East India House.
The Times, 1824-02-26T00:00:00

Yesterday a special Court of Proprietors was held at the East In- dia House for the purpose of taking into consideration a requisition for inquiring into the state of Haileybury College. The Court was much crowded, and the interest in the discussion apoeared considerable from theaumber of strangers in attendance. (Itis unpleasant to be under the necemsity of noticing any ob. struction given to the reportersfor the public press in the performance of their duty, lest persons of high responsibility should, without their knowledge or sancton, be compromised bv any error on the part of their subordinate agents. But the usual courtesv, until ves. terdav, always allowed to reporters,of sitting in the body of the court, where only th ey can either see or hear to advantage, was refused; and they could, after a considerable struggle, only obtain access to the gallerv at the back of it, where, from the interposition of the pil- iars, the aistance from the speakers, the want of light, and particu- larly the constant confusion and interruption created by the crowd, it was impossible for them, except at intervals, to hear what was said, or even see to write down the little that they heard. IVe are therefore unable to give more than a brief and imperfect abstract of asubject, which, from its importance, ,and the manyhours of its discusion yesterday, excited considerable sensation. The attend. anlts in the gallery, although they admitted their knowledge nf some of the reporters, decared they could only admit Pro. prietorc, and that they acted under the positive orders of the Chair. man. WVhen this injury to the public, the effect of the exclusion, is known in the proper quarter it will, it is hop^d, be re.tedied for the future, It is right to 3dd, that several strangers and many students sat in the body of the Court throughout the dav, and until the order to withdraw wh'en the division was called for.) HAILEYBURY COLLEGE. AX r. DOUGrLAs KRIsN AIulD rose to bring on his promised motion relative to the Company's College establishment at HaileybuTy. He reviewed the proceedings of that colregiAte establishment, and ad- verted to the many expulsions which had taken place since its foun, dation-expulsions that were, in their consequences, particularly se. vere, fiom the imperative nature of the clause of the act of Parlia. men-, which rendered a service of four terms at the Company's col- lege indispensable, before the student could be qualified to embark in their civil or military service in India. In bringing forward the present subject, he did not mcan in the slightest degree to inupute any misconduct to the Professors at the college; the evil was inherent in the system of the establishment, gnd not arising from ainy fault on the part of individuals. At this college, an iron control was placed over the discretionary power ofthe Professors by the actof Parliament, and they had no authority, as in the other colleges of the country, to send a refractory student away, without being compeled, as at Haileyburv, to yisit him with the severe sentence of expulsion,which for ever blasted the prospects of the individual upon the Company's establishment. If the discretionary povwer to which he had alluded were vested in the Professors, they would remove an improper stu- dent, without waiting until he had violated souie of the statutes of the college, and thereby prevent the progressive contagion of his vices among the other students with whom he must associate. The hon. proprietor read a variety of extracts from Mfr. Malthus's book, which he contended developed the cvils inherent in the systemn of the institution, and recommnended the extension to the Professors of a power to send heme refractory students in the first instance. He tirged at considerable length the impolicy of confining to Haileybury College the exclusive education of tlie persons destined to serve them in India,and pointedoint how much better it would be, to allow parents to educate their children where they pleased, always establshing a test of proficiency (forfinstanee, the same as at Haileybury) before thev wYere permitted to proceed to their ultimato destination in Indi.i. I,et that test of proficiency be clear and public, so that the examinae tion would leave no doubt of the bon6fisde qualifications of the indi- vidual. On the whole, lie thought that tlie restrictive clause whicb prohibited appointment to office, except through the medium of edu- cation at Hailcybury College, ought to be repealed, and that, ctill preserving that college as a seminary for the education of their offi. cers, other roads for education should nevertheless be open, so that by a fair competition, the college should be excited to emulation, and the acquirements of their officers enlarged. He ridiculed the ides, that if the usonopoly of the college were withdrawn, students w ould no longer be sent there, and contended that an existing anid well-cas tablished institution, when reforned and placed uponI a proper basis, would always cousmand a due preference. He pointed out the great improvements in the system of education which had been adopt- ed of late years, and strongly, recommended for adoption that pursued by Dr. Russell at the Charterhouse. By the practice at lailey. bury, thev barred themselves from the improvements wlhich circum- stances called forth, and which the professors, if unshackled and left in loco parentis to the students, would themselves adopt. He wished to abolish the exclusive privilege attached to Haileybury, and to arm the Professors with a better mosnl power; and for that purpose, moved "that an application be made to Parlianent to repeal theclause of the act which prescribed a residence of four terms at Haileybury e toR. an.2offcial pointment in India," and said that ..s. befor-__ ..._..lJ XU5 . IIn tu MU students would have to pass before their appointment, but without reference to the place of their previous probation. In conclusion, he expressed a warm anxiety that the Court of Directors would take the subjectin hand. and do that as emanatingfrom their bodv, whicb he now recommended for the adoption of the Court of Proprieters. On the motion being handed within the bar The CHAIRMANt (Sir Robert Wigram, il. P. said, that being appealed to by the hon. proprietor who had introd uced this subject in a calm and dispassionate manner, he was anu-ions to inform him, that were it not for his (Afr. Kinnaird's) repeated notices of motion upon this subject, he (the Chairtnan) would have himself brought the subject under the consideration of the Court of Directors. He subnmitted, therefore, whether it would not be advisable for the hon. proprietor to withdraw his motion, and let the matter rest for consi- deration in another quarter. The hon. proprietor was certainly mis. infornsed as to some of his details-for instance, the professors lead the power of sending house students after the first tinie, which was merely probationary, if they found them unfit for the college. (Hear.) Alorgeonversation thten arose between Mr. KINNARbD, Ilr. Elu5tE, Dlr. RAXD LE J AC SOM, and the CitAmnm&AN, in wlsicls it was pressed upon thte Court of Directors to consider the specific nroposition at present made, or sotetlting like it, but upon the re- fusal of the Chattnan to commit eitber himself or the Directors in any specific course of proceeding, the discussion of the general question was resumed. Air. CARRUTrseRS, at considerable length, opposed the motion, and said that the establishment of Haileybury Coilege had been found emlinently useful-a fact which was demonstrated by the su- perior acquirernents of the civil servants despatchel. from it to India during the last fewyears. He contrasted theliberal scale of education in use tltere, to that of the old colleges under the obsolete statutes ot Henry VIII., and urged the importance of preserving an institution which sent forth to the millions subjected to their government in In. dia, men of enlightened and highly cultivated minds, fit for the ar- duousdt ties of their station. Mlr. PO(YNDEIt also opposed thie niotion, and deuied that Illr. Maitltus had spoken so decidemlly against the systent of education at the college, as was mentioned. On the contrary, he liad in many in- stances spoken in the highest praise of it. lie contended that the eifect of this motion would be to abolish the college altogether. On the whole, he thought it was better to let well alone. Mr. RIGBY spoke in favour of the motion, and contended for the necessity of ameliorating the system of education at HtiilCyburv. Mr. WVEEInx(; concurred in the opinion expressed by the last speaker. Mtr. TwIISNG saw no adequate reason for making an innovation upon the present system of the college, and should therefore oppose the motion. 1IMr. SAMUEL DixoN spoke in favour of it. Mr. CIIAL5IERs addresscd the Court, but was inaudible in the gallery. I} r Iy.tPEY opposed the motion, and argued at some length for the coittinuance of the present collegiate discipline at Haileybury, whicb Ie asserted liad materiaUy improved their present class of civil servants in India. M1r. GAHAGAN warmlysupported the motion, and denied thatan expulsion from college ouglit to be a final bar to a student's pro- fessional advancement in life. The ablest men of the day had suf- fered that sort of punishment, and afterwards become very distin- guished in life. Sir Francis Burdett (with whose politics he did not always agree) was, he had heard, expelled both from Westmitl, ster and Oxforl. (A laugh.) Alr. RANDLE JACKSON supported thetrotion. It beitig near 4 o'clock, an adjournnent of the debate wrs loudly called for ; some proprietors were, however, for going to a decision without further deLty. A division ensued, when the nmimbers were- For the adjournment, 62 1 Against it, 32 Majority fbr the adjournment, 311. The debate was then adjourned until Fridav next. EAST INDrA IHOUSE.