This attempt in the Directors was the more surprising, when it is considered that two committees of this House were at that very time sitting upon an inquiry that related directly to their conduct, and that of their servants in India.
It was in the same spirit of defiance of Parliament, that at the same time they nominated Mr. Sulivan, son to the then Chairman of the Court Mr. Sulivan's situation at the time of his appointment.of Directors, to the succession to the same high trust in India. On these appointments, your Committee thought it proper to make those inquiries which the Court of Directors thought proper to omit. They first conceived it fitting to inquire what rank Mr. Sulivan bore in the service; and they thought it not unnecessary here to state the gradations in the service, according to the established usage of the Company.
The Company's civil servants generally go to India as writers, in which capacity they serve the Company five years. The next step, in point of rank, is to be a factor, and next to that a junior merchant; in each of which capacities they serve the Company three years. They then rise to the rank of senior merchant, in which situation they remain till called by rotation to the Board of Trade. Until the passing of the Regulation Act, in 1773, seniority entitled them to succeed to the Council, and finally gave them pretensions to the government of the Presidency.
The above gradation of the service, your Committee conceive, ought never to be superseded by the Court of Directors, without evident reason, in persons or circumstances, to justify the breach of an ancient order. The names, whether taken from civil or commercial gradation, are of no moment. The order itself is wisely established, and tends to provide a natural guard against partiality, precipitancy, and corruption in patronage. It affords means and opportunities for an examination into character; and among the servants it secures a strong motive to preserve a fair reputation. Your Committee find that no respect whatsoever was paid to this gradation in the instance of Mr. Sulivan, nor is there any reason assigned for departing from it. They do not find that Mr. Sulivan had ever served the Company in any one of the above capacities, but was, in the year 1777, abruptly brought into the service, and sent to Madras to succeed as Persian Translator and Secretary to the Council.
Your Committee have found a letter from Mr. Sulivan to George Wombwell and William Devaynes, Esquires, Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of the Court of Directors, stating that he trusted his applications would have a place in their deliberations when Madras affairs were taken up. Of what nature those applications were your Committee cannot discover, as no traces of them appear on the Company's records,—nor whether any proofs of his ability, even as Persian Translator, which might entitle him to a preference to the many servants in India whose study and opportunities afforded them the means of becoming perfect masters of that language.
On the above letter your Committee find that the Committee of Correspondence proceeded; and on their recommendation the Court of Directors unanimously approved of Mr. Sulivan to be appointed to succeed to the posts of Secretary and Persian Translator.
Mr. Sulivan's succession of offices.Conformably to the orders of the court, Mr. Sulivan succeeded to those posts; and the President and Council acquainted the Court of Directors that they had been obeyed. About five months after, it appears that Mr. Sulivan thought fit to resign the office of Persian Translator, to which he had been appointed by the Directors. In April, 1780, Mr. Sulivan is commended for his great diligence as Secretary; in August following he obtains leave to accompany Mrs. Sulivan to Bengal, whence she is to proceed to Europe on account of her health; and he is charged with a commission from the President and Council of Fort St. George to obtain for that settlement supplies of grain, troops, and money, from the Governor-General and Council of Bengal. In October the Governor-General requests permission of the Council there to employ Mr. Sulivan as his Assistant, for that he had experienced (between his arrival in Bengal and that time) the abilities of Mr. Sulivan, and made choice of him as completely qualified for that trust; also requests the board to appoint him Judge-Advocate-General, and likewise to apply to the Presidency of Madras for him to remain in Bengal without prejudice to his rank on their establishment: which several requests the board at Madras readily complied with, notwithstanding their natural sensibility to the loss of a Secretary of such ability and diligence as they had described Mr. Sulivan to be.
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."