The Dominion. SATURDAY, MAY 1, 1909. DOES THE BRITISH CHARACTER DETERIORATE?

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 496, 1 May 1909, Page 4

The Dominion. SATURDAY, MAY 1, 1909. DOES THE BRITISH CHARACTER DETERIORATE?

During the disquietude of a few weekß ago, 'vhen the possible menaco of the German naval development was admitted in the Houso of Commons, it was more than once suggested that the alarmed 1 statements of. certain politicians and newspapers argued a'condition of excitement and hysteria that was at variance with the traditional stolid British character. In the same way, when the relief of Mafeking made a great many peoplo throw their hats in the air and climb lamp-posts in their delight, other people shook their heads mournfully, declaring that the good old British character was changing sadly. It is usual to find in the Baring headlines and sensational articles of a section of the English press at once the refloction and oncouragement of the weak excitability which some : persons would, havo us believe is threatening to become a new feature of the national temperament. One. is reassured to fiiid ihat the .newspaper treatmont of the relent revelations, as evidenced by papers now'.to hand, does not : give the least support to, these misgivings. The, importance jf the crisis in the nation's naval affairs yas fully recognised, but, in all the newspapers that count, the subject was discussed with a sobriety and calm deliberation that are in keeping with the true British spirit as,we best like to estimate it. It is impressive to note in leading newspapers that had been - expressing iheir. concern for months past at the stato )f the Navy reports of the debate starred jy no oxtravagant headings, and leading irticles of measured,. weighty argument which aro not even proclaimed by headings. The ambassador of Pyrrhus was loubtful of attacking Rome when he bcield the imperturbable senators, "liko a :ouncil of kings."' The enemy of England who should judge 'the national iharacter by the strong, sober bearing of its. typical press would receive a very similar impression l of fortitudo and restrained strength. There are, of course, : i fewflamboyant newspapers that are lsually in a stato. of. excitoment over something, but they are very far from representing the general character of iither tho nation or the press. Even if tho restraint and sobriety of ;ho British people in times of national ;risis were less notable than they, are, t would be dangerous to argue from .hat circumstance a weakening of tho lational spirit and fibre. It is no disiredit to a ■ nation or an individual to eel anxiety or alarm at tho first intima.ion of a crisis, but wo have come to re: ;ard it as a; reprehensiblo thing to exjress those feolings. - The :hat!tlie British nation has always, been listinguished for strong, silent men who ' ;ook pride in repressing their emotions s a fallacy to which history gives no war■ant. Great, Englishmen'ih the past expressed their joy and anger and excitenent .with a recklessness and freedom, ihat would be thought almost, childish tolay. Essex, when excited, threw his lat into tho sea, which is more foolish ihan-clifiibing a lamp-post; Sir Richaed jßENville, when in a rage,, ground wineglasses in his teeth till Lis lips bled; Nelson used to explode with rage at the nention of Frenchmen; while Chatham lid other , giants , of Parliament were alvays doing extravagant, things/ and 'lost :ontrol of their emotions on slight pro?ocation. The evidenoi. rather goes to ihow that Englishmen aro much more lelf-controlled and: masters of their feel-, inga to-day than they wore ever in tho past..'.The modern association of strength urith silence and repression has been genially connected with tho Puritans, but ihe Puritans wero silent people, by iny means. They were somewhat gloomy people,- but tho gloom which comes of 'oristant repression of .the emotions was lot more typical of England in their time than it is torday. They were, aftor ill, but one portion of the population, ind tho other portions wero.- conspicujusly lively. The ancient name of "Merric England" suggests a gaiety and'freedom )f the spirits and emotions that are rarely found fco-day; one does not talk of "Merrie England" now, And there was. a time, the time of England's dawning greatness,-.when statesmen. : aiid public men. in England were noted for their lovity and abandon,' 7 as, o<jntrasted probibly with the dignified, "strong" riiserve. 3f some': European nations..At least the amazing contrast was remarked upon by a. friend of Philip Sidney, a French | Huguenot of birth and standing, who, iftpr a visit to the English Court, warned Sidney, in a. grave letter against the frivolity and light conduct of / the great men who frequented ' there, and -who seemed to. him quite unablo to regard life seriously. . .. •■' The" conclusion seems to: be that any exhibitions of excitement that may hayo marked recent important events in the Empire's affairs havo not necessarily denoted any deterioration in the national character, and that that character has always been a good deal misunderstood. It las been misunderstood as it existed in the past, and it is seldom rightly realised at the present day. ' The popular notion of British character, has no doubt been influenced in an unwarranted . degree by two of the nation's cmblcmsr-the lion, which typifies its natural ascendancy and strength, and that stout prosperous'man "John Bull," who naturally suggests stolidity and weight. The general fitness of these-emblems has caused people to forget that, being only emblems, it is impossible that they should represent fully and perfectly the complex whole of the nation's'character. Tho average Englishriian is not always so stolid as "John Bull," any more than he is always like a lion, and it is foolish to cry out about degeneration when he forgets, at times, the stolidity' which at other times ho SOBTCS to show. Although a section of tho English peoplo behaved rather wildly at the news of 1 Mafoking'B relief, no word was ever uttered during tho costly, trying, and at first disastrous war, to imply that thoro. could be any ending of tho unhappy Struggle except in the triumph of Britisli arms. . The tmtward .demonstrations withj which Englishmen. receive a menace or a victory may have changod,

though that is at least open to question, but we can see no reason to doubt that the anciont spirit, which' ia infinitely more important, and' which has carried hor through her times of trial and trouble with unflinching resolution, is still aa strong a characteristic of the British race as in .the days of our greatest military and naval heroes. '