On the 5th of December following, the President and Council received a letter from Bengal, requesting that Mr. Sulivan might be allowed to keep his rank.  This request brought on some discussion.  A Mr. Freeman, it seems, who had acted under Mr. Sulivan as Sub-Secretary whilst his principal obtained so much praise for his diligence, addressed the board on the same day, and observed, “that, since Mr. Sulivan’s arrival, he [Mr. Freeman] had, without intermission, done almost the whole of the duty allotted to the post of Secretary, which it was notorious Mr. Sulivan had paid but little attention to; and neither his inclination or duty led him to act any longer as Mr. Sulivan’s deputy.”

Here your Committee cannot avoid remarking the direct contradiction which this address of Mr. Freeman’s gives to the letter from the President and Council to the Court of Directors in April, 1780, wherein Mr. Sulivan is praised for his “diligence and attention in his office of Secretary.”

The President and Council do not show any displeasure at Mr. Freeman’s representation, (so contrary to their own,) the truth of which they thus tacitly admit, but agree to write to the Governor-General and Council, “that it could not be supposed that they could carry on the public business for any length of time without the services of a Secretary and Clerk of Appeals, two offices that required personal attendance, and which would be a general injury to the servants on their establishment, and in particular to the person who acted in those capacities, as they learnt that Mr. Sulivan had been appointed Judge-Advocate-General in Bengal,—­and to request the Governor-General and Council to inform Mr. Sulivan of their sentiments, and to desire him to inform them whether he meant to return to his station or to remain in Bengal.”

On the 5th December, as a mark of their approbation of Mr. Freeman, who had so plainly contradicted their opinion of Mr. Sulivan, the President and Council agree to appoint him to act as Secretary and Clerk of Appeals, till Mr. Sulivan’s answer should arrive, with the emoluments, and to confirm him therein, if Mr. Sulivan should remain in Bengal.

On the 14th February, 1781, the President and Council received a letter from Bengal in reply, and stating their request that Mr. Sulivan might reserve the right of returning to his original situation on the Madras establishment, if the Court of Directors should disapprove of his being transferred to Bengal.  To this request the board at Madras declare they have no objection:  and here the matter rests; the Court of Directors not having given any tokens of approbation or disapprobation of the transaction.

Such is the history of Mr. Sulivan’s service from the time of his appointment; such were the qualifications, and such the proofs of assiduity and diligence given by him in holding so many incompatible offices, (as well as being engaged in other dealings, which will appear in their place,) when, after three years’ desultory residence in India, he was thought worthy to be nominated to the succession to the Supreme Council.  No proof whatsoever of distinguished capacity in any line preceded his original appointment to the service:  so that the whole of his fitness for the Supreme Council rested upon his conduct and character since his appointment as Persian Translator.