he 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.

Your Committee find that his Majesty has not yet given his approbation
to the nomination, made by the Court of Directors on the 30th of August,
1781, of Messrs. Stuart and Sulivan to succeed to the Supreme Council on
the first vacancies, though the Court applied for the royal approbation
so long ago as the 19th of September, 1781; and in these instances the
king's ministers performed their duty, in withholding their countenance
from a proceeding so exceptionable and of so dangerous an example.

Your Committee, from a full view of the situation and duties of the
Court of Directors, are of opinion that effectual means ought to be
taken for regulating that court in such a manner as to prevent either
rivalship with or subserviency to their servants. It might, therefore,
be proper for the House to consider whether it is fit that those who
are, or have been within some given time, Directors of the Company,
should be capable of an appointment to any offices in India. Directors
can never properly govern those for whose employments they are or may be
themselves candidates; they can neither protect nor coerce them with due
impartiality or due authority.

If such rules as are stated