At another place it quotes with approval an extract from the Times advocating retrenchment. And in a third case it emphatically lays down
“In their work of stabilisation and development of the Post-Graduate organisation, the question of how much money will be spent is of no importance compared to the more vital question of selecting the people on whom the money will be spent.”
However, we shall try to answer our contemporary’s friendly criticism as best as we can. The Modern Review complains
“The defenders of the University have always been discreetly silent where our criticism was unanswerable and have sometimes made a parade of the strength of their arguments where the information of critics has been deficient. This sort of proceedings has been rather funny.”
The defenders of the University plead guilty to the charge. Criticisms can be met with and discussed but a sneer is always unanswerable. For instance, the honest Professor of Patna solemnly asserts that the University speculated in Marks and land value. The statement is a typical amalgam of half truths and untruths in which our critics revel. The University purchased a number of scientific instruments from Germany and payment had to be made in German money just as payments to English creditors have to be made in English money. Now, if the Professor and his friends assert that it was a case of speculation we can only agree to differ. Similarly, the University never speculated in land value and we have no hesitation in placing all the facts before the public. But when he says that the University Lecturers
