THE VANITIES OF PATRIOTISM
IT cannot be said of most of our democratic leaders today, as it was said of Pericles, the greatest of Athenian democrats, that they " flatter the vanity " of the people of this country by the splendour of public works. Mr. Herbert Morrison, Labour's leader on the London County Council, has revealed a superb indiffer- ence to the aesthetic claims which Waterloo Bridge may have upon Londoners ; and if it were not that the Members of Parliament who met last Monday had also a strong utilitarian case to present for the preservation of the bridge it is unlikely that any merely aesthetic argument for maintaining it would have been deemed enough. No one attempts to flatter the vanity of the British public, for it is assumed that it is utterly free from pride in the possession of public monuments, or beautiful cities, or attractive highways, or an unspoilt countryside.
This is the assumption on which every ,Minister of Transport and most Ministers of Health are expected to act ; and for that reason the Oxford Preservation Trust and the Cambridge Preservation Society, whose members are profoundly disturbed at the threatened ruin of the beauty of the countryside by ribbon develop- ment on the roads, have very wisely chosen another ground for their appeal. They show that ribbon develop- ment is a main cause of the lengthening list of fatal accidents on the roads ; that it reduces the benefit to traffic for which the roads were reconstructed ; and that it is deleterious to health—all most cogent practical reasons for stopping the evil, but not the only reason. The Oxford and Cambridge societies are no doubt right in their method of approach to the responsible Ministers in the Government ; for the latter, being neces- sarily concerned with the more obvious, material utilities, are disposed to assume that only these weigh with the public ; which involves the absurd assumption that hundreds of thousands of people who risk their lives daily in seeking the pleasures of the countryside arc indifferent to those pleasures.
These are only two examples illustrating a defect in our public life which puts this country at a disadvantage in comparison with other civilized countries. The case to be stated is not that of the dank-haired critics, self-constituted judges in all matters aesthetic, whom Mr. Morrison has been so warmly deriding. It is not a case for " artiness " or dilettante fussiness in matters of taste. Still less is it a case against the populace. On the contrary, it is rather that the tastes and needs of the populace, in the direction of what is active, assertive and pleasurable, are constantly neglected through exclusive attention to those matters that are painfully harassing the people or affecting their pockets. Thus government, whether it acts -centrally or through local authorities, too exclusively contrives turning movements to avert misery rather than frontal attacks to provide conditions of happiness. The State endeavours to perform its full duty towards the unemployed, but scarcely appears to recognize that it has any duty at all in providing more inspiriting conditions of life for the whole of the community.
But in Italy Signor Mussolini, like Pericles of Athens, is fully aware of the impetus that may be given to patriotism by the inspiring surroundings of life in towns. He has cleared up the streets of Rome, is restoring the ancient monuments, and adding to the modern amenities of the city. Like the Athenian, he knows that temples are not so much less important than ships of war. But in England our Government is so far behind other civilized European Governments that it has not even. been willing to promise a little assistance for the estab- lishment of a National Theatre or a National Opera House ; and in spite of the fact of a popular interest revealed by the spontaneous, zestful activity of dramatic societies from one end of the country to the other we still lack the light and leading that should be given by a National Theatre.
In like manner neither the Government nor the London County Council realizes that it has any duty in so guiding the growth of commercial building or in so planning key bridges, thoroughfares and central areas that those who live in London can rejoice in its amenities and those who visit it may be impressed, as they are impressed when they visit Paris or Rome, by the feeling that here is a city designed to be the capital of a great country. And so it is that in a period of transition which presents a unique opportunity, when dwellings, shops and fac- tories are constantly being pulled down and others put up in their place, when it would be possible, as it has never been possible before, to ensure that the outward shape of great cities should harmoniously conform to the needs of our age, there is no disposition in governing circles to recognize any pressing duty in the matter.
It is the more disappointing since the social conscience has developed to so high a point in other directions. If in this one respect we are infinitely behind the age of Pericles, when rulers believed that harmonious minds could only be developed in harmoniously created cities, we have gone far on another road in waging war upon poverty and cruelty in all its forms. The social conscience of modern Britain, however far it may be from realizing its ends, is at least intensely alive to the necessity of abolishing slums, of getting rid of unemployment, of checking excessive hours of work or insanitary conditions in factories. That form of public spirit, manifesting itself in what are called social services, is more highly developed here than it has been in any country in the past. This is a great advance ; yet we should recognize that most of the public activity that springs from it, in so far as it is directed by Government or official public bodies, is in the main negative in its procedure rather than positive—averting evils,• rather than promoting blessings. The Greeks built temples and monuments. We construct hospitals and main drains. But is it less desirable to encourage pleasure than to preVent pain ?
We can think of no more apposite ease than that of the project, conceived in a rare moment of heightened public imagination, which embraced simultaneously the restoration of Rennie's Waterloo Bridge and the recon- struction of Central London with a new Charing Cross Bridge as the pivotal point. Here was a scheme, costly indeed, but not costly compared with the splendid amenities and transport facilities it would create. It would have opened up a main artery in the heart of the metropolis from the traffic-obstructed centres north of the Thames towards and through the slums on the south. It would have led to the demolition of hundreds of acres of mean dwellings, streets and wharves which disfigure the south bank of the river, the building of a magnificent new station, with an aerodrome, perhaps, above it, and to the north the clearance of an untidy area, the opening of spaces, the enhancement of site values, and the planned erection of stately buildings. The money required for this profitable undertaking would have provided work for builders, makers of building materials, engineers, steel-makers and many others.
Parliament is once again about to discuss Waterloo Bridge. Is not this the moment to reopen the larger issue ?
Previous page
