Page:History of the French in India.djvu/614

588 AfPENDIX A. charge had fallen through. It was revived, however, in 1772, by an English gentleman, Mr. Grose, who wrote an account of his voyage to, and residence in, the East Indies. He states as follows : — * The gov- ernor and Council settled the price of the ransom with the French commodore (La Bourdonnais) at 1,100,000 pagodas, or £421,666 sterling, besides a very valuable present to the commodore, ivho was willing to evacuate his conquest upon these terms, and leave the English in full possession of their Presidency.' " Grose's " East Indies," vol 2, p. 29. " In * Mill's India,' 5th edition, vol. 3, pp. 37, 38, we have evidence to the same effect. Professor H. H. Wilson affirms that 1 a letter to a proprietor of East India Stock, published in 1850, by a person who was evidently concerned in the Government of Madras at the time, describes discussions which took place at home, in regard to the payment of certain bonds given by the Government of Madras to raise money to the extent of 100,000 pagodas, which, it is intimated, were presented to the French commander as the price of his moderation.' But there exists proof of the fact, far more clear and positive. Papers, now in the India House (Law case, No. 31, dated March 3, 1752), show that the Directors of that day were convinced, on the testimony of Madras members of the Council, that La Bourdonnais was promised by bond, 100,000 pagodas (about £40,000) over and above the 1,100,000 pagodas stipulated in the bond given him for public use, in consideration of restoring Madras to the English. This, we think, is conclusive. " The evidence of this Law Case was first made known to the writer by Sir "Walter Morgan, Chief Justice of the High Court of Agra. The nature of its contents was subsequently verified on the spot by his friend, Professor Fitz-Edward Hall, librarian of the India House." II. For twenty-three years, so far as I am aware, this note remained un- noticed. Its conclusions were accepted by all the reviewers, even in France, in which country a translation of the work was published in 1871. I had heard that Sir George Birdwood had not accepted my conclusions, and had threatened to publish a refutation of them, but I had seen nothing of his actually published on the subject until at the end of 1891 I stumbled upon a work of his entitled, Report of the old Records of the India Office, with supplementary note and appendices, second reprint, 1891. In one of the notes to that work I read a long statement challenging the conclusions I had arrived at twenty-three years before. The note seemed to me to be the work of a man who had bent all his energies to make a bad cause appear a good one. Apart from its facts, every one of which told against the writer,