Star.
London, England, 1821-12-20 00:00:00

£2OO for his literary labours in India. £2OO salary
for his Professorship, and £l5O a-year for a lecture-
room, making in the whole £652. Now, if he were
placed on the same footing as the other Professors,
he would receive £5OO salary, and £lB2 retired pay.
so that if every mark of degradation were removed.
the difference to the Company would only amount
to a sum of £3O a-year. He trusted that the Court
would not refuse this trifling gratification to a meta-
torious servant.

The CHAIRMAN said, that as there was something
like a recognition on the records of Dr. Gilchtist's
title of Oriental Professor in Fort William, he should
not oppose the motion. As the Honourable Proprie-
tor who had just sat down, however, had hinted at
an increase of salary, he begged to observe, that al-
though he was willing to grant the words, he had no
inclination to concede the substance.

Mr. R. JACKSON begged to advert to what he
conceived to be not the least meritorious part of Dr.
Gilchrist's character : he was entitled to a fee of three
guineas from every young surgeon whom he taught,
which fee, however, he had uniformly refused, for be
observed, that he knew what it was to be a young
Scotch surgeon himself, and he could not bear to
take money from a young man in that situation.
The CHAIRMAN suggested the omission of the
words " Professor of Hindoostanee in London," since
Professorships belonged only to Collegiate Establish-
ments, and that Court could not dub a Professor.
Mr. HUME said he should oppose the whole Amend-
ment, if this term were objected to. The Court
could not, in justice and gratitude, do less than give
the same title to Dr. Gilchrist which he had pos-
sessed in India.
The CHAIRMAN said, that if the Honourable Pro-
prietor persisted in what he could not but consider
as a most extravagant proposition, he should be un-
der the necessity of opposing the Resolution.
Mr. TRANI' bore testimony to the useful labours of
Dr. Gilchrist, and thought the Court would only be
doing justice to that Gentleman if they stretched a
point for the sake of conferring on him au honorary
distinction.
Mr. Home asked whether the Professor at Addis-
comb had not been so nominated by that Court?
The CHAIRMAN said, that this was under the au-
thority of an Act of Parliament.
Mr. ELPIIINSTONK said that any Gentleman in that
Court was of course at liberty to call Dr. Gilchrist a
Professor, if he thought fit, but it was utterly out of
the power of the Court to make him one. He con-
fessed, for his part, that he should have had more re-
spect for Dr. Gilchrist, if he had not seen his name
so frequently upon late occasions in the Newspapers.
He knew not whether the conspicuous part which the
Doctor had taken on the occasions to which he al-
luded was to be ascribed to vanity or a worse motive.
Mr. S. DIXON recommended to the Honourable
Proprietor (Mr. Hume) to withdraw his Amendment,
since, if it were negatived, it mould have the cffect of
casting a censure upon Dr. Gilchrist.
Mr. OLDHAM said, the Court had certainly no
power to confer a distinction which was applicagle
only to Collegiate Establishments. It was true that
there was no Tack of soi•disant Professors.: there were
Professors of Dancing, Professors of Veterinary Me-
dicine, and Profyssors of Music; but surely it would
be rather a reproach than an honour to confer upon
Dr. Gilchrist a mock title of this description.
After some farther discussion,
Mr. Hume, in order to save the time of the Court,
consented to withdraw his Amendment, and the Re-
solution was agreed to.
The CHAramAN informed the Court, that in conse-
quence of what had passed at the last Quarterly Court,
relative to the alleged difference in the mode of in.
struction in the Oriental languages pursued in the
Colleges of the Honourable Company, and in the
Colleges in India, the Court had called upon Dr.
Wilkins, Visitor to the Oriental Colleges, and the
several Professors and Sub-Professors, to investigate
that subject, and ascertaia whether the allegations
were correct.
Several letters from Dr. Wilkins, and the Pro.
lessors and Sub-Professors in the Oriental Colleges,
were read, in which it was stated, that there was no
material difference in the systems pursued in India,
and in the Colleges at Hailebury and Addiscomb.
Mr. Home objected to the partial manner in which
the investigation had been con incted ; he moved,
that the papers now laid before the Court be printed.
Mr. It. JACKSON moved, that there be laid before
the Court all the Reports of the College at Calcutta,
as well as all Reports from Bombay and Madras, as
to the proficiency of pupils in the Oriental languages,
distinguishing these who had been previously edu-
cated at Hailebury and Addiscomb, and how long
they had been subsequently instructed in India.
After a few words from Mr. Hume and Mr. S.
DIXON' the motion was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN next moved, that a Resolution of
the Court of Directors be confirmed, granting a sum
of £2OOO to John Hinde Pelley, of the Bombay Civil
Establishment, on the grounds therein stated.
Mr. Hume opposed ilk motion, on the ground that
Mr. Pelley had failed to fulfil the ter ms of a contract,
which he had made to furnish the Company with
ropes for-the lashing of cotton bales. It was true,
that he had ultimately furnished the whole amount
of lashings contracted for, and he believed also that
he might have lost considerably by the contract, but
as he had failed to furnish them within the time spe-
cified in the contract, he was not entitled to any
compensation. •
Mr. S. DixoN opposed the grant.
Mr. CHALMERS and Mr. Moser supported it.
After a few words from Mr. MACKLIN, Mr. HAL-
LITT, Mr. MONEY, and Mr. THANT,
Mr. HUME, on behalf of himself and eight other
Proprietors, demanded a ballot, which was fixed for
that day three weeks.
After some other business, relative to the bye-laws
of the Court, had been disposed of, the Court shortly
after adjourned.