president's address — SECTION E. 367 



is self-revelation in all good work ; but the historian is not an advo- 

 cate. His attitude of mind approximates more closely to that of 

 the dramatic than the lyrical poet. He may take the liberty of 

 explaining and elucidating, but always with strict regard to the 

 paramount importance of impartiality. In the preparation of his 

 thesis the student of original historical documents knows neither 

 employer nor capitalist. Radical nor Conservative, Catholic nor 

 Protestant, Buddhist nor Christian. 



It is necessary to emphasise this at the beginning, not only 

 because there is difference of opinion upon the subject, but also 

 because the writer in the short time he has been able to devote to 

 colonial history has been astonished to find how many pseudo- 

 historical works have been written in defence of this theory or 

 that ; in denunciation or vindication of this individual or that. I 

 am not unmindful of the importance of writing history in such a 

 way as to arouse public interest ; literary style is as useful here as 

 in almost any other department of learning. It had been all the 

 better for history if Dr. Stubbs had written with the finer-pointed 

 pen of John Richard Green. But literary style is one thing and 

 prejudice quite another. Books written under the influence of 

 party feeling or religious bias may be far more interesting to the 

 average reader than impartial scientific records, but their founda- 

 tions are no better than quicksands, and at one blow the whole 

 structure may be precipitated in ruin. The academic or scientific 

 attitude of mind is the only safe one- — in the kind of history at least 

 which I intend to discuss in this paper. 



I am well aware that careful students in different parts of the 

 Commonwealth have applied, and are applying themselves in a 

 scientific way to special subjects in Colonial history, but their 

 efforts are sporadic. The time has come when something more 

 systematic might be undertaken, and the Universities are, in my 

 opinion, the proper places to do it. In the arrangement of courses 

 at present the work done is valuable, but it is preliminary. A 

 professor or lecturer delivers courses of lectures throughout the 

 year, and one or two books are prescribed. The student who passes 

 at the end of the year must satisfy the examiner that he has 

 assimilated a fair amount of the information imparted to him in 

 these ways. 



For the honours degree the student is thrown more upon his 

 own resources. Works written by such eminent authorities as 

 Stubbs, Maitland, and Gardiner are prescribed, and if the candidate 

 gives evidence of natural ability in acquiring and using the know- 

 ledge supplied by them, he is awarded a class according to the 

 discretion of the examiner. 



As a preliminary training for the higher and more difficult 

 work of research, such courses have, in my opinion, great value. 

 The student learns much about methods of historical inquiry, and, 

 apart from the definite knowledge which he acquires, some im- 

 portant convictions are borne in upon his mind. 



