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."

The President and Council do not show any displeasure at Mr. Freeman's
representation, (so contrary to their own,) the truth of which they thus
tacitly admit, but agree to write to the Governor-General and Council,
"that it could not be supposed that they could carry on the public
business for any length of time without _the services of a Secretary_
and Clerk of Appeals, two offices that required personal attendance, and
which would be a general injury to the servants on their establishment,
and in particular to the person who acted in those capacities, as they
learnt that Mr. Sulivan had been appointed Judge-Advocate-General in
Bengal,--and to request the Governor-General and Council to inform Mr.
Sulivan of their sentiments, and to desire him to inform them whether he
meant to return to his station or to remain in Bengal."