the fundamental arguments (all to be found in Mill) in favour
of liberty of opinion. But there is one case in which the employment
of a subsidiary method may give even more valuable results. Where a
boy holds tenaciously to an opinion which you think to be evil, argue
against it unceasingly; show him the errors of it; point out
passionately the beauty of its alternative. The stronger his
conviction, the better; indeed, deliberately choose his deepest-seated
prejudice--attack him in the very heart of what you regard as his
error. Then, when at last he sees that the opinion which he had
thought of as the only possible one is in reality wrong, and that
another which he had loathed is in reality right, a tremendous
intellectual conversion will have taken place; his own case will
constantly act as a warning to him whenever he is again tempted to
prejudice or narrowness of outlook.

[1] The italics are ours. Why were these two words inserted, we wonder.

[2] The other is dealt with in Chapter V.

CHAPTER IV

CONTROVERSY

"While a formidable strife between masters of different creeds might be
engendered, it is arguable that the finest political spirit might be
fostered by approaching the problems under the conditions of fairness and
courtesy on which the public schools pride themselves."[1]--_Manchester
Guardian_.

"Tolerance, to be more than a pale and negative virtue, needs to be based
on an understanding of these different points of view, which means,
again, bringing an educated mind to bear on them."--_Westminster Gazette_.

"Boys always will be boys" they say, and the saying can be interpreted in
many ways. "Masters always will be masters" is a more sobering
reflection. The reputation of schoolmasters for sweet reasonableness has
never stood, perhaps, particularly high. Even supposing that, with a
staff of angels, such a scheme of teaching as that sketched in the
preceding chapter were desirable, will not the actual result be something
very different? Will not "a formidable strife between masters of
different creeds be engendered," and will not the spectacle of that
strife, and a possible participation in it, be the very worst possible
training for the new generation?

The difficulty is one that has got to be faced, and the present writers,
at any rate, are not at all likely to overlook it. As was shown in
Chapter II., our experiments collapsed not because our colleagues
differed from us i