12 . 
 
 • . ;0 
 > I A.'YV' - 
 
 Arndia, 
 
 - 
 
 OCCASIONAL PAPER. No 
 
 AUG g ]Q 22 
 
 Ipsskm: to 
 
 IN CONNEXION WITH THE S.P.G. 
 
 THE PRESENT NEEDS OF 
 
 CHRISTIAN EDUCATIONAL ENTERPRISE 
 
 IN INDIA. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. S. S. ALLNUTT, M.A., 
 
 of st John’s college and the Cambridge mission, 
 
 PRINCIPAL OF ST STEPHEN’S COLLEGE, DELHI, 
 
 AND FELLOW OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PANJAB. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE: 
 
 PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
 1894 
 
THE PRESENT NEEDS OF CHRISTIAN 
 EDUCATIONAL ENTERPRISE IN INDIA, 
 
 It has long been my intention, ever since indeed our new College 
 was opened in December 1891, to attempt some sort of review of the 
 progress of our educational work during the ten years that had then 
 elapsed since the College was inaugurated on its present basis. 
 Pressure of work and illness have hindered the fulfilment of this 
 intention till the present vacation brought the leisure needed for the 
 task. But when I sat down to consider the lines on which I should 
 attempt such a review, I found, as the result of my retrospect of the 
 work, that one subject bulked so large in my thoughts that I was led 
 to feel that until I had delivered myself on it, I could not satis¬ 
 factorily essay the task of a general review. 
 
 What that subject is, will presently become apparent. Before I 
 enter on it, I feel impelled to make one remark in self-justification 
 for adopting the role of critic and reformer which I shall have to 
 take up if I am to make good the thesis I maintain. My plea, in 
 view of the presumptuousness with which I may fairly be charged, 
 is that in one respect my experience has, I think, been somewhat 
 unique, at least so far as regards the North of India. Having until 
 recently had both School and College under my charge, I have 
 had opportunities of becoming acquainted with student-life in India 
 from its earliest to its latest stages. Young men are now reading 
 in our B.A. classes whose career I have followed with interest since 
 (in one or two cases) they were quite little boys in the School. 
 This dual control has forced me to face, and to the best of my 
 ability to grapple with, the many problems that confront(the edu¬ 
 cational Missionary who sets to work believing that education can 
 be made a most effective agency in the evangelization of this 
 country,^but finds that, notwithstanding all that has been done, 
 the solution of these problems has hardly advanced, so far at least 
 as our Schools are concerned, beyond the primary stage. There 
 can be little doubt that one main reason for the comparative un- 
 
 1—2 
 
4 
 
 progressiveness of the work is the half-hearted support which the 
 home Committees of Missionary Societies give to educational enter¬ 
 prise as a Missionary agency. Many Societies disapprove entirely 
 of it and are at any rate consistent in their attitude, for they do not 
 allow their Missionaries to engage in it. But those Societies which 
 do recognize education 1 as a legitimate and perhaps even necessary 
 branch of Missionary organization seem to me to go the best way 
 about to render it ineffective by the policy they adopt in regard to it. 
 That policy may, I think, be justly described as one of compelling 
 the workers to make bricks without straw. It seems to be assumed 
 that because schools and colleges, being in receipt of Government 
 grants and fees paid by students, are to a great extent self-supporting, 
 any considerable outlay of Mission funds on education is unnecessary 
 or inexpedient. Underlying this is no doubt the prevalent view that 
 as the institutions are to a large extent ‘secular,’ it is wrong to apply 
 funds to them which are subscribed for purely spiritual purposes. Do 
 people, it is asked, give their hardly earned pennies in order that 
 Indian boys may be taught English Grammar and Arithmetic ? Put 
 in this form the reasoning is apt to appear cogent and even con¬ 
 clusive. But it is obvious that this argument cannot be used 
 by those bodies which have accepted the principle of propagating 
 Christianity by means of education, and to some extent at least act 
 on it by sanctioning grants of money for its maintenance. Such 
 bodies should, I think, consider that a half-and-half policy, exhibited 
 in the stinting of supplies which I will endeavour to show are 
 necessary for the adequate development of the work, is apt to bring 
 about the very condition of things which the opponents of the 
 method appeal to as proof positive of its unsoundness as an evan¬ 
 gelizing agency,—the secularity, namely, of the institutions. Though 
 I hope to show that this secularity is, even in the unfavourable con¬ 
 ditions under which we labour, not so great as is often supposed, yet 
 all those engaged in education are painfully aware that secular 
 influences do pervade our system to a much greater extent than 
 ought to be, or, if the necessary steps are taken, need be the case. 
 But why is this the case at present? The main reason/l believe, is 
 not (as is so often alleged) the necessity of accommodating our 
 system to meet the conditions of a grant-in-aid Code, nor the dis¬ 
 traction of University or other examinations, which are confessedly 
 
 1 It may be well to explain that by education in this paper I mean exclusively 
 that of non-Christian boys and young men in Mission Schools and Colleges. 
 
 4 
 
5 
 
 the goal which the students have mainly in view 1 , but that we are 
 obliged still to rely on non-Christian teachers to carry on the work 
 of instructional say “still,” for when Mission Schools began it 
 was obviously necessary, if the work was to be done at all, that such 
 teachers should be employed. I do not stop now to consider whether 
 it was wise or right in the first instance for such a course to be 
 adopted. I believe myself that it was as justifiable as it was indis¬ 
 pensable. But the inaugurators of the movement can never have 
 supposed, much less desired, that the employment of such teachers 
 should be anything but provisional and temporary. £From the first 
 it must have been recognized that a Mission School or College 
 ought properly to be manned exclusively by Christian teachers.^ 
 Perhaps this primary axiom was not as clearly emphasized as it 
 might have been. Perhaps their successors have too readily allowed 
 themselves to acquiesce in the continued employment of non- 
 Christians as if it were an inevitable necessity. However this may 
 be,(l know of no educational missionary who does not deplore the 
 fact that after the lapse of so many years the supply of Christian 
 masters is still so small that we have even now to rely mainly on 
 the services of non-Christians for all but the most important posts in 
 our Schools/) 
 
 But what are the reasons for this ? They are, I believe, twofold. 
 In the first place^we have no adequate means of offering Christian 
 young men sufficient inducement to take up the career of a teacher) 
 or of fitting them to become teachers, if they be willing to enter upon 
 it. In the second place^ there is an undoubted reluctance on the 
 part of our young Christians to become teachers in our Schools. For 
 the former state of things the Societies are, I believe, to blame ; for 
 the latter, to a great extent certainly, we ourselves; though other 
 causes have no doubt contributed to this unwillingness?) 
 
 In order to make good the first of these allegations, I would ask 
 attention to the following facts. Crhe income of a Mission School is 
 usually supplied from three sources: (a) a grant from a home 
 Society, (b) fees of students, (c) a Government grant which can 
 never exceed one-half of the total expenditure, and being awarded 
 on the payment-by-results system is fluctuating and uncertain. The 
 Mission grant is usually a fixed quantity from year to year and it is 
 understood that it cannot under ordinary circumstances be increased. 
 
 1 I hope in the review of our work, which will form the subject of another 
 paper, to show the grounds on which this denial is based. 
 
6 
 
 The other sources of income in a well-managed school tend of 
 course to increase, but experience shows that there is rarely any con¬ 
 siderable margin of saving, and what there is has to be put by for a 
 rainy day. The Manager of a school has therefore but little surplus 
 to meet new demands on his resources. And now another factor 
 in the case has to be noted. Suppose a Manager to be bent on 
 increasing the staff of Christian masters in his school. He finds to 
 his dismay that he can only get the article he requires at a consider¬ 
 ably greater cost than that which he wishes to displace. This no 
 doubt is a difficulty which will tend to right itself as the supply of 
 Christian masters grows larger. But at present it is the case that a 
 Christian candidate of any attainments expects about half as much 
 again as a non-Christian one. In the main he is, I believe, justified 
 in demanding it. A Hindu or Muhammadan teacher, if his family 
 is in the place, lives in the joint family system, and his expenses are 
 proportionately less; if he is at a distance from his family, he as a 
 rule leaves his wife at her home, and so far as I know is not expected 
 to send much for her maintenance; while in either case he is generally 
 able to add to his salary by taking private pupils. The Christian, 
 on the other hand, has when married (as he usually is) to set up 
 house for himself 1 and whether we approve it or not is unable to live 
 in the very primitive, not to say, semi-civilized fashion, as regards 
 his domestic arrangements, which satisfies his non-Christian compeer. 
 This being the case, it is obvious that if the Manager is to obtain the 
 services of well-educated Christian teachers, he must have further 
 funds at his command than the sources I have indicated supply. It 
 is not often the case that he has a friend to fall back upon in 
 his need, such as him whose loss our Mission has had recently to 
 mourn. For years past Maitland contributed regularly to the funds 
 of the school for this very purpose. It may perhaps be urged that 
 for extra expenses such as this each Mission ought to rely on the 
 funds raised by it independently of the home Society. Very excellent 
 advice no doubt, but what I wish to represent to our friends at home 
 is that if they wish to see our Schools and Colleges made thoroughly 
 efficient evangelizing agencies, they ought to be willing to contribute 
 more than they do, through the Societies to which they contribute, 
 towards their support and development. Let it be determined as a 
 clear principle of Missionary policy to do one thing or the other, 
 
 1 It is usual to provide free quarters for Christian masters on low pay, a con¬ 
 cession which of course improves his position. 
 
7 
 
 either to give such support and encouragement as may enable us 
 out here to make education ^vhat we honestly believe it may be, far 
 more than it yet has been,—a means of winning India’s sons to faith 
 in Christ; or to abandon the attempt altogether and not spend funds 
 in ineffectual half-measures.' I am for my own part willing to abide 
 by the issue. I do not hesitate to say that if by some means or 
 another we are not able during the next few years to replace, as 
 opportunity offers, our non-Christian masters by earnest, well-quali¬ 
 fied Christians, it will be necessary to consider whether we can any 
 longer justify the continuance of the system. 
 
 The mention of the quality of the masters we require leads me 
 to the other part of the first allegation I have put forward. Even 
 supposing that we had the necessary funds for augmenting the staff 
 of Christian masters, a perhaps graver difficulty still confronts us. 
 At present we entirely lack the means of training them for their 
 work. We have the St John’s Divinity School at Lahore where we 
 can send any promising young man who desires to become a pastor 
 or catechist. But when a man is engaged as a teacher, he is forth¬ 
 with put down in a class to teach the Bible or other religious books, 
 as if it was the simplest and most straightforward thing to do. A 
 manager may try to impart ideas of method and otherwise guide and 
 direct him out of school. But not every manager is himself equipped 
 for this sort of work, which requires special training and aptitude. 
 Hence our tyro has to pick up his experience in the best way he can, 
 and the result is, as a rule, deplorable. The Bible-lesson, which well 
 taught ought to be and may be the most interesting in the day’s 
 course, is generally the dullest and most mechanical. One knows 
 what the average Sunday School teacher at home with all his zeal is 
 capable of. And here is a work of vastly greater difficulty entrusted 
 to young Christians who, with every desire to do their duty, have had 
 no preparation for performing it. The remedy for this state of things 
 is clear. Training College for young Christians is the real de¬ 
 sideratum which if instituted would do more than anything else to 
 raise the character and quality of the work done and make our 
 schools what we want them to be, real spiritual agencies!') 
 
 What can be done out here or elsewhere by such preliminary 
 training is at once apparent from the excellent results of the Govern¬ 
 ment Training Colleges. The Indian is naturally imitative. His 
 very lack of originality in one way fits him to assimilate more readily 
 the method and art of teaching when presented to him by a trained 
 expert. No one who has watched the difference between the hand- 
 
8 
 
 ling of a class by a trained teacher and by one who has had no such 
 advantages, can doubt the value of the training from the point of 
 view of efficiency. It may perhaps be urged that since there already 
 exist first-rate training institutions open (as they are) to all comers, 
 the simplest mode of solving the difficulty would be to send Christian 
 young men to be trained for the secular part of their work in these, 
 and to provide otherwise for the religious part of their training. But 
 though I admit that in default of a distinctively Christian institution, 
 this would supply to some extent the want, yet it is only to a very 
 limited extent that this would be the case. In the first place 
 bifurcation of study is in itself undesirable. The activity and excite¬ 
 ment prevalent in a well-managed Training College are very absorbing, 
 and the religious part of the training would be a sort of -n-dpepyov, apt 
 to be looked on as subordinate to the other, and only entered on 
 when the best energies had been expended on the other part of the 
 day’s duties. But there is another and much more serious objection. 
 What we want most of all in our young men is a sense of vocation, 
 an intelligent conviction that the work they are being trained for is 
 not merely a livelihood but a high and holy calling, requiring for its 
 due discharge the consecration and development of all man’s best 
 and noblest powersaw apnos rj 6 rov fleov av0pa)7TO9, 7rpo9 7rav epyov 
 ayaOov pna-^evosl Now it is clear that such an end can only be 
 attained in an institution,/ihe head of which is not only a skilled 
 teacher (though this is indispensable) but a man so full of Christ’s 
 Spirit as to be capable of moulding the character of the students 
 under his charge into the Christ-likeness, of inspiring them with high 
 and pure motives, and of permeating every detail of the work done 
 with the rjOos of the Gospel. Only in such an institution can the 
 true unity of all Christian work be understood and realized. Only 
 so can we hope that the profession of a Christian teacher in a 
 Mission School will be seen to be, not a career simply, but a 
 vocation. 
 
 If I am right that a Christian Training College is the chief 
 desideratum at the present time in regard to machinery, so to say, 
 of educational enterprise, in order that it may more adequately 
 fulfil its purpose, it seems clear that we have a right to look for 
 recognition of the need on the part of our home Societies. Past 
 experience however is not very encouraging as to the prospect of 
 such a hope being realized in any practical form. So far as the 
 Panjab is concerned, there did some years ago exist a Training 
 College under Christian management at Amritsar. When the 
 
 *•*> 
 
9 
 
 Christian Vernacular Education Society (as it was then called) was 
 obliged to relinquish the maintenance of it, a strong effort, backed 
 by the influential support of some of the leading Christian laymen 
 of the province, was made to induce the home Committee of the 
 Church Missionary Society to take over the College. The actual, if 
 not original, purpose of the College, I should explain, was the 
 training of non-Christian teachers for Mission Schools. Its design 
 differed therefore from that for which I am now pleading. But 
 there is little doubt that had the Society seen its way to undertake 
 the work, it would have been gradually transformed into a College 
 such as I am advocating. Indeed, if I am right in the position I 
 take, that non-Christian masters are an anomaly in our Schools and 
 ought, as soon as possible, to be replaced by Christian masters, it 
 follows that this change must have been effected as soon as ever the 
 principle I am contending for had been not only recognized but 
 acted upon. Be that as it may, the opportunity for such a develop¬ 
 ment was never granted, for the Committee declined to accede to the 
 proposal, and the refusal was so decided that, so far as I know, no 
 attempt has since been made to renew it. If the reason of the 
 refusal was simply want of funds, the rightness of the principle of 
 such a College not being denied, there is of course no reasonable 
 ground of objection. But if, as I fear, it was rather due to a wide¬ 
 spread belief that already too much money is being devoted to 
 educational purposes, then the refusal only illustrates the incon¬ 
 sistent policy, which it is my object to draw attention to, of supporting 
 the work with a fair amount of liberality up to a certain point, but 
 then refusing further support just exactly when it is, as I believe, 
 imperatively necessary to make education a really efficacious instru¬ 
 ment for spreading the Gospel in India. My reason for dwelling at 
 such length on this subject is that I hope I may succeed in calling 
 more thorough consideration to it. If it should appear that none of 
 our Church Societies are prepared to take the matter up, whether 
 from want of funds or lack of conviction that the scheme proposed 
 has in it the promise and potency I have claimed for it, then I would 
 fain address myself to a still wider circle and express a hope that 
 this need may appeal to some of those who have means at their 
 command, and who may be moved to supply it. Princely dona¬ 
 tions have in the past been given for the foundation of special 
 branches of Missionary work on a permanent footing. I cannot 
 think of any object at the present time that would more entirely 
 repay such liberality than the founding of a Christian Training 
 
 i—5 
 
IO 
 
 College to meet the need which has been indicated. Of course I 
 hope it would be located in the Panjab! 1 
 
 But any one acquainted with the attitude of our young Christians 
 at present to Mission employment will naturally ask, even if your 
 hope should be realised and some munificent person come forward 
 and offer to found such an institution, are you sure that you could 
 find young men enough to fill it or to justify its existence ? As I am 
 not holding a brief for the cause I advocate, and wish to present the 
 whole of the case without reserve, I am bound in candour to reply 
 that the supply of students at the first would probably be small. 
 This confession leads me to call attention to the second count in the 
 allegation which I made in the beginning of this paper. I stated 
 then that the second reason why we still have to employ so largely 
 non-Christian teachers in our Schools is(jthe reluctance of our young 
 men to offer themselves for the work.) For this it was admitted&ve ) 
 ourselves, and not the Societies, Qire mainly to blamed) This re¬ 
 luctance is not confined to the case under consideration. All along 
 the line it is the cojnmon experience of us all that parents do not, as 
 a rule, try to induce their sons to take up employment in a Mission, 
 nor do the sons themselves in the majority of cases manifest any 
 desire to do so. This is a very serious state of things and clearly 
 it is of the utmost importance that we should endeavour to ascertain 
 the causes of this reluctance and even dislike to take up direct work 
 for Christ in a Mission, and if possible to suggest measures for 
 removing them. I only propose to deal with the question from the 
 point of view of educational supply. It may be well to premise that 
 the profession of a school-master is not in this country in itself a 
 popular one. In former times indeed, as the proverbs of the country 
 attest, it must have been eminently unpopular. And though the 
 ladder of promotion enables an able man to rise to the post of 
 Inspector and this prospect attracts such men to the service, yet the 
 action of Government in placing the Schools under the control of 
 Municipalities and district boards is, I believe, tending to increase 
 the dislike in a great number of cases. Masters are subject to 
 
 1 Such a hope is not simply inspired by selfish considerations. Systems of 
 education differ so widely in India that even where the vernacular is the same (and 
 this alone would limit the area to the Panjab and North-West Provinces) no 
 Training College could be efficiently worked unless its sphere were confined (in the 
 main) to the province in which it was located. It must of necessity to be efficient 
 have a Normal School attached to it, and this fact alone would determine what 
 the general system and curriculum would have to be. 
 
interference and petty annoyances to which they have usually not 
 the firmness or independence of character to rise superior. It might 
 indeed be hoped that service in a Mission School, being free from 
 such drawbacks and affording such a grand opening for Christian 
 influence would attract our young men to it, even though we have 
 no such inducements to offer in the way of promotion. But apart 
 from other causes, there are two which I have frequently heard from 
 native Christians, and which undoubtedly tend to deter their sons 
 from engaging in the work. 
 
 The first is the want of any guarantee of ultimately reaching such 
 a position of what may'be called semi-independence as they see to be 
 attainable by men in Government employment, and which they are 
 conscious in many cases of having the qualifications, if not the right, 
 to enjoy. (*A master may indeed rise to be head-master, but he has 
 generally a European Missionary as Principal who, if he is at all 
 keen about his work, almost inevitably reduces the head-master to 
 the rank of a lieutenant) In Government Schools this is not the case. 
 The head-master, however subject he may be to such annoyances as 
 I spoke of above, has far more independence in his own school, and 
 the Inspector is the only officer entitled to interfere in its internal 
 management. I know several native Christians of high character 
 
 and ability who were formerly engaged in Mission Schools, but 
 
 \ 
 
 finding, as they thought, no adequate scope for their powers, or 
 being unduly domineered over by the Principal, left them to enter 
 Government Service and are now in some cases head-masters of 
 their schools. The question arises, is this unavoidable ? Have 
 we not reached a stage in the development of Mission work when, 
 provided that competent men of really high character can be found, 
 we who are Missionaries ought to be ready to yield up more 
 executive power to our native brethren, so as to afford them fuller 
 scope for the exercise of their powers? Opinions will vary very 
 much as to the wisdom of doing this yet, though all, I believe, will 
 agree that this ought to be the policy aimed at. I am not a very 
 suitable person to give an opinion, as I am conscious that when in 
 charge of our school, I did practically reduce the head-master to the 
 position I have described. It is however legitimate sometimes to 
 preach in cases where one has not practised, an^I am personally 
 convinced that the time is very near, if it has not already come, 
 when we shall have in this, as well as in other departments of our 
 work, to be prepared to efface ourselves more than has been easy, 
 perhaps even desirable, in the past, j What I look forward to in the 
 not distant future is that, provided we can overcome the dislike that 
 
12 
 
 now hinders our young men from coming forward and guarantee a 
 prospect of such a position as, I believe, they are in many cases 
 capable of rising to, we shall find native Christians of zeal and 
 ability anxious to become school-masters. In Church of England 
 Schools I should further hope that our Bishops will be ready, when 
 they find head-masters who have given real proof of their entire 
 devotion to the work, and are animated by a true Missionary spirit, 
 to admit them to Holy Orders. Such a step would, I think, help to 
 change the current idea of a native head-master’s sphere of work 
 both in his own eyes and in the view of the other masters and of 
 the students. It is apt at present to be confined to a faithful, though 
 somewhat mechanical, discharge of his secular duties. I am not 
 advocating the withdrawal of the Missionary from school work as a 
 general rule. The time has not come for that yet. Cases when a 
 school can be left mainly in the hands of a native Christian head¬ 
 master are rare at present. I am only contending that when such 
 rare cases do occur, the Missionary should withdraw and, as far as he 
 can, efface himself. He will still have to act as manager for business 
 purposes and correspondence with Government, and this position, 
 used with tact and judgment, will give him all the opportunity he 
 needs for giving advice and suggesting improvements, especially in 
 regard to the directly religious side of the teaching. Every successful 
 result of such a policy would serve as a powerful incentive to others 
 to emulate and fit themselves for a like position. LastlyJ^t would be 
 strange if, when the present policy of Government in allowing Indians 
 to rise to positions of high responsibility and dignity is ultimately 
 due to the Christian influences which underlie and animate it, we 
 should be tardy in-, conceding at least a like position to native 
 Christians, whenever we find them capable of filling it worthily.) 
 
 The other deterrent cause, tending to make employment in a 
 Mission School unpopular, arises from the almost autocratic powers 
 which in most Missions are conceded to Principals, not only in the 
 internal management of schools (in regard to which he is of course 
 entitled to have and exercise them), but in the appointment and 
 dismissal of the masters, both Christian and non-Christian: I believe 
 I am correct in stating that in almost all Missions a Principal has 
 almost absolute power in this respect, nor so far as I am aware does 
 there exist in such cases any right of appeal to a higher authority. 
 In the abstract no doubt there is much to be said for investing the 
 head of a school with such powers. How far as a matter of fact 
 such a prerogative is in operation and has been found to work well 
 in European Schools, I do not know. But it seems clear that in 
 
13 
 
 India, at all events at the critical juncture at which we have arrived 
 in the development of the native Church, it is most impolitic, to say 
 the least, to grant such powers to a European Principal. Missionaries 
 are seldom appointed to such a post because of any special aptitude 
 for the work. They are frequently young men just out from England 
 with very crude ideas of what they may expect to find in their native 
 subordinates. Zeal rather than wisdom is naturally the prominent 
 feature of their action, and when they find that there is not such a 
 response to their demands and expectations as they wish to see 
 (especially in the way of volunteer work out of school hours), it not 
 unfrequently happens that they make up their minds to get rid of 
 masters who seem deficient in zeal, though subsequent experience 
 usually modifies the sense of satisfaction they had in so doing. Now 
 a master ejected from his post under these and similar circumstances 
 has, as a rule, no right of appeal, and the result is that he is not only 
 prejudiced himself against the very idea of Mission employment but, 
 as a matter of course, brings his sons up to entertain a similar feel¬ 
 ing. What aggravates the grievance is that as a rule in other 
 departments of Mission employment single Missionaries have no 
 such power of summary dismissal. Native pastors and catechists, 
 for example, are under the control of conferences and synods, and 
 their appointment, allocation and dismissal being in the hands of 
 such bodies, they are free from liability to the high-handedness or 
 caprice of a single individual. There seems no valid reason why 
 a similar course should not be followed in the appointment and 
 dismissal of Christian school-masters, nor, so far as I can see, of non- 
 Christian teachers also. Whatever objections might be urged against 
 such a course seem to me to be far outweighed by the considerations 
 I have urged for it. Apart from the obvious fairness of such an 
 arrangement, it would do more than anything else to reassure both 
 parents and young men seeking employment that the rights of 
 teachers would in future be respected by Missionary bodies. At 
 present, as I have shown, they have no such guarantee, and hence 
 one main reason for the prevalent dissatisfaction. 
 
 I do not propose to make suggestions for carrying out the revised 
 policy I have recommended. Different Missions vary so in their 
 organization that it would be difficult to do so to any purpose. My 
 object has been to call attention to the need which in my opinion 
 exists for such a revision, and if my view of the situation should 
 commend itself to Missionary bodies, they will themselves be best 
 able to make the changes which seem to be required. I cannot 
 refrain, however, from putting on record what our own experience at 
 
H 
 
 Delhi has been of the beneficial results of concerted action in regard 
 to the appointment and dismissal of agents. Though in theory 
 every Missionary in charge of a department has a right to dismiss 
 any agent with whom he is dissatisfied, we have in practice found it 
 work much better in every way to put our power, so to say, into 
 commission and allow the Mission Council the practically exclusive 
 power both of appointment and dismissal. This Council consists of 
 all the European Missionaries belonging to the Delhi Mission, 
 together with such of our native brethren as may be found quali¬ 
 fied to act as members, they having when admitted exactly the same 
 status as the European members. As the Council so constituted is 
 made up of men of very different experience and characters, this 
 procedure has undoubtedly tended to prevent hasty or ill-considered 
 action on the part of any individual Missionary, and to create, to 
 some extent at least, a sense of security and confidence on the part 
 of the Mission agents. This procedure, I may add, applies to non- 
 Christian teachers exactly in the same way as to Christians. As we 
 are the only S. P. G. Mission in the Panjab, there cannot of course 
 in our case be any means of allowing a right of appeal to a wider 
 body. But the large number of the members composing it (some 
 twelve in all at the present time), constituted as we are, serves, I 
 believe, to render such a right unnecessary, though this may be a 
 partial view of the case. ^ 
 
 To sum up, I believe that^the three measures of reform im¬ 
 peratively called for in our educational policy are (i) the gradual 
 supersession of non-Christian teachers by competent Christians, 
 (2) increased subsidies to educational work to enable us to meet 
 the larger expenditure entailed by such action, (3) the establishment 
 (in one of the chief centres of education in the Panjab) of a Training 
 College for the supply of really qualified teachers. J Should the last 
 measure proposed meet with attention and evoke any sort of re¬ 
 sponse, one question is sure to be raised in regard to it. (AYhat 
 namely is to be its religious basis ? *) The Training College at 
 Amritsar, to which reference has been made, was undenominational, 
 but as that institution, whatever may have been its original design, 
 was practically maintained for the training of non-Christian teachers, 
 the question of the character of the religious instruction given never 
 came to the front. The Managers of all Mission Schools were only 
 too glad to take masters from it trained under a high-minded 
 Christian layman, and, if not actual enquirers, favourably disposed 
 towards our religion. But in such an institution as I have advocated 
 the denominational question would inevitably have to be raised and 
 
15 
 
 settled. We should be, I foresee, in a dilemma as to its solution. If 
 on the one hand it should be decided to establish a definitely 
 Church of England College, there might be a difficulty in guarantee¬ 
 ing such a supply of young men as would justify its maintenance. 
 There are at present eight Church of England Mission High and 
 Middle Schools 1 as against twelve Nonconformist in the Panjab. It 
 is clear that a Training College which as a rule only supplied 
 teachers for Church of England Schools would find but few openings 
 for them, when once the staff of these schools had become wholly or 
 mainly Christian 2 . If on the other handCwith a view to enlarging 
 the scope of such a College, it be put on an undenominational foot¬ 
 ing, we expose ourselves to all the dangers and drawbacks which 
 experience has shown to be inherent in such a system.**") 
 
 It is a sense of the extreme difficulty of avoiding the horns of this 
 dilemma, one of the “many dangers we are in by our unhappy 
 divisions,” that has long deterred me from proposing the foundation 
 of such a College. What has led me to do so now in spite of the 
 difficulty is the stronger sense of the imperative necessity of removing 
 the anomaly under which our educational system labours, of having 
 our Schools manned mainly with non-Christian teachers, notwith¬ 
 standing the largely increased growth of the Church in the province, 
 which assuredly ought to enable us gradually to do away with it. 
 Constrained by this conviction, ll^am prepared to maintain that the 
 undenominational solution being impracticable, and the reasons 
 impelling us to action imperative, we are bound to adopt and act 
 upon the other alternative, at the risk of seeming to curtail the use¬ 
 fulness of the institution?^ What we should lose in extension we 
 should, I am convinced, more than compensate for by greater inten¬ 
 siveness, and that really is a much higher end to aim at. And if, as 
 I would fain hope, Nonconformist Missions (to the good work in the 
 main done by which no Churchman should lose an opportunity of 
 paying a tribute) should be led to see the necessity of adopting such 
 a policy and institute such a College for the supply of their own 
 
 1 I include the Baring High School at Batala for Christians in which Christian 
 teachers are a sine qua non even more than in Mission Schools. A similar 
 Nonconformist School at Ludhiana is reckoned in their schools. 
 
 2 I am informed by Mr Sime, the Director of Public Instruction that on an 
 average about four teachers a year would be required to meet the needs of the 
 twenty Mission High and Middle Schools in the Panjab. At first of course the 
 number required would be much greater, to replace non-Christian teachers. By 
 the time the substitution had been effected, we might reasonably hope that the 
 number of schools and the proportionate demand for teachers would have largely 
 increased. 
 
i6 
 
 schools, the needs of the case would be met, and the same sort of 
 friendly rivalry effected which, until our divisions are healed, seems 
 to be the only relation practicable for us, at least so far as the build¬ 
 ing up of the Church is concerned. 
 
 There are moreover other considerations which may help to 
 mitigate the difficulties incidental to establishing a Training College 
 on a purely Church of England basis. Even if a Nonconformist 
 College should not -be started, there is no reason (judging from past 
 experience) to suppose that the parents of Nonconformist children 
 would decline to send their sons to be trained in a Church of 
 England College. Provided the teaching were of a moderate and 
 sober type, many would probably have no objection to doing so. 
 Managers of Nonconformist Schools would certainly be ready, as 
 they do now, to employ teachers trained in our College, so that the 
 openings would not be so limited as might at first sight appear. And 
 even should the number of students be at first comparatively small 
 we are surely justified in maintaining that we ought to be as ready to 
 incur expenditure seemingly incommensurate with results for the 
 
 sake of securing really competent and devoted teachers as we are 
 ready to do in the case of native pastors and catechists. The 
 St John’s School of Divinity, founded by Bishop French, has seldom, 
 if ever, had more than six students at a time, and no one, I should 
 hope, has ever been short-sighted enough to assert that money spent 
 on maintaining this College has been ill-spent, though undoubtedly 
 incommensurate with the results, so far as numbers are concerned. 
 If such a College as I advocate should for some time to come only 
 be able to turn out five or six teachers a year, is there any reason 
 why such a criticism should pass muster in this case more than the 
 other? None, except in the eyes of those who regard the work of a 
 catechist or pastor as more truly and distinctively evangelistic than 
 that of a teacher in a Mission School. No one who realizes what is 
 the scope and opportunity for devoted Christian labour afforded by 
 the profession of a teacher can for a moment entertain such a view. 
 Still it is too true that by acquiescing in the employment of non- 
 Christians as if it were a matter of course in our Schools, by our 
 half-hearted action in regard to the supply of Christian teachers, and 
 by our failure to inspire them when supplied with a true sense of the 
 privilege and opportunity of their position, we have tended to justify 
 such a view. It is an instance of the truth of the adage, “give a 
 dog a bad name and hang him.” My firm conviction is that the 
 ^establishment of a Training College would be one of the most 
 effectual means of rescuing the teacher from the low estimate of his 
 
profession which he has come to entertain since he finds almost 
 everyone entertaining it of him, and so in time of giving proof that 
 the distinction now commonly drawn between the educational and 
 evangelistic spheres of Missionary enterprise is a most misleading 
 onej^because the work of a master, when embraced as a vocation, 
 will be seen to be, in the truest sense of the word, Evangelistic, a 
 means of making known by word and deed and life “ the light of 
 the gospel of the glory of Christ ” to the young whom He came to 
 save. 
 
 While engaged in writing this paper, I have been looking into Dr 
 R. N. Cust’s “Essay on the Prevailing methods of the Evangelization 
 of the non-Christian world.” I naturally turned to that part of it which 
 deals with Mission Education. This is dealt with under the section 
 of “ Methods not recommended.” These are divided into two cate¬ 
 gories, secular and spiritual, “ High-class Secular Education ” being 
 classed under the former. It is almost needless to say that from 
 the point of view of the educational Missionary, this classification at 
 •once prejudges and confuses the whole issue. The use of the word 
 “secular,” almost always misleading 1 , is here peculiarly so. When 
 used as distinct from and exclusive of “spiritual,” it is meant to 
 suggest and does suggest to the general reader that such education 
 merely aims at discharging the function of the professedly non¬ 
 religious Government Schools. I am frequently asked by visitors 
 from England who come to see our College whether we “teach 
 religion.” A chaplain in a paper read at our last Diocesan Synod 
 stated that one of the reasons why laymen would not support 
 Missions out here was that so many Missionaries spend all, or 
 nearly all, their time in teaching “secular” subjects. He had less 
 excuse than the visitors for making such a statement, for he had 
 only to visit a Mission School or College and investigate the work 
 done, to find how inaccurate and misleading it was. It is inaccurate, 
 for as a matter of fact all Missionaries who teach in schools devote 
 one or more periods of their time to giving religious instruction. It 
 is still more misleading, for it ignores all the moral influence which 
 is brought to bear on the students not only during school hours but 
 
 1 “ Spirit, as we know it, acts only in and through material agencies, which 
 in their turn react powerfully upon its own development. In proportion as we 
 forget this, we degrade the material world into a dead thing—a thing without a 
 soul—and so come to dissociate secular from sacred things, to the infinite harm of 
 both; for if we will not spiritualize our secular, we shall come to secularize our 
 spiritual life. The two must be welded together, intermingled, intertwined.” 
 J. R. Illingworth, University and Cathedral Sermons , p. 175. 
 
i8 
 
 during the intercourse of the play-ground, the walk, or the study, the 
 opportunity for such intercourse being, it must be remembered, the 
 direct outcome of the relationship which the school alone has made 
 possible, or at least easily practicable. 
 
 Dr Cust, I notice, approves of Hospitals as a “good method” 
 of work, and asks “ What more perfect Charity can there be than 
 the Hospital?” What indeed? but, I would ask, is it less charitable 
 to attempt to heal the diseases of the mind than those of the body ? 
 Is not every school where religious teaching is lovingly and wisely 
 given, a sort of moral Hospital ? And as we require highly qualified 
 doctors and nurses for our Hospitals, do we not equally need highly 
 qualjfied teachers for our Schools ? 
 
 The real reason why so many English laymen refuse to subscribe 
 to our work on the ground alleged by the Chaplain is that they 
 cherish a strong dislike to the educated Indian—the Babii as they 
 term him—and object to our Schools and Colleges as being so 
 many extra manufactories of an objectionable article?) Well, the 
 Babii exists, and if all our Mission Schools and Colleges were 
 closed tomorrow,(fhe output would very soon be as numerous as it 
 is now. ?) Anyone who reflects on the present state of things will 
 soon be led to see that the function of our educational system is 
 twofold : first, to be a direct evangelising agency and, as all methods 
 of work in a country like India must be slow and gradual, to aim at 
 breaking up the soil, sowing the seed, and preparing the way for 
 the spiritual harvest which many competent observers among the 
 civilians believe to be far nearer than either we Missionaries or our 
 critics seem to recognize: and secondly to be a refining, elevating 
 influence, sending out young men into the various fields of employ¬ 
 ment with higher ideas of right and duty than it is perhaps possible 
 for them to assimilate without such influence. Cwe who have found 
 the educated native, when treated with respect and affection, a 
 loveable creature enough, and number many real friends amongst 
 them, may admit the dross in his composition!) But we contend, and 
 believe that experience justifies our contention, that there is no such 
 effectual means of purifying away the dross and bringing out the 
 innate good qualities he possesses as that of high-class (in both 
 senses of the word) Christian Education. 
 
 Mr Cust is of opinion that owing to the financial difficulties 
 which beset Government at the present day, subventions to aided 
 Schools will be discontinued at an early date. But I have it on the 
 highest authority that, so far as this Province at any rate is concerned, 
 it is the more expensive, and now to a great extent unnecessary 
 
19 
 
 Government institution that will first come under reduction. (* Aided 
 Schools and Colleges are being started and maintained by Hindus, 
 Aryas, Sikhs, Muhammadans etc. in all parts of the country, and it 
 will be the obvious policy of Government (as indeed it was originally 
 defined in the educational charter of 1854) to subsidise these efforts, 
 and whenever it is clear that the interests of education will not 
 suffer, to close its own Schools and Colleges. The financial diffi¬ 
 culties of Government may prove, after all, a great opportunity for 
 the extension and development of our own educational work, if we 
 are wise and vigilant enough to seize it.) 
 
 Mr Cust quotes (p. 35) with evident disapproval those striking 
 words of Neander, “ experience teaches us that Christianity has only 
 made a firm and living progress where from the first it has brought 
 with it the seeds of all human culture, although they have only 
 developed by degrees.” He adds, “ I humbly trust that Christianity 
 has a firm hold among races of whom it cannot be said that they 
 have any culture at all, nor seem likely to develop it.” The remark 
 makes one doubt whether he understood the real point of Neander’s 
 statement. It is astonishing that any one should be acquainted with 
 the annals of modern Missions and not see how the truth of it has 
 been and is being verified in the history of the Christianisation of 
 even the most degraded races. Precisely those Missions have had 
 the most real and lasting success in which the Catholic programme 
 that Christ came to redeem not only all men but the whole of man, 
 body, mind and spirit, has been from the first recognized and acted 
 upon. Let any one, after reading Bishop Patteson’s life and noticing 
 how the lines of his work were laid down on this broad principle, 
 go on to study the after history of the Melanesian Mission, and he 
 cannot fail to see how largely its success has been due to the fact 
 that its founder was so eminently a man of culture in the best sense 
 of the word. And education was the human means by which that 
 marvellous transformation has been wrought. Os we want the Gospel 
 to “ make firm and living progress ” in India, we must resolve to 
 neglect no method of imparting to it the highest culture we possess 
 as an integral part of the glorious heritage we have received; and 
 education, when permeated and energised by the Spirit of Christ, 
 has, I believe, in a preeminent degree the “ promise and potency ” 
 of imparting that culture, however gradual may be the process by 
 which it is developed. ) 
 
 Simla, 
 
 Oct. 1894. 
 
 S. S. ALLNUTT. 
 
OCCASIONAL PAPERS 
 
 already published. 
 
 1. Letter from Mr Bickersteth (April, 1879). 
 
 2. Letter from Mr Bickersteth (Sept. 1881). 
 
 3. Higher Education at Delhi , by Rev. Dr Westcott (1882). 
 
 4. Religious Lnfluence in Mission Schools, by Mr Lefroy (1883). 
 
 5. Lndian Muhammedans , by Mr Bickersteth (1883). 
 
 6. Two Cold-Weather Tours, by Mr Carlyon (1884). 
 
 7. The Leather-Workers of Daryaganj, by Mr Lefroy (1884). 
 
 8. Account of Work , by Mr Carlyon (1885). 
 
 9. Report of London Meeting in May, 1885. 
 
 10. Educational Work hi 1885, by Mr Allnutt (1886). 
 
 11. Mission Work in the Rohtak District, by Mr Haig (1887). 
 
 12. Mission Work in Lndia, by Mr Lefroy (1887). 
 
 13. Lndials Religious Needs, by Mr Allnutt (1888). 
 
 14. My First Two Years in Delhi, by Mr Kelley; with 
 
 St Stephen's College a?id School, by Mr Wright (1888). 
 
 15. Christ, the Goal of Lndia, by Mr Lefroy (1889). 
 
 16. General Reviezv of Work since 1881, by Mr Lefroy (1890). 
 
 17. Hostel, Boarding-House, a 7 id College, by Mr Wright (1890). 
 
 18. Work amongJats of the Rohtak district, by Mr Carlyon (1891). 
 
 19. Account of Opening of Neiv College Buildings, Dec. 8, 1891. 
 
 20. Higher Education at Delhi, by the Bishop of Durham (1892). 
 
 21. Mahomedanism, its strength and weakness, by Mr Lefroy 
 
 (1893). 
 
 Copies of most of these Occasional Papers and of previous 
 Annual Reports still remain and may be obtained from either of the 
 Secretaries, G. M. Edwards, Esq., Sidney Sussex College, and 
 J. Tennant, Esq., 19, The Boltons, London, S.W. 
 
 Subscriptions may be sent to either of the Treasurers, Rev. J. T. 
 Ward, St John’s College, and P. S. Gregory, Esq., No. 1, New 
 Square, Lincoln’s Inn, W.C.; or to the account of The Cambridge 
 Mission to North Lndia, at Messrs Mortlock’s, Cambridge. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.