I am very sorry that you were prevented from being in London yesterday.
I fully expected to see you, as I thought the subject of debate at the
India House was of too much interest not to make you desirous of hearing
it.
Mr. Grant[153] was, I assure you, a warm advocate in the cause of the
College. He spake admirably and with great effect, improving in energy
and eloquence as he proceeded. He did justice to the various
qualifications of the professors for the responsible situations which
they filled, and I believe left nothing unsaid which might assist the
cause which he so ably defended. I thought him very severe on Randle
Jackson, who will find it difficult to answer some parts of his speech.
In the Times the report of what he said is very correct, as far as it
goes; but it is necessarily a very abbreviated statement. Mr.
Kinnaird[154] began by speaking in the most respectful manner of you,
and indeed in terms of great eulogy, but afterwards I think absurdly
dwelt on your being an interested party and an advocate for the college,
and imitated Mr. Jackson in his irony on those whom he first declared
were highly deserving of respect. In what manner could we have any
correct account of the college and its concerns but from an interested
party? Who could speak of its management, attainments, and discipline,
but those who were acquainted with it? He, however, gave up the only
strong grounds they had (if they had been true) for inquiring into the
affairs of the college, for he said that he had no idea that there was
more immorality and profligacy in the East India College than in any
other seminary; neither did he say anything of a want of proficiency in
the students; but his main argument was built on the general principle
that a supply of intellectual attainments will as surely follow an
effectual demand for it, as the supply of any material commodity will
follow effectual demand.
Mr. Grant, I should mention, supported a directly contrary principle.
Mr. Kinnaird dwelt very much on the compulsion under which parents were
of sending their children to this particular institution. He seemed to
me to adopt Mr. Mill's view of the subject, and his argument would have
been quite as applicable to all colleges if parents were compelled to
send their children to them. He passed over the compulsion under which
parents were to send their children to college, who wished to bring them
up to the church, etc. In a few minutes' conversation which I had with
him after the debate I urged this objection, and he answered that they
had a choice among a large number of colleges, whereas in your case they
were confined to this one.
He finished by assuring me that my friend had a bad cause, that it could
not be defended and must fall. Mr. Impey's speech was badly timed; he
should not have immediately followed Mr. Grant, for he could not then
say anything new, nor could he repeat anything that had been said half
as well as Mr. Grant had said it before. The debate will be renewed on
Tuesday. If you should come up, I shall expect you in Brook Street. If I
do not see you, and you are disengaged on the Saturday evening
following, I shall be glad to pass a day with you, commencing my visit
at that time....
Very truly yours,
DAVID RICARDO.