Page:Macaula yʼs minutes on education in India, written in the years 1835, 1836 and 1837 (IA dli.csl.7615).pdf/33

Rh Students. I would also beg the Local Committee to consider whether it be impossible to make an addition to the number of instructors, so as to be able to admit more pupils. I cannot but feel uneasy when I find that the eagerness with which the people have been pressing to avail themselves of the advantages of education has been discouraged. And I certainly cannot consent to pay anybody to study until we have the means of furnishing instruction to all who are desirous to study without being paid.—[Book L. page 57.] 30th September, 1836.

Proposal for the increase of Stipends at the Sanscrit College—This has been decided already. The general practice has been to refuse such applications. This was not done in the Madrissa at first, only because the matter was not noticed. I would reject the proposition.—[Book K. page 103.] 30th November, 1836.

Stipends at Benares—I would agree to no increase. There are at the head of the list two students of twenty-two, who have been seven or eight years at College and have not learned their Grammar yet. I would desire the Local Committee to report which of the students have and which have not made respectable progress. Those who have not made such progress, I would deprive of their studentships. Twelve years is an unreasonably long term. I would recommend eight as the maximum.—[Book L. page 97.] 21st February, 1837.

Stipends to the Sanscrit College.—I am against the promotion. I think it contrary to the letter and to the spirit of the Government Orders, and also to sound reason.

We are now proceeding on the principle that stipends are bad things, which have been abolished as such, and that those which are spared for the present have been spared only from a regard for vested interest. The question whether the stipends be or be not bad things is no part of the question now before us. Those who differ from me on that subject can at any time raise the question and call on the Government to reconsider its decision. At present I take it for granted that we are only considering what justice to the existing holders requires.

Now I never heard that when an abuse was to be abolished, any person who had no vested interest in that abuse was held to have a claim to any compensation. An interest not in possession may be an interest for which compensation ought to be given. But then it must be a vested interest. A contingent interest not in possession is quite a different thing.

In 1833, parliament abolished prospectively half a dozen Irish bishoprics, the rights of the existing incumbents were respected; but, as the sees fell in, the revenues were devoted to other purposes. What would have, been said if clergymen