Home	Texts	Next Chapter

Typos — p. 159: propperly [= properly] - p. 156 - XXV Indiscipline in Aristocracy Of the major crimes committed by the aristocrats against their own Order, I shall now describe the most serious; for, had it not been committed, the previous three already dealt with would never have been heard of.         Reviewing the various ruler minorities which, ever since Feudal times, have seconded their monarchs in the government of European nations, it seems hardly credible that, with only one exception (possibly two), none had a sufficiently strong instinct of self-preservation to enforce among their Order such standards of virtue, competence, conscientiousness and even health, as alone could maintain them in authority, and above all demonstrate their indispensability.         Had any one of these minorities deigned to look beneath their class to learn what quite ordinary corporations were doing to effect precisely what they themselves should have effected to preserve their own quality and that of their regimen; if only they had glanced at such bodies as the various Craft Guilds, for instance, which soon after the eleventh century had begun to sprout up all over the Western World, they might have seen in operation an instinct of self-preservation so much superior to their own, as to shame, if not to fire and inspire them.         When we read of the measures the founders of these Craft Guilds devised to maintain high standards in their service to the public; to exact the utmost efficiency and decent behaviour from their members; to prevent fraud and slip-shod and unconscientious workmanship; to demand in the so-called "Masterpiece" (i.e. the work of his own hands, or Chef-d'Oeuvre, the craftsman had to produce to obtain his title of master of his Craft) a high standard of quality and expertise, together with such durability and soundness as would retain the confidence and good-will of the public — when, I say, we read about these - p. 157 - early corporations and their regulations even in so brief a manual as Alfred Milnes' From Guild to Factory (1904), we can not help wondering how, with such examples constantly under their eyes, the aristocracies of Europe could have been frivolous and foolhardy enough to overlook the lesson they taught.         Nor, in the light of the present thesis is it uninteresting to note how Alfred Milnes, speaking of the aims and policies of these early Craft Guilds, uses the very terms with which I have described the motives that inspired them. Thus, in Chap. IV he says of "the formations of a guild" that it "became a kind of instinct of self-preservation" — precisely! He also speaks of the guild as consisting of the "aristocracy of labour". We should, however, not allow ourselves to be tempted to identify these ancient guilds with our modern Trade Unions; for whereas the former were concerned chiefly with the aristocratic purpose of maintaining high standards of quality in the performance of their members, our modern Trades Unions, initiated and organised along vulgar Liberal lines and steeped in Liberal sophistry, have but one abiding object, which is, at ever briefer intervals to levy blackmail on society for the higher remuneration of their members.         But no lesson that the ancient Guilds could have taught was learned by the aristocratic Orders, who neglected to adopt even the simplest precautionary measures for the control of their members. They even failed to devise the most elementary system of criticism and censure for dealing with those among their Order who fell sufficiently below the required standards of efficiency and competence to jeopardise their prestige and authority.         Yet, in view of what was at stake, both regarding their own survival and the welfare of their nation, is it not astonishing that nothing of the kind was attempted? And can we therefore be surprised that the Liberals, never too shrewd or intellectually upright, unhesitatingly accounted for Aristocracy's decline by maintaining as Paine did, that the institution of Aristocracy itself, was inherently unsound and worthless?         One political philosopher and ardent Liberal — Dr. David Spitz — evidently under the impression that he was advancing an unanswerable objection to the institution of Aristocracy, has asked vacantly and with just that modicum of humour which - p. 158 - he knew would captivate Anglo-Saxon readers: "What if the aristocrat does wrong . . . but refuses to arrest, imprison or execute himself? We cannot look to another aristocrat for the remedy, not merely because the other aristocrat may also have done wrong, but because by the logic of this construction only the aristocrat himself can judge himself." (Patterns of Anti-Democratic Thought, Chap. 5, ii).         Numskull! Yet this kind of nonsense did not prevent a conservative publishing firm such as Macmillan & Co. from publishing Spitz's book!         If only the fellow had looked about him and seen how to-day vast Orders of highly skilled experts, such as the members of the Medical Profession, the Bar and the Law Society, contrive decade after decade to maintain their standards of efficiency, reliability and conscientious service, and thus to retain the confidence of the public; if only for one moment he had considered the gruelling tests which, for instance, Medical Boards of Examiners apply before allowing an aspirant to General Medical Practice to offer his skill to the public, and had remembered how defaulting doctors, arraigned before the Disciplinary Committee of the General Medical Council for "infamous conduct in a professional respect", are frequently struck off the Register of their Order and disqualified from any longer exercising their profession; and how solicitors guilty of practices unbefitting one of their profession, may be struck off the roll of solicitors by the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Society; — if, I say, Dr. Spitz had for one moment paused to dwell on such phenomena in the world about him, would he have felt so ready to pronounce that futile gibe against aristocratic rule? Can he have failed to observe that throughout their history the majority of European aristocracies had omitted to adopt the very measures against the decline and ultimate evanescence of their Order, which such roturier bodies as the old Craft-Guilds and certain modern professional societies were zealous enough to adopt and rigorously to apply?         Had he but for one instant grasped the consequences of this fatal omission, he could hardly have failed to see the absurdity of the facetious question he posed as a conclusive argument against aristocracy.         If, furthermore, he had learned from European history about an aristocracy which, better than any other, succeeded in main- - p. 159 - taining itself with prestige, honour and power unimpaired for almost a thousand years, "without" as Professor Diehl says, "a revolution and almost without a change" — I refer to the Aristocracy of Venice — he would have made the acquaintance of a body of rulers whose system, with its internally organized disciplinary council, enabled them to excel, not only in achieving relative permanence, but also in conducting an administration famous for its benevolence, justice, and sagacity.         Professor Diehl describes it as "probablement un des meilleurs qu'il y eut au monde" (Venise: République Patricienne, Chap. III, Part II, Sect. vii. "probably one of the best the world has ever seen"); and he is abundantly confirmed by two such authorities as Bluntschli (Theory of the State, 1895, Bk. VI, Chap. XIX) and Burckhardt (The Civilisation of the Renaissance in Italy, p. 63). Bluntschli speaks of the Venetian aristocracy's regimen as exceptional for "its strict and impartial justice!" whilst Voltaire declares that "De tous les gouvernements de l'Europe celui de Venise était le seul réglé et uniforme." (Essai sur les Moeurs, Edit. 1879, Chap. VI: "Of all European governments that of Venice was the only one propperly conducted, stable and unchangeable.") The historian Lecky wholly concurs. "The most enduring aristocratic government", he says, "that the modern world has known, was that of Venice" (Democracy and Liberty, Vol. 1, p. 554).         And what was the secret of this exceptionally successful aristocratic achievement? — Simply that the Venetian aristocrats, being more realistic and more intellectually gifted and upright than those of other European States, first of all knew that they must allow for the natural iniquity of Man, even when it is clothed in ermine and silks; and secondly that, if they wished to survive as a ruling minority, they must devise a system of internal control and discipline designed to maintain a high standard of quality among the members of their Order and punish, if necessary with degradation, any one of them who fell below a certain level of decency and efficiency.         Their Council of Ten, founded in 1510, was a Watch Committee composed of ten patricians elected annually by the Grand Council from among the more illustrious of their Order, and it was presided over by Chiefs (Capi dei Dieci) whose term of office was one month only. Their function was to superintend the whole of the administration of the State, including especi- - p. 160 - ally the behaviour and performance of their fellow rulers and even of the Doge himself; and their powers were as absolute as their decisions were final.         Three times, in 1582, 1628 and 1792, attempts were made by dissident groups to abolish this Council, and every time, after exhaustive inquiries by the Grand Council, it triumphed over its critics, and its authority was vindicated.         Despite the strict discipline it exercised over them, or perhaps on that very account, it enjoyed the complete confidence of the majority of the ruling caste, and succeeded in upholding their authority, honour, quality and credit by the high standards it exacted. Indeed, Professor Diehl regards it as the strongest pillar of the régime. (Venise: République Patricienne, Chap. III, Sec. 5, vii and xvii).         Furthermore, to make assurance doubly sure, in addition to the functions of the redoubtable Ten, a rigorous form of discipline was exercised by the Inquisitori del Doge defuncto, whose function it was to investigate the record of the Doge after his death and, in the case of any serious short-comings on his part, to penalise his family accordingly. Strange to say, a similar institution existed in ancient Egypt (Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, by Wilkinson, 1878, Vol. III, pp. 453–454). May this perhaps explain the relative permanence of this remote civilisation?         Thus, contrary to the claims repeatedly advanced by Liberals and their advocates, there is no inherent defect or vice in aristocratic rule which prevents it from being the ideal form of government. All the major blemishes of this régime alleged by the ill informed Liberal politicians and philosophers to be peculiar to the institution of Aristocracy itself, have been the wanton, arbitrary and far from inevitable creation of irresponsible aristocrats themselves; and Dr. Spitz's puckish query, with its quasi-learned reference to "the logic of this construction", turns out to be no more than a confession of ignorance.

Home	Texts	Next Chapter