o.
In this intercourse men who do not read the papers get an inkling of the
news of the day, those who have no books come into contact with other
minds, opinions are aired, the human craving for fun gets a little
exercise; and for topics of talk, instead of those which occupy moneyed
people, who know about the theatre or the Church, or foreign travel, or
golf, or the state of the poor, or the depreciation of Consols, the
labourers have their gardens, and the harvest, and the horses they
drive. They talk about their employers, and their work, and their wages;
they dispute about county cricket or exchange notes about blight, or new
buildings, or the latest public sensation; and all this in endless
detail, endlessly interesting to them. So, utterly unaided by arts or
any contrivances for amusement, they make entertainment for themselves.
That they must make it in kindly temper, too, is obvious; for who would
take part in it to be usually annoyed? And it may well be conceived that
in an existence so empty of other pleasures, the pleasures to be derived
from company are held precious. The scheme of living would be very
desolate without that consolation, would grow very illiberal and sombre.
But the public-houses at least do something to prevent this, and in
clinging to them the villagers have clung to something which they need
and cannot get elsewhere. It is idle to pretend that the "Institute"
which was started a few years ago provides a satisfactory alternative.
Controlled by people of another class, whose "respectability" is
irksome, and open only to members and never to women, the Institute does
not lend itself to the easy intercourse which tired men enjoy at the
public-house. Its billiard-table is not for their heavy hands, used to
the pick-axe and shovel; its card games interrupt their talk; its
newspapers remind them that they cannot read very well, and suggest a
mode of life which they are unable to share.

These reasons, I believe, prevail to keep the labouring men from
patronizing the Institute more even than does its strictly teetotal
policy. Or perhaps I should say, rather, that while they dislike going
without their beer, they object more strongly still to the principle on
which it is forbidden in the Institute. For that principle is nothing
more or less than a tacit arraignment of their own point of view. It
imputes evil propensities to them; it directly challenges the truth of
an idea which not only have they