, starts the period of the lowest activity of the Di-rectorʼs lobby in the parliament, of the 66 questions discussed in the parliament at that time directors took part only in 13 of them, with the very low level of involvement which was about 1,5 votes per question. The only relative spike in activity observed in April-June 1804, when questions such as Irish Militia Augmentation Bill, Defense of the Country and English & Scottish Military Suspension Bill [18, p. 490–506] were discussed in the parliament, but even in these cases, they voted against the Ministry.
Since 1805 until the beginning of 1811, the main behavioral trend is changing. Directors again go back to the activity in the voting. Of the 88 questions discussed at this time, the directors participated in 35, or more than in every third. It should also be noted that, at that time, there were some discrepancies in the voting of Directors, especially in 1810, when out of 10 questions on which the voting results were preserved; opinions were divided into 6 cases in favor of the ministry. With the exception of voting on question for Abolition and Regulation of Sinecures [19, p. 681–685] in May 1810, with a division of 2 against 1, not in favor of the Ministry. Particular mention should be made of the voting on issues of requesting for papers about Indian & Board of Control [18, p. 539–540] and second reading of The Repeal of Additional Force Act [18, p. 540–547], in 1806 when 8 directors of the EIC voted with supporters, in the first case an absolute majority of 7 against 1, and in the second case, all 8 voted with the ministry.
A small surge was actively observed only in 1813, when the time for the extension of the EIC Charter came. However, it was expressed only in the vote on a number of issues related to the sending of Christian missionaries to India, where the directors supported the ministry with 3 votes for and 1 against. The issue of the extension of the OIC charter, as well as the licensing of EIC traders, left completely without directorʼs attention.
The next group under analysis is the representatives of military and civil service of the EIC, whose parliamentary vote is generally similar to a group of directors, but there are some significant differences in its distribution. The first is in the larger quantity of this group, and consequently in its greater contribution compared to the group of directors. The second
difference is that the members of this group were more active in voting, the number of questions in which the members of this lobby took a vote significantly higher than this value in the group of directors the exact value.
The results of the distribution of the votes of this group are also somewhat different. For example, during the first five parliaments, 1763–1790, the opinion of the members of the group more often did not coincide with the opinion of the Ministry, until February 1771, before the discussion of the question about the Publication of Debates by Whelbe [18, p. 83]. The absolute majority of both the members of the lobby and their votes were given against the opinion of the Ministry, with the differences at such a questions as Parliamentary Competence to Regulate Regency and Regency Questions [18, p. 301–323]. As well as with the exception of questions about Expulsion of Wilkes [18, p. 49–56], Middlesex Election Return [18, p. 56–63], Luttrell Declared Duty Elected [18, p. 63–571] when the preponderance, although not great, was on the side of supporting the ministry, in all other issues of the 60ʼs supporters of the Ministry does not actually figure.
During the next parliament of 1774–1780 the situation continues to change, the number of members of the lobby opposite to the ministry is growing. Moreover, although its (Ministryʼs) supporters still occupy a leading position, their ratio tends to parity, as it was for example in December 1778 in voting on the question about American Conciliation Proclamation [18, p. 128–131] when the number of votes of both sides was equal. In 1780–1790, the tendency we have outlined to achieve parity between the opposition and those who support the current ministry has continued and reached its apogee, which was most clearly expressed in the voting on the question about Insufficient Forces of Admiral Keppel, Regency Question and Provision for Resumption of the Authority of the King [18, p. 301–332] when the votes were distributed in the ratio 13, 14, 8 to 16, 16, 14 respectively.
From the beginning of the 90s until the end of the 1800s, the parliamentary vote in its essence is similar to that of the directors, except that they voted on a larger number of issues. In fact, this group throughout the whole phase is an opposition grouping to the acting ministries, only occasionally speaking in their support, as it was, on questions postponement of Assessed Taxes with a value of 47 versus 5 and Repeal of Additional Force Act with a value of 25 versus 13.
In 1813, during the voting on the sending of Christian missionaries to India [19, p. 835–842], votes of the members of this group of lobby, unlike the Directorʼs lobby, were given by the absolute majority in line with the position of the ministry from the value of 24, 20, 17 versus 4, 4, 5 respectively. Speaking about the voting on the extension of the EIC Charter and the licensing of the EIC trade, here the lobby of the Company as well as the directors did not show much enthusiasm in the
75
voting, having expressed 1 to 1 and 1 to 3 for support and against the ministry, respectively.
The last group of lobby – stockholders and former stockholders divided into 2 parts because of the significant difference in the results of their voting. The voting behavior of stockholders subgroup is quite similar in general to the two previous groups. For example, in the first period of activity (1761–1790) in the late 1960s it also had a powerful opposition lobby, actively voted by the majority, on all the question recorded for that period. With the exception of questions about Expulsion of Wilkes, Middlesex Election Return, Luttrell Declared Duty Elected when the preponderance, though not great, was on the side of those supporting the Ministry, in all other issues of the 60s. The supporters of the ministry does not actually figure.
The last of the groups analyzed by us, the former stockholders, has its own parliamentary behavior, characterized by an even more vivid expression of the opposition attitude towards the opinion of the Ministry.
Therefore, particularly in the first period (1761– 1790), the majority of votes from all the issues we are examining were against the opinion of the ministry. The majority opposed 54 out of 71 questions, discussed in the parliament. In the other question where the majority also belonged to the ministry supporters, the number of supporters was not much different from the number of opposition votes. For example, in cases of voting for Insufficient Forces of Admiral Keppel, Regency Question and Provision for Resumption of the Authority of the King the difference between opposition and supporters was only 1–3 votes with a total of 53, 63 and 39 votes, respectively. It should be noted that in on the voting for the Fox India Bill, this group also voted by a majority of 29 versus 14 against the adoption of this bill; and all 8 recorded votes were cast against the adoption of Pittʼs India Bill.
The same tendency for the dominance of oppositional members continues until the end of the period
under investigation. We should also mention some extraordinary cases of the voting behavior of this subgroup. For example, on the question for Assessed Taxes representatives of that subgroup voted together with the ministry with value 12 votes to 9, but this indicator was significantly different from the three groups mentioned above, where the absolute majority supported the acting ministry, in contrast to the units that had risen to the opposition. A similar situation was during the voting for Parliamentary Reform [19, p. 633–641], and on the resolution about John Gale Jones [19, p. 674–680], the votes distributed evenly with value 10 to 10, despite the fact that other groups of lobby supported the Ministry by an absolute majority. Also for the question about Expedition to Scheldt [19, p. 657–668] this group voted by majority against the position of the ministry that no other group has done before.
Thus, after analyzing the structure and the result of the vote of the EIC Lobby in Parliament, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1)	the East India Company played the essential role in the political life of Great Britain in 1763–1784, when its lobby and the activity of its members were of the highest level, after it the Company begin to decrease its quantity and voting activity;
2)	all groups of E. I. Companyʼs lobby characterized by a predominant opposition to the existing Ministries, even despite some individual issues described in the text of the article. Subgroup of former stockholders had he most oppositional behavior and views between all other groups. The Directors group voted more with government than other groups, especially between 1770s and late 1780s;
3)	the general conclusion is that the EIC, although it had a large lobby in the Parliament, did not have sufficient influence due to its disunity, which resulted in the adoption of Regulating Act of 1773, Pitts India Bill of 1784 and East India Company Act 1813, which ended Companyʼs trade monopoly with India.
References
1.	Cobbett W. Hansardʼs Parliamentary History of England, from The Earliest Period to the year 1803 : in 36 vols. London : T. C. Hansard, 1806. Vol. 34.
2.	Hansardʼs Parliamentary Debates (1st series) : in 41 vols. London : T. C. Hansard, 1803–1814. Vol. 2.
3.	Cobbett W. Hansardʼs Parliamentary History of England, from The Earliest Period to the year 1803 : in 36 vols. London : T. C. Hansard, 1806. Vol. 17.
4.	Cobbett W. Hansardʼs Parliamentary History of England, from The Earliest Period to the year 1803 : in 36 vols. London : T. C. Hansard, 1806. Vol. 18.
5.	Hansardʼs Parliamentary Debates (1st series)	: in 41	vols. London	:	T.	C. Hansard, 1803. Vol.	4.
6.	Hansardʼs Parliamentary Debates (1st series)	: in 41	vols. London	:	T.	C. Hansard, 1803. Vol.	5.
7.	Hansardʼs Parliamentary Debates (1st series)	: in 41	vols. London	:	T.	C. Hansard, 1803. Vol.	9.
8.	Hansardʼs Parliamentary Debates (1st series)	: in 41	vols. London	:	T.	C. Hansard, 1803. Vol.	10.
9.	Hansardʼs Parliamentary Debates (1st series)	: in 41	vols. London	:	T.	C. Hansard, 1803. Vol.	11.
10.	Philips C. H. The East India Company: 1784–1834. Manchester : Manchester University Press, 1961.
11.	Sutherland L. The East India Company in Eighteens Century Politics. Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1952
12.	Philips C. H. The New East India Board and the Court of Directors, 1784. Engl. Hist. Rev. 1940. Vol. 55, No. 219. Р. 438–446. DOI: 10.1093/lnr/LV.CCXIX.438.
76
13.	Lawson P., Phillips J. «Our Execrable Banditti»: Perceptions of Nabobs in Mid-Eighteenth Century Britain. Albion: Q. J. Concerned Br. Stud. 1984. Vol. 16, No. 3. Р. 225–241. DOI: 10.2307/4048755.
14.	Bowen H. V. «Dipped in the traffic»: East India Stockholders in The House of Commons 1768–1774. Parliam. Hist. 1986. Vol. 5. Р. 39–53. DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-0206.1986.tb00665.x.
15.	Philips C. H. The East India Company «Interest» and the English Government, 1783-4: (The Alexander Prize Essay). Trans. Royal Hist. Soc. 1937. Vol. 20. Р. 83–101. DOI: 10.2307/3678594.
16.	Sutherland L. The East India Company in Eighteenth-Century Politics. Econ. Hist. Rev. 1947. Vol. 17, issue 1. Р. 15–26. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0289.1947.tb01871.x.
17.	Ginter D. E. Voting Records of the British House of Commons, 1761–1820 : in 6 vols. London : Hambledon Press, 1995. Vol. 1.
18.	Ginter D. E. Voting Records of the British House of Commons, 1761–1820 : in 6 vols. London : Hambledon Press, 1995. Vol. 5.
19.	Ginter D. E. Voting Records of the British House of Commons, 1761–1820 : in 6 vols. London : Hambledon Press, 1995. Vol. 6.
Received by editorial board 21.11.2017.
77