sphere of scholastic training. We do not actively assist religious teaching within it, because we are debarred from exercising any discrimination as to what we judge good or ill. We cannot secure that only the good shall come in so we think it safer to admit none at all.

There is a practical difficulty remaining also, if we should determine to make the experiment of aiding and abetting direct religious instruction. So far as colleges were intended to represent one religion only, like the Sanskrit College or Alighar, there would not be (as there is not now) any difficulty. But it is not practicable, even were it desirable, to make all schools and colleges sectarian. How can religious teaching be introduced, if the school or college authorities do not themselves take the responsibility for it? Only by admitting teachers from outside. This, however, gives rise to an objection which to the man who works in school or college is probably decisive: it would be to introduce rival authorities into college and school, the educational and the religious. There would be too great apprehension that this rival authority might undermine discipline for the teacher ever to acquiesce in it with an easy mind.

It is not possible to discuss the subject exhaustively, and more might doubtless be said on both sides. The balance appears to the present writer to be decisively against the expediency of making a radical change in the policy hitherto followed by the Government of India in regard to religious education.

It remains, then, that our education of character, so far as schools and colleges are concerned, must be independent of a specially religious basis. This does not, however, at all necessarily mean that it is cut off from all appeal to what is most morally persuasive in religion. The true essence of belief, as far as morals are concerned, is that God is on the side of righteousness. This it is

which gives effective power to religion as a motive to morality. The appeal to this fundamental faith is not denied to the teacher on a purely secular basis of education. This belief involves no theological dogma and offends no religious susceptibilities. The appeal is, therefore, always within the secular teacher's discretion.

For the rest our task must be to make the best of the ordinary means of moral education: and the only practical question here is whether any means have been overlooked which might be employed; is there anything more which might be done now? "Morality," Dr. Duncan well says, "must be taught in schools in the way in which it is taught at home, and in the social life of the young. Morality cannot be taught as a branch of knowledge forming part of the school curriculum, nor is a special text-book the best means of inculcating it. That danger of neglecting the spirit for the letter, which has to be particularly guarded against, when text-books are used in teaching the ordinary branches of knowledge, would be much more menacing were the attempt made to teach morality through a specially prepared textbook." This is well said and decisive against one of the two practical suggestions of the Commission of 1882. The second was for series of lectures on the duties of a man and a citizen. Now it is very certain that college addresses by the principal of a college to the college as a whole are very necessary as an incentive and support of the corporate life of a college. They should, however, deal with the duties of the members of a collegiate society rather than duties of members of the community in a wider sense. Such addresses should be made to students as students of the college (and of that college in particular), and should bear closely on the particular and present circumstances of life in the college. They should,

in a broad sense, be lay sermons. A principal who is not full to overflowing with thoughts for such addresses can have very imperfectly realized the obligations and privileges of his position. If in particular cases, and for exceptional reasons, a principal feels unable to take on himself this responsibility, he may delegate the function to such members of the college staff as are fitted to discharge it. There is some loss of efficacy if the head of the college speaks by deputy, but the essential point is that there should be regular addresses, and that these addresses should concern themselves with the students' present surroundings and responsibilities. If the student learns aright the lesson of his duties as a student, there will be no question later on as to his recognition of what is due from him as a man and a citizen. Addresses need

not be very frequent, better not. Once or twice in a year should suffice; but there can be no hard-and-fast line drawn in the matter. Along with such direct and solemn incentives to right doing, the most potent instrument of moral education is, undoubtedly, good rules of discipline, considerately imposed and firmly enforced. The habit of obedience to rule has formal value in itself; willing obedience to good rules with a recognition that they are good is moral education of the most effective kind. In the main character must be formed by action; right actions from right motives trained into virtuous habits. As Dr. Duncan writes: "Practical morality is an art which is learnt like every other art, solely by doing moral actions." Hence the preponderant value of wellregulated school and college discipline. Yet even that cannot be fully efficacious of itself. So much depends also on the nature which the pupil brings for school discipline to mould and on the influences of his other surroundings, his earliest associations, his out-of-school companions, his home. These things cannot be regu

lated by the teacher: they lie almost absolutely outside the reach of his influence; and these outside influences are by no means always favourable. All the more pressing is his responsibility and the need for increasing the efficacy of moral teaching in the school.

Undoubtedly the most important factor of all is the character of the teacher himself. And here again Government policy has not failed, but is on the right lines. "The Government of India," says Dr. Duncan, "have rightly given the foremost place among their recommendations to the employment of trained teachers and the provision of efficient training schools"; and he is able to point with satisfaction to the attention which had already at that date been paid to the subject in Madras. Bengal, on the other hand, has lagged behind and is endeavouring with the happiest promise to make up ground now. The extreme importance of right selection of teachers in every grade, and especially in the highest, is not yet sufficiently recognized, at any rate not sufficiently provided for. In the matter of discipline also the support the teacher may count on getting might be made more assured. The enforcement of judicious rules is, as has been said, the chief educational instrument. There must be no doubt that the fearless enforcement of discipline by the teacher will receive support, if support is needed. This has not always been sufficiently well assured in the past. If these two things are better done: (1) unsparing effort made to secure that teachers shall be men of high character; (2) due provision made for establishing and maintaining sound discipline, Government will have done all that is at present possible for moral education. No radical change of policy is called for; only the better and more efficient carrying out of the policy long since adopted.

XII

MASS EDUCATION

THERE can be no doubt that the Despatch of 1854 contemplated a general extension of popular education, and desired in particular to bring education to those classes "who are utterly incapable of obtaining any education worthy of the name by their own unaided efforts." But when the Commission of 1882 flatly recommended "That primary education be declared to be that part of the whole system of Public Instruction which possesses an almost exclusive claim on local funds set apart for education and a large claim on provincial revenues," they went far beyond anything in the Despatch of 1854. In the Despatch of 1854 it will be found that primary and secondary schools are dealt with together in the same paragraphs as parts of the one problem of popular education. "Schools-whose objects should be not to train a few youths but to provide more opportunities than now exist for the acquisition of such an improved education as will make those who possess it more useful members of society in every condition of life-should exist in every district in India. "We include in this class of institutions those which, like the Zillah Schools of Bengal, the district Government AngloVernacular Schools of Bombay, and such as have been established by the Raja of Burdwan and other native gentlemen in different parts of India, use the English language as the chief medium of instruction; as well as