Imágenes de páginas

free discussion. It was proper that the Constituent Body should keep a check upon the Executive, of which he had the honour of being a member. (Hear, hear/) It was the duty of the Executive Body to watch over the conduct of every department of the service; and if they neglected that duty, he trusted the General Court would call them to account. He thanked the Hon. Proprietor who had opened the debate, for the clear, able, and argumentative manner in which he had introduced the question. He thanked the mover and seconder, and also the other gentlemen at whose requisition the General Court had been summoned, for their candour and fairness, in being willing to leave the question to the deliberative consideration of the Court of Directors. Before he proceeded further, he must advert to what had fallen from an Hon. Director near him, and also on the last day's debate, from an Hon. Proprietor high in the benches, whose father (Mr. Twining) they had often heard with much pleasure in that room, greatly to the advantage of the Company, viz. that the able manner in which their affairs were conducted in India, was owing to the servants sent from Haileybury College. Lest an erroneous impression should be made upon the General Court, he distinctly controverted this assumption, and asserted, without fear of contradiction, that of the able, honourable, and upright men who now formed the Governments of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay (he alluded to men bred up in the Company's service in India), not one man had been educated at Haileybury. He would take a brief retrospect of the Company's affairs in India for about eighty years, when an able and ambitious Frenchman (Monsieur Dupleix) projected the establishment of extensive French dominion in India. The plans of the French and their allies were ably and successfully opposed by the then Company's servants. From that time to the conclusion of the peace with Tippoo in 1784, a period of forty years, was many an arduous struggle: during that time of difficulty and danger, had they not emiment men, who demonstrated their capacity to conduct their affairs, on every emergency, in the most brilliant and successful manner, long before Haileybury College had been thought of? Even Adam Smith, no friend to the India Company—which he did not very well understand, or he would have written differently respecting it—admitted that the counsels of the Company's Governments would have done honour to the best days of Greece or Rome. Let them divide the space of eighty years to which he had glanced, into two parts, and look for a moment at the last forty years, viz. from 1784 to 1824; he must say, without meaning any disparagement to

the great men who had been in India since that time, that the conduct of their affairs was comparatively play. Lord Cornwallis, Lord Teignmouth (who was bred up in the Company's service), Lord Wellesley, Lord Minto, Lord Hastings, came to the head of governments, already possessing great and matured talent in their civil servants; to the command of numerous well-disciplined armies, led on by officers of great skill and experience, fit to contend with any troops in the world: they had, therefore, in full development, all the elements requisite to support their governments, long before the establishment of Haileybury College. In respect to the college itself, the question never had been, as some might suppose, whether there should be education or no education, learning or no learning ; he agreed, all agreed, that their civil servants should be well educated men. When, twenty years ago, the college was first projected, caught by theory and speciousness, he was one of the warmest advocates for it: but the experience of eighteen years that the college had existed, during which time he had kept a vigilant eye upon it, had greatly shaken his opinion. He felt great obligation to the gentlemen who had signed the requisition which led to the present debate; he felt strongly the able and fair arguments with which the motion had been supported. It was fair to ask, was the education at Haileybury superior to what might be obtained at other places? In regard to European knowledge, no one could reasonably contend that it was. Originally it had the advantage in respect to oriental literature; but since its institution, this has comparatively greatly lessened. There are now in this country many men, who had been long in India, able and willing to teach the oriental languages. There are now men in England, and he believed also in France, who have never been out of Europe, and who are conversant in oriental literature. There are great distinctions between Haileybury and all other colleges. In the first place, the college at Haileybury is not subject to what all other colleges, and all places of education throughout the kingdom are exposed to, the pou erful, though silent operation of public opinion. Parents are forced, whatever may be their opinion of Haileybury, to send such sons there as are destined for the civil service in India. This compulsion, which no where else exists, is in itself a great error, which he thought, in its consequences, most injurious to the operation of proper discipline. Another distinction between Haileybury and other colleges is, that in other colleges there is a gradation of ranks, from the head to the undergraduates; there are private tutors, who form a strong connecting link between the graduates and under graduates. Pria vate tutors cannot be had at Haileybury. o- Among the under graduates at other cola leges are many, who look not only to the t honours, but also to the lucrative benefits *. of the college, which are very considerable in many of them. At Haileybury, there is a wide chasm between the professors and students; and when the young men had passed their four terms, they went for ever from the college, and it became to them officially as nothing. Now look into the natural effects. No one can doubt the due employment of time to be essentially requisite in the education of youth : see how time is employed at Haileybury, a point on which he spoke from records, and not from private information. First as to the professors; the examination of the qualification of students, on their coming to the college, might take three or four days; the examination before the end of a term, about a fortnight. Attendance at morning and evening prayers took little time; there was also attendance at dinner; but the chief time in which the professors and students came in contact, was at the lectures. At these, some of the professors were employed four times, a week, viz. two hours in two days, leaving the rest of the week to themselves. Some were employed five hours, and some nine hours; the assistant professors ten hours in the week. With regard to the students; in the two senior terms each student attends, for four days in the week, two hours each day; and some attend, for two days, three hours each day: in the two junior terms each student attends, for five days in the week, two hours each day; and for one day, three hours. The lectures are over, for some students, by one o'clock, and for the rest by two o'clock; from those hours until nine at night, excepting a short time at dinner, the students are left to themselves. The age at which the students go to the college, is generally between sixteen and seventeen; none under sixteen. Can it be expected, that at such an age they should, iike monks, retire to their cells to study ? Left to themselves for so many hours, they will naturally seek to amuse themselves. This he deemed an essential defect in the college system. So sensible were the College Committee of this waste of time, that they proposed to the professors that evening lectures should be given. This proposal was strenuously resisted, and when at length reluctantly acquiesced in, the professors said the responsibility must rest with the committee. The pro

posal interfered with the amor otii, Sir G. A. Robinson rose to order. He said that he thought there was something due to the feelings and character of the rofessors, who were absent, and he wished that, in candour and fairness, the Hon. Gent. would confine himself to his argu

ment, and refrain from personal allusions.

Mr. R. Jackson, upon the point of order, said that if the argument of the Hon. Gent. who had last spoken was tenable, they could not proceed with the present debate. What was it, but to tell that Court, “you shall not discuss the merits of the system of education carried on in your college, unless every professor is present, and you know not one of them, can be present?” and this in a question when the principal point turns upon the discipline of the place. The Chairman submitted to the Hon. Gent. (Mr. Bebb), whether he felt himself quite in order, in referring, as matter of open record, to presumed negociations or correspondence supposed to have taken place between the College Committee and the Professors. The Hon. D. Kinnaird said, that unless the Hon. Gent. was permitted to pursue the line of argument from which he was interrupted, there must be an end to the discussion: he only glanced at what the professors had done, to illustrate his general argument of the evils of the system. He (Mr. Kinnaird) would therefore in. treat the Court, in behalf of the professors of the college, who would be placed in a most uncomfortable condition, if this question could not be discussed without putting them entirely out of view, to hear the Hon. Gent.’s argument, and particularly upon a matter of fact; for he must deny that there was any personal imputation. Sir G. A. Robinson.—“ Was not amo otii a personal imputation?” Mr. Pattison said that it was a duty which he owed to the professors of the college to state, that in all his correspondence with them, at the time alluded to, such a notion as love of ease was never assigned by them, nor fairly attributable to them, for the part they took. They distinctly said, that they could not adopt the suggestion submitted to them, consistently with their view of the good of the institution ; but in all their communications they expressed a readiness to make every personal sacrifice which might be deemed necessary to promote the instruction and welfare of the college. Mr. Bebb denied that he had spoken from any private information. In continuation he asked, what was the consequence of allowing such a stock of time, which might be convertible by students for purposes of amusement? It was almost necessarily attended by expense and extravagance. So sensible were the Court of Directors of this, that in July 1815, they made the following observations on the personal expenses of the students: “ Unnecessary and extravagant expense, unless effectually checked, is likely to prove a great and serious evil to the EastIndia College. It has already, in various instances, produced permicious effects: it is immediately connected with, and promotive of, disposition to idleness, dissipation, and other immoralities. “This is an evil which the discipline of any public institution can with difficulty, and but imperfectly combat. o “Regulations have been made for the counteraction of it, and might be, in a good measure, effectual, if the parents and relatives of the students would heartily join their endeavours to promote the observance and efficacy of them. “But the mischief does not rest here. The taste once indulged for expense, is not limited to the pocket-money, even profusely furnished. Debts are contracted, sometimes to an enormous amount; tradesmen dishonourably ministering to the extravagance of youth, and trusting, perhaps, to what they often find true, that parents will silently submit to pay these improper debts, rather than suffer their children to be exposed. “But neither is this the limit of the evil. Example is infectious: the dissipation in one produces imitation in others; and even sober youths, who desire to practise economy, become ashamed of it, when they see so many glory in overleaping its bounds. “It need hardly be observed, that in proportion as this temper prevails, the love of study and virtuous habits, subordination to the rules of the college and to the governors of it, must decline. “Thus the very end and design of the institution is counteracted, and, so far as these evil tendencies prevail, frustrated.” Anxious as the Court were to prevent extravagant habits, the remedies proposed were not likely to be effectual. Uncles and other relatives or friends, who knew not the resolutions of the Court, would often give a young man a present on his leaving them. Tradesmen would trust, in the hope that either a young man's friends would pay their bills, or in a confidence that the young man would himself, at some future time, pay them. What were the consequences of the extravaganthabits acquired at Haileybury? He would shew them, in an extract of a letter, which was written from India, by a young man who had been educated at Haileybury, and who, being deeply involved in debt, had written home for assistance, stating that his debt for interest and insurance on his life cost him 16 per cent. Mr. Bebb said he would not mention names, that he might not give pain to fathers, or families, or relatives. “ Lest you should, however, imagine that I am much worse off than my cotemporaries in pecuniary matters, I can assure you I am not. The only difference is, that instead of writing you word that I am going on swingingly, I tell you the plain truth; and I am calculator suffi

cient to see, that if the amount of my debt was advanced me at 5 or 6 per cent. interest, it would be paid off in about half the time it would by letting it remain as at present. “I suppose you have the East-India Register, or list of civil servants on this establishment. I have it by me now, and for example's sake will give you the real amount of the finances of the young men I knew at Hertford and Fort William ; for we are all too much in the habit of comparing our situations with one another, not to know perfectly the affairs of our colleagues. It is, of course, between ourselves. I will take a number of forty writers, beginning from and ending with all of whom I know, and whom I will divide into four classes, viz. “1st. very much involved; 2d, much involved; 3d. not much involved; and 4th. not involved. “The first class I consider to be in debt from £3,000 to £10,000; the second class from £1,000 to £3,000; the third from .#100 to £1,000; and the fourth entirely free, and worth a little money. Out of the above forty writers, eighteen are in the first class, eleven are in the second class (in which I include myself), eight are in the third class, and three are in the fourth class; which calculation, if it errs at all, errs on the favourable side, in perhaps putting one or two in the third class, who ought to be in the second class. This I fancy has been pretty nearly the case, in proportion, among every forty after being in the country four years.” This letter was written six years after the date of the resolution of the Court. Mr. Bebb said he did not trust to this information alone: it was corroborated by a letter from the son of a particular friend, who arrived in Calcutta last year, and who wrote to his father, “they" (meaning the writers) “are all in debt.” He (Mr. Bebb) had also received a letter, dated last August, from a young friend who arrived last year at Bombay, a place formerly noted for economical habits, saying, the writers of four years' standing are all much in debt, and pay 9 per cent interest, and 5 per cent. insurance on life. He would ask, what were the probable consequences of men being so deeply involved? That men, otherwise honourable, would seek to extricate themselves by undue means. They might say, “my poverty, but not my will consents.” This might produce dis. honour and ruin to themselves, and lead to extortion, and distrust of the natives. He felt a warm regard for the natives of India, among whom he had passed twentyseven years of his life, and was sensible of their many good qualities. He regretted the calumnies propagated against them in this country—calumnies that were the offspring of a jaundiced eye, and of strong prejudice. He must refer to the statute of selection, and speak of it with unqualified reprobation. He read the clause he alluded to, as follows: “In case of any gross act of insubordination, the author or authors of which cannot be discovered, the council shall select from the body of the students among whom the act took place, those who, from character and circumstances, are most likely to be concerned, and of those so selected, either the whole or a part, according to the discretion of the council, shall be immediately sent from the college, not to be recalled until the actual offenders shall be discovered, or until the council, under all circumstances of the case, shall think it right to re-admit the whole or any part of them.” This clause, he observed, was worthy of the Spanish Inquisition. It was a disgrace to the Executive Body; it was a disgrace to the President of the Board who approved of it; it was a disgrace to them as Englishmen. He himself shared in the disgrace. He felt deep remorse that he had not recorded his dissent to it; but it might be pleaded as some palliation of his conduct, that he did not conceive innocent persons would be selected (accused) for the purpose of inducing a young man to give information; of information he possessed against, perhaps, his dearest friend; or of abusing the generosity of youth, by extorting confession from an offender, lest innocent persons should susfer. He knew not in whose mind the clause had been engendered; but had the times been such as those of bloody Mary, it might be presumed that mind would have suggested the application of the rack to extort confession. The spirit and humanity of the age do not admit the application of torture to the body; but the clause, with wonderful ingenuity, has contrived to torture the minds of youths. He referred to the cases of the students in 1822, when seven youths were driven from their service, for mere boyish, thoughtless tricks and pranks, deserving reprehension, it is true, but not to be punished as they have been. He deemed the youths to have been treated with unjustifiable severity; nor was his opinion in the least altered by the decision of the visitor on the appeals made to him. He must say, borrowing an expression from a letter before the Court, that to “unjustifiable severity” (the visitor) “had added unwarrantable bitterness.” He (Mr. Bebb) held it proper that their servants should not only be well educated, but that they should be young men of good moral conduct and prudential habits. He submitted to judgment, whether young men were not generally more likely to be formed to good moral conduct and prudential habits under the eye of

parents or guardians, or of persons selected by them, than at Haileybury. Mr. Malthus, a gentleman of high literary reputation, in his statements respecting the college published in 1817, laboured to impress a belief that students went out with economical habits, and for that purpose had quoted the opinion of Lord Minto in 1810; but it must be recollected, that very few young men had then arrived in India who had been educated at Hailevbury, for that college had only opened in January 1806. Mr. Bebb said he must remark on another passage in Mr. Malthus's statement. Mr. Malthus says (page 103) “the system of the college is, I really believe, what it ought to be;” and then adds, in a note, “little other change is wanting, than that an appointment should be considered in spirit and truth, not in mere words, as a prize to be contended for, not a property already possessed which may be lost. If the Directors were to appoint one-fifth every year beyond the number finally to go out, and the four-fifths were to be the best of the whole body, the appointments would then really be to be contended for, and the effects would be admirable. Each appointment to the college would then be of less value: but they would be more in number, and the patronage would hardly suffer. A Director could not then, indeed, be able to send out an unqualified son. But is it fitting that he should? This is a fair question for the consideration of the Legislature and the British public. He (Mr. Bebb) must condemn the idea that one-fifth of the young men nominated for the civil service were, after giving up four or five years of an important time of life (for that would generally be the case) turned adrift upon the world, “where to seek their place of rest.” The proposition, he would say it to Mr. Malthus's face, was harsh and cruel: it strongly marked a severe spirit in the College Council. The insinuation conveyed in the words, that “a Director could not then, indeed, be able to send out an unqualified son: but is it fitting that he should 2" is an unworthy sneer. He (Mr. Bebb) must in justice to the Court of Directors say, that their leading object is, to send out young men duly qualified to conduct the Company's affairs, ably to discharge the important trusts hereafter to be committed to their hands, and to promote the welfare and happiness of the natives of India. He stated, that when he left India in 1800, he conceived it would, on an average, require thirty years before a civil servant could return with a competence from India, putting out of the question those who, from ill-health, might be forced to return permaturely, and those who might acquire fortune by inheritance, bequest, or marriage, or successful commercial concerns unconnected with the Company. But, in consequence of the habits acquired at Haileybury College, he reckoned it would, on an average, take forty years, computing from the time a civil servant entered the college, before he could return, supposing all other circumstances to be the same. If a man returned at the age of forty-six or forty-seven, he would retain vigour of mind and strength of body adequate to enable him to enter in this country into active life. He might become a Proprietor of East-India stock, and deliver his opinions in this room; he might, if the Proprietors pleased, be placed behind the bar. But if he returned at fifty-six or fifty-seven, the advance of years and effects of climate, would render him little fit to be a valuable member of active life. He candidly subscribed to the opinion expressed by the Hon. Mover of the question, viz. that the proposed change of system would improve the management and discipline of the college itself. It would enable the professors to remove a young man with whose conduct they might be dissatisfied, without ruining his prospect for life; they could thus early check the seeds of disorder. They could say to a youth, “we are not satisfied with you, your example is contagious: it is hurtful to others; return from this college, and qualify yourself for the Company's service, at such other places as your friends may select.” On the other hand, it would enable a parent who might in his turn be dissatisfied, who might think his son did not make due literary progress, or that he was acquiring expensive or dissipated habits, to withdraw him, and place him where he might be better attended to. At the college, under the present system, he has no effective controul over his son; whatever cause he may have for dissatisfaction, he cannot withdraw him without blasting his prospects. By the proposed change, all parties will be benefited. He had honestly delivered his genuine opinions, and he respectfully submitted them to the judgment of the General Court; whatever might be the final issue, he was convinced good would arise from the discussion. He earnestly entreated every parent, every guardian, who had a son or ward intended for the Company's civil service in India, who was anxious to preserve his morals, and prevent his acquiring dissipated, expensive, and extravagant habits, and who anxiously wished for his return home before he was a worn-out man, to support the question before the Court. He hoped it would be carried, and a change be in consequence effected in a system which produced great evils. Mr. R. Grant addressed the Court, but was for some minutes so inaudible that we could not hear his observations. We un

derstood him to express his gratitude to the Hon. Proprietor who had introduced this question, for the candour, the fairness, the good temper, and good feeling, with which he had debated it; and, adverting to the remark which had been made by several speakers, that discussions like the present tended to produce injurious consequences, Mr. Grant observed, that he should feel less reason for deprecating such discussions, if they were always brought forward and conducted in the tone and manner recommended and exemplified by the Hon. Mover. IIe had, in the course which he was about to take, a sacred duty to perform, and he hoped to discharge that duty without passion or prejudice. Upon some parts of the subject, however, he admitted that there were recollections, which disqualified him from exercising that calm and dispassionate judgment which it throughout demanded. These recollections, however, doubly imposed upon him the obligation of refraining from the use of irritating topics, of abstaining from every thing like unfairness or exaggeration, and of confining himself to the task of setting forth, in the plain colours of truth, the merits (as he viewed them) of the question before the Court. Indeed, with his impressions upon the whole subject, even an unanimous vote in favour of the college would not content him, if he did not believe it to be pronounced with an impartiality, which, for himself, he no longer even pretended to feel. He must observe, however, that even if he concurred with the Hon. Mover in disapproving of the system now established for the education of the civil servants of the Company, he could by no means assent to the motion before the Court. Believing, as he did, that the substitute proposed by the Honourable Mover would, if adopted, be found ineffectual, he could not possibly agree in recommending that substitute to the adoption of Parliament; on the contrary, if he referred any question at all to the Legislature, it must be a much wider question than that which seemed to be contemplated. The Hon. Mover seemed to think that they had only to go before Parliament to submit the simple alternative which his motion embraced. But what reason had he to suppose that Parliament would circumscribe its consideration to that alternative? The real inquiry before Parliament would be, whether the present system was the best; and if not, then the general question, what other system ought to be established in lieu of it? This was the issue they must prepare to join before they applied to Parliament on the subject. (Hear 1) No matter in what terms they sent up their question, the actual deliberation of Par: liament would be directed to the general

« AnteriorContinuar »