there is, let us say, a certain filthy rookery in hoxton, dripping with disease and honeycombed with crime and promiscuity. there are, let us say, two noble and courageous young men, of pure intentions and (if you prefer it) noble birth; let us call them hudge and gudge. hudge, let us say, is of a bustling sort; he points out that the people must at all costs be got out of this den; he subscribes and collects money, but he finds (despite the large financial interests of the hudges) that the thing will have to be done on the cheap if it is to be done on the spot. he therefore, runs up a row of tall bare tenements like beehives; and soon has all the poor people bundled into their little brick cells, which are certainly better than their old quarters, in so far as they are weather proof, well ventilated and supplied with clean water. but gudge has a more delicate nature. he feels a nameless something lacking in the little brick boxes; he raises numberless objections; he even assails the celebrated hudge report, with the gudge minority report; and by the end of a year or so has come to telling hudge heatedly that the people were much happier where they were before. as the people preserve in both places precisely the same air of dazed amiability, it is very difficult to find out which is right. but at least one might safely say that no people ever liked stench or starvation as such, but only some peculiar pleasures en tangled with them. not so feels the sensitive gudge. long before the final quarrel (hudge v. gudge and another), gudge has succeeded in persuading himself that slums and stinks are really very nice things; that the habit of sleeping fourteen in a room is what has made our england great; and that the smell of open drains is absolutely essential to the rearing of a viking breed.
but, meanwhile, has there been no degeneration in hudge? alas, i fear there has. those maniacally ugly buildings which he originally put up as unpretentious sheds barely to shelter human life, grow every day more and more lovely to his deluded eye. things he would never have dreamed of defending, except as crude necessities, things like common kitchens or infamous asbestos stoves, begin to shine quite sacredly before him, merely because they reflect the wrath of gudge. he maintains, with the aid of eager little books by socialists, that man is really happier in a hive than in a house. the practical difficulty of keeping total strangers out of your bedroom he describes as brotherhood; and the necessity for climbing twenty-three flights of cold stone stairs, i dare say he calls effort. the net result of their philanthropic adventure is this: that one has come to defending indefensible slums and still more indefensible slum-landlords, while the other has come to treating as divine the sheds and pipes which he only meant as desperate. gudge is now a corrupt and apoplectic old tory in the carlton club; if you mention poverty to him he roars at you in a thick, hoarse voice something that is conjectured to be “do ‘em good!” nor is hudge more happy; for he is a lean vegetarian with a gray, pointed beard and an unnaturally easy smile, who goes about telling everybody that at last we shall all sleep in one universal bedroom; and he lives in a garden city, like one forgotten of god.
such is the lamentable history of hudge and gudge; which i merely introduce as a type of an endless and exasperating misunderstanding which is always occurring in modern england. to get men out of a rookery men are put into a tenement; and at the beginning the healthy human soul loathes them both. a man’s first desire is to get away as far as possible from the rookery, even should his mad course lead him to a model dwelling. the second desire is, naturally, to get away from the model dwelling, even if it should lead a man back to the rookery. but i am neither a hudgian nor a gudgian; and i think the mistakes of these two famous and fascinating persons arose from one simple fact. they arose from the fact that neither hudge nor gudge had ever thought for an instant what sort of house a man might probably like for himself. in short, they did not begin with the ideal; and, therefore, were not practical politicians.
we may now return to the purpose of our awkward parenthesis about the praise of the future and the failures of the past. a house of his own being the obvious ideal for every man, we may now ask (taking this need as typical of all such needs) why he hasn’t got it; and whether it is in any philosophical sense his own fault. now, i think that in some philosophical sense it is his own fault, i think in a yet more philosophical sense it is the fault of his philosophy. and this is what i have now to attempt to explain.
burke, a fine rhetorician, who rarely faced realities, said, i think, that an englishman’s house is his castle. this is honestly entertaining; for as it happens the englishman is almost the only man in europe whose house is not his castle. nearly everywhere else exists the assumption of peasant proprietorship; that a poor man may be a landlord, though he is only lord of his own land. making the landlord and the tenant the same person has certain trivial advantages, as that the tenant pays no rent, while the landlord does a little work. but i am not concerned with the defense of small proprietorship, but merely with the fact that it exists almost everywhere except in england. it is also true, however, that this estate of small possession is attacked everywhere today; it has never existed among ourselves, and it may be destroyed among our neighbors. we have, therefore, to ask ourselves what it is in human affairs generally, and in this domestic ideal in particular, that has really ruined the natural human creation, especially in this country.
man has always lost his way. he has been a tramp ever since eden; but he always knew, or thought he knew, what he was looking for. every man has a house somewhere in the elaborate cosmos; his house waits for him waist deep in slow norfolk rivers or sunning itself upon sussex downs. man has always been looking for that home which is the subject matter of this book. but in the bleak and blinding hail of skepticism to which he has been now so long subjected, he has begun for the first time to be chilled, not merely in his hopes, but in his desires. for the first time in history he begins really to doubt the object of his wanderings on the earth. he has always lost his way; but now he has lost his address.
under the pressure of certain upper-class philosophies (or in other words, under the pressure of hudge and gudge) the average man has really become bewildered about the goal of his efforts; and his efforts, therefore, grow feebler and feebler. his simple notion of having a home of his own is derided as bourgeois, as sentimental, or as despicably christian. under various verbal forms he is recommended to go on to the streets—which is called individualism; or to the work-house—which is called collectivism. we shall consider this process somewhat more carefully in a moment. but it may be said here that hudge and gudge, or the governing class generally, will never fail for lack of some modern phrase to cover their ancient predominance. the great lords will refuse the english peasant his three acres and a cow on advanced grounds, if they cannot refuse it longer on reactionary grounds. they will deny him the three acres on grounds of state ownership. they will forbid him the cow on grounds of humanitarianism.
and this brings us to the ultimate analysis of this singular influence that has prevented doctrinal demands by the english people. there are, i believe, some who still deny that england is governed by an oligarchy. it is quite enough for me to know that a man might have gone to sleep some thirty years ago over the day’s newspaper and woke up last week over the later newspaper, and fancied he was reading about the same people. in one paper he would have found a lord robert cecil, a mr. gladstone, a mr. lyttleton, a churchill, a chamberlain, a trevelyan, an acland. in the other paper he would find a lord robert cecil, a mr. gladstone, a mr. lyttleton, a churchill, a chamberlain, a trevelyan, an acland. if this is not being governed by families i cannot imagine what it is. i suppose it is being governed by extraordinary democratic coincidences.
