regal property. This was not pecular to India; in all the great monarchies of the Eaft the fole property of land feems to be vested in the Sovereign as lord paramount." After being apprized of the publication by the Secretary of the Board of Control, he waves giving an opinion: "Did I poffefs fuch knowledge, either of the state of India or of the fyftem of administration established there, as would be requifite for comparing these different theories, and determining which of them merits the preference, the subject of my researches does not render it neceffary to enter into fuch a difquifition."

The supplemental information on which Dr. Robertfon's opinion, waved in oppofition to his own researches, have been demonftrated in the preceding pages to be unfounded; and it does not appear that he was correctly informed of the judgement formed in 1786. He might even have had access to the Directors' letter of the 12th

• Strabo, lib. xv, p. 1030. Diodorus Siculus, lib. ii, p. 153.

April, 1786, to the Governor General and Council, without being relieved from his perplexity, for it might be read by Sir John Macpherson, the Governor, to whom

was addreffed, as a complete explicit approbation of the retrenchments stated in the Bengal inspection letters, 25th March and 31ft July, 1785, and of the system in the revenue letter, 1ft August, 1785, as an acknowledgement of his zeal and activity, and an affurance of a co-operative support to Sir John Macpherson, both from the Directors and from the fuperior adminiftration, in the moft liberal and ufeful extent, which he had folicited in his letter of the 25th March: it alfo expressly ftates that the Committee of Revenue had done properly in ftating queries before they proceeded to fettlement of B. year 1192, or 1785, entered in the revenue confultations, 6th June; and that the Directors had entire fatisfaction in Sir John Macpherfon's conftruction of the statute of 1784.

Those who know the different systems or opinions, and read in the same letter that the ultimate determination of the Di

rectors were confirmed by Mr. Shore, "whofe judicious reflections had been perufed with much attention," and that Mr. Francis's opinion, in January 1776, is referred to in confirmation of it, will not be furprised that the fame letter fhould follow up the approbation, with doubts of the propriety of Sir John Macpherson's inftruction to the Committee of Revenue to encourage Zemindars to pay their revenue immediately to the Khalfha, and to reject, as nugatory, both Sir John Macpherson's plans to avoid balances; the one in October, 1783, to appoint a department to collect bilances only; the other in 1787, not to remit balances without the exprefs order of the Directors, but to accept the fecurity of the Zemindary, and legal intereft on the amount of the arrears; the latter judicious measure, to cut off the traffic of remiffion or fraudulent balances, in the letter of 12th April, is called, " charging Zemin

dars in arrear with an additional affeffment of 12 or 13 per cent. :" and when the letter is found finally to conclude with laying down the Directors' principles and rules of conftruction of the act of 1784, and the

steps neceffary to precede the execution of the system resulting from their researches, though entrusted oftenfibly to Sir John Macpherson's integrity and zeal, seem in fact intended, as they proved to be, the inftruction to his fucceffor, and to anticipate a fanction to the system which Sir John Shore executed immediately after the arrival of the Marquis Cornwallis in India. These obfervations I mean to apply to the neceffity of correct investigation as the bafis of comprehenfive control, for the purpose of substantial justice to the individual, or to the public; the interest of an individual in a high station was here involved; but it is unneceffary for me to complicate the prefent investigation with the interests of individuals. Sir John Macpherfon had fucceeded to the government under the provifion of an exifting act of Parliament; and about the date of the above-mentioned letter, a friend of Sir John Macpherson's, then in Parliament, who had no claim to ministerial confidence, stated his conftruction of the act, and inquired whether Sir John Macpherson was to be fuperfeded from motives of expediency

or of difapprobation. Mr. Dundas, in my hearing, told the member, that though he had a good opinion of Sir John Macpherfon, and he had recommended him to a mark of his Majefty's favour, he thought it his duty to endeavour to fend to India a person whom it would be no difgrace to Sir John Macpherson to make way for. An opinion fo given was no state secret whence it follows that there was lefs management or concealment in the Prefident of the Board of Control, than in the correfpondence of the Directors. Sir John Macpherson was created a Baronet, June 10, 1786. Lord Cornwallis was appointed Governor General, and the defects in his appointment were legalized by a special act of Parliament: the defects in Sir John Macpherson's removal from his Government were not legalized, poffibly from the confideration, that the facrifice of the fituation of an individual, to the public, might fafely be left to the generofity of the Company and of the Board of Control, who had not, on fuch occafions, been deficient in justice or in liberality. Confining myself, therefore, to the public confideration, as