Page:Macaula yʼs minutes on education in India, written in the years 1835, 1836 and 1837 (IA dli.csl.7615).pdf/49

Rh As to the corrupting influence of the zenana, of which Mr. Trevelyan speaks, I may regret it. But I own that I cannot help thinking that the dissolution of the tie between parent and child is as great a moral evil as can be found in any zenana. In whatever degree then infant schools relax that tie, they do mischief. In whatever degree they leave the child to the care of its family, the corrupting influence of the zenana continues. There is a great deal of moral corruption which we pass by as quite harmless, because it does not shock our sense of decorum. For my own part I would rather hear a boy of three years old lisp all the bad words in the language than that he should have no feelings of family affection—that his character should be that which must be expected in one who has had the misfortune of having a school master in place of a mother.

In any case we cannot possibly adopt Mr. Trevelyan’s proposition without a reference to Government. Neither in the Act of Parliament, nor in any of the instructions which we have received from Government, is there any expression which can be twisted into a permission to set up schools of this sort. We might as well give our funds to a riding school.—[Book L. page 151.] 10th August, 1837.

Encouragement to the Vernacular Language in schools as it has been encouraged in the Courts.—I agree with the Secretary, except that I think that it would be premature to ground any circular on a draft which is only published for general information, and which may never be passed, or may be passed with modifications.—[Book L. page 179.] 15th September, 1837.

The amount of knowledge of the Vernacular language to be required from English Masters.—I agree. But I think that it is quite necessary to bear in mind that the accurate knowledge of the vernacular language, though desirable, is by no means an indispensible qualification for a teacher of English. Many of the Committee probably learned French, I did for one, from a master who had only just such a smattering of English as enabled him to call for what he wanted.—I should be glad if all our masters could pass Mr. Trevelyan’s examination. But the third point as to which he proposes that they should be examined seems to me the most important by far; and I am half inclined to recommend the omission of the second. Certainly I should not think it desirable that an English Master who can communicate with his scholars so as to be understood should spend much of his time in learning to write Bengali or Hindoostanee.

I think also that Mr. Trevelyan a little overrates the importance of accustoming pupils to explain every English word accurately in their own language. This is the way in which mere be-