FRANCIS HAMILTON (ONCE BUCHANAN). xlv 
= eq i e spot by persons sufficiently conversant with this country to avoid error in 
8 еш іп o orm. This you will perceive to be an additional reason for retaining here 
the drawings illustrative of the several subjects." 
| In this note it will be observed that His Excellency anticipates the confusion of 
ideas in the statement made by Dr. Day. Two very distinct things,—the passing 
observations, mainly of an economie character, with which Buchanan’s reports and 
journals are replete, and the formal descriptions, of a purely scientific nature, which 
were to be drawn up after Buchanan’s retirement, of the natural objeets whereof his 
colleetions were composed—are assumed to be identical, The confusion of these two 
things on the part of the Marquis of Hastings is quite exeusable because his sympathy 
with science, though great, was after all only that of the cultured and intelligent 
amateur, not that of the expert worker. His Excellency is by no means the first who 
has taken an economie reference for a scientific contribution. 
To this error, in any case natural, His Excellency was further predisposed by the 
particular information that Buchanan’s scientific descriptions were ‘so vague and indis- 
tinct as to be absolutely useless without the aid of the drawings to which they refer.’ 
Aman of the Marquis of Hastings’ abilities and judgment cannot be accused of accept- 
ing lightly an opinion of this kind regarding one whose work he had not seen, and 
whose reputation in the scientific world stood so high as did Buchanan’s. His parti- 
cular informant was clearly therefore some scientific man of assured position, whose 
opinion was entitled to the greatest consideration. Whether the opinion of Buchanan’s 
work thus expressed be accurate er not, it is not necessary to discuss here, but the 
fact that the Marquis of Hastings had good reason to trust its accuracy must be 
admitted by us, as doubless it would have been by- Buchanan himself, to justify his 
action as Governor-General, What, however, does interest us is to ascertain the 
source of the particular information which biassed a Governor-General of such high 
character as the Marquis of Hastings against a publie servant so faithful and so 
eminent as Buchanan. 
In seeking a solution to the problem we have to reflect on the whereabouts of all 
Buchanan's descriptions and drawings at the time His Excellency’s note of 5th January 
1815 was written. These were (1) the Ava drawings and descriptions, with Sir Joseph 
Banks; (2) the Chittagong ones, also with Banks; (3) the Sundribun ones, with Sir J. 
E. Smith; (4) the Mysore ones, with Smith; (5) the Nepal ones also with Smith; (6) 
the Barrackpur ones, all with Buchanan, to whom they had been lent by crder of 
Lord Minto, and by whom they were not returned till 20th February, six weeks after 
the note was written; (7) the Bengal Survey drawings, which were also with Buchanan 
and for which no descriptions had been prepared. With the departure of Roxburgh 52 
1813 and of Colebrooke іп 1814 по опе was left in India capable of инн ап 
But, apart from this, no one in India on 5th 
anan's drawings or descriptions except Buchanan 
information so damaging to Buchsnan’s reputa- 
but must have been imparted | 
opinion on Buchanan's work at all. 
January 1815 had access to any of Buch 
himself. Clearly therefore the partieular к ч 
tion could not have been derived ix n £i Y India, 
to the Marquis of Hastings before he lett England. | p 
Now ш England there were two men, and two only, who ue M Od дың 
and descriptions prepared by Buchanan. These were Buchanan’s he و‎ cr ой 
fellow-student Smith, who wus the recipient of the Nepal treasures, and 4 : ys 
the Court of Directors had given Buchanan’s Ava and Chittagong specimens, descripti 
