Macaulay states,
"Report--to which, however, I can scarce give credit--assigns this
disgraceful production to the pen of a noted Barrister. Be that as it
may, Major Hart stands fully (be this as it may, equally fully)
responsible." Major-General Macaulay's _official_ statement is, "Major
Hart addressed a letter to the Court of Directors, dated the 22d of last
month: that libellous letter has not yet been printed, by order of the
Court of Directors, for the use of the Proprietors; but Major Hart has
thought fit to print and widely to send it into circulation. I am sorry
that it is not inserted in the Papers respecting the _Mandamus_; the
reason may be, that the Court of Directors, possibly viewing it in the
light I do, could not have thought it proper to make themselves
accessaries to the circulation of a defamatory document, unaccompanied
by explanations from me. To that letter from Major Hart is appended a
declaration, under the signature of three General Officers; Gen. Sir
John Floyd (Bart. omitted), Lieut.-Gen. Brown, and Lieut.-Gen. Bridges,
on what these officers are pleased to term _some important points
connected with_ Major Hart's case. The words in Italics are so printed
in the original."

Proprietors!--Have you never heard of a "Review of _some important
passages_ in the Administration of Sir George Barlow, Bart. by Charles
Marsh, Esq. M.P.?" have you never heard that this "noted Barrister" is
the probable author of an anonymous Report of Mr. Sherson's case, if not
of his trial itself, or will you not hear your own Directors?

"The two following Papers, _although private_, having already appeared
in print, are here (the Records of the Company) inserted for the
information of the Proprietors; but it _does not_ appear from (here) the
Records of the Company, that they were ever (during 16 long years)
_officially_ communicated to the Court of Directors." The two Papers
are, "A Letter from the Right Hon. Henry Dundas to David Scott, Esq."
a deceased Director; and an enclosure in the foregoing, signed "William
Dundas," and "T. Wallace;" which last paper has actually been called
by some _A Report of the Board of Controul_. On the other hand, the
deceased Mr. David Scott's authority to correspond and correspondence do
not appear.

So, in Mr. Sherson's case, there has been published an unsigned or
anonymous Report of it, by a Mr. Halhed, one of the clerks in the
India-House, whose error "was not his first" of the ki