Apropos of my
remarks on the railings round London squares, a correspondent writes: Are the
squares to which you refer public or private properties? If private, I suggest that your
comments in plain language advocate nothing less than theft, and should be classed as
such.
If giving the land of England back to the people of England is
theft, I am quite happy to call it theft. In his zeal to defend private property, my
correspondent does not stop to consider how the so-called owners of the land got hold of
it. They simply seized it by force, afterwards hiring lawyers to provide them with
title-deeds. In the case of the enclosure of the common lands, which was going on from
about 1600 to 1850, the landgrabbers did not even have the excuse of being foreign
conquerors; they were quite frankly taking the heritage of their own countrymen, upon no
sort of pretext except that they had the power to do so.
Except for the few surviving commons, the high roads, the lands
of the National Trust, a
certain number of parks, and the sea shore below high-tide mark, every square inch of
England is owned by a few thousand families. These people are just about as
useful as so many tapeworms. It is desirable that people should own their own dwelling
houses, and it is probably desirable that a farmer should own as much land as he can
actually farm. But the ground-landlord in a town area has no function and no excuse for
existence. He is merely a person who has found out a way of milking the public while
giving nothing in return. He causes rents to be higher, he makes town planning more
difficult, and he excludes children from green spaces: that is literally all that he does,
except to draw his income. The removal of the railings in the squares was a first step
against him. It was a very small step, and yet an appreciable one, as the present move to
restore the railings shows. For three years or so the squares lay open, and their sacred
turf was trodden by the feet of working-class children, a sight to make dividend-drawers
gnash their false teeth. It that is theft, all I can say is, so much the better for theft.
I note that once again there is serious talk of trying to attract tourists to this
country after the war. This, it is said, will bring in a welcome trickle of foreign
currency. But it is quite safe to prophesy that the attempt will be a failure. Apart from
the many other difficulties, our licensing laws and the
artificial price of drink are quite enough to keep foreigners away. Why should people who
are used to paying sixpence for a bottle of wine visit a country were a pint of beer costs
a shilling? But even these prices are less dismaying to foreigners than the lunatic laws
which permit you to buy a glass of beer at half past ten while forbidding you to buy it at
twenty-five past, and which have done their best to turn the pubs into mere boozing shops
by excluding children from them.
How downtrodden we are in comparison with most other peoples is
shown by the fact that even people who are far from being temperance
dont seriously imagine that our licensing laws could be altered. Whenever I suggest
that pubs might be allowed to open in the afternoon, or to stay open till midnight, I
always get the same answer: The first people to object would be the publicans.
They dont want to have to stay open twelve hours a day. People assume, you
see, that opening hours, whether long or short, must be regulated by the law, even for
one-man businesses. In France, and in various other countries, a café proprietor opens or
shuts just as it suits him. He can keep open the whole twenty-four hours if he wants to;
and, on the other hand, if he feels like shutting his café and going away for a week, he
can do that too. In England we have had no such liberty for about a hundred years, and
people are hardly able to imagine it.
England is a country that ought to be able to attract
tourists. It has much beautiful scenery, an equable climate, innumerable attractive
villages and medieval churches, good beer, and foodstuffs of excellent natural taste. If
you could walk where you chose instead of being fenced in by barbed wire and
Trespassers will be Prosecuted boards, if speculative builders had not been
allowed to ruin every pleasant view within ten miles of a big town, if you could get a
drink when you wanted it at a normal price, if an eatable meal in a country inn were a
normal experience, and if Sunday were not artificially made into a day of misery, then
foreign visitors might be expected to come here. But if those things were true England
would no longer be England, and I fancy that we shall have to find some way of acquiring
foreign currency that is more in accord with our national character.
In spite of my campaign against the jackboot in which I am not operating
single-handed I notice that jackboots are as common as ever in the columns of the
newspapers. Even in the leading articles in the Evening Standard, I have come upon
several of them lately. But I am still without any clear information as to what a jackboot
is. It is a kind of boot that you put on when you want to behave tyrannically: that is as
much as anyone seems to know.
Others besides myself have noted that war, when it gets into the
leading articles, is apt to be waged with remarkably old-fashioned weapons. Planes and
tanks do make occasional appearances, but as soon as an heroic attitude has to be struck,
the only armaments mentioned are the sword (We shall not sheathe the sword
until, etc., etc.), the spear, the shield, the buckler, the trident, the chariot and
the clarion. All of these are hopelessly out of date (the chariot, for instance, has not
been in effective use since about A.D. 50), and even the purpose of some of them has been
forgotten. What is a buckler, for instance? One school of thought holds that it is a small
round shield, but another school believes it to be a kind of belt. A clarion, I believe,
is a trumpet, but most people imagine that a clarion call merely means a loud
noise.
One of the early Mass Observation reports, dealing with the
coronation of George VI,
pointed out that what are called national occasions, always seem to cause a
lapse into archaic language. The ship of state, for instance, when it makes
one of its official appearances, has a prow and a helm instead of having a bow and a
wheel, like modern ships. So far as it is applied to war, the motive for using this kind
of language is probably a desire for euphemism. We will not sheathe the sword
sounds a lot more gentlemanly than We will keep on dropping block-busters,
though in effect it means the same.
One argument for Basic English is that by existing side by side
with Standard English it can act as a sort of corrective to the oratory of statesmen and
publicists. High-sounding phrases, when translated into Basic, are often deflated in a
surprising way. For example, I presented to a Basic expert the sentence, He little
knew the fate that lay in store for him to be told that in Basic this would
become He was far from certain what was going to happen. It sounds decidedly
less impressive, but it means the same. In Basic, I am told, you cannot make a meaningless
statement without its being apparent that it is meaningless which is quite enough
to explain why so many schoolmasters, editors, politicians and literary critics object to
it.