the capital invested in land, buildings, equipments and endowments is not much less than £500,000, and efforts are now being made to raise a further capital sum of £330,000, and an additional annual income of £9,000.

Time would fail me were I to go into detail of University endowments in America. Some of you may have read that the Stanford University of California has recently received what is probably the largest gift of property ever made to any educational institution since the world began. Mrs. Stanford, the widow of the millionaire who originally founded the University, has transferred to it property worth £6,000,000. It is calculated that American millionaires have last year spent £25,000,000 on the endowment of Universities, Colleges, Libraries and Art Schools. It has been well said that the great aggregation of wealth in few hands, which has been one of the features of the last generation, has at all events, this great advantage that it offers opportunities for philanthropic experiments on a scale which would otherwise be impossible. We have one splendid illustration in Bombay, though it would seen much to our regret that the institution in question will be established outside the limits of this Presidency. But it will indirectly influence us, as students will be admitted from all parts of India. The idea of that munificent endowment was inspired by a speech from this place. I would that any words of mine could excite enthusiasm among the wealthy citizens of this Presidency, so that a combined effort should be made for providing funds for higher education. I should like to see a meeting convened by the Sheriff in the Town Hall of all those who are or who ought to be interested in this most vital subject, and committees formed for devising ways and means for providing a steady flow of funds among the wealthier castes and classes of our community. I doubt whether our shettias and leading citizens fully realise the inducements which exist to make this use of superfluous wealth. They gain an interest in life, which they could hardly find anywhere else; they are certain of enduring fame and of the gratitude of succeeding generations. These are trite words which have been uttered before, but they require to be brought home to the minds of the East as they have been in the West.

I hope that among the coming reforms in our University constitution some scheme may be devised by which munificent benefactors to higher education may be enrolled as Governors, and take some share in the administration of the finances of the University.

Gentlemen, I have digressed from my starting point, which was the constitution of the governing body of our University. But I was led by a consideration of the primary proposition that the Syndicate or by whatever name the Executive Committee is called-must be mainly composed of those who are actually engaged in education, to a consideration of the geographical difficulty, and that naturally led to the idea of having three or four Provincial Universities in this Presidency, the constituent colleges of which should be in the same place or near each other; and from brief notice of the growth of this idea in England, and the wonderful effect it has had in stimulating munificent benefactions and endowments, we were led up to the crux of the whole matter,-finance. Gentlemen, the idea of separate Universities must be a dream of the future. But now at the present time it is with us, just as much as it is with Birmingham, a fact that money is the root of all good. If we are not to lag behind we must find the money for additional lectureships and professorships connected with scientific and commercial education.

To come back to the geographical difficulty, from which we started, I may remark that there is every reason why, as in the Victoria University

Manchester, our University should pay travelling expenses incurred in attending University Committees, and this would in a measure obviate the necessity of choosing our Educational Syndics mainly from the Presidency town. This leads to another point. Our present Syndicate of fourteen is too large or it is too small. It is not large enough for us to form suitable Committees for the proper discussion of various matters of administrative detail without throwing undue burden on some members: it is not small enough for prompt consideration by all the Syndics of each and every matter.

I must hasten, in the brief time left, to deal with the legislative portion of the governing body which is known by us as the Senate and is composed of the Fellows of the University. That reform is necessary in connection with this subject is universally admitted. In the Acts incorporating our elder sister at Calcutta and our younger sister at Madras the minimum number of Fellows is thirty: in our Act it is twenty-six. But while their present number of Fellows was last year 180 and 197, respectively, ours was over three hundred. I am revealing no confidential secrets of the Conference Chamber when I say that the statement of these figures at Simla provoked more than a smile. And the reason for this state of things is easily understood. It was explained by a late Vice-Chancellor in an address at the Congress of the Victorian Era Exhibition in July 1897. For many years the number of new Fellows appointed in each year was not less than twenty, it being thought necessary to add to each Faculty every year, and to secure a representation of the various races, creeds and communities. The result is that each year from 1886, the number of Fellows on our rolls has exceeded 300, many of these never attending the Senate house, nor taking any interest in University matters. The important fact was overlooked that though at the time of appointment the attempt was made to have an equal number of European and Native gentlemen, the proportion must necessarily be destroyed by the departure of the Europeans. For instance, of the Fellows appointed since 1861 to 1876 inclusive, forty remain on our rolls, and of these there is only one resident European.

Our present system of electing Fellows is equally unsatisfactory. We have had nine annual elections since 1893, two Fellows being elected each year up to 1901 (inclusive). Of these 18 Fellows, ten were legal gentlemen. The reason is obvious: the electoral roll was composed of holders of the highest degree in a Faculty (e.g., M.A., M.D., &c.) and holders of two degrees. Now no one can become a Bachelor of Laws who is not a Bachelor of Arts. So out of the 725 names on the electoral roll of 1899 we find that 592 were LL.B.'s, more than four times as many as all the rest put together. In 1899, the rules were changed and holders of a single degree of more than ten years' standing were put on the roll. The change nearly trebled the number of electors. For instance, last year it was 2,054, and of these it may be remarked that more than one-third were LL.B.'s. In Calcutta since 1893 the electoral roll is restricted to Masters or holders of a higher degree in some Faculty, or Bachelors of Arts who took that degree before 1867. You will notice how widely different this regulation is from ours. I have the Chancellor's authority to say that the present roll of Fellows, and our system of adding thereto by election, being so evidently subjects for reform which may possibly be considered by the Commission, it has been thought expedient not to make any fresh nominations at present. Let me remind you again of Sir Raymond West's proposals 15 years ago. One of the objects of his projected reforms was restricting the number of Fellows so as to increase their responsibility and efficiency.

Gentlemen, I have only touched upon a few of the points which must come to the front in a discussion of this important question of University

reform in this Presidency. There are many others of almost equal importance, such as the question in what way can an adequate representation of the teaching staffs be secured on the Executive Committee; and how can our powers be enlarged so that we may become a teaching and not merely an examining body. These questions affect our constitution. There are others equally interesting relating to our internal administration, such as permanent Boards for the selection of Examiners and text-books. Why should not some of the Examiners in the highest subjects be selected from Europe? Why should not some be appointed for a term of years to insure a measure of continuity of standards? Why should not meetings of the Senate be on fixed days in the year so that members from a distance can make due arrangement for attendance, all matters of administration requiring prompt disposal being left solely to the Syndicate? These and many other cognate matters deserve serious attention. I firmly believe that the interest which will be evoked by the coming Commission and the results which will ensue from its deliberations, will have an immense influence on higher education in India. Let us all cordially unite and do our best for the consummation of this object. Above all let us, as His Excellency the Viceroy solemnly warned us, take heed that we do not wreck any scheme of educational reform by making it an occasion for the selfishness of class interests or the bigotry of faction. (Loud cheers.)

The Chancellor's Speccy.

The Chancellor, who was cordially received, in addressing the assembly, said: Mr. Vice-Chancellor, Ladies and Gentlemen,-After listening to the able address with which the Vice-Chancellor has favoured us to day, I am sure I shall voice the unanimous feeling of this meeting when I express our regret at the thought that this is probably the last occasion on which he will address a full meeting of the members of the University in his official capacity. It will be no easy task to find a successor who will place such high abilities and conscientious devotion to duty at the disposal of the University of Bombay. The coming year will be one of the peculiar interest to all who are interested in the question of University education -since, as we know, the constitution of the Indian Universities occupied a large share of the time and attention of the recent Simla Conference-and a Commission of experts, on which Bombay will be well represented by Dr. Mackichan and Mr. Justice Chandavarkar, are about to inquire into the whole question of University reform. The Vice-Chancellor has emphasised to-day the wide discrepancies which exist in the numbers of Fellows of the different Indian Universities-Bombay, in particular, possessos, roughly speaking, one-third more than Madras, nearly double Calcutta, thrice as many as Lahore, and four times as many as Allahabad. You will, therefore, readily understand why, pending the result of the Commission's labours, Government have abstained this year from increasing the Bombay numbers. The Viceroy said very truly at Simla that it is unfortunately the case that the designation of Fellow of an University has come to be looked on more as a complimentary title than as an honour entailing grave responsibilities on its holder. As he and Mr. Candy say, the consequence is that many Fellows never come near their University at all. Others, perhaps, are induced to come occasionally to vote on subjects of importance in themselves but to which they have given little or no personal attention, and yet upon which their votes may outweigh the matured opinions of those educational experts who usually guide the affairs of the University. Considering the vast importance of education to this country, I confess I hope the Commission will find a way to abate this scandal. It was with great

B 1964-45

interest that I listened to the Vice-Chancellor's expression of his hope that in the future we might see separate Universities established in Sind, Káthiáwár, Gujarát and the Deccan. Mr. Candy admits, however, that that is looking far forward-indeed he said "too far forward"; and undoubtedly some grave practical difficulties would have to be faced-for instance, could you maintain a sufficiently high standard of teaching at five Universities in this Presidency to justify Government's acceptance in every case of their degrees as a qualification for Departmental service? Personally I prefer the idea of a multiplication of Colleges, constituting one University, of a smaller governing body for that University-and with a full representation thereon of the mofussil, Káthiáwár and Sind. But I must not prolong our proceedings to-day by a second address-I have risen mainly with the object of asking you to thank the Vice-Chancellor for the thoughtful and interesting address, by the delivery of which he has laid our University under one more deep obligation to himself; and this proposition I now put before the meeting without fear of a single voice being raised in dissent thereto. (Loud applause.)

The Chancellor having then declared the Convocation dissolved, the assembly rose and remained standing during the retirement of the procession of the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and Fellows, which observed the order of the entering procession reversed.

X.

Minutes of the Meetings of the Senate.

(confirmed during 1901-1902).

A meeting of the Senate was held in the Sir Cowasji Jehanghier Hall of the University on Friday, the 12th April 1901, at 5-15 P.M.

Present:

Temulji Bhikaji Nariman, L.M. (Senior Fellow in the Chair); the Rev. F. Dreckmann, S.J.; Chimanlal H. Setalvad, B.A., LL.B.; the Honourable Mr. Justice N. G. Chandavarkar, B.A., LL.B.; D. MacDonald, M.D., B.Sc., C.M.; R. M. Sayani, M.A., LL.B.; Shantaram Vithal Sanzgire, L.M.; K. R. Vikaji, L.M., M.D.; Khan Babadur Bamanji Sorabji, L.C.E., Ph.D., &c.; Cowasji Hormasji, G.G.M.C.; Joseph Ezekiel, Esq.; Fardunji M. Dastur, M.A.; Khan Bahadur R. M. Patel, M.A., LL.B.; Rao Bahadur Shantaram Vinayak Kantak, L.M.; G. B. Prabhakar, L.M. & S., L.R.C.P., &c.; Jamietram Nanabhai, B.A., LL.B.; Krishnaji Balvant Wagle, M.A.; Ismael Jan Mahamad, L.M. & S.; Khandubhai Gulabbhai Desai, L.C.E.; Kamrudin Amirudin, B.A.; J. M. Antia, M.A.; Behramji Navroji Darabshet, G.G.M.C.; James MacDonald, Esq.; Kalabhai Lallubhai Munsiff, Esq.; D. G. Padhye, M.A.; Kavasji Edalji Dadachanji, L.M. & S.; Hari Sitaram Dikshit, B.A., LL.B.; Sir Jamsetji Jijibhoy, Bart.; Sorab K. Nariman, M.D., D.P.H., &c.; Miss A. E. Edge; K. Subramani Aiyar, B.A., L.T., A.S.A.A.; and Tribhowandas Mangaldas Nathubhoy, Esq.

In the absence of the Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Temulji Bhikaji Nariman, L.M., Senior Fellow, took the Chair.

It was proposed by the Honourable Mr. Justice N. G. Chandavarkar, B.A., LL.B., and seconded by Mr. Chimanlal H. Setalvad, B.A., LL.B.—

"That Dr. Temulji Bhikaji Nariman, L.M., be appointed Chairman of the meeting."

Carried.

1. The minutes of last meeting were read and confirmed. 2. It was proposed by the Honourable Mr. Justice N. G. Chandavarkar, B.A., LL.B., and seconded by Mr. Jamietram Nanabhai, B.A., LL.B.

"That the offer of Rs. 6,000, in three and a half per cent. Government paper, from Rao Bahadur R. V. Dhamnaskar for the foundation of a Scholarship in the name of his late wife, be accepted with the best thanks of the Senate, and that the following regulations be adopted for awarding the Scholarship."

[See p. 480.]

It was proposed by Miss A. E. Edge, in the absence of Mr. Ibrahim M. Sayani, B.A., and seconded by Dr. D. MacDonald, M.D., B.Sc., C. M.—

(a) That the last sentence of Regulation* 1 be omitted.

(b) That the words "or male" occurring twice in Regulation 2* be omitted.

*The Regulation referred to is that of the Mrs, Gangubai Dhamnaskar Scholarship.