Tired of reading? Add this page to your Bookmarks or Favorites and finish it later.
|
|
"If the middle classes of England, instead of making war upon the
aristocracy, have remained so intimately connected with it, it is
not especially because the aristocracy is open to all, but rather,
because its outline was indistinct, and its limit unknown: not so
much because any man might be admitted into it, as because it was
impossible to say with certainty when he took rank there: so that
all who approached it might look on themselves as belonging to it;
might take part in its rule, and derive either lustre or profit from
its influence."
Just so; and therefore the middle classes of Britain, of whatever
their special political party, are conservative in the best sense of
that word.
For there are not three, but only two, classes in England; namely,
rich and poor: those who live by capital (from the wealthiest
landlord to the smallest village shopkeeper); and those who live by
hand-labour. Whether the division between those two classes is
increasing or not, is a very serious question. Continued
legislation in favour of the hand-labourer, and a beneficence
towards him, when in need, such as no other nation on earth has ever
shown, have done much to abolish the moral division. But the social
division has surely been increased during the last half century, by
the inevitable tendency, both in commerce and agriculture, to employ
one large capital, where several small ones would have been employed
a century ago. The large manufactory, the large shop, the large
estate, the large farm, swallows up the small ones. The yeoman, the
thrifty squatter who could work at two or three trades as well as
till his patch of moor, the hand-loom weaver, the skilled village
craftsman, have all but disappeared. The handworker, finding it
more and more difficult to invest his savings, has been more and
more tempted to squander them. To rise to the dignity of a
capitalist, however small, was growing impossible to him, till the
rise of that co-operative movement, which will do more than any
social or political impulse in our day for the safety of English
society, and the loyalty of the English working classes. And
meanwhile--ere that movement shall have spread throughout the length
and breadth of the land, and have been applied, as it surely will be
some day, not only to distribution, not only to manufacture, but to
agriculture likewise--till then, the best judges of the working
men's worth must be their employers; and especially the employers of
the northern manufacturing population. What their judgment is, is
sufficiently notorious. Those who depend most on the working men,
who have the best opportunities of knowing them, trust them most
thoroughly. As long as great manufacturers stand forward as the
political sponsors of their own workmen, it behoves those who cannot
have had their experience, to consider their opinion as conclusive.
As for that "influence of the higher classes" which is said to be
endangered just now; it will exist, just as much as it deserves to
exist. Any man who is superior to the many, whether in talents,
education, refinement, wealth, or anything else, will always be able
to influence a number of men--and if he thinks it worth his while,
of votes--by just and lawful means. And as for unjust and unlawful
means, let those who prefer them keep up heart. The world will go
on much as it did before; and be always quite bad enough to allow
bribery and corruption, jobbery and nepotism, quackery and
arrogance, their full influence over our home and foreign policy.
An extension of the suffrage, however wide, will not bring about the
millennium. It will merely make a large number of Englishmen
contented and loyal, instead of discontented and disloyal. It may
make, too, the educated and wealthy classes wiser by awakening a
wholesome fear--perhaps, it may be, by awakening a chivalrous
emulation. It may put the younger men of the present aristocracy
upon their mettle, and stir them up to prove that they are not in
the same effete condition as was the French noblesse in 1789. It
may lead them to take the warnings which have been addressed to
them, for the last thirty years, by their truest friends--often by
kinsmen of their own. It may lead them to ask themselves why, in a
world which is governed by a just God, such great power as is
palpably theirs at present is entrusted to them, save that they may
do more work, and not less, than other men, under the penalties
pronounced against those to whom much is given, and of whom much is
required. It may lead them to discover that they are in a world
where it is not safe to sit under the tree, and let the ripe fruit
drop into your mouth; where the "competition of species" works with
ruthless energy among all ranks of being, from kings upon their
thrones to the weeds upon the waste; where "he that is not hammer,
is sure to be anvil;" and he who will not work, neither shall he
eat. It may lead them to devote that energy (in which they surpass
so far the continental aristocracies) to something better than
outdoor amusements or indoor dilettantisms. There are those among
them who, like one section of the old French noblesse, content
themselves with mere complaints of "the revolutionary tendencies of
the age." Let them beware in time; for when the many are on the
march, the few who stand still are certain to be walked over. There
are those among them who, like another section of the French
noblesse, are ready, more generously than wisely, to throw away
their own social and political advantages, and play (for it will
never be really more than playing) at democracy. Let them, too,
beware. The penknife and the axe should respect each other; for
they were wrought from the same steel: but the penknife will not be
wise in trying to fell trees. Let them accept their own position,
not in conceit and arrogance, but in fear and trembling; and see if
they cannot play the man therein, and save their own class; and with
it, much which it has needed many centuries to accumulate and to
organise, and without which no nation has yet existed for a single
century. They are no more like the old French noblesse, than are
the commercial class like the old French bourgeoisie, or the
labouring like the old French peasantry. Let them prove that fact
by their deeds during the next generation; or sink into the
condition of mere rich men, exciting, by their luxury and laziness,
nothing but envy and contempt.
|