boy, and the way in which _he_ can gain most success. Too often the
teacher, thinking only of his own subject, forgets that the boy has to
learn many subjects. The one on which most stress should be laid is the
one most suited to the boy's capacity. Unless the teachers co-operate
with each other, the boy is too much pressed, for each teacher urges him
on in his own subject, and gives him home-lessons in this. There are
many teachers, but there is only one boy.

Again, the boy's welfare must be put by the teacher before his own
desire to obtain good results in an examination. Sometimes it is better
for a boy to remain for another year in a class and master a subject
thoroughly rather than to go up for an examination which is really too
difficult for him. In such a case it is right to keep him back. But it
is not right to keep him back merely for the sake of good results for
the teacher. On the other hand, a teacher has sometimes to resist the
parents who try to force the boy beyond his strength, and think more of
his rising into a higher class than of his really knowing his subjects.

Unless the teacher has desirelessness, his own desires may blind him to
the aspirations and capacities of the boys in his care, and he will be
frequently imposing his own wishes on them instead of helping them in
their natural development. However much a teacher may be attracted
towards any profession or any particular set of ideas, he must so
develop desirelessness that while he creates in his pupils an enthusiasm
for principles, he shall not cramp them within the limits of any
particular application of the principles, or allow their generous
impulses--unbalanced by experience--to grow into narrow fanaticism.
Thus, he should teach the principles of citizenship, but not party
politics. He should teach the value of all professions to a nation, if
honourably filled, and not the superiority of one profession over