Counsellors of recording their opinions upon it. The remonstrance, he adds, went to England, and elicited an assurance to the effect that Lord Auckland could have intended no personal slight to the members of the Supreme Council.
The writer has been unable to trace this remonstrance. Sir John Kaye has given no authority for his statement, and has offered no clue to the documents containing either the alleged remonstrance, or the reply. There is nothing to show whether the collective Council, or one or more members, remonstrated. Sir John Kaye's assertion must be taken for what it may be worth. The only document available, besides Mr. Colvin's Diary, seems to be irreconcilable with that assertion. The Proclamation of October 1 was forwarded to England under cover of a letter of that date. The reply of the Board of Control is dated December 26. It makes no allusion to any such protest as is referred to in the passage quoted; but, on the contrary, in its final paragraph, it says —
'We are much pleased to find that the Governor-General of India and the Supreme Council cordially agree in all the measures in contemplation, not only for the protection of the North-West frontier, but also with reference to the possible necessity of undertaking warlike operations against Ava and Nepál.'
There is no hint here of discord. Not agreement only, but cordial agreement is indicated. Whatever the purport of the remonstrance may have been, or from whomsoever it emanated, it seems clear that
