as to be fatal both to freedom of speech and to strength of influence. With regard to any Christian boy, however, the question of whether or not he is in his right place at a particular school is one of degree. Even supposing him to be exempt from chapel services and daily prayers, I do not see how it is possible to teach English history without giving a view of the Reformation which would be subversive of home influences in the case of a Roman Catholic boy; and it would be easy to quote other cases of difficulty. But I think that this broad, general principle may be laid down, that the work of directing a boy's life-the opportunity of forming and directing his ideals—should not be intrusted to any man whose opinions are so diverse from those in which parents wish their children to be brought up, that they cannot worship God together. To go further, again, than this, and say that nothing should be taught to a boy which is contrary to his father's opinions, is absurd. The less reserve there is between boy and master the better; and no man can be wholesomely influential if he is tongue-tied. Even if intercourse never extended beyond the schoolroom, it would be impossible to throw any life into the teaching of history without touching on disputed principles of politics, or to go beyond the bare translation of Horace or Plato, without dealing blows at the worship of worldliness and conventionalism, which some boys at least must know is openly avowed and practised at their homes. And if a master teachesand surely he is bound to teach-what he knows of the truth as to diet, exercise, ventilation, clothing, and the arrangements of life generally, in what constant opposition must he-in at least many boys' eyes-appear to stand to the authorities at home! The possibilities of such opposition in the more unrestrained and individual intercourse which prevails out of school are obviously inexhaustible. Any wise parent must know this, and face it. He must know that a boy's opinions, when he grows up, will not be a mere reproduction of either his own opinions or those of any schoolmaster. But he will also recognise that the more a boy has come into contact with men who think for themselves, and are not afraid to let their pupils know what they are thinking, the better it is for his future earnestness of purpose, independence, and solidity of judgment. If the divergence from opinions, conscientiously and keenly held by a parent, is too great, he will place his son under other influences. But to try to prevent the perversion of any boy from his own views, by withdrawing him from the public worship and the more formal religious teaching of a school, and yet leaving him surrounded by all its other influences, is not only the surest means of disturbing the balance of a boy's mind on all subjects of serious interest, but such withdrawal certainly tends to weaken that sentiment of corporate unity which is the backbone of a good school. It follows from what has been said that the sermons printed in this book represent only a part of the religious and moral teaching given to boys at Loretto. If, indeed, they were not supplemented by more direct and simple teaching, they would be open to the charge of being generally somewhat above the capacities of a large number of boys; and it is obvious that they |