The thing can only be made clear to Englishmen by turning it round.  Suppose a Frenchman came out of democratic France to live in England, where the shadow of the great houses still falls everywhere, and where even freedom was, in its origin, aristocratic.  If the Frenchman saw our aristocracy and liked it, if he saw our snobbishness and liked it, if he set himself to imitate it, we all know what we should feel.  We all know that we should feel that that particular Frenchman was a repulsive little gnat.  He would be imitating English aristocracy; he would be imitating the English vice.  But he would not even understand the vice he plagiarised:  especially he would not understand that the vice is partly a virtue.  He would not understand those elements in the English which balance snobbishness and make it human:  the great kindness of the English, their hospitality, their unconscious poetry, their sentimental conservatism, which really admires the gentry.  The French Royalist sees that the English like their King.  But he does not grasp that while it is base to worship a King, it is almost noble to worship a powerless King.  The impotence of the Hanoverian Sovereigns has raised the English loyal subject almost to the chivalry and dignity of a Jacobite.  The Frenchman sees that the English servant is respectful:  he does not realise that he is also disrespectful; that there is an English legend of the humorous and faithful servant, who is as much a personality as his master; the Caleb Balderstone, the Sam Weller.  He sees that the English do admire a nobleman; he does not allow for the fact that they admire a nobleman most when he does not behave like one.  They like a noble to be unconscious and amiable:  the slave may be humble, but the master must not be proud.  The master is Life, as they would like to enjoy it; and among the joys they desire in him there is none which they desire more sincerely than that of generosity, of throwing money about among mankind, or, to use the noble mediaeval word, largesse—­the joy of largeness.  That is why a cabman tells you are no gentleman if you give him his correct fare.  Not only his pocket, but his soul is hurt.  You have wounded his ideal.  You have defaced his vision of the perfect aristocrat.  All this is really very subtle and elusive; it is very difficult to separate what is mere slavishness from what is a sort of vicarious nobility in the English love of a lord.  And no Frenchman could easily grasp it at all.  He would think it was mere slavishness; and if he liked it, he would be a slave.  So every Englishman must (at first) feel French candour to be mere brutality.  And if he likes it, he is a brute.  These national merits must not be understood so easily.  It requires long years of plenitude and quiet, the slow growth of great parks, the seasoning of oaken beams, the dark enrichment of red wine in cellars and in inns, all the leisure and the life of England through many centuries, to produce at last the generous and genial fruit of English snobbishness.  And it requires battery and barricade, songs in the streets, and ragged men dead for an idea, to produce and justify the terrible flower of French indecency.