note: Stuart and Sulivan's appointment to succeed to vacancies.]

Your Committee find, that, in consequence of the above-mentioned act,
the Honorable Charles Stuart and Mr. Sulivan were appointed to succeed
to the first vacancies in the Supreme Council. Mr. Stuart's first
appointment in the Company's service was in the year 1761. He returned
to England in 1775, and was permitted to go back to India in 1780. In
August, 1781, he was nominated by the Court of Directors (Mr. Sulivan
and Sir William James were Chairman and Deputy-Chairman) to succeed to
the first vacancy in the Supreme Council, and on the 19th of September
following his Majesty's approval of such nomination was requested.

[Sidenote: Mr. Stuart's situation at the time of his appointment.]

In the nomination of Mr. Stuart, the consideration of rank in the
service was not neglected; but if the Court of Directors had thought fit
to examine their records, they would have found matter at least strongly
urging them to a suspension of this appointment, until the charges
against Mr. Stuart should be fully cleared up. That matter remained (as
it still remains) unexplained from the month of May, 1775, where, on the
Bengal Revenue Consultations of the 12th of that month, peculations to a
large amount are charged upon oath against Mr. Stuart under the
following title: "_The Particulars of the Money unjustly taken by Mr.
Stuart, during the Time he was at Burdwan._" The sum charged against him
in this account is 2,17,684 Sicca rupees (that is, 25,253_l._ sterling);
besides which there is another account with the following title: "_The
Particulars of the Money unjustly taken by Callypersaud Bose, Banian to
the Honorable Charles Stuart, Esquire, at Burdwan, and amounting to
Sicca Rupees 1,01,675_" (that is, 11,785_l._),--a large sum to be
received by a person in that subordinate situation.

The minuteness with which these accounts appear to have been kept, and
the precision with which the date of each particular, sometimes of very
small sums, is stated, give them the appearance of authenticity, as far
as it can be conveyed on the face or in the construction of such
accounts, and, if they were forgeries, laid them open to an easy
detection. But no detection is easy, when no inquiry is made. It appears
an offence of the highest order in the Directors concerned in this
business, when, not satisfied with leaving such charges so long
unexamined, they should venture to present