<h2><SPAN name="XIV" id="XIV"></SPAN>XIV</h2>
<h3>ON INDIGNATION</h3>
<p>There is nothing in which the newspapers deal
more generously than indignation. There is enough
indignation going to waste in the columns of the
London Press to overturn the Pyramids in ruins
and to alter the course of the Danube. We
have had a characteristic flow of popular indignation
over the execution of Mr Benton,
a British citizen, in Mexico. Probably not one
Englishman in a million had ever heard of Mr
Benton before, but no sooner was he executed and
in his grave than he rose, as it were, the very
impersonation of British citizenship outraged by
foreigners. On the whole, there is nothing healthier
than group-indignation of the kind that sees in
an injury to one an injury to all—that demands
just dealing for even the poorest and least distinguished
member of the group. It is the sort
of passion it would be pleasant to see trained and
developed. My only complaint against it is that
in the present state of the world it is too often<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[Pg 112]</SPAN></span>
reserved for foreigners and for those semi-foreigners,
the people who belong to a different political
party or social class from your own. One would
have thought, for instance, that the group-indignation
which denounced the execution of Mr
Benton without a fair trial might also have denounced
the expulsion of the labour leaders from
South Africa with no trial at all. The fact that it
did not and that several of the London capitalist
papers treated the whole South African episode as
a good joke at the expense of Labour is evidence
that to a good many Englishmen the maltreatment
of British citizens is not in itself an objectionable
thing, provided it happens within the British
Empire. It seems to me that this is an entirely
topsy-turvy kind of patriotism. For every British
citizen who is likely to be badly treated abroad,
there must be thousands who are in danger of being
badly treated in the British Empire itself. Is
not the killing of an Englishman by an English
railway company, for instance, as outrageous a
crime as the killing of an Englishman by a foreign
general? There is also this to be remembered:
your indignation against the criminal in your own
country is more likely to bear fruit than your
indignation against the criminal in a foreign
country. You can catch your English railway-<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[Pg 113]</SPAN></span>director
with a single policeman; you may not
be able to catch your foreigner without an international
war. Thus, though I do not question
the occasional value of indignation against wicked
foreigners, I contend that a true economy of indignation
would lead to most of its being directed
against wicked fellow-countrymen.</p>
<p>It may be retorted that Englishmen certainly
do not limit their indignation to foreigners, and
that the Marconi campaign is a proof that a good
Englishman can always become righteously indignant
against a bad Englishman—at least when
the latter happens to be a Welshman or a Jew.
But the Marconi campaign was only another
example of group-indignation against persons who
were outside the group. It was not, in this instance,
a national or Imperial group: it was a
party group. What I am arguing for is the direction
of group-indignation, not against outsiders,
but when necessary against the members of the
group. I should like to see Conservatives becoming
really indignant about Conservative scandals,
Liberals becoming really indignant about Liberal
scandals, Socialists becoming really indignant
about Socialist scandals. As it is, indignation
is usually merely a form of sectarian excitement
It is always easy to find something about which<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[Pg 114]</SPAN></span>
to become indignant in your political opponent,
if it is only his good temper. His crime of crimes
is that he is your political opponent—you use his
minor crimes merely as rods to punish him for
that. Our indignation against our opponents, to
say truth, is usually ready long before the happy
excuse comes which looses it like a wild beast
into the arena. One sees a good example of this
leashed indignation in the Ulster Unionist attitude
to Nationalist Ireland. There is a silly scuffle
about flags at Castledawson between a Sunday-school
excursion party and a Hibernian procession,
both of which ought to have known better.
Not a woman or child is injured, according to the
verdict of a judge on the bench, but the Ulster
Unionists, armed to the teeth with indignation in
advance, denounce the affair as though it were
on the same level of villainy with the September
Massacres. Not long afterwards real outrages
break out in Belfast, and Catholics and Socialists
are kicked and beaten within an inch of their lives.
Here was a test of the reality of the indignation
against outrages on human beings. Did the Ulstermen
then come forward in a righteous fury against
the wrongdoers on their own side? Not a bit of it.
Sir Edward Carson did disown them in the House
of Commons. But the Ulster Unionists, as a whole,<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[Pg 115]</SPAN></span>
raised not a breath of indignation. Being average
human beings, indeed, they invariably retort to
any charges made against them with an angry
<i>tu quoque</i> to the South. It is not long, for instance,
since a Special Commission sat to investigate
the facts about sweated women workers in Belfast,
and issued a report in which the prevalence of
sweating was demonstrated beyond the doubt of
any but a blind man. Instead, however, of directing
their indignation against the evils of a system
in their own midst, the Ulster Unionists—at least,
one of their organs in the Press—straightway sent
one of their representatives down into the South
of Ireland to prove how bad wages and conditions
of life were there. What a waste of indignation
all this was! Munster was full of indignation
against the disease of sweating in Belfast, which
it could not cure. Ulster, on the other hand, was
full of indignation against the disease of bad housing
in Dublin, which it could not cure. There is a
flavour of hypocrisy in much of this anger against
sins that are outside the circle of one's own responsibility.
I do not mind how many sins a man
is angry with provided they include the sins he
is addicted to himself and that are at his own
door. There is little credit in a rich manufacturer's
indignation against the evils of the<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[Pg 116]</SPAN></span>
land system if he is indifferent to the evils of the
factory system, and landlords who denounce industrial
evils but see nothing that needs redressing
in the lot of the agricultural labourer are in the same
boat. Perhaps, in the end, the world is served
even by this outside virtue. The landlords, in
order to distract attention from their own case,
have more than once brought a useful indignation
to bear on the case of the manufacturers, and <i>vice
versa</i>, and ultimately the bewildered, ox-like public
has begun to drink in a little of the truth. On
the other hand, this is an unhealthy atmosphere
for public virtue. It gives rise to cynical views
such as are expressed in the proverb, "When
thieves fall out, honest men come by their own,"
and in the lines concerning those who</p>
<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
<span class="i0">Compound for sins they are inclined to<br/></span>
<span class="i0">By damning those they have no mind to.<br/></span></div>
</div>
<p>We all do it, unfortunately. The Presbyterian
speaks with horror of the way in which the Catholic
breaks the Sabbath, and the Catholic thinks it a
terrible thing that the Presbyterian should go to a
theatre on Good Friday. Montaigne, who was
by inclination a sensualist, looked with disgust on
the man who drank too much, and the drunkard
retorts that every vice except his own is selfish
and anti-social. Even when we admit our own<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[Pg 117]</SPAN></span>
sins we are half in love with them. It seems a
less intolerable crime in oneself to rob the poor-box
than in one's neighbour to have an unwashed
neck. Englishmen never began to sing the praises
of cleanliness as the virtue that makes a nation
great until they had themselves taken to the bath.
True, they often wash, as they govern themselves,
not directly but by proxy; but, even so, cleanliness
has been exalted into a national virtue till the
very people of the slums, where the bath is used
only for the storage of coal, have learned to shout
"Dirty foreigner!" as the most indignant thing
that can be said at a crisis.</p>
<p>There is nothing that makes us feel so good as
the idea that some one else is an evildoer. Our
scandal about our neighbours is nearly all a
muttered tribute to our own virtue. It fills us
with a new pride in ourselves that it was not we
who gambled with trust money or made love to
our neighbour's wife or ran away in battle. By
kicking our neighbours down for their sins we secure
for ourselves, it seems, a better place on the ladder.
The object of all religion is to destroy this self-satisfied
indignation with our neighbours—to make
us feel that we ourselves are no better than the
prostitute or the foreigner. Similarly philosophy
bids us know ourselves instead of following the<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[Pg 118]</SPAN></span>
line of least resistance and damning others. That
is why one would like to see Englishmen concerned
about injuries done to Englishmen by Englishmen,
even more than about injuries done to Englishmen
by foreigners. Indignation against the latter,
necessary though it may be, is apt to become a
mere melodramatic substitute for native virtue.
There are crimes enough at home for any Englishman
to practise his indignation upon without ever
letting his eye wander further than Dover—crimes
of underpayment, crimes of overwork,
crimes of rotten houses, crimes that are murder in
everything but swiftness and theft in everything
except illegality. It is fine, no doubt, that Englishmen
should become hot with anger at the news
of a Benton murdered in Mexico as it is fine that
the democracies of Europe should be inflamed
with indignation at the murder of a Ferrer in
Spain. These things are evidence of large brotherhoods,
of an extension of those family charities
which are at the back of all advance in civilisation.
On the other hand, can none of this passionate
fraternity be spared for John Smith, aged fourteen,
done to death by the half-time system, or for his
father killed on the line as the result of the need of
making dividends for railway shareholders, or for
his mother working for a halfpenny an hour in a<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[Pg 119]</SPAN></span>
narrow room the filth of which is transmuted into
gold for some rich man? These, too, are your
brothers and sisters, and deserve the angry eloquence
of an epitaph. Here is subject enough
for indignation—not a weak and ineffectual
indignation against foreigners, but indignation
knocking terribly at your own doors.</p>
<hr style="width: 65%;" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[Pg 120]</SPAN></span></p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />