It has often been held that the teaching of history should form no part of the curriculum of school education. Children; it is said, should be encouraged to read history for themselves, but they should not be taught it. Language, whether ancient or modern, is the basis of literary, as mathematics is the basis of scientific education. History belongs to neither of these categories, and if taught at all, even at a later age, should form no part of the definite instruction given to the young. I do not intend to argue this question. I will only say, in the first place, that history, ancient and modern, is taught in a large number of schools, and that certificates for proficiency in the study are granted by the Oxford and Cambridge Joint Board. It must have been obvious to anyone who has awarded these certificates that those schools did best in the examination in which history was best taught. It was easy to distinguish the schools in which history received a fair amount of attentioń, and the distinctions granted were due quite as much to the exertions of the teachers as to those of the pupils. Again, history now forms part of the regular academical curriculum both at Oxford and Cambridge. A degree in History is highly regarded, and scholarships and fellowships are awarded for proficiency in the study. Yet it is difficult to maintain a high standard of historical instruction at the University if students come entirely untrained in it from the schools.