whether it be part of out duty to examine into the manner in which funds bequeathed to private trustees for the support of Brahminical learning are employed. But if the Committee be of a different opinion, I have no objection to send the letter as it has been drafted.”—[Book J. page 54.] 11th February, 1835.
Petition for the revival of the English class in the Sanscrit College.—Sixty-three Rupees a month will never set up an efficient English class in the Sanscrit College. That sum would not suffice to pay a teacher of the mere elements of the language.
The spelling and style of the petition taken in connection with the age of the petitioners do not hold out much hope that they will ever become good English scholars. At the same time I cannot but think that it would have been better if the Hindoo College had been opened to them. There seems to be among many people here an objection to admitting grown up men to the advantages of education. On six or seven occasions I have objected to restrictions of this kind, and the Committee has agreed with me. I think that we might with propriety request the Sub-Committee of the Hindoo College to consider whether the rule of the operation of which the petitioners complain ought to be upheld in that institution.—[Book L. page 13.] 15th April, 1836.
Adoption of the Annual Report for 1835 drawn up by Mr. Trevelyan.—I have again gone through the report and read the notes on the margin. Those of Mr. Prinsep are written in an evident spirit of hostility to the principles on which the Committee has been directed by Government to proceed. Most of them, indeed many more than appear to me to require any answer, have been satisfactorily answered by Mr. Trevelyan. The changes which have been made meet almost all the just objections, which either Mr. Prinsep or Mr. Shakespear has urged. One additional change, however, ought, in my opinion, to be made. I doubt the expediency of again sending up to Government at this time a proposition for consolidating different items of account in the manner recommended by the Sub-Committee of finance. As the Government very lately declined sanctioning this proposition, and as nothing which can be supposed likely to have altered the views of the Government has since occurred, I think that we might be considered as importunate if we were to press, without any new grounds, for a reversal of so recent a decision. I am the less inclined to do this, because, though I think the proposed change perfectly unobjectionable, I am not aware that we can expect any advantage from it, except a greater simplicity in the form of
