for this deep and disabling reason therefore, its cynical and abandoned indifference to the truth, the english public school does not provide us with the ideal that we require. we can only ask its modern critics to remember that right or wrong the thing can be done; the factory is working, the wheels are going around, the gentlemen are being produced, with their soap, cricket and organized charity all complete. and in this, as we have said before, the public school really has an advantage over all the other educational schemes of our time. you can pick out a public-school man in any of the many companies into which they stray, from a chinese opium den to a german jewish dinner-party. but i doubt if you could tell which little match girl had been brought up by undenominational religion and which by secular education. the great english aristocracy which has ruled us since the reformation is really, in this sense, a model to the moderns. it did have an ideal, and therefore it has produced a reality.
we may repeat here that these pages propose mainly to show one thing: that progress ought to be based on principle, while our modern progress is mostly based on precedent. we go, not by what may be affirmed in theory, but by what has been already admitted in practice. that is why the jacobites are the last tories in history with whom a high-spirited person can have much sympathy. they wanted a specific thing; they were ready to go forward for it, and so they were also ready to go back for it. but modern tories have only the dullness of defending situations that they had not the excitement of creating. revolutionists make a reform, conservatives only conserve the reform. they never reform the reform, which is often very much wanted. just as the rivalry of armaments is only a sort of sulky plagiarism, so the rivalry of parties is only a sort of sulky inheritance. men have votes, so women must soon have votes; poor children are taught by force, so they must soon be fed by force; the police shut public houses by twelve o’clock, so soon they must shut them by eleven o’clock; children stop at school till they are fourteen, so soon they will stop till they are forty. no gleam of reason, no momentary return to first principles, no abstract asking of any obvious question, can interrupt this mad and monotonous gallop of mere progress by precedent. it is a good way to prevent real revolution. by this logic of events, the radical gets as much into a rut as the conservative. we meet one hoary old lunatic who says his grandfather told him to stand by one stile. we meet another hoary old lunatic who says his grandfather told him only to walk along one lane.
i say we may repeat here this primary part of the argument, because we have just now come to the place where it is most startlingly and strongly shown. the final proof that our elementary schools have no definite ideal of their own is the fact that they so openly imitate the ideals of the public schools. in the elementary schools we have all the ethical prejudices and exaggerations of eton and harrow carefully copied for people to whom they do not even roughly apply. we have the same wildly disproportionate doctrine of the effect of physical cleanliness on moral character. educators and educational politicians declare, amid warm cheers, that cleanliness is far more important than all the squabbles about moral and religious training. it would really seem that so long as a little boy washes his hands it does not matter whether he is washing off his mother’s jam or his brother’s gore. we have the same grossly insincere pretense that sport always encourages a sense of honor, when we know that it often ruins it. above all, we have the same great upperclass assumption that things are done best by large institutions handling large sums of money and ordering everybody about; and that trivial and impulsive charity is in some way contemptible. as mr. blatchford says, “the world does not want piety, but soap—and socialism.” piety is one of the popular virtues, whereas soap and socialism are two hobbies of the upper middle class.
these “healthy" ideals, as they are called, which our politicians and schoolmasters have borrowed from the aristocratic schools and applied to the democratic, are by no means particularly appropriate to an impoverished democracy. a vague admiration for organized government and a vague distrust of individual aid cannot be made to fit in at all into the lives of people among whom kindness means lending a saucepan and honor means keeping out of the workhouse. it resolves itself either into discouraging that system of prompt and patchwork generosity which is a daily glory of the poor, or else into hazy advice to people who have no money not to give it recklessly away. nor is the exaggerated glory of athletics, defensible enough in dealing with the rich who, if they did not romp and race, would eat and drink unwholesomely, by any means so much to the point when applied to people, most of whom will take a great deal of exercise anyhow, with spade or hammer, pickax or saw. and for the third case, of washing, it is obvious that the same sort of rhetoric about corporeal daintiness which is proper to an ornamental class cannot, merely as it stands, be applicable to a dustman. a gentleman is expected to be substantially spotless all the time. but it is no more discreditable for a scavenger to be dirty than for a deep-sea diver to be wet. a sweep is no more disgraced when he is covered with soot than michael angelo when he is covered with clay, or bayard when he is covered with blood. nor have these extenders of the public-school tradition done or suggested anything by way of a substitute for the present snobbish system which makes cleanliness almost impossible to the poor; i mean the general ritual of linen and the wearing of the cast-off clothes of the rich. one man moves into another man’s clothes as he moves into another man’s house. no wonder that our educationists are not horrified at a man picking up the aristocrat’s second-hand trousers, when they themselves have only taken up the aristocrat’s second-hand ideas.
