Side by side with this question is that of the culture of the people. A people materially prosperous in a new land are liable to forget the higher things. Wealth tends to make them vulgar, and to limit their horizon. Australia has not escaped this danger. There are very many refined people—especially in connection with the Churches—who keep themselves abreast of current thought; people who live in tasteful houses, who are models of courtesy, and who generally understand the art of savoir vivre. The children of many wealthy people proceed to the university. There are hundreds of young women in Melbourne who have graduated in Arts, Science, or Law, not in order to obtain a livelihood, but solely for the culture which the study brings. But the rank and file of the people—who obtain good wages—have little intellectual ambition beyond the football or the cricket fields, or the prize ring at the Stadium. The manners of this particular rank and file leave much to be desired. The doctrine that “Jack is as good as his master,” as practised in Australia, too often results, not in the elevation of Jack to the rank of his master, but in the coarsening of Jack. The Chief Justice has recently lectured Australia’s youth upon its rudeness. The rebuke was deserved. Australians are most polite to their women, and true gentlemen everywhere are polite to each other, but there is a tendency amongst others to be too brusque and even disrespectful. It is due largely to thoughtlessness, and it belongs to a certain stage in the evolution of a country’s life. Yet it need not be in Australia. Politeness does not cost much—a little more polish would make the street Australian one of the best men in existence. His natural qualities are excellent; he needs only, on the social side, a little more consideration for the feelings of others. Nothing is more necessary for this young country than the inculcation of the spirit of respect.
My earlier impression of the new type of British life which is being evolved under the Southern Cross has been abundantly confirmed during the last five years. There can be no question that the Australian type of Briton is wholly different from the English type. For this difference the climate is chiefly responsible. Close observation has revealed the fact that the third generation of Australians—that is, the generation which owns for its parents an Australian-born father and mother—tends towards the Italian, Sicilian, or Spanish type rather than the English, having jet black hair and dark eyes. This is particularly noticeable in Sydney and in Queensland. Life there is largely Neapolitan in character.
A Neapolitan climate is producing a Neapolitan type of men and women. The atmosphere of Puritanism, which has lingered over England even until this day, is wholly absent from Australia. The break between the two ways of life is complete, and the distance between them seems destined to become wider. The British prejudice against the theatre, for example, does not exist out here. Great numbers of Church members openly patronise the playhouse. Some of the devoutest and most earnest Christian men I know find a place in their programme for the theatre, when good plays are staged. Australians, as a whole, are a sport-loving people. They are a happy people. They take all life in the sunshine, even their religious life. The minor chords are entirely absent from their music. All is gay and lively. This spirit has invaded the Sabbath. The old-fashioned Sunday exists only for a small minority of persons. During the summer months tens of thousands of people spend the week-end among the hills or by the seaside, and the vast majority of these never trouble the Churches. Yet, if they were challenged, they would disclaim hostility to the Church. They might even contribute to its funds. Nevertheless, Sunday is for them a day of pleasure. This problem of climate and its influence upon character and religion is one of the most serious the country has to face.
Time has not effaced my earliest impression that the Defence Act needs serious reconsideration. In part justification it is pleaded that already many lads of the “larrikin” type have benefited physically and morally as the result of drill. I am prepared to admit that, up to a certain point. But, on the other hand, the withdrawal of boys from technical evening schools for the purpose of training, more than balances the gains. Australia needs, very badly, a race of competent workmen who can finish their tasks. The discipline of apprenticeship would secure some of that training which the Defence System aims at; and it would secure that higher skill which we need. Nobody objects to the boys being subject to discipline and training; our objection is to this training being associated with militarism. There is no need for the creation of the military spirit in Australia; it is politically a blunder, morally indefensible, and economically a burden too great for the people to carry.
To bid farewell to Australia is not easy. I have learned to love the country and the people. They have treated me well, and I wish them well. May the land of the wattle ever flourish, and its vast continent be filled with a happy, peaceful, God-fearing people to whom Empire shall ever stand for all that is great, noble and good.
Printed by Cassell & Company, Limited, La Belle Sauvage, London, E.C.
F15.1214
Transcriber’s Notes
Punctuation and spelling were made consistent when a predominant preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed.
Simple typographical errors were corrected; occasional unbalanced quotation marks retained.
Ambiguous hyphens at the ends of lines were retained; occurrences of inconsistent hyphenation have not been changed.