1900.] Report on the Name of the Society. 7 



It is iherefore clear that the title of tbis Society still remains 

 * The Asiatic Society ' and that the provincial designation ' of Bengal ' 

 crept into use by inadvertence and without the express authority or 

 sanction of the Society. 



The Committee after carefully considering all the evidence beg to 

 recommend to the Council : — 



That our Society, as the parent of all the other Asiatic Societies, 

 may resume in its correspondence and publications its still 

 unrevoked designation of ' Tlie Asiatic Society ' in accord- 

 ance with the terms of our foundation. 



Objections raised by Mr. F. E. Pargiter : — 



I take objection to the proposal on two grounds, — first, that the 

 remarks on the past history of the Society's name are derogatory to the 

 distinguished men who have governed the Society during this century ; 

 and secondly, that the proposal subserves no real good. 



It is stated in those remarks that the addition of the words 

 "of Bengal" in the name was brought about "without authority," 

 " by an oversight," "by inadvertence," and " without sanction." It is 

 however too much to assume that, because no express resolution or 

 order on the point can be found now, the former rulers of the Society 

 did not notice the change. It seems more in consonance with the facta 

 as narrated by the Committee and more respectful to those distinguish- 

 ed men, to infer that they perceived that, when the Royal Asiatic 

 Society was established with a Branch at Bombay (and another, I 

 believe, at Colombo then or soon afterwards), and after other Oriental 

 Societies were established on the Continent, the condition of our Society 

 was not precisely the same as before, that other societies claimed a 

 share in our (till then exclusive) province, and that our position would 

 be more appropriately described by adding the words "of Bengal." 

 Those developments were gradual ; hence there was no occasion for 

 formally altering our title, but the modification introduced tentatively 

 by Mr. James Piinsep was tacitly approved and gradually adopted by 

 the Society. For these reasons I demur to the remarks in the Com- 

 mittee's paper. 



In the second place it is not explained what good the proposal will 

 subserve. We are asked to go back at one step on what has been tlie 

 practice for more than half a century, yet no reason of essential im- 

 portance is urged on behalf of the change. No principle is involved, 

 nor is it a matter of any practical consequence. Neither the scope of 

 our researches, nor our position among the learned societies, nor the 



