[Footnote 1:  Special Reports, ix. p. 113.  Dr. Sadler’s article deals with secondary schools only.  Unfortunately, no one can claim that the idea of fellowship is as prominent in English elementary schools, or even in all secondary schools, as the quotation might suggest.]

Democracy and discipline, fellowship and freedom, are in fact not incompatible at all.  They are complementary:  and each can only be at its best when it is sustained by the other.  Only a disciplined and self-controlled people can be free to rule itself, and only a free people can know the full meaning and happiness of fellowship.

Sec.5. German and British Ideals of Civilisation.—­Lastly, the German system regards national “culture” rather than national character as the chief element in civilisation and the justification of its claim to a dominant place in the world.  This view is so strange to those who are used to present-day British institutions that it is hard to make clear what it means.  Civilisation is a word which, with us, is often misused and often misunderstood.  Sometimes we lightly identify it with motor cars and gramophones and other Western contrivances with which individual traders and travellers dazzle and bewilder the untutored savage.  Yet we are seldom tempted to identify it, like the Germans, with anything narrowly national; and in our serious moments we recognise that it is too universal a force to be the appanage of either nations or individuals.  For to us, when we ask ourselves its real meaning, civilisation stands for neither language nor culture nor anything intellectual at all.  It stands for something moral and social and political.  It means, in the first place, the establishment and enforcement of the Rule of Law, as against anarchy on the one hand and tyranny on the other; and, secondly, on the basis of order and justice, the task of making men fit for free institutions, the work of guiding and training them to recognise the obligations of citizenship, to subordinate their own personal interests or inclinations to the common welfare, the “commonwealth.”  That is what is meant when it is claimed that Great Britain has done a “civilising” work both in India and in backward Africa.  The Germans reproach and despise us, we are told,[1] for our failure to spread “English culture” in India.  That has not been the purpose of British rule, and Englishmen have been foolish in so far as they have presumed to attempt it:  England has to learn from Indian culture as India from ours.  But to have laid for India the foundations on which alone a stable society could rest, to have given her peace from foes without and security within, to have taught her, by example, the kinship of Power and Responsibility, to have awakened the social conscience and claimed the public services of Indians in the village, the district, the province, the nation, towards the community of which they feel themselves to be members, to have found India a continent, a chaos of tribes and castes, and to have helped her to become a nation—­that is not a task of English culture:  it is a task of civilisation.