Anxious to serve his friend the governor, Stuart, under pressure from that gentleman’s brother, addressed a letter on the twenty-sixth of February, 1786, to Lord Sydney, though doubtful of the propriety and policy of the act, in which he states that he received a letter from the governor, intimating that he (the governor) was aware that reports had been circulated in England grossly misrepresenting his motives in having purchased some of the lots escheated under the quitrent act of 1774,—the governor declaring that his sole motive in making these purchases was to secure to himself a part of the very old arrears due to him for salary,—an act which he conceived to be strictly legal,—and stating that he had bought the lands at their full value. The governor was prepared, as stated in his letter, to restore what he had bought on his being reimbursed the amount of the purchase-money, with interest, agreeably to their lordships’ resolution in 1783. Stuart’s letter, from which we have quoted so largely, was received by the governor on the tenth of October, 1786, and it is extremely probable that it was by the same mail that he also received official information of his having been superceded in the government of the island, and commanded to submit to the assembly the act rendering the sales of 1781 voidable,—of which another copy was now sent,—which had come to his hands two years previously, but with regard to which no action had been yet taken. The governor, as if sensible of his extreme folly in disregarding the royal instructions, submitted the measure to the house of assembly; and the bill was read for the first time on the first of November, and for the second, on the tenth of the same month; but it was subsequently decently interred by a house which was guided by the significant nods of the governor. But, in order to conciliate the home government, his excellency caused a private bill to be introduced, providing for the restoration of the escheated land to the proprietors, but so contrived that, even if carried out, the heavy payments required to be made counterbalanced any benefits that could be derived from its adoption. When the character of this measure became known to the proprietors, they brought a criminating complaint against the superceded governor and the council, which, on being investigated by the committee of privy council, led to the dismissal of the members of council implicated, as well as that of the attorney general. No further action against Governor Patterson was deemed necessary, as he had been already dismissed.