FRANCIS HAMILTON (ох VAN i 
(ONCE BUCHANAN), хххїх 
accord. Ав all three are accounts 
and whose accounts are entitled 
record them here. 
. When Hamilton left India in 1815 the journal and its accompanying drawi 
remained behind in order that the whole might be copied. Ав we is seen 4 
last portion of the journal, dealing ‘with Gorakhpur, was handed over to pepe f 
only three days before Buchanan sailed. From the preface to the account of 
Dinajpur, issued in Calcutta in 1833, we learn, from the actual editor of the 
Calcutta copy of the journal, who had the Indian set of manuscripts before him 
that— 
by people who actually have handled the journal, 
to equal respect and attention, it is necessary to 
“The original records, occupying twenty-five folio volumes in manuscript, were transmitted 
by the Indian Government to the Honourable Court of Directors; a copy of the whole havin 
been previously made and deposited in the office of the Chief Secretary at Calcutta. Duplicates ir 
the drawings and maps were unfortunately not preserved with the rest, probabl f i 
at that time of getting them executed in India." um y ‘rom the difficulty 
In the introductory note to his edition of Buchanan’s Fish and Fisheries of Bengal, 
Dr. Francis Day explains how he obtained access to the manuscript of Dr, Piece. 
Buchanan, so long withheld from the general reader, and goes on to say :— 
“ His exhaustive work fills twenty-one large volumes of manuscript, besides seven more of tables 
of statistics, all of which have now been re-transferred from the India House to Hindustan and 
are at present in the charge of W. W. Hunter, Esq., LL.D., the Director-General of Statistics, 
who is engaged in utilising the materials they contain, 
Irrespective of the twenty-eight volumes alluded to, there are others in the charge of the Asiatic 
Society of Bengal, but I shall only remark upon two, wherein are one hundred and forty-nine 
original coloured delineations of fish and forty-five copies. These drawings were made use ot for 
the purpose of illustrating the observations in the Statistical Accounts.3” 
This interesting passage shows us that possibly the copy kept in Caleutta in 
1816 was not arranged exactly as «was the original one sent home to the Court of 
Directors. It further shows that in 1877 Sir W. W. Hunter either was unaware of 
the existence, or had been unable to ascertain the whereabouts, of this Indian copy 
of the journal. | 
Beveridge in the Calcutta Review for July 1894 gives an account which has the 
appearance of having been written with no knowledge of Day’s one, and therefore 
possesses the value of being quite independent. Іп this notice Beveridge, criticising 
the statements made in the preface to the Account of Dinajpur, issued іп 1833, 
writes :— | 
“In fact there are twenty-six folios in the India Office; that is, there are twenty-two volumes 
of manuscript іп one press including a thin volume of statisties relating to Dinajpur and in 
1 As we shall see presently, there was no difficulty about this, and the reason for the despatch of the draw. 
ings without copies having been taken must have been altogether different. 
2 Statistical Account of Bengal, xx. 1877. 
3 Tt will be shown presently that Dr, Day has here confused two more or less distinct  things—the set of 
drawings intended to illustrate the journal, and the set of drawings meant to illustrate the detailed accounts of the 
natural productions of the distriets surveyed, which Buchanan hoped to publish, and to some extent did succeed 
in publishing, as ancillary to the actual statistical journal. Тһе main point is that the origins] journal, arranged 
as Day describes, was for some time retransferred to India. 
«Тһе Scottish vernacular term for a book-case or cupboard. 
