resolved, marked out to us explicitly. The undertaking of Dr. Mill may be, as Mr. Sutherland conceives, a great national work. So is the breakwater at Madras. But under the orders which we have received from the Government, we have just as little to do with the one as with the other. The contracts which we have already made, must be fulfilled and the work of Dr. Mill must, like other works in hand, be stopped.—[Book G. page 27.] 9th April, 1835.
The demand for damages made by the Rev. W. H. Pearce on the stoppage of the printing of Oriental works.—With all respect for Mr. Pearce, I do not conceive that his opinion as to what is due to our national character, or as to the effect which the stopping of the printing may produce in either Europe or America is entitled to much weight in opposition to the positive orders of the Government which we serve. If the Committee have really given to Mr. Pearce such a pledge as he speaks of, they have, in my opinion, been guilty of a very great breach of their duty. But of this I fully acquit them. If there be any such express contract, let it be produced. I shall not easily be satisfied that there was any implied contract, for I never heard of such an implied contract in any similar transaction. If a man begins an expensive publication in many volumes, an Encyclopædia for example, and, finding that he has no encouragement from the public, determines to stop after the first two or three volumes, is he to be forced to pay his printer for the twenty volumes which were originally projected? A contract so grossly absurd ought surely to be proved by the strongest evidence. It is not the rule, but a rare and almost incredible exception; and never can be implied from such circumstances as those on which Mr. Pearce grounds his claim.
My opinion is that, since Mr. Pearce insists on his right, and gives us plainly to understand that he thinks that he has it in his power to obtain his demand in the shape of a forfeiture for non-performance of contract, we ought to enter into no compromise, and allow him no indulgence whatever. I do not think that he need entertain the smallest scruple about recovering this forfeiture “from the comparatively small sums now available for the education of the people of India.” For it is my firm conviction that what we pay Mr. Pearce for printing is as dead a loss to the cause of education, as what we may have to pay him for damages. But it is idle to talk about damages in such a case. I propose that Mr. Pearce be informed that the Committee altogether deny his claim both in law and in equity, and that they are not disposed to enter upon any of the other matters to which he refers till that claim is distinctly withdrawn.—[Book G. page 35.] 22nd April, 1835.
