[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] • STR,—I think you
are right in thinking that employers probably know how to manage their own business, and that if they employ Public School boys they have good reasons for doing so. But I doubt if you are right in saying " Public School " is only a label. Do not Public Schools aim at producing " character," and do we not often hear on high authority that character is even more important than intellect? The character they aim at producing is the character of a gentleman—one who would prefer death to dishonour. Perhaps employers think that a valuable quality. John Stuart MAI said that the English workman, though probably more ashamed of lying than the workmen of other countries, is nevertheless a liar. Now, if that is so, and the Public School boy is a truth speaker, that alone would be a good reason for preferring the Public School boy. The grand old name of gentleman may be thought little of in this demo- cratic age, but Tennyson thought it was a " grand old name " in spite of all the charlatans, and Cromwell also said : " I honour a gentleman who is so indeed." Then, Public School boys are not taught to hate members of another class as children of the proletariat are in Socialist Sunday Schools and by Trade Union leaders. When I went to sea in 1856 there were many officers in the Merchant. Service who had risen from " before the mast." They were generally fond of boasting- " I didn't come in through the cabin windows, I came in
through the hawse pipe." However, ship owners preferred the officers who came in through the cabin windows, and provided training ships such as the ' Conway ' and ' Worcester ' to give what was considered the best education and training for sea officers.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Lyme Regis. J. S. N. ROCHE.
Previous page
