{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_68493/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_68493","id":"gutenberg_68493","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/68493","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Category: Teaching & Education","Citizenship"],"text":"Transcriber\u2019s Note: Italic text is enclosed in _underscores_;\nboldface text is enclosed in =equals signs=.\n\n\n\n\n  RIVERSIDE ESSAYS\n\n  EDITED BY\n  ADA L.\u00a0F. SNELL\n\n  ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH\n  MOUNT HOLYOKE COLLEGE\n\n\n\n\nRiverside Essays\n\nEdited by Ada L.\u00a0F. Snell\n\n\n  =THE AMERICAN MIND AND AMERICAN IDEALISM.= By Bliss Perry. 35\n     cents.\n\n  =UNIVERSITY SUBJECTS.= By John Henry Newman. 35 cents.\n\n  =STUDIES IN NATURE AND LITERATURE.= By John Burroughs. 35 cents.\n\n  =PROMOTING GOOD CITIZENSHIP.= By James Bryce. 35 cents.\n\n  _Prices are net, postpaid_\n  _Other titles in preparation_\n\n  HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY\n  BOSTON      NEW YORK      CHICAGO\n\n\n\n\n  The Riverside Literature Series\n\n  PROMOTING\n  GOOD CITIZENSHIP\n\n  BY\n  JAMES BRYCE\n\n  [Illustration]\n\n\n  BOSTON      NEW YORK      CHICAGO\n  HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY\n  The Riverside Press Cambridge\n\n\n\n\n  COPYRIGHT, 1909, BY YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS\n  COPYRIGHT, 1913, BY ADA L.\u00a0F. SNELL\n\n  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED\n\n  R.\u00a0L.\u00a0S. 227\n\n\n  The Riverside Press\n  CAMBRIDGE . MASSACHUSETTS\n  U . S . A\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n  INTRODUCTION      vii\n\n  INDOLENCE      1\n\n  HOW TO OVERCOME THE OBSTACLES TO GOOD\n  CITIZENSHIP      26\n\n    The two essays by Mr. James Bryce included in this volume are\n    reprinted by permission of Yale University from Mr. Bryce\u2019s\n    lectures on the Dodge Foundation, published in book form by the\n    Yale University Press under the title of _The Hindrances to Good\n    Citizenship_.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nMr. Bryce has for a long time been a man of international prominence.\nHis wide influence is undoubtedly due to many causes, but it may, in\ngeneral, be traced to two characteristics: Mr. Bryce is a humanist\nwho sympathetically watches the progress of nations and the guiding\nof governments; he is also a historian. In his biographical study of\nJohn Richard Green he has skillfully analyzed the aptitudes of the\nhistorian, and in so doing has pointedly, if unwittingly, described\nhimself. Accuracy, he says,--a desire for the exact truth,--keen\nobservation, sound judgment, imagination, and, following inevitably\nfrom these, command of literary exposition, are the powers which a\nhistorian needs. Each of these qualities Mr. Bryce himself possesses\nin large measure. It is his historical power, enabling him to observe\nand record the significant phases and events of human life, plus his\nsympathetic interest in its present-day manifestations which explain,\nin some degree, his singularly eminent position as an authority on\nmatters pertaining to human institutions in various countries.\n\nMr. Bryce was born in northern Ireland in 1838, of Scotch-Irish\nparents; and he combines in his nature the stalwart intellectual\npropensities of the Scot and the artistic attributes of the Celt. He\nwas educated at the University of Glasgow, and later went to Oxford\nwhere he won many honors. After finishing his collegiate work he was\nadmitted to the bar and practiced law in London until 1882. At the\nage of thirty-two he was appointed Regius Professor of Civil Law at\nOxford. Up to this point his life had been almost exclusively that of\na student and a scholar; and already at this time he was recognized as\na man of remarkable historical ability. The year 1880 marked a change\nin his life. He presented himself to the workingmen of Tower Hamlets,\nLondon, as a candidate for a seat in the House of Commons. Mr. Stead\ntells us that Mr. Bryce, in this first campaign, addressed his open-air\naudiences somewhat after the manner of a professor lecturing in a\nclassroom; he succeeded, nevertheless, in getting himself elected,\nand for over twenty-five years thereafter was a member of Parliament.\nDuring these years he held various responsible offices having to do\nwith home and foreign administrative work. The practical results of his\npolitical influence were advancement in public education, the securing\nof more extensive parks and open country spaces for the pleasure of the\npoorer classes, and the furtherance of international peace. In 1907,\nMr. Bryce was appointed ambassador to the United States, which office\nhe resigned in 1913 to carry on literary work.\n\nMr. Bryce\u2019s knowledge is the result not only of university training and\nexperience in public life, but also of varied reading. He has read art,\nscience, history, and has always been an interested student of poetry.\nIn speaking once to Americans of Swinburne, he suddenly paused and\nasked, \u201cWho are writing your songs and stirring your heart,--or isn\u2019t\nyour heart being stirred? Nothing is more important than that each\ngeneration and each land should have its poets. Each oncoming tide of\nlife, each age, requires and needs men of lofty thought who shall dream\nand sing for it, who shall gather up its tendencies and formulate its\nideals and voice its spirit, proclaiming its duties and awakening its\nenthusiasm, through the high authority of the poet and the art of his\nverse.\u201d How extensively Mr. Bryce has read the poets, both ancient and\nmodern, one perceives from the references and allusions in his _Studies\nin Contemporary Biography_.\n\nThe most important source of Mr. Bryce\u2019s knowledge, the one which\nhas furnished the material for nearly all his books, has been his\nfirst-hand observation and study of many countries. When still a\nyoung man he wandered alone over Mount Ararat, since the native\nguides refused to follow him to the unknown wilds of that lonely\npeak. He visited the Ottoman Empire in 1876, and, as a result of his\ninvestigations there, became an advocate of the Bulgarian cause; in\nfact it was his speeches on the Eastern Question which first made him\nprominent politically. Mr. Bryce has traveled also in Iceland; he was\nin Africa just previous to the Boer War; he has been all over South\nAmerica; and he knows the United States as few Americans know it. He\nhas studied these countries with great faithfulness, observing keenly\nevery phase of the political and social life. An interesting sample of\nhis method of gathering information is found in the chapter on \u201cThe\nPosition of Women\u201d in _The American Commonwealth_. When traveling in\nthe West he noticed that all of the women seemed so very well dressed\nthat apparently none could be the wife or daughter of a workingman;\nbut close observation dispelled this illusion. Idling in a bookstore\none day in Oregon, he noticed a woman who was asking for a certain\nmagazine. After her departure he asked the salesman who she was, and\nfound that she was the wife of a workman, and the magazine a Paris\nfashion journal. \u201cThis,\u201d says Mr. Bryce, \u201cset me to observing female\ndress more closely, and it turned out to be perfectly true that the\nwomen in these little towns were following the Parisian fashions very\nclosely, and were, in fact, ahead of the majority of English ladies\nbelonging to the professional and mercantile classes.\u201d Thus no detail,\nhowever trivial, escapes him; the pleasant and unpleasant phases of\nour American life, our manners, clothes, scenery have all been noted\nand reckoned with in the statement of tendencies and conclusions.\n\nAs a parliamentarian Mr. Bryce is said to have been direct, honest,\nand always illuminating. His ability to command attention was due not\nto any great oratorical gift, but rather to his scholarly view of any\nmatter under debate. Mr. Justin McCarthy reports that the members\nof the House who might be dining, smoking, or reading in the rooms\nassigned for these purposes, would, when the news was passed around\nthat Mr. Bryce was speaking, leave these pleasant diversions, and\nbetake themselves with great speed to the debating chamber. \u201cI have\nmany a time,\u201d he says, \u201cheard Conservative members murmur, in tones\nnot altogether expressing absolute satisfaction at the disturbing\ninformation, \u2018Bryce is up--I must go in and hear what he has to say.\u2019\n... Everybody knows that when he speaks it is because he has something\nto say which ought to be spoken and therefore ought to be heard.\u201d Mr.\nBryce was able to command attention also because of his reputation as\na courageous nonpartisan. He never advocated a measure or policy for\nmere party reasons or for personal aggrandizement. Not infrequently\nhe has fought bravely with the minority of his own party, and has at\ntimes suffered bitter attacks, as when he remained resolutely pro-Boer\nduring the rampant jingoism of the South African War. But however\nwidely political enemies might differ from him, they respected his\nsincerity and his luminous view of governmental problems. It is further\ncharacteristic of Mr. Bryce\u2019s public life that he never, in his desire\nfor the welfare of his own country, lost sight of what is due other\nnations. In practice as well as in precept he upheld the doctrine that\n\u201cpatriotism consists not in waving a flag, but in striving that our\ncountry shall be righteous as well as strong.\u201d\n\nMr. Bryce\u2019s books deal, for the most part, with historical subjects and\npresent-day governments. _The Holy Roman Empire_, written when he was\nonly twenty-four years old, is still regarded by able historians as\nan accurate and authoritative work; and, in the judgment of literary\ncritics, it is written with so much charm of style that it is destined\nto become an English classic. All of the books which have to do with\nforeign nations are characterized by a tactful, faithful, and above all\na truthful, handling. It was _The American Commonwealth_ which made\nthe citizens of the United States regard Mr. Bryce as a friend of the\nRepublic; but he is not so regarded because he has always stroked the\ngleaming pinions of the American eagle. Although he does seem to share\nthe hope universally cherished by Americans that we shall, in spite\nof grave national defects, \u201cwin out\u201d in the end, he has nevertheless,\nin direct and unadorned statements, pointed out our faults. As an\nexample of his characteristic straightforwardness of speech, take the\nfollowing sentence: \u201cAmerica has little occasion to think of foreign\naffairs, but some of her domestic difficulties are such as to demand\nthat careful observation and unbroken reflection which neither her\nexecutive magistrates, nor her legislatures, nor any leading class\namong her people now give.\u201d Mr. Bryce has never ceased to insist that\nAmerica suffers from lack of honest, courageous leadership in dealing\nwith such problems as municipal evils and the insidious influence of\n\u201cvested interests.\u201d Our heedlessness and indifference to public matters\nis our national sin, but Mr. Bryce foresees a cure for our defects\nin the increasing zeal with which the younger generation is assuming\nthe public burden; but how great must be its zeal and how steady its\npurpose if anything is to be accomplished, one is made poignantly\naware by reading the account of the Tammany Ring in _The American\nCommonwealth_.\n\nWhen a man of Mr. Bryce\u2019s ability and experience points out definitely\nthe chief obstacles to good citizenship and furthermore indicates\nthe means by which these may be overcome, one may be as sure that he\nwill say something which should be heeded as were the members of the\nHouse when he was a parliamentarian. In 1909, Mr. Bryce gave at Yale\nUniversity a series of lectures which were later published by the Yale\nUniversity Press under the title _Hindrances to Good Citizenship_. The\nmain obstacles to good citizenship are defined as indolence, private\nself-interest, and party spirit.\n\nThe first lecture, \u201cIndolence,\u201d brings to mind the chapter in _The\nAmerican Commonwealth_ on \u201cThe War Against Bossdom,\u201d with its vigorous\nconcluding words, \u201cIn America, as everywhere else in the world, the\ncommonwealth suffers more often from apathy or shortsightedness in the\nupper classes, who ought to lead, than from ignorance or recklessness\nin the humbler classes, who generally are ready to follow when wisely\nled.\u201d\n\nIn the second lecture, \u201cPrivate Self-Interest,\u201d Mr. Bryce states the\ncauses which produce a body of citizens who care more about their own\nadvancement than about the welfare of the country. The most important\nof these causes are tariff issues, appropriations of public money for\nlocal interests, governmental contracts, public officeholding,--all\nrepresenting \u201cthe insidious power of money which knows how to play upon\nthe self-interest of voters and legislators, polluting at its source\nthe spring of Civic Duty.\u201d\n\nThe third lecture considers party spirit as a hindrance to\ncitizenship. Mr. Bryce acknowledges the practical necessity for parties\nin the management of popular governments, and also the perplexing\ndifficulties of a party leader who must decide between conscience and\nparty. There is nevertheless but one course open to him: he must follow\nhis conscience; only he must carefully distinguish between conscience\nand angular independence which is lacking in common sense and in\nwillingness to defer to others in unimportant matters. For the average\nman the question is a simple one; relieved of the burdens of party\nleadership, he should follow his intelligence rather than his party. A\nlarge number of independent voters secures most effectively the right\nadministration of public business.\n\nThe last lecture in the series, \u201cHow to Overcome the Obstacles to Good\nCitizenship,\u201d suggests various means by which a more satisfactory\nbody of citizens may be secured. In method and style this lecture is\nillustrative of the author\u2019s peculiar strength in exposition.\n\nMr. Bryce\u2019s writings are remarkable for the lucid organization of a\nwealth of detail into significant principles and sound conclusions; for\nvividness in the presentation of whatever pertains to humanity, and\nfor gracious, winning English. One finds always in his work simplicity\nin the unfolding of material which has been carefully gathered and\ncalmly judged. There is perfect clarity in the handling of a mass of\ndetail, and such skillful subordination of it and masterly emphasis of\nimportant principles that the reader easily catches the bearing on the\ncentral thought of every illustration or description. There is also in\nthe writing a solidity and firmness, a bracing stalwartness--qualities\nwhich are the result of the writer\u2019s own sturdy nature. But this is\nnot all. The author\u2019s almost novelistic power of seeing persons and\nthings makes his writing as vivid as a story; even his most abstract\npropositions are tangible and real. And the material is, moreover, so\nsympathetically and earnestly treated that it is at times lifted above\nmere pedestrian exposition and becomes warm with the feeling of the\nwriter. The everyday words and unadorned sentences, infused with the\nspirit of the one who writes, become potent to stir slumbering ideals.\nSuddenly over the level way of mere intellectual matters falls a dreamy\nlight, a Celtic graciousness of manner; and the reader no longer\njourneys along a mere brown path, but sees the familiar scenes of the\nway idealized by the touch of poetry. The value of skillful exposition\nas an asset for leadership, or for the accomplishment of any other\npurpose, Mr. Bryce fully appreciates. A command of language is a power\npossessed by nearly every one of the men, eminent in the nineteenth\ncentury, whom Mr. Bryce describes in his _Studies in Contemporary\nBiography_. By means of it Mr. John Richard Green wrote the most\nbrilliant history of modern times; through the stirring editorials of\nthe _Nation_, Mr. Godkin was able to arouse an indifferent American\npublic to a more earnest consideration of the national welfare; and\nit was Mr. Gladstone\u2019s gift of \u201cnoble utterance\u201d which more than any\nother talent enabled him for many years to hold an authoritative\npolitical position. Mr. Bryce\u2019s own rare power as a writer of vigorous,\npersuasive English is one of the qualities which has made him in\na certain sense a citizen of the world with an almost world-wide\ninfluence.\n\nHowever helpful Mr. Bryce\u2019s method may be for the student who is\nattempting to understand and master the technique of successful\nEnglish, it is the subject-matter which is primarily of importance.\nIt is valuable for the student since it may serve to stimulate the\ninvestigation and expression of certain questions connected with the\nadministration of public matters in his own town or city; and it may\nalso suggest the explanation and judgment of measures proposed to\nsecure better government, such as the Referendum. But the essential\nworth of the material lies in the fact that it is a tonic for relaxed\nvigilance in public affairs. It would be well to require every\ncitizen of the United States to read in school days _The American\nCommonwealth_; one ventures to say that there would be, as a result,\na steady advancement in the right understanding and fulfillment of\ncivic duties; but even a limited acquaintance with Mr. Bryce should\nserve to define in clearer terms the elements of a sane and effective\npatriotism. And Mr. Bryce\u2019s own life, unfalteringly and resolutely\ndevoted to a just administration of governments, together with its\nunfailing graciousness in the most trying situations, furnishes an\ninvigorating example of the truly successful statesman.\n\n                                                    ADA L.\u00a0F. SNELL.\n\n\n\n\nPromoting Good Citizenship\n\n\n\n\nINDOLENCE\n\n\nDr. Samuel Johnson, being once asked how he came to have made a blunder\nin his famous English Dictionary, is reported to have answered,\n\u201cIgnorance, Sir, sheer ignorance.\u201d Whoever has grown old enough to look\nback over the wasted opportunities of life--and we all of us waste\nmore opportunities than we use--will be apt to ascribe most of his\nblunders to sheer indolence. Sometimes one has omitted to learn what\nit was needful to learn in order to proceed to action; sometimes one\nhas shrunk from the painful effort required to reflect and decide on\none\u2019s course, leaving it to Fortune to settle what Will ought to have\nsettled; sometimes one has, from mere self-indulgent sluggishness, let\nthe happy moment slip.\n\nThe difference between men who succeed and men who fail is not so much\nas we commonly suppose due to differences in intellectual capacity.\nThe difference which counts for most is that between activity and\nslackness; between the man who, observing alertly and reflecting\nincessantly, anticipates contingencies before they occur, and the\nlazy, easy-going, slowly-moving man who is roused with difficulty,\nwill not trouble himself to look ahead, and so being taken unprepared\nloses or misuses the opportunities that lead to fortune. If it be true\nthat everywhere, though perhaps less here than in European countries,\nenergy is the exception rather than the rule, we need not wonder that\nmen show in the discharge of civic duty the defects which they show in\ntheir own affairs. No doubt public affairs demand only a small part\nof their time. But the spring of self-interest is not strong where\npublic affairs are concerned. The need for activity is not continuously\npresent. A duty shared with many others seems less of a personal duty.\nIf a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand other citizens are as much bound\nto speak, vote, or act as each one of us is, the sense of obligation\nbecomes to each of us weak. Still weaker does it become when one\nperceives the neglect of others to do their duty. The need for the\ngood citizen\u2019s action, no doubt, becomes then all the greater. But\nit is only the best sort of citizen that feels it to be greater. The\nAverage Man judges himself by the average standard and does not see why\nhe should take more trouble than his neighbours. Thus we arrive at a\nresult summed up in the terrible dictum, which reveals the basic fault\nof democracy, \u201cWhat is Everybody\u2019s business is Nobody\u2019s business.\u201d\n\nOf indolence, indifference, apathy, in general, no more need be said.\nIt is a sin that easily besets us all. We might suppose that where\npublic affairs are concerned it would decrease under the influence of\neducation and the press. But several general causes have tended to\nincrease it in our own generation, despite the increasing strength of\nthe appeal which civic duty makes to men who are, or if they cared\nmight be, better informed about public affairs than were their fathers.\n\nThe first of these causes is that manners have grown gentler and\npassions less angry. A chief duty of the good citizen is to be angry\nwhen anger is called for, and to express his anger by deeds, to\nattack the bad citizen in office, or otherwise in power, to expose his\ndishonesty, to eject him from office, to brand him with an ignominy\nwhich will prevent his returning to any post of trust. In former\ndays indignation flamed higher, and there was little tenderness for\noffenders. Jehu smote the prophets of Baal. Bad ministers--and no\ndoubt sometimes good ministers also--were in England beheaded on Tower\nHill. Everywhere punishment came quicker and was more severe, though\nto be sure it was often too harsh. Nowadays the arm of justice is\noften arrested by an indulgence which forgets that the true aim of\npunishment is the protection of the community. The very safeguards\nwith which our slower and more careful procedure has surrounded trials\nand investigations, proper as such safeguards are for the security of\nthe innocent, have often so delayed the march of justice that when\na conviction has at last been obtained, the offence has begun to be\nforgotten and the offender escapes with a trifling penalty, or with\nnone. This is an illustration of the principle that as righteous\nindignation is a valuable motive power in politics, the decline in it\nmeans a decline either in the standard of virtue or in the standard of\nzeal, possibly in both.\n\nAnother cause may be found in the fact that the enormous growth of\nmodern states has made the share in government of the individual\ncitizen seem infinitesimally small. In an average Greek republic,\nhe was one of from two to ten thousand voters. In England or France\nto-day he is one of many millions. The chance that his vote will make\nany difference to the result is so slender that it appears to him\nnegligible. We are proud, and justly proud, of having adapted free\ngovernment to areas far vaster than were formerly thought capable of\nreceiving free institutions. It was hoped that the patriotism of the\ncitizen would expand with the magnitude of the State. But this did not\nhappen in Rome, the greatest of ancient republics. Can we say that it\nhas happened in the modern world? Few of us realize that though our own\nshare may be smaller our responsibility increases with the power our\nState exerts. The late Professor Henry Sidgwick once travelled from\nDavos in the easternmost corner of Switzerland to the town of Cambridge\nin England and back again to deliver his vote against Home Rule at the\ngeneral election of 1886, though he knew that his own side would have a\nmajority in the constituency. Those who knew applauded, his opponents\nincluded, but I fear that few of us followed this shining example of\ncivic virtue.\n\nThirdly, the highest, because the most difficult, duty of a citizen\nis to fight valiantly for his convictions when he is in a minority.\nThe smaller the minority, and the more unpopular it is, and the more\nviolent are the attacks upon it, so much the louder is the call of\nduty to defend one\u2019s opinions. To withstand the \u201cardor civium prava\niubentium\u201d--to face \u201cthe multitude hasting to do evil\u201d--this is the\nnote and the test of genuine virtue and courage. Now this is, or seems\nto be, a more formidable task the vaster the community becomes. It is\nharder to make your voice heard against the roar of ocean than against\nthe whistling squall that sweeps down over a mountain lake.\n\nLastly, there has been within the last century a great accession to our\nknowledge of nature, a more widely diffused and developed interest in\nliterature and art as well as in science. This development, in itself\nfraught with laudable means of enjoyment, has had the unforeseen yet\nnatural result of reducing the interest in public affairs among the\neducated classes, while the ardour with which competitions in physical\nstrength and skill are followed has in like manner diverted the\nthoughts and attention of the less educated--and indeed, not of them\nalone but of many also in a class from whom better things might have\nbeen expected. Politics, in fact, have nowadays to strive against more\nrival subjects attracting men\u2019s eyes and minds than they had before\nscientific discovery and art, and above all, athletic sports, came to\nfill newspapers and magazines.\n\nBut so far from being less important than they were, politics are\ngrowing in every country more important the wider the sphere of\ngovernmental action becomes. Nevertheless, even in England, which is\nperhaps slightly less addicted to this new passion for looking on at\nand reading about athletic competitions than are North America and\nAustralia, a cricket or football match or a horse-race seems, if one\nmay judge by the eager throngs that snatch the evening newspapers, to\nexcite more interest in the middle as well as in the richer and in the\nupper section of the poorer classes than does any political event.\n\nHow to overcome these adverse tendencies is a question which I reserve\ntill the last of these lectures. Meantime, let us look at some of the\nforms in which indifference to the obligations of citizenship reveals\nitself.\n\nThe first duty of the citizen used to be to fight, and to fight\nnot merely against foes from another State, but against those also\nwho, within his own State, were trying to overturn the Constitution\nor resist the laws. It is a duty still incumbent on us all, though\nthe existence of soldiers and a police force calls us to it less\nfrequently. The omission to take up arms in a civil strife was a grave\noffence in the republics of antiquity, where revolutions were frequent,\nas they are to-day in some of the states of Latin America. When\nrespectable people stayed at home instead of taking sword and spear to\ndrive out the adherents of an adventurer trying to make himself Tyrant,\nthey gave the adventurer his chance: and in any case their abstention\ntended to prolong a civil war which would end sooner when it was seen\nwhich way the bulk of the people inclined. There was accordingly a\nlaw in some of the Greek republics that every citizen must take one\nside or the other in an insurrection. If he did not, he was liable\nto punishment. I have not heard of any one being indicted in England\nor the United States for failing to discharge his legal duty to join\nin the hue and cry after a thief, or to rally to the sheriff when he\ncalls upon the _posse comitatus_ to support him in maintaining law and\norder. But possibly an indictment would still lie; and in England we\nhave within recent times enrolled bodies of special constables from the\ncivil population to aid in maintaining public tranquillity.\n\nMore peaceful times have substituted for the duty of fighting the\nduty of voting. But even in small communities the latter duty has\nbeen often neglected. In Athens the magistrates used to send round\nthe Scythian bowmen, who acted as their police, to scour the streets\nwith a rope coloured with vermilion, and drag towards the Pnyx (the\nplace of assembly), citizens who preferred to lounge or to mind what\nthey called their own business, as if ruling the State was not their\nbusiness. So in modern Switzerland some cantons have enacted laws\nfining those who, without reasonable excuse, neglect to vote.[1] This\nis the more remarkable because the Swiss have a good record in the\nmatter of voting, better, I think, than any other European people. Such\na law witnesses not to exceptional negligence but to an exceptionally\nhigh standard of duty. In Britain we sometimes bring to the polls at a\nparliamentary election eighty, or even more than eighty, per cent of\nour registered electors, which is pretty good when it is remembered\nthat the register may have been made up eleven months earlier, so\nthat many electors are sure to have moved elsewhere. At elections for\nlocal authorities a much smaller proportion vote; and I fancy, though\nI have no figures at hand, that in France, Belgium, and still more\nin Italy the percentage voting at all sorts of elections is less than\nin Switzerland or in Britain. The number who vote does not perfectly\nmeasure the personal sense of duty among electors, because an efficient\nparty organization may, like the Scythian bowmen, sweep voters who\ndo not care but who can be either driven to the polls or paid to go.\nUnless it is money that takes the voters there, it is well that they\nshould go; for it helps to form the habit.\n\n    [1] This example has, I believe, been followed in Belgium.\n\nAnother form of civic apathy is the reluctance to undertake civic\nfunctions. In England this is not discoverable in any want of\ncandidates for Parliament. They abound, though sometimes the fittest\nmen prefer ease or business success to public life. But seats upon\nlocal authorities and especially upon municipal councils and district\ncouncils, seldom attract the best ability of the local community. In\nEnglish and Scottish cities the leading commercial, financial, and\nprofessional men do not often appear as candidates, leaving the work\nto persons who are not indeed incompetent, being usually intelligent\nbusiness men, but whose education and talents are sometimes below the\nlevel of the functions which these bodies discharge. No great harm\nhas followed, because our city councillors are almost always honest.\nLocal public opinion is vigilant and exacting, so a high standard of\nprobity is maintained. But municipalities have latterly embarked on so\nmany kinds of new work, and the revenues of the greater cities have so\ngrown, that not merely business capacity and experience, but a large\ngrasp of economic principles is required. This is no less true here in\nAmerica, yet I gather that here it is found even more difficult than in\nEurope to secure the presence of able administrators in city councils.\n\nA man engaged in a large business who takes up municipal work may\ndoubtless find that he is making a pecuniary sacrifice. But if he has\nalready an income sufficient for his comfort, may it not be his best\nway of serving his fellow-men?\n\nMany such men do serve as governors or trustees of educational or other\npublic institutions which make nearly as great a demand on their time\nas the membership of a public body would. Others, in Europe, if less\nfrequently here, give to amusement much more of their leisure than the\nneeds of recreation and health require. This is often due rather to\nthoughtlessness than to a conscious indifference to the call of duty.\n\nSome of your political reformers have dwelt on the difficulties which\nparty organizations, specially powerful in the United States, place in\nthe way of educated and public-spirited men seeking to enter politics.\nThere may be truth in this as regards the lower districts of the larger\ncities, but one can scarcely think it generally true even of the\ncities. More frequently it is alleged that the work of local politics\nis disagreeable, bringing a man into contact with vulgar people and\nexposing him to misrepresentation and abuse.\n\nThis is an excuse for abstention which ought never to be heard in a\ndemocratic country. If politics are anywhere vulgar, they ought not\nto be suffered to remain vulgar, as they will remain if the better\neducated citizens keep aloof. They involve the highest interests\nof the nation or the city. The way in which they are handled is a\nlesson to the people either in honesty or in knavery. The best element\nin a community cannot afford to let its interests be the sport of\nself-seekers or rogues. Moreover, the loss by maladministration or\nrobbery, large as it may sometimes be, is a less serious evil than is\nthe damage to public morals. If those who have the manners and speak\nthe language of educated men refuse to enter practical politics, they\nmust cease to complain of a want of refinement in politics. In reality,\ngood manners are the best way in which to meet rudeness; and he who\nis too thin-skinned to disregard abuse confesses his own want of\nmanliness. The mass of the people, even those who are neither educated\nnor fastidious, know honesty when they see it, and discount such abuse.\nWhen a man is firm and upright, nothing better braces him up and fits\nhim to serve his country than to be attacked on the platform or in the\npress for faults he has not committed. It puts him on his mettle. It\ntoughens his fibre. It gives him self-control and teaches him how to\ndo right in the way which is least exposed to misrepresentation. It\nnerves his courage for the far more difficult trials which come when\nfriends as well as opponents censure him because honour and obedience\nto his conscience have required him to take an unpopular line and speak\nunwelcome truths. A little persecution for righteousness\u2019 sake is a\nwholesome thing.\n\nThe deficient sense of civic duty, though most frequently noted in the\nform of a neglect to vote, is really more general and serious in the\nneglect to think. Were it possible to have statistics to show what\npercentage of those who vote reflect upon the vote they have to give,\nthere would in no country be found a large percentage. Yet what is the\nworth of a vote except as the expression of a considered opinion? The\nact of marking a ballot is nothing unless the mark carries with it a\njudgment, the preference of a good candidate to a bad one, the approval\nof one policy offered the people, the rejection of another. The\ncitizen owes it to the community to inform himself about the questions\nsubmitted for his decision, and weigh the arguments on each side; or if\nthe issue be one rather of persons than of policies, to learn all he\ncan regarding the merits of the candidates offered to his choice.\n\nHow many voters really trouble themselves to do this? One in five? One\nin ten? One in twenty?\n\nIt may be asked, How can they do it? What means have they of studying\npublic questions and reaching just conclusions? If the means are\nwanting, can we blame them if they do not think? If they feel they\ndo not understand, can we blame them if they do not vote? In every\nfree country the suffrage is now so wide that the great majority of\nthe voters have to labour for their daily bread. In most European\ncountries many are imperfectly educated. In the rural districts they\nread with difficulty, see either no newspaper or one which helps them\nbut little, lead isolated lives in which there are scanty opportunities\nfor learning what passes, so that the best they can do seems to be to\nask advice from the priest, or the village schoolmaster, or take advice\nfrom their landlord or their employer. In the northern parts of the\nUnited States and also in Canada, the native population has indeed\nreceived a fair instruction, and reads newspapers; but the mass of\nvoters is swelled by a crowd of recent immigrants, most of whom cannot\nread English and know nothing of your institutions.\n\nBroadly speaking, in modern countries ruled by universal suffrage\nthe Average Citizen has not the means of adequately discharging\nthe function which the constitution throws upon him of following,\nexamining, and judging those problems of statesmanship which the\never-growing range of government administration and the ever-increasing\ncomplexity of our civilization set before him as a voter to whom issues\nof policy are submitted.\n\nAs things stand, he votes, when he votes, not from knowledge, but as\nhis party or his favourite newspaper bids him, or according to his\npredilection for some particular leader. Unless it be held that every\nman has a natural and indefeasible right to a share in the government\nof the country in which he resides, the ground for giving that share\nwould seem to be the competence of the recipient and the belief that\nhis sharing will promote the general welfare. So one may almost say\nthat the theory of universal suffrage assumes that the Average Citizen\nis an active, instructed, intelligent ruler of his country.[2] The\nfacts contradict this assumption.\n\n    [2] It may no doubt be argued that even if he is not competent,\n        it is better he should be within than without the voting\n        class. But this was not the ground generally taken by those\n        who brought in universal suffrage.\n\nDoes this mean that widely extended suffrage is a failure, and that the\nAverage Man is not a competent citizen in a democracy?\n\nThis question brings us to reflect on another branch of civic duty not\nyet mentioned. Besides the civic duties already described of Fighting,\nVoting, and Thinking, there is another duty. It is the duty of Mutual\nHelp, the duty incumbent on those who possess, through their knowledge\nand intelligence, the capacity of Instruction and Persuasion to advise\nand to guide their less competent fellow-citizens. No sensible man\nought ever to have supposed that under such conditions as large modern\ncommunities present, the bulk of the citizens could vote wisely from\ntheir own private knowledge and intelligence. Even in small cities,\nsuch as was Sicyon in the days of Aratus, or Boston in the days of\nJames Otis, the Average Man needed the help of his more educated and\nwiser neighbours. While communities remained small, it was easy to\nget this help. But now the swift and vast growth of states and cities\nhas changed everything. Private talk counts for less when the richer\ncitizens dwell apart from the poorer; their opportunities of meeting\nare fewer, and there is less friendliness, if also less dependence, in\nthe relation of the employed to the employer. Public meetings do not\ngive nearly all that the Average Man needs, not to add that being got\ntogether to present one set of facts and arguments and deliberately\nto ignore the other, they do not put him in a fair position to judge.\nBesides, the men who most need instruction are usually those who least\ncome to meetings to receive it.\n\nTo fill this void the newspapers have arisen,--organs purporting to\nsupply the materials required for the formation of political opinion.\nWhatever the services of the newspaper in other respects, it has the\ninevitable defect of superseding, with most of those who read it, the\nexercise of independent thought. The newspaper--I speak generally, for\nthere are some brilliant exceptions--is, in Europe even more than here,\nalmost always partisan in its views, often partisan in its selection\nof facts or at least in its way of stating them. Presenting one side\nof a case, addressing chiefly those who are already adherents of that\nside, putting a colour on the events it reports,--it serves up to the\nreader ideas, perhaps only mere phrases or catchwords, which confirm\nhim in his prepossessions, and by its daily iteration makes him take\nthem for truths. Seldom has he the leisure, still more seldom the\nimpulse or the patience, to scrutinize these ideas for himself and\nform his own judgment. He is glad to be relieved of the necessity for\nthinking, because thinking is hard work. Indolence again! The habit of\nmind that is formed by hasty reading, and especially by the reading of\nnewspapers and magazines in which the matter, excellent as parts of it\noften are, is so multifarious that one topic diverts attention from the\nothers, tends to a general dissipation and distraction of thought. It\nis a habit which tells upon us all and makes continuous reflection and\na critical or logical treatment of the subjects deserving reflection\nmore irksome to us in the full sunlight of to-day than it was to those\nwhom we call our benighted ancestors.\n\nThis is only one form of that supersession of the practice of thinking\nby the vice commonly called \u201cthe reading habit\u201d which is profoundly\naffecting the intellectual life of our time. Yet as steady thinking\nwas never really common even among the educated, the difference from\nearlier days is not so correctly described by saying that people think\nless than formerly, as by noting that while people read more, and\nwhile far more people read, the ratio of thinking to reading does not\nincrease either in the individual or in the mass, and may possibly be\ndecreasing. Intelligence and independence of thought have not grown in\nproportion to the diffusion of knowledge. The number of persons who\nboth read and vote is in England and France more than twenty times as\ngreat as it was seventy years ago. The percentage of those who reflect\nbefore they vote has not kept pace either with popular education or\nwith the extension of the suffrage.\n\nThe persons who constitute that percentage are, and must for the\nreasons already given continue for some time to be, only a fraction,\nin some countries a small fraction, of the voting population. But the\nfraction might be made much larger than it is. The citizens who stand\nabove their fellows in knowledge and mental power ought to set an\nexample, not only by themselves thinking more and thinking harder about\npublic affairs than most of them do, but also by exerting themselves to\nstimulate and aid their less instructed or more listless neighbours.\nThe voter, it is said, should be independent. Yes. But independence\ndoes not mean isolation. He must not commit his personal responsibility\nto the keeping of another. Yes. But personal responsibility does not\nmean the vain conceit of knowledge and judgment where knowledge is\nwanting and judgment is untrained.\n\nJust as his religion throws upon every Christian the duty of loving\nhis neighbour and giving practical expression to his love by helping\nhis neighbour, succouring him in the hour of need, trying to rescue\nhim from sin, seeking to guide his steps into the way of peace, so\ncivic duty requires each of us to raise the level of citizenship not\nmerely by ourselves voting and bearing a share in political agitation,\nbut by trying to diffuse among our fellow-citizens whose opportunities\nhave been less favourable, the knowledge and the fairness of mind and\nthe habit of grappling with political questions which a democratic\ngovernment must demand even from the Average Man. Democracy, they say,\nis based on Equality. But in no form of government is leadership so\nessential. A multitude without intelligent, responsible leaders whom\nit respects and follows is a crowd ready to become the prey of any\nself-seeking knave. Nor is it true that because men value equality they\nreject eminence. They are always glad to be led if some one, eschewing\npretension and condescension, speaking to them with respect, but also\nwith that authority which knowledge and capacity imply, will point\nout the path and give them the lead for which they are looking. To do\nthis has now, in our great cities, become more difficult than it used\nto be, because men of different classes and different occupations do\nnot know one another as well as they once did, and economic conflicts\nhave made workingmen suspicious. But there are those in our English and\nScottish cities who do it successfully, and I have never heard that\nit is resented. It is largely a matter of tact, and of knowing how to\nexpress that genuine sense of human fellowship which is commoner in the\nricher class than the constraint and shyness that are supposed to beset\nEnglishmen sometimes allow to appear.\n\nIf you and we, both here and in Britain, are less active than we should\nbe in this and other forms of civic work, the fault lies in our not\ncaring enough for our country. It is easy to wave a flag, to cheer\nan eminent statesman, to exult in some achievement by land or sea.\nBut our imaginations are too dull to realize either the grandeur of\nthe State in its splendid opportunities for promoting the welfare of\nthe masses, or the fact that the nobility of the State lies in its\nbeing the true child, the true exponent, of the enlightened will of a\nright-minded and law-abiding people. Absorbed in business or pleasure,\nwe think too little of what our membership in a free nation means for\nthe happiness of our poorer fellow-citizens. The eloquent voice of a\npatriotic reformer sometimes breaks our slumber. But the daily round\nof business and pleasure soon again fills the mind, and public duty\nfades into the background of life. This dulness of imagination and the\nmere indolence which makes us neglect to stop and think, are a chief\ncause of that indifference which chokes the growth of civic duty. It is\nbecause a great University like this is the place where the imagination\nof young men may best be quickened by the divine fire, because the\nsons of a great University are those who may best carry with them into\nafter life the inspiration which history and philosophy and poetry have\nkindled within its venerable walls, that I have ventured to dwell here\non the special duty which those who enjoy these privileges owe to their\nbrethren, partners in the citizenship of a great republic.\n\n\n\n\nHOW TO OVERCOME THE OBSTACLES TO GOOD CITIZENSHIP\n\n\nIn the preceding three lectures[3] the chief hindrances to the\ndischarge of civic duty have been considered. Let us now go on to\ninquire what can be done to remove these hindrances by grappling with\nthose faults or weaknesses in the citizen to which they are due. When\nsymptoms have been examined, one looks about for remedies.\n\n    [3] The two lectures reprinted in this volume are the first\n        and last of a series of four given by Mr. Bryce at Yale\n        University.\n\nWe have seen that of the three causes assigned, Indolence, Selfish\nPersonal Interest, and Party Spirit, the first is the most common, the\nsecond the most noxious, the third the most excusable, yet also the\nmost subtle, and perhaps the most likely to affect the class which\ntakes the lead in politics and is incessantly employed upon its daily\nwork. Whether the influence of these causes, or of any of them, is\nincreasing with that more complete democratization of government which\nwe see going on in Europe, is a question that cannot yet be answered.\nFifty years may be needed before it can be answered, for new tendencies\nboth for good and for evil are constantly emerging and affecting one\nanother in unpredictable ways.\n\nThe remedies that may be applied to any defects in the working of\ngovernments are some of them Mechanical, some of them Ethical. By\nMechanical remedies I understand those which consist in improving the\nstructure or the customs and working devices of government, i.\u00a0e.,\nthe laws and the institutions or political methods, by Ethical those\nwhich affect the character and spirit of the people. If you want to\nget more work and better work done in any industry, you may either\nimprove the machinery, or the implements, by which the work is done, or\nelse improve the strength and skill of the men who run the machinery\nand use the tools. In doing the former, you sometimes do the latter\nalso, for when the workman has finer tools, he is led on to attempt\nmore difficult work, and thus not only does his own skill become more\nperfect, but his interest in the work is likely to be increased.\n\nAlthough in politics by far the most real and lasting progress may be\nexpected from raising the intelligence and virtue of the citizens,\nstill improvements in the machinery of government must not be\nundervalued. To take away from bad men the means and opportunities\nby which they may work evil, to furnish good men with means and\nopportunities which make it easier for them to prevent or overcome\nevil, is to render a great service. And as laws which breathe a high\nspirit help to educate the whole community, so does the presence of\nopportunities for reform stimulate and invigorate the best citizens in\ntheir efforts after better things.\n\nI will enumerate briefly some of the remedies that may be classed as\nMechanical because they consist in alterations of institutions or\nmethods.\n\nTwo of these need only a few passing words, because they are so\nsweeping as to involve the whole fabric of government, and therefore\ntoo large to be discussed here.\n\nOne is propounded by those thinkers whom, to distinguish them from the\npersons who announce themselves as enemies of all society, we may call\nthe Philosophical Anarchists, thinkers who are entitled to respectful\nconsideration because their doctrine represents a protest that needs\nto be made against the conception of an all-engulfing State in which\nindividual initiative and self-guided development might be merged and\nlost. They desire to get rid of the defects of government by getting\nrid of government itself; that is to say, by leaving men entirely\nalone without any coercive control, trusting to their natural good\nimpulses to restrain them from harming one another. In such a state\nof things there would be no Citizenship, properly so called, but only\nthe isolation of families, or perhaps of individuals--for it is not\nquite clear how far the family is expected to remain in the Anarchist\nparadise--an isolation more or less qualified by brotherly love. We are\nso far at present from a prospect of reaching the conditions needed for\nsuch an amelioration that it is enough to note this view and pass on.\n\nA second and diametrically opposite cure for the evils of existing\nsociety comes from those who are commonly termed Socialists or\nCollectivists. It consists in so widely enlarging the functions of\ngovernment as to commit to it not merely all the work it now performs\nof defending the country, maintaining order, enacting laws, and\nenforcing justice between man and man, but also the further work of\nproducing and distributing all commodities, allotting to each man his\nproper labour and proper remuneration, or possibly, instead of giving\nany pecuniary remuneration, providing each man with what he needs for\nlife. Under this r\u00e9gime two of the hindrances to good citizenship would\nbe much reduced. There ought to be less indifference to politics when\neverybody\u2019s interest in the management of public concerns had been\nimmensely increased by the fact that he found himself dependent on\nthe public officials for everything. Nobody could plead that he was\noccupied by his own private business, because his private business\nwould have vanished. So also selfish personal interest in making gains\nout of government must needs disappear when private property itself\nhad ceased to exist. Whether, however, self-interest might not still\nfind means of influencing public administration in ways beneficial to\nindividual cupidity, and whether personal selfishness might not be even\nmore dangerous, under such conditions, in proportion to the extended\nrange and power of government,--this is another question which cannot\nbe discussed till some definite scheme for the allotment of work and of\nremuneration (if any) shall have been propounded. Party Spirit would\nevidently, in a Collectivistic State, pass into new forms. It might,\nhowever, become more potent than ever before. But that again would\ndepend on the kind of scheme for the reshaping of economic society that\nhad been adopted.\n\nWe may pass from these suggestions for the extinction, or\nreconstruction on new lines, of the existing social and political\nsystem to certain minor devices for improving the structure and methods\nof government which have been put forward as likely to help the citizen\nto discharge his duties more efficiently.\n\nOne of these is the system of Proportional Representation. It is argued\nthat if electoral areas were created with more than two members\neach, and if each elector was either allowed to vote for a number\nof candidates less than the number to be chosen, or was allowed to\nconcentrate all his votes upon one candidate, or more, according to the\nnumber to be chosen, two good results would follow. The will of the\nelectors would be more adequately and exactly expressed, because the\nminority, or possibly more than one minority, as well as the majority,\nwould have everywhere its representative. The zeal of the electors\nwould be stimulated, because in each district a section of opinion not\nlarge enough to have a chance of winning an election, if there were\nbut one member, and accordingly now apathetic, because without hope,\nwould then be roused to organize itself and to take a warmer interest\nin public affairs. The Proportional system is, therefore, advocated\nas one of those improvements in machinery which would react upon the\npeople by quickening the pulses of public life. Some experiments have\nalready been made in this direction. Those tried in England did not\nwin general approval and have been dropped. That which is still in\noperation in the State of Illinois has not, if my informants are right,\ngiven much satisfaction. But the plan is said to work well both in\nBelgium and in some of the cantons of Switzerland; so one may hope that\nfurther experiments will be attempted. It deserves your careful study,\nbut it is too complicated and opens too many side issues to be further\ndiscussed now and here.[4]\n\n    [4] Since the above was written a Royal Commission has been\n        appointed in Britain to examine divers questions relating\n        to elections, and is investigating this, among other plans.\n\nAttempts have been made in some places to overcome the indifference of\ncitizens to their duty by fining those who, without sufficient excuse,\nfail to vote. This plan of Obligatory Voting, as it is called, finds\nfavour in some Swiss cantons and in Belgium, but is too uncongenial to\nthe habits of England or of the United States to be worth considering\nas a practical measure in either country. Moreover, the neglect to vote\nis no very serious evil in either country, at least as regards the more\nimportant elections. Swiss legislation on the subject is evidence not\nso much of indifference among the citizens of that country as of the\nhigh standard of public duty they are expected to reach.\n\nWhen we come to the proposals made both here and in England for the\nreference of proposals to a direct popular vote, we come to a question\nof real practical importance. I wish that I had time to state to\nyou and to examine the arguments both for and against this mode of\nlegislation, which has been practised for many years in Switzerland\nwith a virtually unanimous approval, and has been applied pretty freely\nin some of your States. It has taken two forms. One is the so-called\nInitiative, under which a section of the electors (being a number,\nor a proportion, prescribed by law) may propose a law upon which the\npeople vote. This is being tried in Switzerland, but so far as I have\nbeen able to gather, has not yet proved its utility. The balance of\nskilled opinion seems to incline against it. The other is called the\nReferendum, and consists in the submission to popular vote of measures\nalready passed by the legislative body. In this form the reference of\nlaws to the people undoubtedly sharpens the interest of the ordinary\ncitizen in the conduct of public affairs. The Swiss voters, at any\nrate, take pains to inform themselves on the merits of the measures\nsubmitted to them. These are widely and acutely canvassed at public\nmeetings, and in the press. A large vote is usually cast, and all,\nwhether or no they approve the result, agree that it is an intelligent,\nnot a heedless, vote. The Swiss do not seem to think that the power and\ndignity of the legislature is weakened, as some might expect it to be,\nwhen their final voice is thus superseded by that of the people. All I\nneed now ask you to note and remember is that the practice of bringing\npolitical issues directly before the people, whatever its drawbacks,\ndoes tend to diminish both that indolence and indifference which is\npretty common among European voters. It requires every citizen to think\nfor himself and deliver his vote upon all the more important measures,\nand it also reduces the power of that Party Spirit which everywhere\ndistracts men\u2019s minds from the real merits of the questions before\nthe country. When a law is submitted to the Swiss people for their\njudgment, their decision nowise affects either the Executive or the\nLegislature. The law may be rejected by the people, but the officials\nwho drafted the law continue to hold office. The party which brought it\nin and carried it through the Legislature is not deemed to have been\ncensured or weakened by the fact of its ultimate rejection. That party\nspirit is less strong in Switzerland than in any other free country\n(except perhaps Norway) may be largely attributed to this disjunction\nof the deciding voice in legislation from those governmental organs\nwhich every political party seeks to control. The Swiss voter is to-day\nan exceptionally intelligent and patriotic citizen, fitter to exercise\nthe function of direct legislation than perhaps any other citizen in\nEurope, and the practice of directly legislating has doubtless helped\nto train him for the function.\n\nIt must, however, be admitted that the circumstances of that little\nrepublic and its cantons are too peculiar to make it safe to draw\ninferences from Swiss experience to large countries like Britain and\nFrance, the political life of which is highly centralized. The States\nof your Union may appear to offer a better field, and the results\nof the various experiments which some of them (such as Oklahoma) are\ntrying will be watched with interest by Europeans.\n\nIn considering the harm done to civic duty by selfish personal\ninterests we were led to observe that the fewer points of contact\nbetween government and the pecuniary interests of private citizens,\nthe better both for the purity of government and for the conscience of\nthe private citizen. How far government ought to include within its\nfunctions schemes for increasing national wealth, otherwise than by\nsuch means (being means which a government alone can employ because\nto be effective they must be done on a great scale) as the improving\nof education, the diffusing of knowledge, the providing means of\ntransportation, the conservation of natural resources, and so forth,\nmay be matter for debate. But at any rate government ought to avoid\nmeasures tending to enrich any one person or group of persons at the\nexpense of the citizens generally. Common justice requires that.\nAccordingly, all contracts should be made on the terms best for the\npublic, and if possible by open bidding. Franchises, if not reserved\nby the public authority for itself, should be granted only for limited\ntimes and so as to secure the interests of the community, whether by\nway of a rent payable to the city or county treasury or otherwise.\nPublic employees should not be made into a privileged class, to\nwhich there is given larger pay than other workers of the same class\nand capacity receive. All bills promoted by a private person, firm,\nor company looking to his or their pecuniary advantage ought to be\nclosely scrutinized by some responsible public authority. In England\nwe draw a sharp distinction between such bills and general public\nlegislation, and we submit the former to a quasi-judicial examination\nby a Parliamentary committee in order to avoid possible jobs or\nscandals or losses to the public. As respects general legislation,\ni.\u00a0e., that which is not in its terms local or personal, it may be\ndifficult or impossible to prevent a law from incidentally benefiting\none group or class of men and injuring another. But everything that\ncan be done ought to be done to prevent any set of men from abusing\nlegislation to serve their own interest. If there be truth in what\none hears about the groups which in France, Belgium, and Germany have,\nthrough political pressure, obtained by law bounties benefiting their\nindustries, or tariffs specially favourable to their own commercial\nenterprises, the danger that the general taxpayer, or the consumer, may\nbe sacrificed to these private interests, is a real danger. To remove\nthe occasion and the opportunities for the exercise of such pressure,\nwhich is likely to be often exerted in a covert way and to warp or\npervert the legislator\u2019s mind, is to diminish a temptation and to\nremove a stumbling block that lies in the path of civic duty. Whether\na man be in theory a Protectionist or a Free Trader, whether or not he\ndesires to nationalize public utilities, he must recognize the dangers\nincident to the passing of laws which influential groups of wealthy\nmen may have a personal interest in promoting or resisting, because\nthey offer a prospect of gain sufficiently large to make it worth while\nto \u201cget at\u201d legislatures and officials. Such dangers arise in all\ngovernments. That which makes them formidable in democracies is the\nfact that the interest of each individual citizen in protecting himself\nand the public against the selfish groups may be so small an interest\nthat everybody neglects it, and the groups get their way.\n\nAs we have been considering improvements in the machinery of\ngovernment, this would be a fitting place for a discussion of what you\ncall Primary Election Laws, which are intended both to reduce the power\nof party organizations and to stimulate the personal zeal of the voter\nby making it easier for him to influence the selection of a candidate.\nWe have, however, in Europe, nothing corresponding to the Primary\nLaws of American States, nothing which recognizes a political party\nas a concrete body, nothing which deals with the mode of selecting\ncandidates; and many of you doubtless know better than I do what has\nbeen the effect of these American enactments and whether they have\nreally roused the ordinary citizen to bestir himself and to assert\nhis independence of such party organizations as may have heretofore\ninterfered with it. Europeans do not take kindly to the notion of\ngiving statutory recognition to a Party, and they doubt whether the\nastuteness of those whom you call \u201cmachine politicians\u201d may not succeed\nin getting hold of the new statutory Primaries as they did of the old\nones. Be the merits of the new legislation what they may, one must hope\nthat its existence will not induce the friends of reform to relax their\nefforts to reduce in other ways the power of political \u201cMachines.\u201d\n\nOne obvious expedient to which good citizens may resort for keeping\nother citizens up to the mark is to be found in the enactment and\nenforcement of stringent laws against breaches of public trust. I\ntook occasion, in referring to the practices of bribery and treating\nat elections, to note the wholesome effect of the statute passed in\nEngland in 1883 for repressing those offences. Although St. Paul has\ntold us that he who is under grace does not need to be under the\nlaw, Christianity has not yet gone far enough to enable any of us to\ndispense with the moral force law can exert, both directly through\nthe penalties it imposes and indirectly through the type of conduct\nwhich it exhorts the community to maintain. Laws may do much to raise\nand sustain the tone of all the persons engaged in public affairs as\nofficials or as legislators, not only by appealing to their conscience,\nbut by giving them a quick and easy reply to those who seek improper\nfavours from them. A statute may express the best conscience of the\nwhole people and set the standard they approve, even where the practice\nof most individuals falls short of the standard. If the prosecuting\nauthorities and the courts do their duty unflinchingly, without regard\nto the social position of the offender, a statute may bring the\npractice of ordinary men up to the level of that collective conscience\nof the nation which it embodies.\n\nIn every walk of life a class of persons constantly subject to a\nparticular set of temptations is apt to form habits, due to the\npressure of those temptations, which are below what the conscience\nof the better men in the community approves. The aim of legislation,\nas expressing that best conscience of the whole community, ought to\nbe to correct or extirpate those habits and make each particular\nclass understand that it is not to be excused because it has special\ntemptations and thinks its own sins venial. Even the men who yield\nto the temptations peculiar to their own class are willing to join\nin condemning those who yield to some other kind of temptation. Thus\nthe \u201cbetter conscience\u201d may succeed in screwing up one class after\nanother to a higher level. But the enactment of a law is not enough.\nIt must be strictly enforced. Procedure must be prompt. Juries must\nbe firm. Technicalities must not be suffered to obstruct the march of\njustice. Sentences must be carried out, else the statute will become,\nas statutes often have become, a record of aspiration rather than of\naccomplishment.\n\nTo contrive plans by which the interest of the citizen in public\naffairs shall be aroused and sustained, is far easier than to induce\nthe citizen to use and to go on using, year in and year out, the\ncontrivances and opportunities provided for his benefit. Yet it is\nfrom the heart and will of the citizen that all real and lasting\nimprovements must proceed. In the words of the Gospel, it is the inside\nof the cup and platter that must be made clean. The central problem of\ncivic duty is the ethical problem. Indifference, selfish interests, the\nexcesses of party spirit, will all begin to disappear as civic life is\nlifted on to a higher plane, and as the number of those who, standing\non that higher plane, will apply a strict test to their own conduct and\nto that of their leaders, realizing and striving to discharge their\nresponsibilities, goes on steadily increasing until they come to form\nthe majority of the people. What we have called \u201cthe better conscience\u201d\nmust be grafted on to the \u201cwild stock\u201d of the natural Average Man.\n\nHow is this to be done? The difficulty is the same as that which meets\nthe social reformer or the preacher of religion.\n\nOne must try to reach the Will through the Soul. The most obvious way\nto begin is through the education of those who are to be citizens,\nmoral education combined with and made the foundation for instruction\nin civic duty. This is a task which the Swiss alone among European\nnations seem to have seriously undertaken. Here in America it has\nbecome doubly important through the recent entrance into your\ncommunity of a vast mass of immigrants, most of them ignorant of our\nlanguage, still more of them ignorant, not only of your institutions,\nbut of the general principles and habits of free government. Most of\nthem doubtless belong to races of high natural intelligence, and many\nof them have the simple virtues of the peasant. You are providing\nfor all of them good schools, and their children will soon become\nAmericans in speech and habits, quite patriotic enough so far as\nflag-waving goes. But they will not so soon or so completely acquire\nyour intellectual and moral standard, or imbibe your historical and\nreligious traditions. There is no fear but what they will quickly learn\nto vote. To some Europeans you seem to have been overconfident in\nintrusting them with a power which most of them cannot yet have learned\nto use wisely. That however you have done, and as you hold that it\ncannot now be undone, your task must now be to teach them, if you can,\nto understand your institutions, to think about the vote they have to\ngive, and to realize the responsibilities which the suffrage implies\nas these were realized by your New England forefathers when they\nplanted free commonwealths in the wilderness nearly three centuries ago.\n\nValuable as instruction may be in fitting the citizen to comprehend and\njudge upon the issues which his vote determines, there must also be the\nwill to apply his knowledge for the public good. What appeal shall be\nmade to him?\n\nWe--I say \u201cwe\u201d because this is our task in Europe no less than it is\nyours here--we may appeal to his enlightened self-interest, making\nself-interest so enlightened that it loses its selfish quality. We can\nremind him of all the useful work which governments may accomplish when\nthey are conducted by the right men in the right spirit. Take, for\ninstance, the work to be performed in those cities wherein so large and\nincreasing a part of the population now dwell. How much remains to be\ndone to make cities healthier, to secure better dwellings for the poor,\nto root out nests of crime, to remove the temptations to intemperance\nand gambling, to bring within the reach of the poorest all possible\nfacilities both for intellectual progress and for enjoying the\npleasures of art and music! How much may we do so to adorn the city\nwith parks and public buildings as to make its external aspect instil\nthe sense of beauty into its inhabitants and give them a fine pride\nin it! These are some of the tasks which cannot safely be intrusted\nto a municipality unless its government is above suspicion, unless\nmen of probity and capacity are placed in power, unless the whole\ncommunity extends its sympathy to the work and keeps a vigilant eye\nupon all the officials. Municipal governments cannot be encouraged to\nown public utilities so long as there is a risk that somebody may own\nmunicipal governments. Have we not here a strong motive for securing\npurity and efficiency in city administration? Is it not the personal\ninterest of every one of us that the city we dwell in should be such\nas I have sought to describe? Nothing makes more for happiness than to\nsee others around one happy. The rich residents need not grudge--nor\nindeed would your rich residents grudge, for there is less grumbling\namong the rich tax payers here than in Europe--taxation which they\ncould see was being honestly spent for the benefit of the city. The\ninterest each one of us has as a member of a city or a nation in seeing\nour fellow-citizens healthy, peaceful, and happy is a greater interest,\nif it be measured in terms of our own real enjoyment of life, than is\nthat interest, of which we so constantly are reminded, which we have\nin making the State either wealthy by the development of trade, or\nformidable to foreign countries by its armaments.\n\nWe may also appeal to every citizen\u2019s sense of dignity and\nself-respect. We may bid him recollect that he is the heir of rights\nand privileges which you and our ancestors fought for, and which\nplace him, whatever his birth or fortune, among the rulers of his\ncountry. He is unworthy of himself, unmindful of what he owes to the\nConstitution that has given him these functions, if he does not try to\ndischarge them worthily. These considerations are no doubt familiar to\nus Englishmen and Americans, though we may not always feel their force\nas deeply as we ought. To the new immigrants of whom I have already\nspoken they are unfamiliar; yet to the best among these also they have\nsometimes powerfully appealed. You had, in the last generation, no more\nhigh-minded and patriotic citizen than the German exile of 1849, the\nlate Mr. Carl Schurz.\n\nWhen every motive has been invoked, and every expedient applied that\ncan stimulate the sense of civic duty, one never can feel sure that\nthe desired result will follow. The moral reformer and the preacher\nof religion have the same experience. The ebbs and flows of ethical\nlife are beyond the reach of scientific prediction. There are times\nof awakening, \u201ctimes of refreshing from the presence of the Lord,\u201d as\nyour Puritan ancestors said, but we do not know when they will come nor\ncan we explain why they come just when they do. Every man can recall\nmoments in his own life when the sky seemed to open above him, and when\nhis vision was so quickened that all things stood transfigured in a\npurer and brighter radiance, when duty, and even toil done for the sake\nof duty, seemed beautiful and full of joy.\n\nYou remember Wordsworth\u2019s lines--\n\n     \u201cHence, in a season of fair weather,\n      Though inland far we be,\n      Our souls have sight of that celestial sea\n      That brought us hither.\u201d\n\nIf we survey the wide field of European history, we shall find that\nsomething like this happens with nations also. They, too, have moments\nof exaltation, moments of depression. Their ideals rise and fall. They\nare for a time filled with a spirit which seeks truth, which loves\nhonour, which is ready for self-sacrifice; and after a time the light\nbegins to fade from the hills and this spirit lingers only among the\nbest souls.\n\nSuch a spirit is sometimes evoked by a great national crisis which\nthrills all hearts. This happened to England or at least to a large\npart of the people of England, in the seventeenth century. It happened\nto Germany in the days of the War of Liberation, and to Italy when\nshe was striving to expel the Austrians and the petty princes who\nruled by Austria\u2019s help. You here felt it during the War of Secession.\nSometimes, and usually at one of these crises, a great man stands out\nwho helps to raise the feeling of his people and inspire them with his\nown lofty thoughts and aims. Such a man was Mazzini, seventy years\nago in Italy. Such were Washington and Lincoln, the former more by his\nexample than by his words, the latter by both, yet most by the quiet\npatience, dignity, and hopefulness which he showed in the darkest\nhours. Nations respond to the appeal which such a man makes to their\nbest instincts. He typifies for the moment whatever is highest in them.\n\nUnhappily, with nations as with individuals, there is apt to be a\nrelapse from these loftier moods into the old common ways when selfish\ninterest and trivial pleasures resume their sway. There comes a sort\nof reaction from the stress of virtue and strenuous high-soaring\neffort. Everything looks gray and dull. The divine light has died out\nof the sky. This, too, is an oft-repeated lesson of European history.\nYet the reaction and decline are not inevitable. When an individual\nman has been raised above himself by some spiritual impulse, he is\nsometimes able to hold the ground he has won. His will may have been\nstrengthened. He has learnt to control the meaner desires. The impulse\nthat stirred him is not wholly spent, because the nobler thoughts and\nacts which it prompted have become a habit with him. So, too, with\na nation. What habits are to the individual man, that, to a nation,\nare its Traditions. They are the memories of the Past turned into\nthe standards of the Present. High traditions go to form a code of\nhonour, which speaks with authority to the sense of honour. Whoever\ntransgresses that code is felt to be unworthy of the nation, unfit to\nhold that place in its respect and confidence which the great ones\nof the days of old have held. Pride in the glorious foretime of the\nrace and in its heroes sustains in the individual man who is called\nto public duty, the personal pride which makes him feel that all his\naffections and all his emotions stand rooted in the sense of honour,\nwhich is, for the man and for the nation, the foundation of all virtue.\n\nWe have seen in our own time, in the people of Japan, a striking\nexample of what the passionate attachment to a national ideal can do\nin war to intensify the sense of duty and self-sacrifice. A similar\nexample is held up to us by those who have recorded the earlier annals\nof Rome. The deepest moral they teach is the splendid power which the\nlove of Rome and the idea of what her children owed to her exercised\nover her great citizens, enabling them to set shining examples of\ndevotion to the city which the world has admired ever since. Each\nexample evoked later examples in later generations, till at last in\na changed community, its upper class demoralized by wealth and power\neven more than it was torn by discord, its lower classes corrupted\nby the upper and looking on their suffrage as a means of gain, the\nancient traditions died out. Whoever, studying the conditions of modern\nEuropean democracies, sees the infinite fatalities which popular\ngovernment in large countries full of rich men and of opportunities for\nacquiring riches, offers for the perversion of government to private\nselfish ends, will often feel that those European States which have\nmaintained the highest standard of civic purity have done it in respect\nof their Traditions. Were these to be weakened, the fabric might\ncrumble into dust.\n\nEvery new generation as it comes up can make the traditions which it\nfinds better or worse. If its imagination is touched and its emotions\nstirred by all that is finest in the history of its country, it learns\nto live up to the ideals set before it, and thus it strengthens the\nbest standards of conduct it has inherited and prolongs the reverence\nfelt for them.\n\nThe responsibility for forming ideals and fixing standards does not\nbelong to statesmen alone. It belongs, and now perhaps more largely\nthan ever before, to the intellectual leaders of the nation, and\nespecially to those who address the people in the universities and\nthrough the press. Teachers, writers, journalists, are forming the\nmind of modern nations to an extent previously unknown. Here they\nhave opportunities such as have existed never before, nor in any\nother country, for trying to inspire the nation with a love of truth\nand honour, with a sense of the high obligations of citizenship, and\nespecially of those who hold public office.\n\nOf the power which the daily press exerts upon the thought and the\ntastes of the people through the matter it scatters among them, and\nof the grave import of the choice it has always and everywhere to make\nbetween the serious treatment of public issues and that cheap cynicism\nwhich so many readers find amusing, there is no need to speak here. You\nknow better than I do how far those who direct the press realize and\ntry to discharge the responsibilities which attach to their power.\n\nThe observer who seeks to discern and estimate the forces working for\ngood or evil that mark the spirit and tendencies of an age, finds it\neasiest to do this by noting the changes which have occurred within\nhis own memory. To-day everyone seems to dwell upon the growth not\nonly of luxury, but of the passion for amusement, and most of those\nwho can look back thirty or forty years find in this growth grounds\nfor discouragement. I deny neither the fact nor the significance of\nthe auguries that it suggests. But let us also note a hopeful sign\nmanifest during the last twenty years both here and in England. It\nis the diffusion among the educated and richer classes of a warmer\nfeeling of sympathy and a stronger feeling of responsibility for the\nless fortunate sections of the community. There is more of a sense\nof brotherhood, more of a desire to help, more of a discontent with\nthose arrangements of society which press hardly on the common man\nthan there was forty years ago. This altruistic spirit which is now\neverywhere visible in the field of private philanthropic work, seems\nlikely to spread into the field of civic action also, and may there\nbecome a new motive power. It has already become a more efficient force\nin legislation than it ever was before. We may well hope that it will\ndraw more and more of those who love and seek to help their fellow-men\ninto that legislative and administrative work whose opportunities for\ngrappling with economic and social problems become every day greater.\n\nHere in America I am told in nearly every city I visit that the young\nmen are more and more caring for and bestirring themselves to discharge\ntheir civic duties. That is the best news one can hear. Surely no\ncountry makes so clear a call upon her citizens to work for her as\nyours does. Think of the wide-spreading results which good solid work\nproduces on so vast a community, where everything achieved for good\nin one place is quickly known and may be quickly imitated in another.\nThink of the advantages for the development of the highest civilization\nwhich the boundless resources of your territory provide. Think of that\nprinciple of the Sovereignty of the People which you have carried\nfurther than it was ever carried before and which requires and inspires\nand, indeed, compels you to endeavour to make the whole people fit to\nbear a weight and discharge a task such as no other multitude of men\never yet undertook. Think of the sense of fraternity, also without\nprecedent in any other great nation, which binds all Americans together\nand makes it easier here than elsewhere for each citizen to meet every\nother citizen as an equal upon a common ground. One who, coming from\nthe Old World, remembers the greater difficulties the Old World has\nto face, rejoices to think how much, with all these advantages, the\nyouth of America, such youth as I see here to-night in this venerable\nuniversity, may accomplish for the future of your country. Nature\nhas done her best to provide a foundation whereon the fabric of an\nenlightened and steadily advancing civilization may be reared. It is\nfor you to build upon that foundation. Free from many of the dangers\nthat surround the States of Europe, you have unequalled opportunities\nfor showing what a high spirit of citizenship--zealous, intelligent,\ndisinterested--may do for the happiness and dignity of a mighty nation,\nenabling it to become what its founders hoped it might be--a model for\nother peoples more lately emerged into the sunlight of freedom.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber\u2019s Note\n\n\nPage 48: \u201cAmericans\u201d was printed as \u201cAmeritans\u201d, and changed here,\npresuming it was a typographical error.","title":"Promoting good citizenship","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":13774}