Home |
Texts |
Next Chapter |
|---|
|
XXIII The Profanation of Private Property Aristocracy's failure to demonstrate that Private Property has a Sanctity justifying its existence as an institution, but one which can only too easily be desecrated, is abundantly illustrated in the history of Europe; and apart from preaching the duty of Charity, the Church did little to mend matters. Thus, Freedom, in the sense of licence, emancipation from onerous obligations and the right to unlimited leisure, became the principal if not the only Property distinctions that separated the élite from the common people. And, at the dawn of the nineteenth century, if one were looking for any gross breaches of self-discipline, decency and good order, one necessarily looked upwards and not downwards in the social hierarchy. When Oscar Wilde declared that the function of the lower classes was to teach the aristocracy morality, he was probably only joking; but had the remark not contained a half-truth it would have had little point. Speaking of this aristocracy, Esme Wingfield Stratford says, "It had abdicated its functions and degenerated into a mob of barbarians, who had reverted to the primitive routine of the chase." (The Victorian Tragedy, 1940). Matthew Arnold, speaking of this same class, wrote: "Its splendour of station, its wealth, show and luxury, is then what the other classes really admire in it, and this is not an elevating admiration." (Essay on Equality, 1884). Indeed, by unremittingly collating superior rank with the mere ability to inspire the multitude with wonder at the power of affluence, the élite were principally responsible for spreading the belief that among the surest titles to worthiness was the unfailing capacity at all times to pay one's way handsomely. "Riches and the signs of riches," said John Stuart Mill as he
Everything was forgiven a man who could dazzle his generation by his ability to display conspicuous wastefulness. What harm could therefore attend the confiscation of such wealth, whether by extortionate Income Tax, Death Duties, or even Capital Levies? The moment affluence became the only appreciable hall-mark of aristocratic dignity and merit, the only stepping stone to it, and ceased to be the essential accompaniment of lofty duties, Aristocracy may be said to have committed suicide. Carlyle was one of the first to recognise this and is reported to have told Monckton Milnes in 1848, "The English aristocracy just now are to me a most tragic spectacle. Wonderful how they undertake that suicidal enterprise of theirs, how they endure their vacant existence." (Monckton Milnes, by James Pope-Hennessey, Chap. XIII). But the rot had set in long before Carlyle's time. Already in the reign of George III, "The Selwyn correspondence disclosed a rottenness in the Aristocracy which threatened to decompose the nation." (Emerson: English Traits, Chap. XI). "If the aristocracy would remain the most powerful class," said Lord Lytton in 1883, "they must continue to be the most intelligent." (England and The English, Bk. III, Chap. I). Too true! But Lord Brougham was probably only stating the obvious when, in the early days of the nineteenth century, he said. "The want of sense and reason which prevails in these circles is wholly inconceivable." (Thoughts Upon The Aristocracy, ed. 1935). Two highly trustworthy foreign observers, Professor William Dibelius and Count Hermann Keyserling, though desirous of doing justice to the class under discussion, both reached much the same conclusion concerning the intellect of its members. "Dem Gentlemanideal dagegen," Professor Dibelius declared in 1923, "fehlt jede Beziehung auf Kraft des Verstandes" (England, Bk. I, Chap. IV: "The gentleman ideal lacks any sort of connection with mental power"); whilst Count Keyserling, in his Reisebuch Eines Philosophen (Part II), referring to the English aristocracy, said: "Selbst die bedeutenderen unter ihnen
Quality, apart from the ability to command expensive services, had long ceased to compel respect. The most skilled accomplishment was no longer measured by any other yardstick than that of cash. As Veblen maintained, "efficiency in any direction which . . . does not redound to a person's economic benefit, is not of great value as a means of respectability. . . . One does not make 'much of a showing' in the eyes" of the world, "except by unremitting demonstration of the ability to pay," And he added that, in modern conditions, the Struggle for Existence "has been transformed into a struggle to keep up appearances." (Some Neglected Points in the Theory of Socialism, 1892). Of course, with this Tone set in the nation by the élite, the masses were quick to emulate them. Indeed, to the astonishment of men like Ruskin and Morris, the worker himself never dreamt of ascribing even a small part of his discontent to the steady and insidious inroads the change from manufactured to machine-made goods had made upon Man's instinctive pleasure and pride in creation and individual achievement. All discontent and unrest arose merely from dissatisfaction will] the amount of reward received. Every enhancement of Labour's bliss was sought only in the worker's means of bearing comparison favourably with his neighbours — the Joneses! "To my knowledge," says the Rev. V. A. Demant, "there has not since the birth of the Capitalist epoch ever been a 'quality strike', or a withdrawal of labour in protest at having to do bad or shoddy work." (Religion and the Decline of Capitalism, Chap. IV). — No! And why? — Because the notion of quality as distinct from the ability to pay your way handsomely, had long ceased to have any meaning. Referring to the social discontent of Labour in recent history, Veblen said its source was "the craving of everybody to compare favourably with his neighbour." (Op. cit.) We know that this state of mind did not have its origin in the working classes. It derived from the élite's failure to set a decent Tone in the nation; and it is probable that even if no other factors had been at hand to favour a general revival of Wycliffe's Communistic teaching of the fourteenth century,
Naturally, superficial Liberal reasoning was quick to ascribe these deplorable developments to the institutional aspects of Aristocracy rather than to the personnel composing the aristocratic hierarchy. Worse still, instead of trying to rescue the principles which an unworthy nobility had desecrated, they accepted the situation as it stood, including the havoc generations of vulgarians had made of Private Property's Sanctify — not to mention the doctrine of "noblesse oblige" — and proceeded to treat wealth as if it really were the "filthy lucre" that ill-bred plutocrats had made it. Thus, they everywhere promoted measures which were designed to transfer the administration of as much as possible of the nation's wealth from the control of individual property-owners to the State. Overlooking most of the more vital means by which Private Property could still retain some of its Sanctity, they paved the way to thorough-going Socialism and its inevitable sequel — Communism, without ever once pausing to consider even the Tonal consequences, let alone the psychological factors, involved. For, at bottom, the gravest errors of Liberalism have been in the field of human psychology, in its misunderstanding of the motives and springs' of human conduct. As it behoves me to be brief, let us consider that least sane of all the offspring of Liberal cogitation: nationalised industry and public services. We know that in such vast organisations the State becomes the universal task and pay Master, and the worker, from the highest to the lowest, merely a member of a hierarchy, every step forward in which depends on the approval of an immediate superior. So that ultimately in such a service a man's own and his family's security are in the hands of those just above him. Let him become a nuisance; let him be public-spirited enough to propose reforms which conflict with the prestige or prerogative of his superiors, and at one stroke he may imperil his chance of rising in the hierarchy. Independent judgment, even when expert, thus always involves a risk; and in circumstances in which expert criticism might prevent a capital disaster, sullen and uneasy acquiescence
In this short chapter, I cannot of course hope to illustrate by many spectacular examples the fatal error Liberalism has committed in assuming that, owing to the many desecrations of the Sanctity of Private Property perpetrated by past Property Owners, no vestige of Sanctity still clings to it. Nevertheless, I propose to take one notorious and supreme example of a costly State blunder (if not crime) of the past, which will set before the reader a field of operation, wholly overlooked by Liberalism, in which even at this late hour there is still a possible function for the factor, Sanctity, in the administration of Private Property. I refer to the appalling and unpardonable disaster which overtook the famous Airship R.101 on the morning of Sunday, Oct. 5th 1930 at Beauvais. The ship was on its way to India and was only about 220 miles from its base at Cardington. It had the Secretary of State for Air, Lord Thomson of Cardington on board, and of the total of 54 passengers, including Lord Thomson, only 6 persons survived, 4 of whom were engineers in the power cars. I cannot enter into all the details of the preparations which preceded the Airship's trip to India, or describe the measures taken by those principally concerned in getting the vessel fit for its tremendous undertaking. Nor can I enumerate all the errors of omission and commission made in equipping it successfully to survive the crucial test which the trip to India entailed (for incredible as it may sound, no adequate preliminary test of its capabilities was ever made before it set out on its first and last flight!); but suffice it to say that at almost every stage in its construction and, above all, in the subsequent last-minute and major modifications in its structure, there is no trace of anything except slip-shod and careless supervision and even workmanship displayed by all those responsible for ensuring its air-worthiness. No one could read about the culpable negligence of those whose duty it was to make sure of the soundness of the ship's outer cover (it was chiefly owing to serious rents in this fabric that the vessel foundered) without wholly concurring with the outcry of one solitary witness of the whole affair — an engineer who, as a mere distant observer, watched the complete course of R.101's short life. I refer to
The fact that no one in any way connected with the production of this ill-fated Airship, and with the preparations for its great flight, felt independent enough to come forward and utter such words as these, if necessary to Lord Thomson himself, was, according to Mr. Nevil Shute, the fundamental cause of the disaster — a disaster that not only caused the loss of millions of pounds to the Public, but also, and for ever, blotted the copy-book of all those Liberal idealists who imagine that the independence which an important Public servant may enjoy through the possession of private means, is a negligible factor in a nation's administrative and technological equipment. Now listen to Mr. Nevil Shute himself: "I do not know," he says, "the financial condition of the officials in the Air Ministry at the time of the R.101 disaster. I suspect, however, that an investigation would reveal that it was England's bad luck that at that time none of them had any substantial private means. At rock bottom, that to me is probably the fundamental cause of the tragedy." (Slide Rule, Chap. 7). Finally, with his daughter's and his publishers permission, I must quote the following invaluable comment he makes on the principle involved: "The officers who were brave in the Admiralty, were the officers who had an independent income, who could afford to resign from the Navy if necessary without bringing financial disaster to their wives and children. . . . These were the men who could afford to shoulder personal responsibility in the Admiralty, who could afford to do their duty to the Navy in the highest sense. Such men invariably gravitate towards the top of any government service that they happen to be in, because of their care-free acceptance of responsibility. They serve as a leaven and as an example to their less fortunate fellows; they set the tone
If there is such a thing as an After-Life, it would be interesting to know what Sir William Harcourt would have to say about the passage just quoted. At all events, I suggest that it might usefully be displayed in every schoolroom, every University Hall and every Council Chamber in the nation. Together with such history as that of the R.101 it constitutes the flattest and most constructive refutation we possess of all the shallow Liberal clap-trap about "unearned incomes", and what is deceptively described as the "equitable distribution" of wealth. In the sort of practical application of Private Property's Sanctity which Mr. Shute prescribes, we have the surest safeguard against such scandals as that of which I have supplied a supreme example. And since in the exercise of the kind of Public Spirit for which financial independence provides, we possess the last vestige of that Sanctity which still attaches to Private Property appropriately owned, no effort should be spared to inculcate upon growing youth how precious this last vestige is. The nation must salvage a minority which, in the hour of direst need, may be in a position to stand up and defy the "Establishment" and defeat erring Authority. Only the most reckless and most unscrupulous romanticist can believe that a complex society like ours can remain sound and flourishing without such an élite of "Clercs" — i.e. self-appointed and honourable watch-dogs — in Julien Benda's sense. |
Home |
Texts |
Next Chapter |
|---|