§ 18

Shall we draw closer together as a people whose motto is “Fraternity,” or drift apart? We can draw closer if we choose and each one of us resolves to do “the utmost for the highest.” Civil dissension can be as morally destructive as military rule. It sets every instrument of the orchestra out of tune; it creates a hideous discord and chaos which can only be resolved by the greatest enemy to democracy—a military Government. The very thing we have been fighting to expel from Germany may have to be enacted here in free England if anarchical methods prevail, and there is danger (we do not say probability) that they may if the heart of the country becomes rotten. The heart of the country is Labour, but labour not selfishly, graspingly, and tyrannically used, but as the bulwark of protection to the community in part and as a whole. If Labour is to take a prominent part in the affairs of the country, in legislation, for example, its votaries must be educated; at present they are not, and therefore had they the power they seek or that is demanded for them by agitators who are only less ignorant than they, it is impossible to gauge the difficulties and dangers into which the country would be plunged. Before Labour is fit to govern it must learn how to use leisure. The shorter the hours of labour the more imperative will become education. Are our working men prepared to use the leisure they demand for the good of the community or only to please their, as yet, primitive instincts? From a class which is idle or mischievous during leisure hours we can expect no wisdom, and without wisdom no man can rule himself, much less his fellows. From rulers we expect wide wisdom, not class prejudice. The former is impossible, the latter certain, without education.

One hears an answer to the assertion we have made: “Give us power and see how we use it!” That is all very well, but before power is added to that already in possession we must be sure that the best is being made of what has been already attained. If the workmen of England or of any other country are to hold offices of State in which ripe judgment, experience and knowledge of the world, of the complications to which it has been subjected from the earliest times, are required, they must have a very different Utopia in the back of their minds to that which is evident as yet. They will have to learn that to legislate entirely in the interests of Labour (and that is what Labour would do now) would be tantamount to the ultimate destruction of the very thing they wish to promote—the wealth of Labour as opposed to that of the capitalist. Before power, and such power, is granted to a class which has had no experience of its exercise we must be certain that their previous use of their higher energies has justified their demands, namely, that they have fulfilled the demands which their work should have made, well and honestly. First of all, the workman must have given his best work to his employer, and, having done that as the first duty to his neighbour and to himself as an honourable man, he must have proved by the good use of his hours of leisure that he is in earnest, that he desires not only to become a decent citizen but a capable one.

Now, the best instructed of us and the most intellectually endowed know by experience how difficult it is to so train the mind to be ready and prompt to employ leisure to the best advantage, that is to say, in such a manner that is useful and ennobling, not detrimental and decadent! This is a matter which hinges on principle as well as choice. Industry is engendered by effort as well as by theory. If a man is industrious he has trained himself to be so by acting upon a theory which he has found to be advantageous. Advanced democrats will tell us: “You have no right to interfere with the hours of leisure of a citizen. If he elects to get drunk, why not? If he gambles, why not? If he prefers dog fighting and the prize ring to improving his mind; if he prefers to beat his wife to treating her decently, why not? She does not mind it. If he prefers to spend his money in travelling about to see football matches to taking his earnings home to his family, why not?” Yes, Mr. Democrat, but by doing so is your pet working man even on the road to be a worthy ruler or responsible statesman, or even in a minor degree to take part in framing laws, or seeing that when made they are put into action? If your working man spends his leisure in barbarous pursuits he is still, by preference, a barbarian! If he wastes his earnings, taking little of them home to provide for and educate a family, in the first place, does he deserve higher wages, while those he is already receiving he uses ill? Is a man that acts so fit to rule? Certainly not! If he abuses his own wages, do you think he will not waste or abuse the use of public money? Of course he will! The democrat who has added the sauce of anarchy to his favourite dish, whose logic is framed upon assertion unjustified by reasoning, will tell you: “You let him alone. He fills the pockets of the big pots. If he likes to get drunk, why not? I likes liberty, I does.” And yet the fool who says this will be the first to urge class tyranny and claim for the idle workman a place in a Ministry, perhaps the first place. Good God! No; before the working classes are granted grave responsibilities they must prove they are worthy of them by exercising a firm purpose, doing what they are already called to do honourably and well, and show signs by industry during leisure hours that they are men, not barbarians, and good citizens, not anarchists!

They must prove by their private lives that their public acts will not be a disgrace, that a high principle has been their guide, that their souls are straight and active for good, and that a true Fraternity, wide and embracing, has finally ruled out selfish class prejudice. They must prove that they are in no humour to be levelled down by their noisy leaders. They must prove their higher ambition by not listening to the cry, “Strike again, Bill! Force the governor if ’e won’t give in! The Government is weak: force it to a decision in your favour! You ’ave the power to starve the country if you choose. Don’t yer see yer power? Why, then, man, use it!”