i have no sympathy with international aggression when it is taken seriously, but i have a certain dark and wild sympathy with it when it is quite absurd. raids are all wrong as practical politics, but they are human and imaginable as practical jokes. in fact, almost any act of ragging or violence can be forgiven on this strict condition—that it is of no use at all to anybody. if the aggressor gets anything out of it, then it is quite unpardonable. it is damned by the least hint of utility or profit. a man of spirit and breeding may brawl, but he does not steal. a gentleman knocks off his friend's hat; but he does not annex his friend's hat. for this reason (as mr. belloc has pointed out somewhere), the very militant french people have always returned after their immense raids—the raids of godfrey the crusader, the raids of napoleon; "they are sucked back, having accomplished nothing but an epic."

sometimes i see small fragments of information in the newspapers which make my heart leap with an irrational patriotic sympathy. i have had the misfortune to be left comparatively cold by many of the enterprises and proclamations of my country in recent times. but the other day i found in the tribune the following paragraph, which i may be permitted to set down as an example of the kind of international outrage with which i have by far the most instinctive sympathy. there is something attractive, too, in the austere simplicity with which the affair is set forth—

"geneva, oct. 31.

"the english schoolboy allen, who was arrested at lausanne railway station on saturday, for having painted red the statue of general jomini of payerne, was liberated yesterday, after paying a fine of £24. allen has proceeded to germany, where he will continue his studies. the people of payerne are indignant, and clamoured for his detention in prison."

now i have no doubt that ethics and social necessity require a contrary attitude, but i will freely confess that my first emotions on reading of this exploit were those of profound and elemental pleasure. there is something so large and simple about the operation of painting a whole stone general a bright red. of course i can understand that the people of payerne were indignant. they had passed to their homes at twilight through the streets of that beautiful city (or is it a province?), and they had seen against the silver ending of the sunset the grand grey figure of the hero of that land remaining to guard the town under the stars. it certainly must have been a shock to come out in the broad white morning and find a large vermilion general staring under the staring sun. i do not blame them at all for clamouring for the schoolboy's detention in prison; i dare say a little detention in prison would do him no harm. still, i think the immense act has something about it human and excusable; and when i endeavour to analyse the reason of this feeling i find it to lie, not in the fact that the thing was big or bold or successful, but in the fact that the thing was perfectly useless to everybody, including the person who did it. the raid ends in itself; and so master allen is sucked back again, having accomplished nothing but an epic.

there is one thing which, in the presence of average modern journalism, is perhaps worth saying in connection with such an idle matter as this. the morals of a matter like this are exactly like the morals of anything else; they are concerned with mutual contract, or with the rights of independent human lives. but the whole modern world, or at any rate the whole modern press, has a perpetual and consuming terror of plain morals. men always attempt to avoid condemning a thing upon merely moral grounds. if i beat my grandmother to death to-morrow in the middle of battersea park, you may be perfectly certain that people will say everything about it except the simple and fairly obvious fact that it is wrong. some will call it insane; that is, will accuse it of a deficiency of intelligence. this is not necessarily true at all. you could not tell whether the act was unintelligent or not unless you knew my grandmother. some will call it vulgar, disgusting, and the rest of it; that is, they will accuse it of a lack of manners. perhaps it does show a lack of manners; but this is scarcely its most serious disadvantage. others will talk about the loathsome spectacle and the revolting scene; that is, they will accuse it of a deficiency of art, or æsthetic beauty. this again depends on the circumstances: in order to be quite certain that the appearance of the old lady has definitely deteriorated under the process of being beaten to death, it is necessary for the philosophical critic to be quite certain how ugly she was before. another school of thinkers will say that the action is lacking in efficiency: that it is an uneconomic waste of a good grandmother. but that could only depend on the value, which is again an individual matter. the only real point that is worth mentioning is that the action is wicked, because your grandmother has a right not to be beaten to death. but of this simple moral explanation modern journalism has, as i say, a standing fear. it will call the action anything else—mad, bestial, vulgar, idiotic, rather than call it sinful.

one example can be found in such cases as that of the prank of the boy and the statue. when some trick of this sort is played, the newspapers opposed to it always describe it as "a senseless joke." what is the good of saying that? every joke is a senseless joke. a joke is by its nature a protest against sense. it is no good attacking nonsense for being successfully nonsensical. of course it is nonsensical to paint a celebrated italian general a bright red; it is as nonsensical as "alice in wonderland." it is also, in my opinion, very nearly as funny. but the real answer to the affair is not to say that it is nonsensical or even to say that it is not funny, but to point out that it is wrong to spoil statues which belong to other people. if the modern world will not insist on having some sharp and definite moral law, capable of resisting the counter-attractions of art and humour, the modern world will simply be given over as a spoil to anybody who can manage to do a nasty thing in a nice way. every murderer who can murder entertainingly will be allowed to murder. every burglar who burgles in really humorous attitudes will burgle as much as he likes.

there is another case of the thing that i mean. why on earth do the newspapers, in describing a dynamite outrage or any other political assassination, call it a "dastardly outrage" or a cowardly outrage? it is perfectly evident that it is not dastardly in the least. it is perfectly evident that it is about as cowardly as the christians going to the lions. the man who does it exposes himself to the chance of being torn in pieces by two thousand people. what the thing is, is not cowardly, but profoundly and detestably wicked. the man who does it is very infamous and very brave. but, again, the explanation is that our modern press would rather appeal to physical arrogance, or to anything, rather than appeal to right and wrong.

in most of the matters of modern england, the real difficulty is that there is a negative revolution without a positive revolution. positive aristocracy is breaking up without any particular appearance of positive democracy taking its place. the polished class is becoming less polished without becoming less of a class; the nobleman who becomes a guinea-pig keeps all his privileges but loses some of his tradition; he becomes less of a gentleman without becoming less of a nobleman. in the same way (until some recent and happy revivals) it seemed highly probable that the church of england would cease to be a religion long before it had ceased to be a church. and in the same way, the vulgarisation of the old, simple middle class does not even have the advantage of doing away with class distinctions; the vulgar man is always the most distinguished, for the very desire to be distinguished is vulgar.

at the same time, it must be remembered that when a class has a morality it does not follow that it is an adequate morality. the middle-class ethic was inadequate for some purposes; so is the public-school ethic, the ethic of the upper classes. on this last matter of the public schools dr. spenser, the head master of university college school, has lately made some valuable observations. but even he, i think, overstates the claim of the public schools. "the strong point of the english public schools," he says, "has always lain in their efficiency as agencies for the formation of character and for the inculcation of the great notion of obligation which distinguishes a gentleman. on the physical and moral sides the public-school men of england are, i believe, unequalled." and he goes on to say that it is on the mental side that they are defective. but, as a matter of fact, the public-school training is in the strict sense defective upon the moral side also; it leaves out about half of morality. its just claim is that, like the old middle class (and the zulus), it trains some virtues and therefore suits some people for some situations. put an old english merchant to serve in an army and he would have been irritated and clumsy. put the men from english public schools to rule ireland, and they make the greatest hash in human history.

touching the morality of the public schools, i will take one point only, which is enough to prove the case. people have got into their heads an extraordinary idea that english public-school boys and english youth generally are taught to tell the truth. they are taught absolutely nothing of the kind. at no english public school is it even suggested, except by accident, that it is a man's duty to tell the truth. what is suggested is something entirely different: that it is a man's duty not to tell lies. so completely does this mistake soak through all civilisation that we hardly ever think even of the difference between the two things. when we say to a child, "you must tell the truth," we do merely mean that he must refrain from verbal inaccuracies. but the thing we never teach at all is the general duty of telling the truth, of giving a complete and fair picture of anything we are talking about, of not misrepresenting, not evading, not suppressing, not using plausible arguments that we know to be unfair, not selecting unscrupulously to prove an ex parte case, not telling all the nice stories about the scotch, and all the nasty stories about the irish, not pretending to be disinterested when you are really angry, not pretending to be angry when you are really only avaricious. the one thing that is never taught by any chance in the atmosphere of public schools is exactly that—that there is a whole truth of things, and that in knowing it and speaking it we are happy.

if any one has the smallest doubt of this neglect of truth in public schools he can kill his doubt with one plain question. can any one on earth believe that if the seeing and telling of the whole truth were really one of the ideals of the english governing class, there could conceivably exist such a thing as the english party system? why, the english party system is founded upon the principle that telling the whole truth does not matter. it is founded upon the principle that half a truth is better than no politics. our system deliberately turns a crowd of men who might be impartial into irrational partisans. it teaches some of them to tell lies and all of them to believe lies. it gives every man an arbitrary brief that he has to work up as best he may and defend as best he can. it turns a room full of citizens into a room full of barristers. i know that it has many charms and virtues, fighting and good-fellowship; it has all the charms and virtues of a game. i only say that it would be a stark impossibility in a nation which believed in telling the truth.