{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_60379/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_60379","id":"gutenberg_60379","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/60379","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Wealth","Wealth -- Moral and ethical aspects"],"text":"The Camel\n\nand the Needle\u2019s Eye\n\n\n\n\nSpiritual Perfection\n\nA Dialogue\n\nBy Thomas Clune\n\n(Arthur Ponsonby)\n\n_Fscap. 8vo. 1s. nett. Post-free 1s. 2d._\n\n\n\u201cThere is sound reasoning and deep thought in this book.\u201d--_Dundee\nAdvertiser._ \u201cA thoughtful dialogue.\u201d--_The Times._ \u201cNo one\ncan read it without gaining a broader outlook on the truths of\nreligion.\u201d--_Methodist Times._ \u201cMany of the religious problems\nand difficulties always cropping up are skilfully and earnestly\nconsidered.\u201d--_Aberdeen Journal._\n\n\nLONDON: A.\u00a0C. FIFIELD\n\n\n\n\n    The Camel and the\n    Needle\u2019s Eye\n\n    By\n    Arthur Ponsonby, M.P.\n\n\n    _Published December, 1909_\n    _Reprinted January, 1910_\n    _Reprinted October, 1910_\n\n\n    London\n    A.\u00a0C. Fifield, 13 Clifford\u2019s Inn, E.C.\n    1910\n\n\n\n\n    WILLIAM BRENDON AND SON, LTD.\n    PRINTERS, PLYMOUTH\n\n\n\n\n    TO\n    MY WIFE\n\n\n\n\nContents\n\n\n  Preface\n\n\n  Chapter I\n\n  Extreme poverty a consequence of extreme wealth--Pity or\n      contempt for the poor--Money ideal strong among the poor--\n      The different phases in making a fortune--The general\n      tendency of society--Relations between rich and poor--\n      Dis-sympathy and class hatred--The social problem               11\n\n\n  Chapter II\n\n  Money as a supreme concern--Intensity of belief in money--\n      Definition of Contention--The impulses which act as\n      the motive power of money-making--The limitation of\n      human capacities--Money and happiness--Money as\n      responsibility--The national wealth and welfare                 27\n\n\n  Chapter III\n\n  Definition of the limit--Those whose means are above the\n      limit--Income translated into terms of subsistence--The\n      case of the rich man--His establishments--His servants--\n      His luxuries--Extravagance--Vanity--Sport--Racing--\n      Yachting--Condemnation of excess                                43\n\n\n  Chapter IV\n\n  The rich man\u2019s charities--His generosity--His hospitality--\n      His land--The Feudal System--His responsibilities--The\n      agricultural problem                                            71\n\n\n  Chapter V\n\n  The rich man\u2019s children--His sons\u2019 education at school and\n      university--His daughters--Love and marriage--Refinement\n      of the aristocracy--Their alliance with the plutocracy--\n      Smart society--Its general characteristics                      85\n\n\n  Chapter VI\n\n  The rich man as a business man--The conduct of a successful\n      business--Money-making the incentive--Money no measure of\n      merit or worth in men--Or in works of art--Financiers--\n      The power of money--Imperialism--Political power--\n      Experiments of millionaires--Gifts--Money administered by\n      corporations or the State                                      101\n\n\n  Chapter VII\n\n  The deceptive process of the growth of riches--The relaxation\n      of effort--The love of ease--The power of convention--\n      The disadvantages of abundance--Surfeit--Difficulties in\n      a rich man\u2019s life--Waste of talent and capacity--England\n      as a nation deeply infected with the belief in money           119\n\n\n  Chapter VIII\n\n  The problem of riches--Necessity of a scientific investigation\n      into the lives of the rich--Interdependence of riches and\n      poverty--Analysis of expenditure on houses, servants,\n      clothes, food, amusements--Impressions of a poor crowd and\n      a rich crowd--Tragedies                                        139\n\n\n  Chapter IX\n\n  Religion and money--Attitude of clergy--Emphatic condemnation\n      of riches by Christ--Notable texts and sayings--Want of\n      conviction--Importance attached to dogmatic religion--\n      Necessity for stronger denunciation                            163\n\n\n  Chapter X\n\n  Results of influence of money--No motive in lives of the\n      rich--Money as our master--If money ideal could be\n      discarded--Possibility of change of ideal for all classes      179\n\n\n\n\nPreface\n\n\nMy original intention was to collect together a number of essays on\nsome of the most important bearings of the question of the expenditure\nof riches. After corresponding with those whom I had invited to join me\nin this undertaking, I became aware that in spite of our substantial\nagreement on main principles it would be difficult to secure uniformity\nin the treatment of the theme, and impossible to carry on any sustained\nargument through the varied contributions of different people writing\nfrom different points of view. Accordingly I came to the conclusion\nthat I must renounce the co-operation of men well qualified to speak,\nwhose knowledge and experience would have given their opinions special\nweight, and work out my own argument unaided.\n\nHad I approached the subject from the standpoint of a scientific\neconomist, I should have hesitated to enter upon such a formidable\ntask. The more special knowledge a man has, the more conscious does he\nbecome of the impossibility of dealing adequately with his subject.\nBut my object has been to write as one knowing no more than others who\ntake any interest in human affairs and watch the play of social forces,\nas one who is no spectator in the combat he describes, and who, being\nhimself infected with the malady he is studying, is perhaps the better\nable to diagnose it. I do not speak as a preacher to his congregation,\nas a teacher to his pupils, as a moralist to his disciples, or even as\na politician to his audience, but as one man submitting his opinion for\nwhat it is worth to another.\n\nAt the same time, I am compelled by a deep conviction in the truth of\nmy argument which passing years and the course of events only serve to\nstrengthen, and if, by the brief suggestions contained in these pages,\nI can succeed in inducing anyone to examine more closely this branch\nof the Social Problem, which in my opinion is too often dismissed as\nnegligible, I shall be amply repaid.\n\nMy thanks are due to those who have kindly assisted me in collecting\nthe facts and figures in Chapter VIII and in other parts of the book,\nand also to Mr. and Mrs. J.\u00a0L. Hammond, who read through the MS. and\nmade valuable criticisms and suggestions.\n\n                                        A.\u00a0P.\n\n\n\n\nThe Camel and the Needle\u2019s Eye\n\n\n\n\nChapter I\n\n  Extreme poverty a consequence of extreme wealth--Pity or\n    contempt for the poor--Money ideal strong among the poor--The\n    different phases in making a fortune--The general tendency of\n    society--Relations between rich and poor--Dis-sympathy and class\n    hatred--The social problem.\n\n\nFrederick the Great\u2019s father, on the occasion of great court\nfestivities used to lead his wife from the brilliant scene of gaiety\nto an adjoining chamber, where he made her lie down for a few moments\nin her own coffin, so as to give her a sharp reminder of the vanity\nand transitory nature of all human pleasure. An even more effective\nreminder for those who in London spend their money on a life of\npure self-indulgence would be afforded by a walk at midnight along\nthe Embankment from Westminster to Waterloo Bridge. No prearranged\nstage management is necessary for the sight they are to see. It is a\nlong run, every night and all night, and has gone on ever since the\nEmbankment was constructed. As they pass along they can see the seats\npacked closely with men and women leaning against one another in an\nexhausted or half-drunken slumber. They can see the ragged and filthy\nbundles of humanity lying round the parapet at the foot of Cleopatra\u2019s\nNeedle, or the rows of wretched caricatures of men and women lined\nalong the wall under the shelter of the bridges. If they go late\nenough, there is a strange silence which at first gives the impression\nthat the place is deserted. But it only means that these waifs and\nstrays, these wretched outcasts, are enjoying the few hours\u2019 reprieve\ngiven even to them by the blessed oblivion of sleep. The moon shines on\nthem from over the river, but no melodrama can reproduce that scene;\nestimates are drawn up of their number, but no statistics can give\nan adequate analysis; books are written on their condition, but no\nlanguage can describe it. A man who sees this squalid throng for the\nfirst time must be deeply impressed, but it strikes even more anyone\nwho sees it constantly, and he must be less than human if he can pass\nwithout a poignant pang of shame. But nine out of ten of those who do\npass along will tell you these wretches only have themselves to blame,\nand it would be better if they could be stowed away somewhere out of\nsight.\n\nThis, which is only one of many similar scenes throughout the country,\nis not described by way of presenting a dramatic contrast, but as an\nintegral part of the problem of riches. These nocturnal spectres of the\nEmbankment and the knots of bedraggled starvelings at the workhouse\ngates are the counterpart of the millionaire, the necessary concomitant\nto balance and complete the picture. The shameful waste of money one\nend produces a shameful waste of human life the other end. One species\nof parasite on the social body breeds another species of parasite.\nThey are as much a part of the train of a rich man as his butlers and\ngamekeepers. They are the natural, though perhaps to him invisible,\nconsequence of his misapplied and squandered thousands. The rich\nmust take their full share of the responsibility, because the wealth\nrepresented by growing incomes is being increasingly ill-directed and\nwasted, and the inevitable outcome is to aggravate the problem of\nunemployment, to extend still further miserable conditions of living,\nand to nurture a neglected class devoid of moral and physical stamina,\nwho fall out as incompetents and wastrels in the great struggle for\nexistence. There are some who complain of any relief from the State\nbeing given to the unemployed poor as only encouraging their continued\nexistence; but the maintenance of the unemployed rich by those who\nare instrumental in producing the national wealth is a far graver\nquestion. The unemployed pauper is a deplorable, but in each case a\nsolitary and isolated outgrowth of circumstances too strong for him\nto resist. Whereas the unemployed capitalist is, on account of his\nriches, the centrifugal point of a whole set of dynamic forces of the\ngravest consequence. They radiate from him, vibrate far and wide into\nthe vital concerns of others, and continue to operate harmfully so long\nas he attempts to manipulate his riches single-handed. He constitutes,\ntherefore, a social danger.\n\nThis is no place to give a picture of poverty. It has been done often\nenough of late years and with faithful accuracy, so that society has no\nexcuse for ignoring the real state of affairs, though in their stampede\nafter money they have little time to give it a passing thought. To\nreflect about it and speak of it is to display foolish pessimism; to\ndescribe scenes of poverty is to be guilty of sentimentality and bad\ntaste.\n\nAnd what are the prevailing sentiments of the fat parasites towards\ntheir lean colleagues? Either pity or contempt. Their whole faith\nand all their actions naturally breed contempt for poverty, although\nthey make some effort to conceal it. It is quite in consonance with a\nbelief that money makes people refined, generous, dignified, gracious,\nsubjects of reverence and models for emulation, and that those who have\nno resources cannot aspire to these notable qualities. But their pity,\nwhich is the mainspring to their so-called charity and is reserved more\nespecially for the destitute, is misplaced, and would be better applied\nto themselves if only they could see the true position they fill in the\ngeneral design of human society.\n\n  \u201cEpargnez aux pauvres votre piti\u00e9,\u201d says Anatole France, \u201cils n\u2019en\n  ont que faire. Pourquoi la piti\u00e9 et non pas la justice? Vous \u00eates\n  en compte avec eux. R\u00e9glez le compte. Ce n\u2019est pas une affaire de\n  sentiment. C\u2019est une affaire \u00e9conomique. Si ce que vous leur donnez\n  gracieusement est pour prolonger leur pauvret\u00e9 et votre richesse,\n  ce don est inique et les larmes que vous y m\u00ealerez ne le rendront\n  pas \u00e9quitable.... Vous faites l\u2019aum\u00f4ne pour ne pas restituer. Vous\n  donnez un peu pour garder beaucoup et vous vous f\u00e9licitez. Ainsi le\n  tyran de Samos jeta son anneau \u00e0 la mer. Mais la N\u00e9m\u00e9sis des dieux\n  ne re\u00e7ut point cette offrande. Un p\u00eacheur rapporta au tyran son\n  anneau dans le ventre d\u2019un poisson. Et Polycrate fut d\u00e9pouill\u00e9 de\n  toutes ses richesses.\u201d\n\nTogether with the pity there is a lurking misgiving that they do owe\nthe poor something, so, in blind ignorance and in fear of the full\namount of their debt being demanded of them, they pay out driblets\neither with ostentation and self-congratulation or else trying almost\npathetically, yet in vain, to pump into their gifts some of the\nsentiments which they conceive should be associated with pure charity.\n\nAs for those whose incomes fall below the limit, the money ideal\naffects them just as strongly as it does the rich themselves. There\nis more excuse because there is a greater want of education; there is\nmore excuse also because, knowing from their own experience that money\ncan keep off starvation and prevent the physical suffering produced by\nwant, and knowing also that more money means more comforts and a wider\nscope for activity, they fall naturally into the error of believing\nthat every progressive increase in money brings a proportionate\nincrease in happiness. The large mass whose incomes are the wrong side\nof the limit are all of them in want in various degrees, and their\ndesire for more money is therefore legitimate and only to be expected.\nThe want of it they know by experience means misery, the possession of\nit they conclude must mean happiness. But they are seldom, if ever,\ntaught that they can frustrate their own ends by pinning their whole\nfaith on purely material acquisition; on the contrary, the general\nopinion round them leads them to suppose that money should rightly be\nthe sole aim and object of their ambitions. The education, if it can be\ncalled by that name, which they receive from the cheap press presents\nthem with inviting pictures of wealth, ease, and luxury. They read of\nmen who have amassed great fortunes, of incidents in the careers of\nmillionaires, of charitable gifts bestowed by the munificent rich, of\nthe positions, success, titles, and fame achieved by men through money.\nTheir eye falls on alluring advertisements for expensive goods. They\nare encouraged to bet and gamble, and to enter absurd competitions\nmade attractive by the figures of a large sum of money being printed\nin bold type at the head of the newspaper column. Their appetite is\nwhetted, their wants increase, they resolve to try and make more money\nby the swiftest means possible. Any ideal of service and any noble\nambitions for achievement fade away, and are discarded as too laborious\nand difficult and as requiring too much effort and toil. If they have\nactually suffered in the lowest depths, if they have ever felt the\nsharp pinch of starvation, the more readily do they accept the doctrine\npreached to them so loudly and so persistently that to become rich is\nnot only the highest, but the most practical and sensible ambition for\na man to set himself.\n\nTantalising rewards lead a man on to hurry blindly along a path beset\nwith traps and snares. On the various stages of his journey he loses\nsome of the finer qualities with which he may have been originally\nendowed, but which he finds impediments and encumbrances in his\nprogress towards the inviting but illusive goal. Here he drops caution,\nthere self-respect, here consideration for others must be sacrificed;\nthere, again, scrupulousness and even honesty must be cast aside. The\nman who \u201crises,\u201d who \u201cmakes his pile,\u201d who \u201csucceeds,\u201d goes up the\nladder of wealth, the rungs of which are vanity and applause, mistaking\nit for the ladder of life, the rungs of which are service, sacrifice,\nand resolution. There are bags of gold at the top within sight; it\nmatters not that some of the rungs are dangerously weak. Others have\nreached the top or near it, why should not he?\n\nEvery step forward is marked by outward signs and changes. The cottage\nwith its simple adornments is exchanged for the villa with its walnut\nsuites and art knickknacks; this is followed by a larger detached\nvilla which requires several servants; the dogcart and groom-gardener\nare soon transformed into a motor-car and chauffeur; the male\nservant with livery adds the necessary importance; the butler becomes\nindispensable for the town residence, with a country seat as well for\nshooting and entertainment; and so on, more and more display until the\nultimate goal is reached, with, strange to say, no real satisfaction\nor contentment. New friends are made on the road and old friends are\ndropped. Each advance signifies a fresh endeavour to live in the same\nstyle as those on the next higher level, with whom it becomes a duty\nto associate. Meanwhile the man\u2019s powers of digestion and those of\nhis family do not increase, nor does their mental equipment. Even his\ncapacity for enjoyment he finds has its limits and appears to become\nfurther restricted. But he knows he will be judged, even as he has\njudged others, by the quantity and quality of his worldly possessions,\nand he follows obediently the model and example the rich have set up.\nThere are some who see the emptiness of this course; there are some who\nhave the character not to desire to alter the way of living to which\nthey have been accustomed; but are there any who would condemn the\naccumulation of riches and resist the incessant temptations that are\nput in their way of making more?\n\nWhen the poor man, with a bare living wage, fails to keep a decent\nhome, drinks, or spends his money foolishly, he is ruthlessly\ncondemned as thriftless and intemperate. But who is setting him the\nexample of thrift and abstemiousness? Anyhow, not the rich man, to whom\nthe very words are meaningless. If he drops out from incompetence, from\nweakness, or from viciousness, if destitution becomes his lot, his\nnature becomes crippled, his character warped, his mind embittered,\nand he finds himself dragged down lower still and trodden under by\nhis fellow-men in their thoughtless and brutal stampede for lucre.\nTruly, \u201cthe destruction of the poor is their poverty.\u201d The general\npressure of the multitude is downward and destructive, not because\nthere is any inherent depravity in their nature, either individually\nor collectively, but because of the narrow confines of the course into\nwhich they are driven and because of the oppression to which they\nare subjected. There is no time to stop, pick up, and shield those\nwho have started on the journey with the hideous handicap of disease\nand incompetence created by degraded and disgraceful homes; these\nunfortunates must go to the wall, because the potential energy and\npressure of society is not concentrated on the uplifting of the feeble\nand the recovery of the outcasts, but on the rush forward with the rich\nin the forefront as leaders--a desperate rush towards some seductive\ndream of prosperity, some purely selfish satisfaction of animal\nappetites and material pleasures. The slow and often discouraging\nexpedients of relief, restoration, and help are passed over when\nsuccess, conquest, and triumph are in sight.\n\nA plutocracy may not ever actually govern the country; a greater\ncalamity could hardly be conceived, but the rich are, nevertheless,\nour leaders, and every rich man is setting up a pattern which, without\nhis being aware of it, perhaps hundreds of thousands are anxious to\ncopy. The poor admire and like the rich, and the rich know it. In their\nhumility, and sometimes envy, they watch them with awe as beings of\nanother and more glorious world. They read of them in their novelettes;\nan atmosphere of splendour and romance surrounds them. They see them in\ntheir brilliant settings, they hear of their great doings, they know\nof the magnificence of their establishments, and as the chasm between\nthem is still unbridged, they are spellbound by the fascination which\nonly the mysterious and the unknowable can give. They see no connection\nwhatsoever between the position of the rich and their own, nor do the\nrich themselves acknowledge that there is any. The ignorance of the\nrich about the poor is profound, but it is nothing to the ignorance of\nthe poor about the rich. The chasm between the two is never spanned.\nThose who live with the rich approve their methods and are blind to\nsights they do not want to see. They are heedless and unconscious of\nthe world of toil and privation, or only apprehend it occasionally when\na beggar or tramp somehow manages to evade being tucked away out of\nsight and thrusts himself before their unwilling gaze. Even then they\nbecome accustomed to the sight of these unfortunates, whose existence\nthey believe is due to the bad management of public authorities. And\nthose who study the far side of the chasm are so much preoccupied and\naghast at the tangled confusion that confronts them that they only\nhave time to cast a glance of contempt at the self-indulgence and\nluxurious living which seems too distant to be real, too ridiculous\nand wicked to be quite true, and they refuse to regard it seriously as\na component part of the various enigmas they are attempting to solve.\nEven economists, who are occupied with dissertations and discussions on\nproduction, consumption, and distribution, seldom turn their attention\nseriously to the moral impulses that cause, and the fashions and habits\nthat control, the great accumulations of capital and the appalling\nwaste which results.\n\nA writer, describing the state of the country in 1851,[1] declared\nthat the great social evil of the time was \u201cthe separation between the\nrich and poor, the dis-sympathy of classes, the mutual disgust which\nappears to threaten some sort of violent revolution in society at no\nvery distant period.\u201d But when he goes on to describe what he considers\nto be the desirable relationship, he says, \u201cWhat one wants to see is a\nkind and cordial condescension on the one side, and an equally cordial\nbut still respectful devotedness on the other.\u201d Luckily there are now\nmany more people than there were at that date who know this to be as\nridiculous as it is impossible. But there are still, unfortunately,\na good many whose ideas this singularly na\u00efve opinion faithfully\nrepresents.\n\nThis \u201cdis-sympathy\u201d will amount to something very much more like class\nhatred whenever the poor begin to open their eyes. It is a mistake to\nsuppose that antagonism between classes is produced by the inflammatory\nspeeches and writings of agitators. The masses herded into our towns\nto become miserably poor, unemployed and unemployable, rapidly lose\nall self-respect, and are too much stupefied and even brutalised by\ntheir condition to be alive to the injustice of our social system or\nto seek to attack those whom they suspect are responsible. They are\ndumb, cowed, and easily driven. \u201cSweat the poor,\u201d says an anonymous\nwriter in 1892, infuriated by the injustice of things, \u201csweat the poor\nand grind their faces and accumulate wealth--only let us have no cant\nabout it.\u201d[2] It is the rich as a class who, by their manner of life,\nby their refusal to undertake most of the patent responsibilities of\ncitizenship, by their squandering of the national capital, and by their\ndetermination to suck up from the labour of others sufficient to allow\nthem to live in idleness themselves, it is they that help to find the\nfuel for the flame of class hatred, a flame which one day may burst out\ninto a mighty conflagration.\n\nA Canadian journalist, writing on his recent visit to this country, has\ndeclared that it was not \u201cthe statesmen or pro-consuls or heroes or\nscholars\u201d or our great historic institutions that left the most abiding\nmemories. \u201cFrankly, the thing that impressed me most, the thing that\nstands out as the background of every reminiscence, was the bloodless,\nmirthless, hopeless face of the common crowd ... the social problem\neverywhere is appalling, almost to the point of despair. Wherever we\nwent it forced itself upon us. The least dangerous aspect of it was\nthat hollow-eyed procession of the homeless of London kept moving along\nthe pavements by the police in the early dawn waiting for the opening\nof the soup kitchens.\u201d[3] And he speaks in the same way of Sheffield,\nManchester, Glasgow, and Edinburgh.\n\nThe last hundred years will be memorable as an era of almost miraculous\nadvance in all that concerns material progress. And yet we have to\nadmit, as the Report of the Poor Law Commission shows, that so far\nas pauperism and destitution are concerned our attempts at cure and\nprevention have completely failed. Here again we find the same _fons\net origo malorum_. Every step forward in methods of production, in\nnew inventions and improved machinery, is a tangible material gain\nfor some one. But in the case of the pauper, be he veteran, invalid,\nincompetent, or child, there is nothing that can be transformed into\nimmediate profit. There is no _money_ in it. Therefore it has been\nimpossible to rouse the public sympathy and interest. Fortunately many\nare now beginning to see that the prevention of neglect and waste in\nhuman life means wealth to the nation that cannot be estimated in sums\nof money.\n\nThe problem of social reorganisation is one of the greatest complexity.\n\nDrink and slum dwellings doubtless aggravate the evil and make bad\nworse. The land and our system of industrial organisation are the\nregulating forces that drive our population into these hideous social\nconditions. But it is time we traced back these forces to their source\nand examined their origin.\n\nWhat is it that induces a great people to arrange their society on\nthis uneconomic, wasteful, and life-destroying model? What common\nimpulses inspire the class that is in authority and command to support\nand maintain such a system? Put on one side tyranny, rapacity, greed,\nand covetousness, which are vices that no one wants to defend. What is\nat the back of this thirst for huge profits and high dividends, this\ncapture of the land, this amassing of great possessions, this passion\nfor pleasure, this love of power and patronage, this respect for\nwealth, this subservience to riches?\n\nLurking in the spring head, far away from the broad river, we\nshall find the poison that is polluting the waters--our devouring,\nindestructible, overpowering belief in money.\n\n\n\n\nChapter II\n\n  Money as a supreme concern--Intensity of belief in\n    money--Definition of Contention--The impulses which act as\n    the motive power of money-making--The limitation of human\n    capacities--Money and happiness--Money as responsibility--The\n    national wealth and welfare.\n\n\nReligion is said to be one of the supreme concerns of the human race,\nand there can be no doubt that it forces itself into the calculations\nof every one of us. It is a matter about which we fight and differ,\nabout which we interest ourselves in various degrees in proportion\nto the development of our spiritual and emotional nature, and which\nonly a minority conscientiously consider to be of vital consequence.\nBut there is another concern which enters equally surely into all our\ncalculations, for which we fight without differing, about which we\ninterest ourselves in various degrees in proportion to the development\nof our material nature, and which only a small minority consider _not_\nto be of vital consequence. After the satisfaction of our animal\nappetites it is our first preoccupation. To some it presents itself\nas the very first consideration on which even the satisfaction of\ntheir appetites must depend. All great human efforts at progress,\nwhether they issue from religious, political, scientific, social, or\neconomic sources, get checked and thwarted sooner or later, because\nof the universal acceptance of a dominant principle, so powerful and\nso insinuating that it permeates the views and convictions of men,\nwhether they be of high or low degree, and irrespective of their creed\nand nationality. This bond that unites all civilised humanity is not a\ngreat uplifting ideal nor a divine inspiration. It has more the nature\nof a malignant and infectious disease by which we are all contaminated.\nIt can be expressed in one single and familiar word--MONEY--that is\nto say the unqualified belief in money as a means, money as an end,\naim, object, ideal; money as representing the method of securing\na greater degree of physical wellbeing, money as power, money as\npleasure, money, therefore, as happiness. It is a deep-rooted and\nat present ineradicable conviction which we hold without doubt and\nwithout question. A little money, we argue, is obviously indispensable,\na little more money we are all of us continually declaring that we\nwant, a good deal of money we are convinced brings a decided increase\nin happiness, and a vast amount of money must therefore mean a great\npower for good.\n\nThis belief, which amounts almost to an instinct, may vary in\nintensity, it may cloak itself under many insidious disguises, but it\nis very rarely if ever completely absent. It takes all conceivable\nforms, from undisguised greed to simulated contempt. There are those\nwho devote their lives to amassing more money; there are those who,\nhaving sufficient, assume outwardly an indifference as to its power,\nwhile they retain inwardly a profound and unwavering faith in it; and\nthere are those who struggle for it so as to avoid social and sometimes\neven actual death from need of it. It insinuates itself into the minds\nof men who have no confidence in material advancement because they find\nthat our whole social system is based on this belief, and if they do\nnot want to be left behind in the struggle they must accept the creed.\n\nNot only by individuals separately, but by the people collectively\nit is accepted as a concern of supreme importance. Our lives, our\nmarriages, and therefore our very birth are regulated by it, our\noccupations, our industries and our arts, everything but death depends\non it, and even death itself can be hastened or postponed by it. So\nnational is the reverence for it that our holidays are not fixed on\nsaints\u2019 days, or to commemorate episodes from the rich part of our\nhistory, but they are _Bank_ holidays. The closing of our banks is the\none signal that for twenty-four hours we are free.\n\nThe multifarious aspects of the theme are most bewildering. As Sir\nHenry Taylor said, \u201cSo manifold are the bearings of money upon the\nlives and character of mankind, that an insight which should search\nout the life of a man in his pecuniary relations would penetrate into\nalmost every cranny of his nature. For if we take account of all the\nvirtues with which money is mixed up, honesty, justice, charity,\nfrugality, forethought, self-sacrifice, and of their correlative vices,\nit is a knowledge that goes near to cover the length and breadth of\nhumanity.\u201d\n\nIt is certainly true that the amazingly extensive nature of the subject\nmight lead one away into perfectly relevant discussions of almost every\nfield of human activity; and nothing renders argument so unsatisfactory\nand inconclusive as to have unlimited scope. But in these pages the\nissue must be narrowed down and the question confined so far as\npossible to a very brief examination of one particular aspect of the\nsubject, which will be created by formulating a deliberate contention\nand pursuing it by argument into some of the main channels of this\nperplexing problem. Even so it is likely that deep water will be\nreached, but, after all, a suggestion need not be driven to its utmost\nlimits in all directions in order to establish its significance.\n\nIn choosing a direct point of attack against this generally accepted\nbelief we shall treat the matter more or less from a practical point of\nview. Without getting involved in abstract philosophic propositions,\nwithout entering too far into the sphere of economics and politics,\nwithout preaching high morality, though the words and teachings of\npreachers must be quoted, an endeavour will be made, by working out a\ndefinite line of reasoning, to submit as a whole some of the simpler\nand perhaps more personal considerations which have no doubt already\noccurred to many who have given the subject thought and reflection. No\nmaxims will be laid down as to how money should be made, spent, saved,\nlent, borrowed, invested, given or bequeathed, for the object is to\nstrike at the root principle and shatter the ideal which underlies\nall those transactions, which colours men\u2019s characters, influences\ntheir desires and aspirations, creates artificial class contrasts, and\ncontributes largely to the general social confusion and chaos.\n\nBriefly, then, our contention is: _That no individual is capable of\npossessing, spending, or administering more than a certain definite\namount of money, which can be roughly described as a full competence,\nwithout producing positively harmful effects on himself as well as\non those affected by his actions._ In other words, the \u201crich man\u201d is\nan impossibility in any decently organised economic State, and the\naccumulation of capital in individual hands is detrimental to the\npublic good. That is what is meant by the saying from which the title\nof this volume is taken.\n\nIt may appear at first sight to be an extreme view, because we have\ngot so much accustomed to believing that a great deal of good can be\ndone with money, and a great deal of happiness derived from it, that to\nbe confronted with an uncompromising negation on such a time-honoured\ntradition may seem almost absurd. The argument is purposely intended\nto be completely comprehensive, and a case will be presented without\nexaggeration which will cover as much of the ground as possible,\ndealing with typical rather than exceptional instances by way of\nillustration.\n\nWe find in human nature three characteristic impulses which serve as\nthe mainspring and motive power in the gaining and spending of money:\nthe passion for acquisition, the instinct for absolute property,\nand the desire to excel. No one would suggest that the passion for\nacquisition can be destroyed: it is neither possible nor desirable,\nbut it can be prevented from running wild, and it can be controlled,\nthough it does not seem to have occurred to many people that such\ncontrol is expedient. The instinct for absolute property is very much\noverestimated, and this arises from the fact that we are accustomed\nto a system which hardly allows any satisfactory intermediate stage\nbetween property and positive need. The craving for complete possession\non any considerable scale only enters into the minds of those who covet\ntheir neighbours\u2019 possessions. What a man wants and has every right to\nexpect is security in the enjoyment of his necessaries and comforts,\nbut this is precisely what in the vast majority of cases he does not\nget; and his want remaining unsatisfied is converted into a craving for\nabsolute property. The desire to excel, which can undoubtedly be one\nof the finest human qualities, is in itself vitiated by the measure\nof money, which sets up an utterly false standard of excellence and\nconverts pure ambition into a desire for material pre-eminence.\n\nHowever far we may travel, the problem will be continually resolving\nitself into some variation of the question as to how these impulses\nhad best be regulated, and to what extent they have broken out beyond\ntheir legitimate bounds. But although the causes of the faith in money\nmay be reduced to moral and psychological terms, there are economic as\nwell as moral results, and it is not the metaphysical origins, but the\npractical results which must be looked into.\n\nAt the outset we must acknowledge that our capacities of all kinds\nare strictly limited, whether moral, intellectual, or physical.\nAn occasional saint, an occasional genius, or an occasional giant\nstretches the limit beyond its normal point, but the limit still\nremains. And yet we are foolish enough to believe that in regard to\nthe possession, expenditure, and administering of riches there is no\nsum of money, however large, which we are not competent to deal with,\nand we are convinced that it is quite easy and unquestionably within\nthe capacity of almost anyone to spend with benefit to himself and to\nothers sums of money greatly in excess of what can cover in the widest\nsense his personal requirements. Whereas not only is it not easy,\nbut as inquiry will show, it is purely and positively impossible, as\nimpossible as it is to acquire vast knowledge with a limited brain\ncapacity, or to endure more than a certain amount of physical strain\nwith a limited muscular capacity. We are inclined also to think that\nmen who have money and men who make money are _ipso facto_ easily\ncapable of spending the money properly, though we generally make the\nmental reservation that if we had it ourselves we should spend it a\ngreat deal better. But the inheritance or accumulation of money does\nnot imply by any means a special ability for spending it wisely. To put\nit plainly, such men have not, nor have we, nor has anyone this ability\nexcept in a very limited degree, far more limited than is generally\nsupposed or ever admitted.\n\nThe case against riches has been argued again and again on religious\nand moral grounds for over two thousand years, from Confucius to\nTolstoy. But we are less impressed by the truth of it now than ever\nwe were; and we still hear it stated by high authorities that it is\na benefit to the community to contain men of great wealth. The whole\ndelusion arises from the indestructible confidence in what money can\ndo. And yet all of us see clearly enough by the roughest and most\ngeneral observation that happiness does not increase with riches, that\nmoney indeed has very little to do with happiness, though it has a\ngood deal to do with misery. But many of us are inclined to believe\nthat our own individual case is rather different, and that more money\nadded to our ample competence, and a consequent further enjoyment of\nmaterial possessions, must undoubtedly make us happier. And when we\nhave got the more and the desired result is not attained, we never\npause in hesitation to consider whether perhaps the more has interfered\nwith rather than augmented our happiness, but we are persuaded that\nthe reason we find ourselves still discontented is simply that the\nmore is not enough. Enough never comes to those who have encouraged\nthe longing for more. Nothing short of actual experience can help to\neradicate this belief, but there are few who would care to embark on\nan experiment in the direction of less. And yet it could quite well be\ndemonstrated that a reduction of income, provided always that the loss\ndoes not reduce the income below a competence can lead to an increase\nin happiness--happiness being, of course, distinguished from pleasure.\n\nIt may require a very rare philosophic resignation and an equally\nrare breadth of view to refuse to be deluded into regarding the\npossession of money as an absolute essential. Moreover, there are a\ngreat many qualifications to be taken into account arising from natural\ncharacteristics, habit, temperament, and tastes. But broadly speaking,\nif a man has the courage to regard a reduction of income not as a loss\nbut a gain, if he can use the opportunity to kill the instinctive\nbut disturbing craving for more which unfortunately seems engrained\nin us all, in fact, if he can eradicate the germ of the disease, the\nlimitation of his desire to satisfy transient and what are really\nartificial needs will certainly increase his power of enjoyment and his\nhappiness. On the other hand, if he treats the lowering of his means\nas a calamity, which is the usual case, lamenting his fate, railing\nagainst fortune and encouraging the longing for gain--an attitude of\nmind which is only the outcome of his unlimited faith in the power of\nmoney--the result, naturally enough, will be despair.\n\nBut it might be shown as well that a type of man does exist,\nexceptional no doubt, who, being capable of spending without hurt to\nhimself or to others more money than he has actually got, can enrich\nhis life in the broadest sense by an increase of fortune, and may\ntherefore become the happier for it. He is a man who is indifferent to\nthe enjoyment of material possessions and probably would be regarded in\nthe eyes of the world as the last man who was competent to use money\nproperly. But even he would be entirely overwhelmed by anything like a\nlarge increase of fortune, and would be as incapable as any one else of\ndisposing of it without inflicting injury.\n\n\u201cCould not riches be used well?\u201d asks Jean Marie in Stevenson\u2019s\n_Treasure of Franchard_.\n\n\u201cIn theory, yes,\u201d replied the doctor. \u201cBut it is found in experience\nthat no one does so. All the world imagine they will be exceptional\nwhen they grow wealthy; but possession is debasing, new desires spring\nup, and the silly taste for ostentation eats out the heart of pleasure.\u201d\n\nMoney is, after all, responsibility and nothing else. We are all of\nus capable of undertaking a certain amount. Some of us are capable\nof undertaking a good deal. No one is capable of undertaking more\nthan a relatively limited amount. But the trouble is that most of us\nthink ourselves capable of undertaking far more than we properly can.\nAutocrats are ceasing to exist not so much because certain monarchs\nproved themselves dangerously incapable, but because the world has\nlearned that no conceivable human being has the capacity to rule a\ncountry single-handed. We do not yet admit this incapacity with regard\nto the autocrats over capital, although it is equally true, and when\nwe do so we shall find considerable difficulty in dethroning them.\n\nAnother important inference to be deduced from the argument here set\nforth is that the surplus money which no individual does or can spend\nbeneficially remains in his hands in stagnant unproductivity, is\ndeflected from other remunerative channels, and is therefore the chief\ncause of the existence of some of the gravest economic ills which we\nhave to face in our social life. Money cannot rest, it is an active\ninstrument for producing good or for producing evil. Its presence in\none quarter may not produce visible evil, but its _consequent_ absence\nin another quarter will produce very visible and very positive evil.\nThe word consequent must be emphasised because wealth is like water--to\npump it up artificially on one side is to lower it automatically on the\nother.\n\nMoney in its character of potential wealth seems also to have this\npeculiar characteristic. It has no positive value in itself. The\ngreater part of its value is given to it by its possessor, and in\nproportion as it accumulates in the hands of an individual its value\nis rapidly depreciated. An electric current of a certain power will\nperform certain specified functions. Decrease the power and it ceases\nto produce the required effect. Increase the power tenfold or a\nhundredfold and you will be no nearer achieving the desired result.\nThat is to say, in addition to the change in value effected by the\nchange in individual ownership, there is actual deterioration, produced\nby accumulation, whoever the individual may be who is responsible for\nthat accumulation.\n\nAs with individuals, so with the State. National wealth, which in the\nhighest sense of the word means the enrichment of the lives of the\npeople, depends not on how large a number of incomes there are of over\nten thousand a year, but on how small a number there are of under two\nhundred a year. The real riches of a nation are not to be measured\nby vast calculations of commercial statistics, but by the absence of\ndestitution and the high level of healthy life which the people enjoy.\n\nBut we must accept the situation as it is. The rich have got their\nriches, and the problem to be considered here is not how to deprive\nthem of their riches, but how to prevent all men, rich and poor alike,\nfrom confiding blindly in money, as they do at present, and from\nstriving towards a false ideal which spoils their highest endeavours,\nblunts their moral susceptibilities, poisons their happiness, and\nproduces a state of social disorder which is highly prejudicial to\nthe common good. A just appreciation of the essential fact that money\ncan only be made out of people\u2019s labour and the wear and tear of their\nlives would in itself do much to prevent the growth of the spirit which\nleads to these alarming contrasts in riches and poverty. But men\u2019s\nideals and their moral outlook can only be altered in the long run by\nrepeatedly exposing the actual fallacies in the views they now hold and\nconstantly emphasising the disastrous results of the actions for which\nthis waste of money is responsible.\n\n\n\n\nChapter III\n\n  Definition of the limit--Those whose means are above the\n    limit--Income translated into terms of subsistence--The\n    case of the rich man--His establishments--His servants--His\n    luxuries--Extravagance--Vanity--Sport--Racing--Yachting--\n    Condemnation of excess.\n\n\nA more precise definition must be given of the limit of income referred\nto in the last chapter as \u201ca definite amount of money which might be\nroughly described as a full competence.\u201d\n\nEvery man requires, though he by no means always gets a certain income\nto satisfy his own needs and those of his family. In addition to this\nhe can profitably spend more so as to add to his general utility by\nconveniences and comforts, he can satisfy his artistic proclivities,\nhis desire for further knowledge, his taste for sport or amusement,\nall to his own and the general benefit without hurt or hindrance to\nanyone. But after allowing the broadest scope for the satisfaction of\nthese legitimate wants there is a definite point beyond which he cannot\nsafely go. That is to say, if he acquires, or if by inheritance he\nfinds himself burdened with money beyond this limit it will inevitably\nreact detrimentally on himself and on others. And this for two reasons:\nfirstly because he is, as a normal human being, incapable of dealing\nwith so great a charge, and secondly because the money, while in his\npossession, is being drawn away from other channels where there is\nspecial need for it.\n\nSo long as money encourages healthy effort a man may be sure the limit\nhas not been reached, the moment money tends to relax effort the\nlimit has been passed. It must be described as healthy effort, as,\nof course, money-making may increase the undesirable efforts of the\nspeculator, the gambler, and the thief. But who is to decide what is\nhealthy effort? The man himself. No one else can. And he knows to a\nnicety. Every man or woman has a different standard, and the level of\nthe limit varies in each individual case according to ideals, capacity,\nand temperament. But it will not depend at all on what is one of the\nstrongest and often the most excusable inducements for spending money,\nnamely, environment, or the conventions of the particular stratum of\nsociety to which the man belongs. The limit for one will not be the\nlimit for another, and a man can only become aware that this limit\nexists at all by observing very closely what actually is the effect\nthat his money is having on his life and character, instead of blindly\naccepting his already excessive income or every increase of his fortune\nas a natural and unquestionable blessing.\n\nThe main brunt of the attack must clearly fall on those whose\nincomes are above the limit. They are in numbers a small minority,\nbut the amount they possess is incredibly large. The present income\nof 1,250,000 people, assessed to income, reaches the vast sum of\n\u00a3850,000,000 a year. Taking the whole population of these islands, it\nis roughly estimated that there are 1\u00bd millions who can be classed as\nrich, 3\u00bd millions comfortably off, 38 millions as poor, of whom some 12\nto 13 millions are in constant need. The existence of the 1\u00bd millions\nis one of the chief causes of the condition of the 38 millions. In\nother words, excess above the limit causes want below the limit. The\n3\u00bd millions \u201ccomfortably off\u201d are most of them occupied in trying to\nbecome identified with the select 1\u00bd millions. If we could estimate the\namounts in income which these classes represent the figures would be\neven more startling. The world has certainly never seen larger fortunes\nthan exist to-day, nor has it seen more extensive and more inexcusable\npoverty. The average rate of luxurious living in the small minority is\nhigher than it has ever been, and the dangerous and degrading effect\nof want on individuals and on the general community has never been\nso widespread or so intense. \u201cThe rich,\u201d to use a simple term, are\nnearly all actuated by the same motive. They accept what they have and\nwhat they make as their own, to be spent on themselves, according to\ntheir own caprice, or on others, if they are so inclined, casting an\noccasional sop to some charity or philanthropic scheme as a salve to\ntheir consciences. There are, it must be acknowledged, a few, a very\nfew who regard their riches as a trust and endeavour to the best of\ntheir ability to divert the greater part of it back into remunerative\nchannels without exceeding a reasonable sum for their own personal\nwants. But as a class they insist that efforts to alter our social\nsystem are fruitless, disturbing and doomed to failure, the division of\nthe world into rich and poor being a Providential decree, and if the\nrich can get service from the poor without their grumbling, that is the\nmost desirable arrangement that can be conceived. To this a reply may\nbe given in the words of Professor Marshall:\n\n  \u201cNow at least we are setting ourselves seriously to inquire whether\n  it is necessary that there should be any so-called \u2018lower class\u2019 at\n  all: that is whether there need be large numbers of people doomed\n  from their birth to hard work in order to provide for others the\n  requisites of a refined and cultured life, while they themselves\n  are prevented by their poverty and toil from having any share in\n  that life.\u201d\n\nThe case would not be quite so bad as it is if it were only \u201cthe\nrequisites of a refined and cultured life\u201d that they were made to\nprovide. But this point must be considered later.\n\nIn order to appreciate fully the responsibility which the possession\nof riches entails, let us translate an income into terms of actual\nsustenance for human beings. By this means it is possible to arrive\nat a more or less positive measure. There is so much that is relative\nin most human requirements that they cannot serve as a standard or\nas a reliable quantity to be used in calculating any equation. But\nthe requirements of a human being can be measured in terms of actual\nsustenance, because they can be estimated with something approaching\nprecision.\n\nTake a man with \u00a320,000 a year, and say we deduct even as much as\n\u00a33000 for himself and his family. With his remaining \u00a317,000 he has\nthe power of furnishing 170 people with \u00a3100 a year apiece. It is not\nfor a moment suggested that he should do any such thing, as he would\nbe quite unable to select 170 worthy people, and even if he could make\nthe choice the 170 people, on the reception of this private dole,\nwould soon become unworthy. This calculation is only taken to serve as\na measure of his power. What might be the income or, more correctly\nspeaking, the means of existence of 170 lives, is vested in one man,\nwho is under the impression--and no one attempts to dispute it--that\nhe is capable of disposing of this sum in a way that is generally\nbeneficial.\n\nNow let us state the case fairly from the point of view of the rich\nman, taking a reasonable and more or less representative type. He\nmay have \u00a310,000, \u00a350,000, or \u00a3100,000 a year--that only alters his\nactivities in scope, not in quality. Let us say he has two or three\ncountry houses and a house in London. His \u201cposition\u201d requires him to\nkeep up a certain establishment, and this means the employment of some\nforty or fifty servants, grooms, gardeners, chauffeurs, etc., who, he\nreadily tells you, will be thrown out of employment should any of his\nmoney be taken from him. If we take the case of a landlord, he will\nalso have tenants, bailiffs, farm labourers, and gamekeepers dependent\non him. He keeps the home farm and lets out the other farms on his\nestate to tenant farmers. Part of his land is built over and brings\nhim in substantial returns in the shape of rent. His villages are in\ngood order and the cottages kept in proper repair. Some thousands of\nacres or so he keeps for shooting. He may have a deer forest on one\nof his estates, and perhaps also a grouse moor or a river. Whether he\nkeeps a racing stable, a pack of hounds, or a yacht depends on his\nparticular fancy. He will acknowledge that he spends a certain amount\non luxuries, but that \u201cis good for trade,\u201d as great numbers of people\nhave to be employed in the manufacture of these luxuries. He is kind to\nhis poor relations, whom he entertains and helps; and his subscription\nlist to hospitals, charities, and philanthropic works is a large one.\nHe enjoys himself in an unostentatious but suitably expensive way,\nand his various responsibilities allow him to lead a life consisting\nof occasional rushes of activity and prolonged intervals of leisure.\nHe most probably finds he can spare a certain amount of money for\nspeculation, with a view to adding more to the sum total of his income.\nHe looks forward to handing down to his children sufficient means to\nmake each of them independent, and meanwhile has his boys educated in\nthe large public schools, where they can associate with boys who are\nsimilarly situated.\n\nWhat possible harm can there be in all this? So far from being\nparasitic, he counts himself as a beneficent agent in the general\nindustrial activity, at the same time appearing as a credit to his\nsociety and a notably refined product of the class of which he is a\nmember. Above all, he is popular, and gains ostensibly the respect and\nregard of his friends, his neighbours, and his dependents. A favourable\ncase has purposely been made for him, because if we accuse him of\nself-indulgence and greed, and describe him as a gambler, spending his\nsubstance on objects which are generally admitted to be pernicious and\nunworthy, the case could not be defended at all.\n\nThe fundamental theory which makes this man\u2019s position untenable\nhas already been explained--namely, that after he has satisfied his\nlegitimate requirements all the surplus money he keeps is being held\nback from serving urgent needs; and, moreover, the method in which he\nspends the surplus is directly or indirectly harmful to himself and\nothers.\n\nWe call the money his as if by some miracle he had made it. Often\nenough he has not helped even by the smallest exertion to create\nit. The wealth has been and is being daily and hourly produced by\nthe exertion of numberless people who are either employed by him or\nemployed in furthering enterprises in which he has invested his money.\nIt will be said that his share as the wise dispenser of capital,\nwithout which labour and enterprise could not be set in motion, is an\nall-important part of the general process of business. But he invests\nnot to promote enterprise, but to get high dividends; and an elaborate\nsystem has been set up in order to tempt him to put his money into\nconcerns that are by no means always sound or of the smallest public\nutility. Capital would exist and flow far more freely without the large\ncapitalist. He acts as a dam to the stream; a certain amount escapes\nback into the main channel, but much more is checked and diverted into\nstagnant and putrefying pools of his own creation. The free flow of\nblood is life-giving; the clotting or coagulation of blood produces\ndisease.\n\nLet us take the various points raised by his case _seriatim_. Many\nacutely controversial problems are opened, and it will be difficult to\ndetach the particular actions of the rich man without generalising,\nto some extent, on the problems themselves. It is no argument against\nour main contention to say that people with costly tastes have, while\ngratifying them, been able to exercise powers of a high order, for,\nobviously, it is in spite of their shortcomings in this respect that\nthey have succeeded, and not because of them. If some men with means\nhave done valuable public service and performed admirable work in many\ndifferent spheres of life, this they have done as men naturally gifted\nwith high accomplishments, not as rich men. Here we are only concerned\nwith their works and deeds in their latter capacity.\n\nIt does not affect our argument whether our typical example has been\nbrought up to regard this way of living as natural and necessary for\na man of what is called his \u201cposition\u201d (that is to say, the purely\nartificial place which a rich man is able to take up in the community\nsolely on account of his riches), or whether he has made the money\nfor himself and is simply aping the habits and customs of those who\nalready possess it. The distinction between the _vieux riches_ and the\n_nouveaux riches_ is one they can fight out between themselves. The\nformer scoffs at the latter while all the time he is setting him, and\nconsciously setting him, the example he is to follow. It is not the\ngaining, but the spending of the money that must occupy our attention\nhere.\n\nOur friend\u2019s houses are only a detail in the upkeep of his position.\nThey may be historic castles, sham \u201cancestral halls,\u201d modern \u201cpalatial\ncountry residences,\u201d or \u201cfashionable mansions\u201d in town. Does it ever\nstrike the owner as, let us say, a curious arrangement that he should\nhave several houses of fifty to a hundred rooms apiece while some\nmillions of his fellow-men do not own one room? Does he know that in\nEngland and Wales alone 507,763 people occupy one-room tenements,\n48.4% of which are classified as overcrowded, while 12,458,150 are\noccupying tenements of two, three, or four rooms?[4] In any case, he\nwould indignantly refuse to admit that there was any remote connection\nbetween these two sets of circumstances.\n\nWhen we come to the staff necessary for the maintenance of these large\nestablishments we touch a problem of employment which must be examined\nmore closely. It is not sufficient to state baldly that these people\nare employed, and that if the opening were not available for them they\nwould be unemployed. The immediate result of their being discharged\nwould no doubt in some cases be unemployment. That is just the mischief\nof uneconomic employment. If a large number were simultaneously\ndismissed there might be temporary unemployment on a large scale, as\nit would amount to dislocation, like the extinction of some dying\nindustry. But the eventual readjustment would subsequently be by that\nmuch the stronger and better adapted to the real requirements of the\ncommunity. To employ a man in useless and unremunerative work can be\nregarded in some aspects as worse than not employing him at all. It is\nnot intended, however--and, indeed, it would be impossible--here to\nenter into a discussion on the whole problem of unemployment, but there\nis undoubtedly a very great economic waste that largely contributes to\nthe gravity of the problem, arising from the fact that a large number\nof people are being forced to devote their labour and energy to work\nwhich is, so to speak, final and sterile. It is precisely the same with\nregard to the production of expensive luxuries. The employment of a\nlarge retinue is only another form of the possession and enjoyment of\narticles of excessive luxury. The employers and possessors have all\ndisagreeable burdens and every sordid worry lifted from them, their\nsmallest and their most extreme desires for pleasure met, their special\nappetites satisfied, their peculiar vanities titillated, and their\nartificial position safeguarded and maintained, without their giving\nmore than a passing thought to the mass of people required to carry on\nthis work. Plenty of examples might be quoted in contemporary as well\nas past history to show that after generations of the enjoyment of \u201cthe\nvile joys of tainting luxury\u201d men deteriorate, both physically and\nmentally.\n\nAs for the particular line of life which domestic service offers\nunder modern circumstances, it is not too much to say that it is,\nas a rule, very demoralising, more especially for the men. And its\ndemoralising tendency increases in proportion to the size of the\nestablishment. The single general servant lives a life of hard work\nbut genuine service on four to eight shillings a week, often living in\nfriendly relations with master or mistress, and really lifting from\nthem the burden of necessary domestic duties which they with limited\nincomes and professional work of their own cannot possibly find time\nto perform; and this remains true in other small households. In the\nlarge house the faithful old family servant, who is more of a friend\nthan a servitor, is rare in these days of ostentation. The butler, on\nwages of fifty to sixty shillings a week, which together with board and\nlodging represents from \u00a3250 to \u00a3300 a year, has a life of leisure,\nease, and excessive comfort, seldom having to exert himself even up to\nhis limited capacities. Male house-servants are often chosen for their\nlooks; their work is very light physically, they are overfed, and being\nunder-educated, can hardly be blamed for becoming demoralised. These\nable-bodied men, whose muscles, if not their minds, might be devoted\nto some really serviceable purpose, are still increasing in numbers.\nOver 25,000 more male servants have got employment in the last ten\nyears, the total number now being 227,995. Even deducting the single\nindoor servant, the single coachman or gardener, this means a large\nincrease of ornamental male attendants. Female servants are becoming\nmore difficult to secure in the higher grades, because the class of\nwomen from which they are drawn value their liberty and are not so\nready to sacrifice it for food and comforts. In fact, they are showing\nsigns of impatience of control, and of preferring the risky though\nexhilarating struggle of independence. But still large retinues of men\nand women exist solely employed in keeping up huge houses to satisfy\nthe vanity and minister to the comfort of a comparatively few rich\npeople. No work of a more hopelessly barren, profitless, and, indeed,\ndegrading character could be found for them. A system of tips deprives\ntheir smallest acts of what might be an obliging and disinterested\nintention. Arrangements are organised with tradesmen to defraud the\nemployers in what is thought a perfectly legitimate way; the actual\nwaste of food is appalling, and by extras, gratuities, perquisites,\ncommissions, and pickings a considerable amount is added to the wages\nof the upper servants. In these large establishments immorality exists\nmore as a rule than as an exception, but it can be kept secret, for\nthese communities of private servants--like everything else connected\nwith the lives of the rich--cannot be made the subject of investigation.\n\nIf assistance to those who need it is the object of domestic service,\nit is striking to note that on the money basis, generally speaking, the\nwrong people are served. Who in the community most require and should\nspecially have the help of servants? The old and infirm, the weak and\nill, the very young and the hard-worked. Service under such conditions\nraises itself to the level of one of the highest occupations that can\nbe imagined. But this is not our system. A man or woman may be ill, old\nor over-worked, without being able to get the assistance of a single\nsoul. Another man or woman may be young and healthy and have at his\nor her command a retinue of thirty servants or more, solely because\nthey have money and servants are forced, by economic pressure, to\ndevote their lives to the menial task of furbishing up the endless and\ncomplicated appanage of wealth.\n\nNow let us turn to the inanimate luxuries, taking into account only\nindisputable luxuries--that is to say, articles of high price which\nhave no special artistic value, to which much labour has been devoted\nand which are not produced to serve any legitimately useful purpose.\nLuxury has been well defined as \u201cthat which creates imaginary needs,\nexaggerates real wants, diverts them from their true end, establishes\na habit of prodigality in Society, and offers through the senses a\nsatisfaction of self-love which puffs up but does not nourish the heart\nand which presents to others the picture of happiness they can never\nattain.\u201d\n\nBond Street catalogues abound with any quantity of examples. Furs at\none thousand guineas, fifty-guinea dressing-bags, twenty-guinea hats,\nthousand-guinea tiaras, fruit and vegetables out of season, cigars at\nthree shillings apiece, ruinously expensive wines, and fantastic foods\nof all descriptions. There is no need to exaggerate, for all those\narticles can be bought for much higher prices than those quoted. A\ngreat amount of skilled labour of a high order goes to the production\nof these luxuries, and a great amount of labour of the lowest and most\ncruelly sweated description is also enlisted for their production,\nand incredible as it may seem, it is on the ground that they give\nemployment that these luxuries are defended. It was calculated in\n1884[5] that, even giving a liberal extension of meaning to the term\n\u201cnecessaries\u201d and \u201ccomforts\u201d of life, over six millions of manual\nlabourers, who with their families constitute thirteen millions of the\npopulation, were engaged in producing what, in contradistinction to the\nabove, must be classified as luxuries.\n\nA prominent statesman,[6] expressing the views of his class, said a few\nyears ago: \u201cThe more human wants are stimulated and multiplied, the\nmore widespread will be the inducement to hire. Therefore all outcries\nand prejudices against the progress of wealth and what is called luxury\nare nothing but outcries of prejudice against the very sources and\nfountains of all employment.\u201d\n\nOn such an argument as this the defence of luxuries generally rests.\nThe essence of the fallacy lies in the fact, which cannot be repeated\ntoo often, that labour spent on such articles is unremunerative and\nunproductive, because its ultimate result is only to gratify various\nforms of vanity and greed. To exemplify by a concrete instance what is\nunremunerative and what is remunerative, let us take a hundred-guinea\nball-gown and a pair of boots. It is not possible to estimate the\nnumber of people employed in producing the ball-gown. There is the\nsilk, satin, or whatever the principal material may be; there are the\ntrimmings of chiffon, hand-embroidery, lace, braid, beads, sequins,\nribbons, etc., etc.; some hundreds of pairs of hands, including\nfactory-workers, dressmakers, sempstresses, etc., will have touched\nsome part of the gown before it is delivered to the wearer. To what end\nare all these specialised departments of labour concentrated? The gown\nis worn a few times in the one season; the wearer has the satisfaction\nof feeling as well dressed as A. to F., and far better dressed than F.\nto Z. In fact, the net result of all this expenditure of energy is the\ngenerating of a rather foolish pride, the encouragement of conceit on\nthe one side and envy on the other, and the hardening of a nature into\nways of worldliness and vanity.\n\nAs for the boots. Again, many more hands than can be calculated\nhave helped to produce them, but they are directly and immediately\nserviceable to the purchaser, to whose activity the wearing of boots is\nan essential, and in general they minister to the efficiency of human\nmachines.\n\nBut if balls are not wrong, ball-gowns must be worn. It is a question\nof degree; and here again we get to the theory of the limit which\nin this conjunction can be expressed thus: In relation to human\nneeds, in relation to human powers of enjoyment, in relation to the\nbeneficial effects of pleasure, even in relation to the dictates of\nfashion, there is a distinct limit not to be expressed in figures up\nto which expenditure (in this particular case on dress) is legitimate\nand relatively productive, beyond which it becomes progressively\nunremunerative and harmful. A hundred guineas, by any conceivable\nmethod of calculation, greatly exceeds this limit.\n\nTo assert that the purchase of luxuries is good for trade is quite as\nridiculous as to say that a man can benefit the building and furnishing\ntrade by burning down his house once a year. We do not want to create\nmore artificial wants before we have satisfied the crying human needs\nwhich already exist. There is no loophole through which a reasonable\ndefence of the senseless expenditure, which goes on in an increasing\nmeasure, can be made. Luxurious living has never been quite so blatant\nand unashamed as it is to-day, and the effete epicureanism and decadent\neffeminacy it produces stand out in rather sharp contrast to more\nhopeful signs of progress and moral and intellectual refinement and\nvigour which, happily, are visible around us.\n\nA lady writing in a review in the early \u2019seventies describes life\nin the country house, with its futile routine of heavy meals,\nsport, card-playing, and vacuous inanities which take the place of\nconversation, all very much as it is to-day. The writer speaks with\ndismay of gowns costing sixty guineas and of \u00a31000 a year spent on\nclothes. But these figures are almost negligible compared with the\nsums spent nowadays. It is only through occasional actions in the\ncourts that the outside public get an idea of what is actually spent,\nand it is surprising that there are not more disclosures, considering\nthe mountainous debts that are piled up in West End shops. But the\nshopkeepers are very reluctant to lose a really leading customer, and\nthey know how to meet the inconvenience of not being promptly paid. A\ntypical case may be given of an article of clothing, the cost price of\nwhich was nine guineas, being sold for \u00a328 7s. There may be delay in\npayment, but there appears to be compensation in the profit.\n\nWhen one hears of the woman who spent last year \u00a336 5s. on a hat, or\nanother who gave \u00a31250 for a sable cape, it is not the isolated action\nof criminal folly that chiefly strikes one, but it is that the hat and\nthe cape act as indicators of the sort of price such women are in the\nhabit of paying for their clothes, a large supply of which are in the\nmarket ready to meet this artificial demand. Moreover, the habit of\nextravagance, especially as regards female clothing, is catching and\nruns through all classes once the example is set. It is a common enough\nand very depressing sight to see absurdly elaborate clothes, which are\ncheaper imitations of the latest fashions, worn by women of the lower\nmiddle-class, whose deplorable want of education is shown by their\ninability even to pronounce their mother tongue. They watch the rich,\nand gather from what they see that fine feathers make fine birds, and\nit is not on them that the blame should rest.\n\nVanity exists and insists on being satisfied. It is no good blinking\nthe fact. Luxuries, in one form or another, will continue to be\nproduced. But there is no reason why we should not stem the current\nlest it swell to danger point. There are many well-known historical\nexamples of the enervating and degenerating effect of luxury on\nnational life, and the modern tendency towards an increased production\nof these indulgences should be combated not only as a moral weakness,\nbut as an integral factor in the general economic problem. When\none considers what real comfort of living, with all the necessary\nintellectual and artistic equipage, opportunities for amusement,\nand domestic convenience, can be secured to-day at a comparatively\nmoderate sum, it makes the wild and profligate extravagance the more\ninexcusable and the more futile.\n\nAnyhow, let us abandon once and for all the foolish and ignorant\nattitude of regarding this display as a desirable form of industrial\nstimulus which should be fostered and encouraged. Preaching and\nwriting against it has never been of the smallest avail, but it has\nbeen necessary to deal with it here as a very important, if not\npredominating, element in the analysis of the rich man\u2019s conceptions of\nhis duties.\n\nIn addition to luxuries of establishment, clothes, and food there is\na complicated ritual of sport which in this country reaches an almost\nincredible pitch. It has been estimated that forty-five millions are\npermanently invested in the apparatus of sport, and an income of over\nforty millions spent annually upon it. We need not discuss all the\nintricacies of the numerous branches of sport, observing where its\neffect is healthy and where harmful. No one will contend that the most\nexpensive forms of it are by any manner of means the best. But the\nmost obvious harm to be noted in this connection is the amount of land\nwhich is taken away from agriculture for sporting purposes. Landlords\noften keep up their shooting at a great loss, amounting to something\nlike five to ten pounds per bird shot, all for the sake of having the\nshooting and asking friends down for a few days in the year to enjoy\nit. It is gravely regarded as an essential part of the education of a\nyoung man in this particular world to learn how to shoot. No question,\neven with respect to his education or possible professional career, is\ntreated with more seriousness than the moment he first handles a gun,\nand family advice is sought as to how and when encouragement can be\ngiven to the development of this essential qualification which, coupled\nwith a knowledge of bridge, will make him a desirable visitor in any\ncountry house.\n\nAt card-playing, which occupies a vast amount of time in the lives of\nthe rich, sums amounting to hundreds are often lost or gained by one\nperson in one evening. But of the various sinks which help to drain\naway their money, horse-racing almost holds the first place. There\nare no statistics to show how many people have been ruined by it, or\nhow many have been lured into a life of gambling by their success in\nthe betting ring. But its popularity is certainly on the increase, as\nwe can see by looking at the number of horses that have run under the\nrules of racing in the last thirty years. In 1878 there were 2097; in\n1908 this figure had risen to 3706. The number of larger race meetings\nadvertised in advance have more than doubled since 1881 (78 in 1881,\n164 in 1909). Some sort of estimate of the money spent on it, apart\nfrom betting, can be gathered from the amounts won. In 1908 the winning\nowners secured between them nearly a quarter of a million pounds,\nthe sums won by the first thirty-six amounting to \u00a3246,001 15s., the\nlargest total secured by one owner being \u00a326,246.[7]\n\nThe populace are invited to join in this pursuit, though, of course,\nthey must be railed off to prevent too close contact with those who\ncome in coaches and motor-cars. The crowd is vaguely supposed to be\nhaving a good time, and any attack on horse-racing is met by hackneyed\narguments about \u201ckeeping up the national sport\u201d or \u201cimproving the breed\nof horses,\u201d and perhaps, again, the objection of unemployment for\njockeys and bookies might be dragged in.\n\nIt does not appear, however, to be a good method of improving the\nhuman breed. In observing the crowd on a race-course, whether it\nbe the well-dressed portion or the ill-dressed, the betters or the\nbookies, neither a deep knowledge of humanity nor a very close power\nof observation into physiognomy is required to note the prevalence of\na remarkably low type. But a still more vivid impression of what the\npleasures of racing mean can be gained by going out on the road in the\nevening towards the scene of a large race meeting when the people are\nreturning. Brakes and carts in endless procession will pass you loaded\nwith men shouting in the excitement of semi-drunkenness, or with heaps\nof humanity sodden and silent in complete intoxication. Outside every\npublic-house on the roadside traps await those who are squandering\ntheir gains on further refreshment or soothing the despair of losses\nin the temporary oblivion of drink. The localities where there is an\nannual race week suffer considerably, the inhabitants become infected\nby the gambling and betting mania, and during the actual days of the\nraces the place is infested by the lowest dregs of the riff-raff who\njourney about from one race meeting to another. This so-called sport\nproduces the lowest possible type; it degrades many who take part in\nit with sinister rapidity, it encourages fraud and deception, it is\na canker of rottenness in public life, and it receives the highest\nsanction and patronage.\n\nMany people are present at a race meeting without being conscious\nthat it is attended by any evil consequences. They go to meet their\nfriends, perhaps putting an occasional sovereign on a horse to give\nthem some interest in the racing. To them the crowd is a natural part\nof the proceedings, the heavy bets of the ring an amusement. To have\nbeen there is something to boast of, and conveys the idea that they\nhave associated with smart people. Thoughtless, as in so many of their\nother pursuits, they accept the whole proceeding as a recognised sport\nand they inquire no further. The philosophy of these people is the\nprevailing philosophy: \u201cDo not examine below the surface, or you are\nbound to find something disagreeable. Take things as they come; skim\nthe cream off the top; avoid that which is unpleasant or difficult to\nexplain; and above all things, do what others do.\u201d\n\nYachting, which also runs away with a great deal of money, comes under\na very different category. It is a health-giving and often strenuous\noccupation, and the seamen employed are, anyhow, deriving incidentally\nsome positive benefit from the life they lead. Nevertheless, out of\nthe 4655 private yachts registered in the current year (an increase of\nover 3500 in the last forty years),[8] only a very small proportion\nare actually navigated by owners who have any knowledge or love of\nseamanship. The great majority are floating houses of luxury (viz. a\n700-ton steam yacht, for which \u00a325 a day is paid for coal when in\nuse), or racing yachts, mere toys used to minister to the fanciful\npleasures of the rich.\n\nBut in expressing the strongest disapproval of these excessive\nluxuries, it is not for a moment suggested that people should rush into\nthe opposite extreme--live in discomfort and adopt the craze for \u201cthe\nsimple life,\u201d which is only an inverted form of vanity and ostentation.\nThere are many of the lesser luxuries which give great pleasure and\nsufficient honest gratification to justify their existence. There\nmay even be some reluctance in condemning extravagance, because the\nnature of the extravagant man is far preferable to the economical and\ncautious disposition which sometimes sinks into niggardly meanness.\nMoreover, any attempt at excessive restrictions and unnecessarily harsh\ndiscipline in the upbringing of children invariably leads to a violent\nreaction in the direction of profligacy and extravagance.\n\nLet human nature be allowed free play in all directions; but it is\nnot taking up the attitude of an ascetic or of a prig to condemn\nunhesitatingly unnatural excesses, reckless licence, the extremes of\nself-indulgence and greed, the exercise of which by some few involves\nthe neglect, misery, and ruin of so many others.\n\nThieves when they steal use violence and are pronounced enemies of\nsociety. These few people, by a silent conspiracy in which we all seem\nto acquiesce, are also stealing and are equally enemies of society.\n\n\n\n\nChapter IV\n\n  The rich man\u2019s charities--His generosity--His hospitality--His\n    land--The Feudal System--His responsibilities--The agricultural\n    problem.\n\n\nWe must now turn from what the rich man spends on himself and consider\nwhat good and what harm he does by his subscriptions and donations to\nphilanthropic and charitable objects.\n\nIn so far as he himself is concerned these gifts do not involve any\nelement of personal sacrifice; the moral benefit which is by way of\nfalling on a giver is therefore nil. The exertion of writing a cheque\nor banker\u2019s order and the satisfaction of imposing a tax on himself\ncomplete the transaction on his side. Occasionally the sight of his\nname published at the head of a list with a large figure next it\ngives him a further agreeable sensation, and he can become famous as\na household word of generous philanthropy without the very smallest\npersonal inconvenience. But as an instance of pure charity--that is,\nloving sacrifice--the poor woman who gives a penny from her meagre\nstore is on an entirely different plane. The picture presents itself\nto the present writer of a woman at the doorway of a wretched tenement,\nwith her child in her arms, giving to a passing vagrant who was\nsuffering from hunger and fatigue a penny from the few coins she had\nin her purse. The expression of her face as she handed him the money\nwas the most sublime illumination of pure charity--no subscription\nlist in the newspapers, no public recognition, and the sacrifice,\nnot of luxuries, but of something that she and her baby needed. That\nsomething went with her penny, and in return she received something\nelse for which there is no price, no name, and no description. From\nsuch an experience as this the rich are for ever cut off. \u201cProbably the\nmost generous people in the world,\u201d says J.\u00a0D. Rockefeller, perhaps\nrealising that charity is something he can never reach, \u201care the very\npoor, who assume each other\u2019s burdens in the crises which come so often\nto the hard pressed.\u201d\n\nThe rich man\u2019s so-called charity therefore must be to a large extent\nmechanical and conventional. He gives because others with the same\nmeans give, and the charity touts know how a list headed by Lord A.\nwith a substantial sum will produce equally or perhaps even more\nsubstantial sums from Lord B., Sir. C.\u00a0D., Alderman E., and Mr. F. The\nextraction of money from the rich is a business in itself, requiring\nconsiderable skill, and the rich are fleeced far more than they\nrealise. In practical America they take the trouble to teach people\nprofessionally how to write what they call \u201cletters of appeal.\u201d When we\nhear of subscriptions to charities being stopped it may serve to remind\nus that it is most inexpedient that institutions such as hospitals\nshould be at the mercy of the casual caprice of rich men. Nothing could\neventually be more desirable than that every one of them should cut\noff their charitable contributions. It might entail a severe temporary\nshock to the funds of charitable institutions, as over seven millions\na year is being spent in London alone on charities, but at the same\ntime many ill-managed and misdirected endeavours would disappear, and\nthe State would come to realise all the sooner its responsibilities\nin respect to the maintenance of really necessary institutions for\nthe relief of suffering and the nursing of the sick, in the same way\nas it is beginning to recognise its duties towards poverty, old age,\nand unemployment. There are other enterprises which the State should\nundertake that are often delayed in their institution owing to the plea\nthat the private munificence of rich men can be depended upon. It is\ncertainly better that the funds should be expended thus than in sheer\nself-indulgence, but it is evident that the money would be far better\nspent and the object on which it is spent better served if the source\nwere not controlled by the whims and fancies of a single individual.\n\nIn regard to the more private and personal aspects of the generosity\nattributed to riches: \u201cSurely,\u201d a critic will say, \u201cif the rich man\nis benevolent and kindly disposed he can in a hundred thoughtful ways\nhelp his poorer friends by presents, by attention and timely help, by\nopening the doors of his houses, lending his conveyances, and showing\nmany other attentions which his money allows him to do, thereby\nbecoming justly popular and a source of great good.\u201d\n\nThe admiration, and just admiration, for open-handed generosity and\nthe justifiable dislike of anything approaching miserliness in others\ncause an entirely erroneous impression that large gifts of money must\nunquestionably be praiseworthy and commendable. But this is not the\nquestion at issue. These are two moral qualities, the one admirable,\nthe other objectionable. The generous disposition can show itself in\nmany other ways besides money gifts, and the real man behind the\nrich man, though he may be one and the same individual, often comes\nforward with simple acts of thoughtful kindness because the finer\nqualities of human nature cannot be stifled even by money. But in so\nfar as the rich man indulges his generosity in thoughtlessly giving\naway money broadcast, it amounts to a form of self-indulgence, and he\nis distinctly to blame for not estimating more precisely the effect\nof his actions. No doubt the harm of unwise and foolish actions is\npalliated by the purity and excellence of the motive. In so far as\nthese people intend to show kindness they are amply justified in what\nthey do. But let us consider for a moment what the effect of their\nbenevolence is. In the first place they are made to occupy an entirely\nfalse position as dispensers of charity. Often, too, the desire to\npatronise and gain the power that patronage gives blights the spirit\nof genuine and unadulterated kindness, and further, the recipients\nare placed in the extremely uncomfortable and embarrassing situation\nof receiving benefits, presents, and comforts which they know they\nare not and probably never will be in a position to return. To force\nanyone to be under a lasting obligation is not the most likely way of\ngenerating pure gratitude. There are many who refuse outright rather\nthan place themselves in this position: there are some who take full\nadvantage of the generosity and, what is commonly called, \u201csponge\u201d on\ntheir benefactors, and if the possessors of abundance refuse either\nfrom principle or out of indifference to give freely they are severely\nblamed and generally regarded as ungenerous and stingy. The virtues\nwere once called to a banquet by \u201cthe Lord of All.\u201d They talked and\nlaughed and each one knew the other well, but:\n\n    \u201cBenevolence and Gratitude\n      Alone of all seemed strangers yet;\n    They stared when they were introduced,\n      On earth they never once had met.\u201d[9]\n\nIn fact, the whole atmosphere created, not by an isolated gift which\nhas cost the donor more than actual cash, but by the habit of doles,\nbounty, and patronage is unhealthy and disturbing and ultimately\nundermines the foundations of natural human relations and mutual\nfriendship.\n\nAn excuse will be sought for in the plea that the exercise of\nhospitality is a duty performed by the rich with some success. If the\nhospitality of the rich is ever truly successful it is here again the\nman, and not his money, that brings this about. Crowds of guests at\ncountry houses or dinner parties who regard their host and hostess\nas nothing more than innkeepers or restaurant proprietors are common\nenough, and it is a well-known expedient for those who are busy\n\u201cclimbing\u201d (and their name is Legion) to use hospitality as a means\nof getting hold of the \u201cright people.\u201d But the small gathering met\ntogether in a common interest and mutual regard to enjoy the warming\nintercourse of friendship does not require the accompaniment of a\nten-course dinner nor the surroundings of a vast establishment, and\nis, happily, as easily within the reach of the poorer sections of\nthe community as of the rich. Money, therefore, does not facilitate\nor elevate hospitality. It manifestly tends to lower its quality and\ndepreciate its value.\n\nIt may be argued further in connection with large establishments and\nhospitality that certain noble traditions founded on an excusable\npride of family or race are to be found attached to the great historic\nestablishments of the nobility. There is no great harm in this\nsentiment and from the arch\u00e6ological point of view it has a certain\nattractive interest. But it is too much for the high nobility to expect\nthat they can continue to carry on these traditions throughout all\ntime, preserving the habits and customs of past ages in a world that\nhas changed and will continue to change. No one will quarrel with them\nif they ask that their lineage and family history should be respected,\nbut money will not help them now, and when they consider themselves\nentitled to administer autocratically their millions in order to\npreserve their princely dignities, they are asking for privileges\nwhich the modern economic State and the growth of democracy are every\nyear showing more and more to be inconsistent with good government and\nthe healthy life of the people. And often by their riches they only\nsucceed in reproducing a somewhat vulgar travesty of the splendour and\ndistinction of their ancestors in bygone ages.\n\nThe typical instance we are examining has been described as a landlord\nwho owns villages and keeps his cottages carefully repaired (this, we\nmay note in passing, is not by any means the invariable practice).\nHe dispenses charity to the villagers with open-handed generosity,\nproviding thoughtfully the sack of coals in winter, the occasional\npound of tea, the knitted waistcoats for the little boys, the scarves\nand hoods for the little girls, and what could be more idyllic than to\nsee the children bobbing curtsies and touching their caps to the people\nfrom the great house?\n\nAs a matter of fact, this sham feudalism is generally upheld more by\na love of power and patronage than by kindness of heart. Our landlord\nis consciously proud of having people directly dependent on him whom\nhe can order according to his will (even at election time), whom he\ncan enrich or impoverish as he judges right, and can remove from his\ncottages when they do not please him. If the result is spick and\nspan to the eye and he is greeted by smiles of apparent gratitude\nhe feels, and it is difficult to disillusion him, that his methods\nare successful, and he is induced to believe that his actions are\njustified and his presence in the community indispensable. But what\nkind of impression is in reality produced on those who come under\nhis sway? Not gratitude, because they soon begin to regard his gifts\nas a natural right, and knowing that the squire can easily afford so\nmuch, discontent is likely to be roused that he does not give more.\nConsequently a whole class of people are retained devoid of all the\nself-reliance and energy which independence alone can give. Without\ntheir being aware of it, the yoke of subjection is placed upon them\nunder the guise of beneficent charity, weighing them down, creating in\nthem false habits of cringing subservience, and indefinitely postponing\nthe day of their liberation.\n\nThe landlord is not the elected chief of a village community whom the\npeople can feel to be one of themselves, chosen by them and removable\nby them. Under such circumstances service is no longer subservience,\nfor congregations of human beings will always seek out their leaders,\norganisers, managers, or controllers. But this landlord has imposed\nhimself upon them, or is the descendant of one who imposed himself on\ntheir fathers, who took, in fact, what was once rightfully theirs,\nenclosed it or confiscated it. To go no further back than the Enclosure\nActs, one can note the irreparable wrongs that were then committed by\nthose who had the political power in their hands. Arthur Young reported\nin 1801 that \u201cby nineteen Enclosure Acts out of twenty the poor are\ninjured, and in some cases greatly injured.\u201d The protests made at the\ntime were practically unheeded by an aristocracy too much absorbed in\nmaking its fortune to give a thought to the ruin of the classes that\nwere losing their little inheritance in the common fields or the common\nwaste. We repeat, the landlord has imposed himself upon them; this he\ncan do, and will continue to do, not because he is particularly fitted\nby special training for the administration of landed property, nor even\nbecause he has a strong preference for the pursuit of agriculture, but\nsimply and solely because he has money. To state his one qualification\nfor the position he holds is quite sufficient to prove its falseness\nand absurdity.\n\nIn the argument we are following the underlying principle, which\nmight be called the doctrine of human incapacity, or more correctly,\nperhaps, of human limitations, becomes more evident with regard to the\nrich man\u2019s landed property than his other possessions and investments,\nespecially if we are inclined to believe that the earth\u2019s surface and\nits minerals, by their very nature, like light, air, and water, should\nbe part of the common inheritance of man.\n\nCan an estate of many thousands of acres be developed and cultivated\nto its fullest extent in every corner under the guidance of one\nindividual, who, even though he may have exceptional knowledge of\nfarming and may use skilled agents, is nevertheless concerned with\nmany other interests which he desires to serve? Are there any of the\nlarge estates which can be pointed to as models? Are there not rather\nmany estates that serve as striking instances of the failure of the\nsystem? Are there not acres upon acres of land which might be yielding\ngreat abundance, real wealth for the nation, which are either badly\nmanaged, neglected, left as waste, or kept for sporting purposes?\nThere is no need to mention the building land which is often held up\nby them until the efforts of the local community have increased the\nvalue sufficiently to yield them a substantial increment, because this\nis a source of income and not an object on which they spend money. On\nagriculture they do spend money, and they ask, in consequence, that\nthe ownership of land should be recognised as \u201can industry.\u201d[10] They\nask, \u201cabove all, the right to select the persons to be associated with\nthe proprietor in his cultivation of the soil.\u201d[11] The good landlord\nwho is something of an agriculturist and devotes time and trouble to\nhis property is often in despair at his want of success, which he\nattributes to the burdens on land, to our fiscal system, or to the\nincompetence of the agricultural labourer, and he is always declaring\nhis land to be a drain on his wealth rather than a source of income,\nbut never does it cross his mind for an instant that possibly he\nhimself is undertaking a task which is far beyond his powers and that\nhis pretensions are quite unjustifiable.\n\nThe co-operation of farmers or small holders working for the quality\nof what they produce and not for filling their pockets and extending\ntheir estates, secure in their independence, acting separately so far\nas separate action is conducive to good cultivation and co-operating\nwhen united action can produce better results, this method, as actually\npractised in Denmark, for instance, must obviously be superior both\nfor the land and for the people. But the deplorable lack of scientific\nknowledge, the unprogressive methods of our farmers, the engrained\nreadiness to be controlled by some social superiors, makes the rapid\nextension of such a system impossible.\n\nIn the meanwhile we cannot accept our rich man\u2019s plea that as a\nlandlord, even as a good landlord, his expenditure is profitable.\nIt is not that he makes nothing but mistakes; it is that he cannot\ngive sufficient time and attention to it; it is that he is by nature\nincapable--an incapacity which he shares with every other mortal--of\nderiving from his estate of some thousands of acres all that it could\nproduce. It follows that his action in keeping to himself large tracts\nof this unique form of property is depriving many of a means of\nemployment and countless hundreds of the enjoyment of the fruits of\nthe land; it is driving the population from the country districts to\novercrowd the towns, add to the number of the unemployed, and swell the\nvolume of crime.\n\nThe land question with all its ramifications is perhaps the most\ncomplex and vast of the many subjects that are touched by the\nresponsibility of riches, but it is one that more completely than\nany other illustrates the argument, and is the best evidence of the\nlimitation of the rich man\u2019s powers. In no field of human activity\nought it to be tolerated that an entirely unfitted and untrained man\nshould be put at the head of so difficult and highly technical a\nbusiness as the management of land. When this occurs in commerce the\nbusiness collapses, but in land management the owner remains doing\nuntold damage and often playing the ridiculous part of a territorial\nmagnate or a petty monarch, to his own hurt and to the hindrance of his\nsubjects. An American writer making a survey of life in England to-day\nsays, \u201cWhen one hears, and one does hear it on every hand, how poor\nare Englishmen, one has in this land question some explanation of the\nsecret.\u201d[12]\n\n\n\n\nChapter V\n\n  The rich man\u2019s children--His sons\u2019 education at school and\n    university--His daughters--Love and marriage--Refinement of\n    the aristocracy--Their alliance with the plutocracy--Smart\n    society--Its general characteristics.\n\n\nThe natural desire of every man is to do the best he can for his\nchildren, and in this respect the rich man feels that his money is\nof special advantage to him. But are healthy upbringing and good\neducation superior in quality if they are expensive? The whole\ntrouble with regard to these children is comprised in the fact that\nthey know they are going to have money, so that from the earliest\nage they accept their elevation from the common herd as a matter of\ncourse, and assume the easy assurance and authoritative manner which\nalways characterises them. Their childhood they spend guarded by\nservants, nurses, governesses, and tutors, often without coming much\ninto personal contact with their parents or deriving any benefits\nfrom parental care and affection, the strongest of all the variety\nof influences in a man\u2019s life; they also have a more or less general\nconsciousness that anything they want can be had for the asking. The\nboys are sent to public schools, where there are many others in a like\nposition, and where the expense of education is greater than in other\nschools, and its quality rather inferior. Here they are given a vague\nnotion of ancient Jews, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, and of England\nin the Middle Ages. But nothing is taught them of contemporary history,\nof English literature, or of how their own country is governed to-day,\nnor is a moment found during those early years for a preliminary study\nof political economy or some elementary exposition of industrial and\nsocial problems, though such exposition would be invaluable, if only\nto impress on young and acquisitive minds the fact that such problems\nexist. In short, the world they are living in is never explained to\nthem. And, whatever they may learn, from start to finish they are\nassiduously kept in a groove where their own class is represented to\nthem as the predominating and important section of the community, which\nmay expect service but need not render it.\n\nTo do schoolboys justice, however, they cannot be accused of being\nsnobs. They care nothing for rank or riches. They have their own\nparticular standard of judging who is \u201ca good chap\u201d and who is not,\nand on the whole their verdict is shrewd and not unfair. They are\napt to be over-severe against breaches of their particular code, and\nthey are very suspicious of any signs of originality. It is in this\ndirection that they make many serious mistakes. But that a boy has a\ntitle is a matter of complete indifference to them, or whether or not\nhe be the son of very rich parents is a matter about which they would\nnot think it worth while to inquire. No distinctions are made; the\nsons of the rich mix with their school-fellows without being conscious\nof occupying any special position, and their school-fellows accept\nthem without even knowing they are the sons of the rich. The harm\nthey do quite unconsciously is not of an obvious kind, and its very\nsubtilty prevents it from being recognised. They themselves know what\nthe future has in store for them, and it necessarily affects their\nattitude towards school work and general intellectual training for\nafter life. They are callous and indifferent as to education, regarding\nit not as an essential preparation for their life\u2019s work, but as a\ntedious exercise which has to be gone through, and in which they are\nassisted by the natural curiosity of youth and an instinctive dislike\nof ignorance. If they are popular this view, accompanied by a certain\namount of swagger and a preference for and often a proficiency in games\nand sport, gives them a position which is distinctly attractive to the\nboy mind, and their influence spreads very rapidly among those who in\nafter life have got to work for their livelihood. In those schools\nwhere there is no disturbing element emanating from the presence of\nrich leisured boys the standard of efficient work--not estimated by the\nmeasure of worldly success which titles and position afford--will be\nfound to be higher than in the few schools which lay themselves out to\nreceive this class of boy. It is not to be inferred that the rich man\u2019s\nson never has sufficient ability and, indeed, industry to distinguish\nhimself in the intellectual field. But it is the influence and example\nof those who have been brought up from their earliest childhood knowing\nthat they have not to work in order to live, that creates an atmosphere\nwhich must be unfavourable to the training of boys for whom life is not\nto be one prolonged holiday.\n\nAt the university the superiority of the position of richer boys is\nfirst acknowledged. They are free to spend their money and make the\ndisplay, in one direction or another, which is to distinguish them\nfrom their fellows for the rest of their lives, and recruits for their\nband of toadies and tuft-hunters begin to enlist. Should they not be\ncompletely independent the question of the choice of a profession has\nto be discussed, and is almost invariably regarded purely from the\nmonetary point of view of pay and salary. Many either enter professions\nwhich they allow to occupy very little of their time or have no\nprofession at all, and their incomes preclude them from deriving any of\nthe unquestionable advantages of professional training and discipline,\nwithout which no man can be expected to cultivate the talents he may\npossess, or acquire knowledge and experience which might make him a\nuseful associate in the general activity of the community he lives\nin. We will not enlarge on the sort of life they lead--the unrelieved\npursuit of enjoyment, the London season, the country house parties, the\nrace meetings, the shooting and hunting, the visit to the Continental\nwatering-place to recover from the fatigues before starting again,\nand so on and so on. It is sufficient to know that they contribute as\nlittle as possible to and extract as much as they can from the general\nfund of national wealth.\n\nThe girls meanwhile receive hardly any real education at all, except\nin the knowledge of the little world which they are taught to believe\nis the whole world, and within the walls of which they are probably\ndestined to spend the remainder of their days. The moment of \u201ccoming\nout\u201d is held before them as the one thing to look forward to. And when\nthe longed-for day arrives, it is only the signal for the commencement\nof an exhausting round of pleasures sanctioned by their society and\nrepresented to them as being the one absorbing business of life. It is\nonly charitable to accuse them of being uneducated, otherwise it would\nbe hard to explain psychologically the attitude of mind, of cheerful\nacceptance of the fate in store for them instead of rebellion against\nit. If, in rare cases, they attempt to follow a line of their own and\njoin the professional class, every conceivable obstacle is put in their\nway, and the prejudice against work which is not the business of \u201ca\nlady\u201d is generally strong enough to drive them back into the smooth\ngroove of leisure. Not infrequently this fatal obligatory idleness\ncrushes the spirit out of them.\n\nIn later years love and marriage, difficult enough problems for anyone,\nhave additional snares and pitfalls for the children of the rich. It\nis true that the rich man can marry the penniless girl to whom he is\ndevoted, and the rich girl can accept the man who is struggling for\na living. But the far more frequent occurrence is for the rich girl\nto be captured by the man who wants her money, and for the rich man\nto be entrapped by the ambitious mother who wants his wealth for her\ndaughter. Not even experience teaches. Instances could be given of\nwomen who have married for money, and though every page of their life\nhas taught them the folly of this irreparable step, yet they refuse to\nlearn.\n\nThey spend their later life in arranging marriages at all costs with\nrich men for their daughters, placing insurmountable obstacles in their\nway if they attempt marriages on moderate means, which must entail\ntheir dropping out from the ranks of the select. So it is that here\nagain money, far from assisting, impedes and even stifles the natural\npreferences of human affections, and the average of unfortunate and\ndisastrous unions is far higher among the rich than in any other class.\nSome people are apt to believe that the society scandals which afford\nso much material for newspaper reports and gossip give an unfair\nimpression of the frequency of these disasters, which they maintain\narise just as often in other classes of society, but are not as widely\nreported. This is not the case. In the middle and lower professional\nclasses, where marriages have been contracted by parties free to\nexercise their natural choice and where lives are filled with work\nand occupation, scandals of this description are very rare. It is in\nthe class where, as we have shown, the power to select is restricted\nand distorted, where life itself deteriorates into prolonged idleness\nand self-indulgence and the natural obligations of motherhood are\ndisregarded and shirked, and it is also at the very bottom of the\nscale, where vice and degradation produced by want engender brutality,\nwhere, in fact, there is too much and where there is too little, in the\nscum and in the sediment, that married life becomes most frequently\nintolerable.\n\nA critic may now begin to insist that it is all very well to condemn\nthe large servile establishments, futile luxuries, defective education,\nand foolish marriages as the outcome of riches, but that, taking them\nas a whole, the class that have the assured possession of wealth are\nsuperior in the refinements of mind and body to the lower classes, and\nthat as you go higher in the scale of society the proportion of mental\nand physical excellence gradually increases.\n\nThe very use of the words high and low shows how completely the\nmoney standard is accepted sociologically. If you have money you are\nhigh-class, if you have not money you are low-class. Though poverty\nmay militate against refinement, have riches anything to do with it?\nThe two principal effects that riches exercise on character are\neither to weaken it into effeteness or debase it into coarseness. Our\naristocracy, for instance, so long as they were occupied with fighting\nor with the responsibilities of government--so long, in fact, as they\nhad some business of their own--preserved a certain distinction, and\nby a careful process of selection and intermarriage, avoided any\ncoarsening of their breed. This, for a time, may have endowed them\nwith a certain high average of refinement of manner and tastes. But\nwhen by the changes in our system of government, and later by the\nrise of democracy, that is the great mass of the people awakening to\na consciousness of their own existence, the aristocracy became more\nand more cut off from national services and had recourse to leisured\nlives of unemployment and pleasure, the characteristics of effeteness\nand what the French call _fin de race_ began to show themselves. In\nmany cases downright impoverishment overtook those who had squandered\ntheir incomes on unprofitable amusement and stupid dissipation, till at\nlast they seem to have come to a determination to rehabilitate their\nposition and reinforce their caste by means of commercial and American\nmoney.\n\nThe plutocracy gained ground immensely by the absorption in its ranks\nof ancient families and long genealogies, and the aristocracy became\nincreasingly tainted with commonness, losing its distinction and\nsubstituting for it ostentation, vulgarity, and the appreciation of\nmoney for its own sake. They derived no advantage physiologically in\nthe shape of health and vigour which any alliance with the poorer class\nmight have given them.\n\nSo far from anything in all this indicating that money produces\nrefinement, the exact opposite is proved. That a full competence\nenables a man to appreciate the refinements of life is, after all, what\nwe are doing our best to show; but riches--that is to say, anything\nbeyond the competence--can only act as a fatal impediment even to this.\n\nWhatever refinement there may be in the upper classes is only a\nsurvival, an element that is not being preserved, but is rapidly\nwaning. Their general disposition and influence is a source of anxiety\nto many who are watching the signs of the times with attention. A\nrecent article in the _National Review_ sounded a grave note of\nwarning. \u201cInherited vitality of race,\u201d said the writer, \u201cwhich\nupper-class women still preserve until they dissipate it in keeping up\nwith the procession, is frittered away by parental irresponsibility,\noften commencing before birth, and by the ever-increasing excitement,\nrestlessness, and luxury of our generation.... Greed of money\nis unblushing, and perhaps most shameless amongst mothers and\ndaughters.... Plutocracy and vanity are in possession.\u201d Out of such\npoor stuff, he concludes, no man of character or ability can come\nforward in public life.\n\nAnother significant result of the kind of life of continual excitement,\nconstant change, combined with sensuous ease, led by these people, is\nthe noticeably declining birth-rate among those who are well off.\n\nIt is not worth while here to enter into a diatribe against the habits\nand customs, the fashions and fancies, of what is known as Smart\nSociety, which is the general aggregate of people of affluence; or\nattempt to describe the various sets, the life struggle for those in\none grade to lift themselves into what they think a higher and smarter\ngrade; the necessary qualifications to enter this society; the wild and\nceaseless hunger for excitement and amusement which prevents any time\nbeing allowed for reflection, reading, or even ordered thought; the\ncynical and inane quality of the intercourse; the endless gossip; the\ncontempt for anything that is considered dowdy; the accepted low level\nof morality and network of irregular relationships; the snobbishness,\nthe artificiality, the want of education; in fact, all the low\nstandard of living down to which any set of human beings is bound to\nfall if the key-note of their existence is idleness and the foundation\nof their position is money. They are frightened of thought because it\nmight plunge them into desperation, they are frightened of knowledge\nbecause it might dispel their dearest illusions, they are frightened of\nwork because it might reveal their incompetence, they are frightened of\nprogress because it may shatter their citadel.\n\nOne would have imagined that the so-called sporting instinct which we\nare so proud of nurturing in our public schools and the spirit of fair\nplay would have made men ashamed to continue to lead lives solely and\nsystematically devoted to extravagance and selfish enjoyment while so\nmany of their fellow-men are condemned to the dismal existence of toil\nand squalor, even if they refused to admit that the one influenced the\nother. There are, of course, people in this society who endeavour, more\nor less successfully, to stand up against the drift of fashion and are\nconscious of the falseness of their privileged position, but they are\nexceptional. It appears to be impossible for the very great majority to\nget the delusion out of their heads that, by pensions and doles, and\ncharities and patronage, and presents of game and subscriptions, and\nthe employment of people in senseless occupations, they are doing all\nthat can be expected of them to help \u201cthe lower orders.\u201d\n\nIf in all this luxury there were some trace of splendour or\nmagnificence, if art, literature, or music were generously patronised,\nand beauty and good taste appreciated, some slight justification or\nexcuse for it might be found. The rich magnates of Renaissance Italy\nor eighteenth-century France had, on the whole, a favourable though\ncapricious influence on art and literature. But the rich magnates\nof twentieth-century England are chiefly noted for the deplorable\nvulgarity of their taste and their ignorance of the best works in\npainting, literature, and music. At the best, some few of them are\ncollectors, and if ever they seek the advice of experts to establish\nsome permanent method for the encouragement of the arts, too often\ntheir motive is not any profound reverence for artistic beauty, but the\nspurious fame or titular distinctions they can gain by this means. The\nprivate collections they form are rarely exhibited, and being withheld\nfrom the public view and from popular appreciation, the true function\nof these great works of art is almost nullified.\n\nTaking it as a whole, the manner of living of this set of people\nwould not be worth a moment\u2019s attention were it not that human beings\nare being sacrificed and talents and capacity prostituted, and that\nthe example set by these few is assiduously studied and followed by a\nlarge section of the population who aspire to associate with those of\nhigher rank and greater wealth. So it is that special notice is taken\nof all they do; the limelight is turned full upon them, and nothing can\nsurpass the servility of that section of the public press that recounts\nthe doings of these parasites, describing with intense solemnity\ntheir entertainments and their hunting and shooting exploits, and\ngiving embarrassingly intimate episodes from their private lives for\npublic consumption. By publishing broadcast these alluring pictures it\nattempts to glorify their profitless and empty existence.\n\nFrom time to time, in sheer exasperation at the senselessness of it\nall, men come forward and inveigh against society life; but not only\ndoes this not make the very smallest impression, but the objects of\ntheir invective enjoy abuse and thrive on the advertisement it gives\nthem.\n\nThe life of this society represents the outward and visible expression\nof all the various contributory elements we have been trying to\nanalyse; it has, therefore, been necessary to allude to it in order to\ngive some general notion of the way many of the rich live. And it is\ndone in no cavilling or pharisaical spirit, but with the keen desire\nto expose a state of social corruption which can only be corrected\nin the long run by being brought fully into the light. The beauty,\nthe smartness, and the brilliancy on the surface, like the flowers\nand lights and jewels of their entertainments, produce an attractive\nglamour and present an alluring picture for those who cannot see\nfurther behind the scenes, and form one of the chief inducements for\nmoney-making and for continuing the fight for material gain.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VI\n\n  The rich man as a business man--The conduct of a successful\n    business--Money-making the incentive--Money no measure of\n    merit or worth in men--Or in works of art--Financiers--The\n    power of money--Imperialism--Political power--Experiments of\n    millionaires--Gifts--Money administered by corporations or the\n    State.\n\n\nSo far the type chosen has been that of an aristocratic landed\nproprietor. But aristocrats and landowners are not all rich men, nor\nare all rich men aristocrats or landed proprietors. A large proportion\nare business men who have made or are making their fortunes through\nsome commercial undertaking or from successful speculations. Once\nthe business man has succeeded he is pretty sure to buy an estate,\nbut there are many rich men who do not claim to be engaged in the\n\u201cindustry\u201d of land proprietorship. In the argument we have to meet here\nit is claimed for money that it is the mainspring of initiative and\nenterprise in commerce, and is the just reward of skilful management\nand business ability.\n\nBut before proceeding let us remember once more the main premises\nof our contention. It may be as undesirable as it is impracticable\nto eliminate the undoubted incentive which the desire for more money\ncreates. But it can be curbed before it reaches an exaggerated extreme,\nand it can be rationalised once people understand that great riches are\nno real reward, only mean excessive burden, do not minister to human\nhappiness, and impose a responsibility which no living being is capable\nof discharging.\n\nIn the commercial world it is evident enough that the money-making\nideal is far stronger and predominates over the ideal of securing\nperfection in production, which implies a proud ambition to produce the\nbest goods under the best possible conditions. In the conflict between\nthese two ideals is precisely where the danger lies. Tricks such as\nextensive and sensational advertisement and unscrupulous pushing are,\nas we all know, more favoured than the slower, more laborious, and less\ncertain expedients of continually improving the methods of production\nand conditions of labour. Many a fortune has been made in the vast\nexpansion of a concern far beyond its intrinsic merits simply by means\nof advertisement. The incentive in such a case is solely money-making.\nThe talents required are those of an inferior order, such as astute\nbusiness capacity and cunning. So far, therefore, as money-making is\nthe ideal, it is neither to the advantage of the business nor to the\nadvantage of the community, who are the consumers of whatever commodity\nthe business turns out, any more than it is to the ultimate advantage,\nas already shown, of the man who enriches himself. The ambition of\nheads of firms to enrich themselves personally constitutes, in fact,\nthe chief deterrent to permanently successful commercial enterprise.\nA further step is made in the wrong direction when the founder of\na thriving business, having made his fortune and established the\nreputation of his firm, has his son or successor educated at a public\nschool and university, where he may learn the manners and customs of\nthe leisured classes. The result is that when the successor, who has\nnot received a special technical business training and is therefore\nquite unfitted to keep abreast of the acute competition which he finds\nin the commercial world around him, takes over the business, it rapidly\ndeteriorates, in spite of the abortive efforts of the new head, who\nprobably thinks that by mere expenditure of money the situation can\nbe saved. In instances such as these no defence can be made for the\naccumulation of capital in the hands of individuals. But let us take a\nbetter type.\n\nA man by his energy and industry creates a successful business. As\nhis fortune grows he makes no difference in his private life beyond\nthat which his increasing obligations absolutely necessitate. He\njudiciously sinks the greater part of his profits in his business in\norder to improve it continually in all its branches. He makes his son\nor successor go through the mill, educating him himself technically\nin every process connected with the work so that in his turn he will\nbe thoroughly fitted to conduct the concern in the same progressive\nspirit. This case, where a man has resisted the temptation of taking\nfull personal advantage of his riches to, what is called, \u201clift\u201d\nhimself into another sphere of society and consort with a different\nand, of course, we must say \u201chigher\u201d class, is not common. He has, so\nto speak, identified himself with his work, absorbed himself in its\ncontinuous efficiency, and, in fact, very properly treats his wealth as\na trust created by those who are working for him and also by those who\nare consuming his produce, and he therefore returns it to them in the\nshape of more favourable conditions for his workers and improvements\nin machinery and methods of production, which permit a better and\ncheaper article to be delivered to the consumer. The danger in this is\nnot connected with the conduct of the man himself, but it lies in the\nfact that this admirable manner of conducting the business and dealing\nwith the profits depends solely on the one individual will. There is no\nsecurity or guarantee that his successor will see fit to behave in the\nsame way. The money, being in individual hands, will sooner or later\nfall into the less worthy grasp of a man whose interest in the business\nis insignificant compared with his desire to cut a figure of importance\nby means of his riches. Our ideal manufacturer is not treating the\nmoney or spending it as if it were his own. But nevertheless it is his\nown to dispose of, and he will leave his large profits to a successor\non whose whim and fancy the responsibility of their administration\nagain rests.\n\nThere is no reason why he should not raise himself into another plane\nand, after resigning the management of his business to other hands,\nextend his activities in another direction and achieve further success.\nFor the few, however, who by force of character and exceptional ability\nare able to rise to the level of their new circumstances, there are\nmany more who, simply taking advantage of their riches, abandon one\nform of activity, which was useful and in which they excelled, for\nthe sake of associating themselves with a leisured, ease-loving, arid\nsociety to which they do not naturally belong and which they had been\nwiser to avoid. There are many men who can stand up against adversity,\nbut it requires a character of great depth and force to keep its\nbalance against success.\n\nAcknowledged worldly success for which full credit is given publicly\nis not necessarily achieved by the exercise of superior intellectual\nor business ability, but can be obtained, just as titles and honours,\nby the judicious expenditure of money. It naturally appeals strongly\nto people who like appreciation and applause, and after all, who does\nnot? But the worth of a man can no more be estimated by his money value\nthan the worth of an article. The doctor who charges a high fee is\nnot _ipso facto_ a good doctor, but many of them are astute enough to\nsee that by raising their fee they can enhance their reputation, so\neasily gullible do they know their rich patients to be. The same with\nlawyers, who trade on the folly of those who can afford the luxury of\nlitigation. This expensive system reacts upon the administration of\njustice, because it means that in the majority of cases it is only\nthe rich who can secure the best legal skill for their defence in the\ncourts. Thus even our boasted equality before the law is not immune\nfrom this universal disease. In the scientific and creative world\ngreat achievements receive next to no recompense and often only very\ntardy recognition. Great services and great merit have no price: a gift\nof money is no reward for the man who has experienced the inestimable\nsatisfaction of real achievement unless it is to prevent his falling\ninto penury.\n\nPublic opinion is quite unable to judge true merit, so high fees, huge\nsalaries, grants, and fabulous prices are reserved for those beings\nand those things to which fashion and popular clamour point at the\nmoment. An Italian old master which fifty years ago could be bought for\nfifty pounds or so will now fetch as many hundreds or even thousands.\nA mezzotint which a few years back cost a trifling sum can now be sold\nfor fifty times the amount. So it is with all _objets d\u2019art_, plate,\nor furniture. The price does not represent value nor demand, but the\npassing fancy of rich collectors who set the fashion of the day which\nthey and the dealers create among themselves without reference to\nartistic merit or good taste, or even popular appreciation. By the\nfabulous prices which nowadays are asked and given some estimate can\nbe made of the resources of those who have got these vast sums to\nplay with. So that even in the purchase of works of art, which need\nnot be classed as luxuries, for they can be in the highest sense\nremunerative, an ever-increasing amount of money is absolutely wasted\nin speculation and gambling.\n\nTo maintain the supremacy of money as a standard, as a test, as a\nreward, and as an incentive, we have a whole body of professions\nexclusively devoted to the making of it for themselves and for us\nwithout our having the exertion of working for it. And yet they\nand their army of clerks have to slave in their offices, lending,\nborrowing, broking, speculating, gambling, company-promoting,\nconstructing syndicates, creating trusts and combines, occupied with\nall the complicated and involved tricks of a trade which of all trades\nis the most tricky. They must not be too nice or too scrupulous. They\nmust suppress any inclination they might naturally have to be sensitive\nor particular. They are occupied largely in trying secretly to get the\nbetter of someone else or sometimes in manipulations of a dubious,\nor perhaps we ought to say mysterious nature, and their profession,\nwhich is avowedly and exclusively to make money at all costs, must of\nnecessity cast some blight on their lives and characters.\n\nAn increasingly large share of the wealth of the modern world falls\ninto the hands of stock-brokers, company-promoters, and other\nfinanciers, who are the high priests of money. Such is their power\nin controlling the money market, manipulating prices, and directing\ngambling operations on the stock exchange that they gradually come to\noccupy the place of government not only in the world of finance, but in\nthe industrial world and even to some extent in the world of politics.\nThe large body of ordinary investors and speculators are completely at\ntheir mercy, for only a very few can pretend to master or follow the\nintricacies of this highly elaborated system which the large financiers\nhave set up like a huge web to catch all contributions coming from\nthe investments and savings of the general public. But the general\nbusiness of private finance is the immediate concern of every man, and\nit is certainly the subject about which most people think they know\nsomething and many people know a good deal. Mystery pervades it. A man\nwill tell you his professional experiences, he will even confide to you\nhis domestic cares and his moral delinquencies, his religious views he\nis ready to lay bare before you. But on his financial affairs he will\nbe silent, and no one would dream of committing the indiscretion of\nquestioning him on so delicate and sacred a topic. Little or nothing is\nknown of how a man comes by his money. The industry or ability he has\ndisplayed in making his fortune is not what is admired, but his actual\nriches. It never occurs to people to inquire if or how a man has earned\nhis money, all they want to know is if he has actually got it.\n\nSetting aside self-indulgence, the chief pleasure of riches is said\nto be the enjoyment of the power they give. This power, which we are\ntrying to prove is only a power for harm, is associated with a sense of\nindividual superiority. Whether in charity, philanthropy, patronage,\nor investment producing further gain, the predominant experience for\nthe individual is personal triumph. It is not unjust to condemn the\nappreciation of power such as this as a low form of pleasure not only\nfor its pure selfishness, but because triumph in this connection\nimplies control of other individuals and power to gain advantage at\ntheir cost. It is a form of self-glorification and exultation which\nsimply means that to have wealth is to have the whip hand.\n\nNo one hopes for or expects complete repression of self, but in\nany corporate action for a common object, where there is a certain\nnecessary self-repression, the satisfaction to the individual is\nunquestionably higher and purer. At any rate, the idealisation of a\npersonal pre-eminence and ascendancy which is supported on the clay\nfeet of material possessions is idolatry of the most dangerous type.\n\nThere is, moreover, attached to the possession of wealth another\nsort of power which is even more dangerous from the public and\nnational point of view, but which is valued and appreciated even by\nthose who recognise that sheer hedonism defeats its own object. It\nis the pressure which capital can bring to bear on the machinery of\ngovernment. Private commercial interests can translate themselves into\npolitical influence both in particular constituencies and nationally\nthrough propaganda and the Press. They can foster the Imperialist\nspirit, which may mean the acquisition of more territory and the\nopening out of fresh markets for the investment of their capital.\nMeanwhile these enthusiastic Imperialists can pose as patriots,\nalthough the further filling of their pockets, and not the nation\u2019s\nhonour, is their objective. \u201cThe economic root of Imperialism,\u201d says\na modern economist,[13] \u201cis the desire of strong organised industrial\nand financial interests to secure and develop at the public expense and\nby the public force private markets for their surplus goods and their\nsurplus capital. War, militarism, and a spirited foreign policy are the\nnecessary means to this end.\u201d\n\nImperialism, which depends on rousing the pugnacious and combative\ninstincts latent in any people by exaggerating international\ndifferences and jealousies, is the national expression, under the guise\nof patriotism, of the desire for gain, territorial aggrandisement,\nprofit and enrichment. It represents everything, in fact, that\ncorresponds to the love of money-making in the individual. There is\nmoney even to be got out of arming your enemies, and there is no\nsqueamishness shown about investing money in this way.\n\nAlthough bribery can influence votes and a few constituencies can\nstill be bought, the necessity of being a man of means in order to be\nadmitted into active political life is happily a thing of the past.\nOn the other hand, the influence of the capitalist press, run as it\nis now, chiefly as a financial speculation, has in later days grown\nto be a grave national peril. The power here exercised is of a very\ndistinct and far-reaching description. The ambitions of capitalism and\nthe demands of shareholders are interpreted as the will of the people,\nand the worst instincts of aggressive arrogance are traded upon to\nproduce at the proper moment the scare or outburst of jingoism; at the\nsame time, \u201cpopular\u201d protests can be artificially engineered to stand\nagainst any movement which is likely to interfere with the ambitions of\nthe wealthy.\n\nMoney, therefore, does mean power, but power of a pernicious\ndescription, \u201cthat of brute force, the power of the bludgeon and the\nbayonet and of the bribed press, tongue, and pen.\u201d[14]\n\nHaving discussed worldliness, vanity, and self-indulgence as well as\ncommercial enterprise and speculation, we must get to close quarters\nwith an aspect of the problem which at first sight might seem to be\nan exception to our general condemnation of riches. What is the real\neffect of money spent by millionaires on philanthropic, scientific, or\nsocial experiments, and even educational endowments? Are we justified\nin hailing them as wholly and unquestionably beneficent?\n\nThat they should spend their money this way instead of on themselves\nmust be acknowledged at once as preferable and as a step in a better\ndirection. They gain immense applause from the world by their deeds,\nalthough, of course, no sacrifice whatever is involved. It is greatly\nto their credit that their intelligence should prompt them to attempt\nto benefit their fellows by a national and scientific exploration of\nnew ground which may eventually lead to some permanent benefit to\nthe human race. But while granting unreservedly the purity of their\nmotives, we shall by a more exact examination of the nature, scope, and\nconsequences of their action come to the following conclusions which\namount to objections:\n\n  (1) The choice of the particular experiment and the decision as to\n  whether it shall be embarked on at all rests with one individual\n  will. The source of action therefore being an uncertain quantity\n  which cannot be depended upon, this method of initiating works for\n  the public benefit is incapable of being organised, controlled, or\n  even relied upon. Indeed, millionaires are apt to be like spoilt\n  children unless they can have the satisfaction of complete control\n  over their exploits.\n\n  (2) The experiment selected may not be a wise one or in conformity\n  with the ideals of real betterment, even though for a time it may\n  receive the formal sanction of popular approval.\n\n  (3) Even if the experiment is admittedly useful and beneficial, it\n  has a strong tendency to encourage us, who constitute the community\n  as a whole, to think that as there are rich men who are sufficiently\n  enterprising and public-spirited to undertake these schemes and works\n  of general utility, it is unnecessary to organise corporate effort,\n  to establish them ourselves. Moreover, there is limit of productivity\n  in private enterprise.\n\n  (4) There are social schemes carefully conceived and elaborately\n  worked out which fail because the very security of certain\n  financial help and support has the effect of weakening initiative,\n  choking enterprise, and preventing the growth of the just pride and\n  self-reliance which individuals or bodies of individuals can only\n  develop in an independent struggle with the chances and changes of\n  their natural environment. Those who are supposed to benefit by the\n  scheme are in fact, oppressed by the shadow of the heavy arm of the\n  financial subsidy which dominates the whole situation. This may be\n  unreasonable, but it is quite natural, and it shows that money poured\n  out by one hand clogs the machinery of commercial and industrial\n  life, falls, so to speak, into clots and cannot spread itself\n  effectively as a lubricant into the many narrow and unseen corners of\n  the domestic, municipal, or rural life and activities of the people.\n\n  (5) Lastly, or it should have been said, primarily, the paramount\n  objection is that any good that may come from the particular scheme\n  or experiment is completely outweighed by the wrong that has been\n  perpetrated and the injury that has been inflicted, in countless\n  ways and in numberless directions, by the withdrawal from healthy\n  circulation and the accumulation of the very riches a part of which\n  is now being returned to the community in this doubtful form.\n\nIt would be ungenerous to deny that great care and forethought have\nbeen exercised by the millionaires who have determined to devote a\nlarge part of their wealth to some great religious, social, scientific,\nor artistic cause. Distinct benefits have accrued from their action.\nBut emphatically this does not mean that surplus wealth in individual\nhands can be used profitably. It means that human ingenuity,\nintelligence, and generous feeling can to some small extent mitigate in\none direction the constant and pressing evils which the accumulation of\nriches has caused and is causing in a vastly more extensive way.\n\nAnother example about which some doubt might be expressed is that of\na man struggling with his family on an income well below the limit,\nunable to develop his capacities and lead a decently useful life\nbecause of the constant pinch of want. Will not a gift of money which\nsecures him a competence without affluence, frees his energies for\nhigher work, and liberates him from the sordid and painful trials of\npoverty, will not such a gift be an unqualified advantage to him, and\nwill not, therefore, the giver of that money be an exception to the\naxiom that superfluous wealth cannot be well spent?\n\nThe gift and its acceptance are not the only determining factors in\nthe problem. If such a case is quite fairly stated, it shows that\nthe donor was not giving part of his superfluous wealth, taking the\ndefinition of superfluous which has already been given. He is giving\nsomething which, as it turns out, he personally has the capacity to\ngive in a profitable and fruitful manner, and which perhaps involves\na certain amount of sacrifice on his part. This money therefore\nconstitutes part of his competence and the gift is justifiable. But\nthis can only be admitted to a very restricted extent. He must use the\nutmost discretion not to give too much, otherwise he will overstep the\nmark of prudence. He may be encouraged to make this gift too frequently\nand less discriminatingly. In short, the number of such cases, where\nthe recipient is unmistakably benefited by an isolated gift of money,\nare very exceptional. If we are presupposing that our donor has money\nto play with and that his gift is made out of his superfluity, in this\ncase, as in that of the millionaire\u2019s experiment, his balance is on the\nwrong side, and more harm is being done by the retention of his surplus\nthan good is done by his small, spasmodic endeavours at charitable\nhelp and subsidy, even though now and then they may be perfectly well\ndirected.\n\nCapital entrusted to companies, corporations, municipalities, or in the\npossession of the State, need not, from the bare fact of its being\nheld conjointly by a number of people, be expended in a wise way or\non remunerative works. But there is a very much better chance of its\nbeing well spent in the long run, where there is practically unlimited\ncapacity in the joint efforts and united talents of a number of people,\nwhere there is disinterested control, and where that control is itself\nfar from supreme, being subject to the direct supervision of electors\nor of the general community. Remonstrance, appeal, or protest in this\ncase is always possible and effectual, but when an individual is the\nonly dispenser of the funds, he is the sole arbiter and judge, has\ncomplete and despotic power, and is not answerable to any superior\nauthority.\n\nFurther it cannot be seriously controverted that money, circulating in\nsmall sums in the hands of the mass of the people and devoted for the\nmost part to the purchase of the necessaries of life, is infinitely\nmore conducive to productive expenditure than money hoarded in large\nquantities to be administered by a small class for their own advantage.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VII\n\n  The deceptive process of the growth of riches--The relaxation\n    of effort--The love of ease--The power of convention--The\n    disadvantages of abundance--Surfeit--Difficulties in a rich man\u2019s\n    life--Waste of talent and capacity--England as a nation deeply\n    infected with the belief in money.\n\n\nThere is no more misleading and deceptive process than the gradual\ngrowth of riches. As a man\u2019s income increases, fresh obligations arise\nwhich have all the appearance of necessities, and in satisfying these a\nstill further crop springs up, demands his attention, and occupies more\nof his time. Little by little his standard changes; stage by stage,\nalmost imperceptibly, what he once regarded as a pure luxury becomes to\nhim an imperative necessity, and all unconscious, he spends his energy\nin the struggle to keep himself on a level with those among whom he\ndesires to be classed.\n\nThis is all very well with people whose means range above the limit,\nbut when we reach those who are on the border line, when we come to\nthe ranks of those whose existence is overshadowed by the constant and\nwearing anxiety as to whether their small incomes will go far enough,\nthere is an element of profound tragedy in their efforts to keep up\nappearances and to maintain an outward show of having money while\nnecessities, unseen but very pressing, are sacrificed--the service of\ndoctors and nurses in illness very likely denied, and all the small\naccessories that go to make life in the home pleasanter cut off. We\nare not aware of the large number of people thus situated, because\ntheir brave attempts to delude us are often successful. Those we know\nof have perhaps seen better days, being through no fault of their\nown thrown into penury, and they may be making pathetic and painful\nendeavours to keep up a show not, indeed, of affluence, but, anyhow,\nof respectability. As a writer[15] recently said with great truth:\n\u201cThere is little sympathy felt in the world of rhetoric for the silent\nsufferings of the genteel poor, yet there is no class that deserves a\nmore charitable commiseration.\u201d Their incomes may not be in themselves\nexcessively small, but the expense of conforming to the various little\nconventions to which they have been accustomed and the strain of\ntrying to keep up to a level slightly above their natural standard\neat away too much of their meagre store. Their gentility has softened\nthem, or their middle-class respectability prevents them from openly\nranking themselves among the poor. They know, too, that a change in\ncircumstances may deprive them of their former \u201cfriends.\u201d\n\nThe miseries of debt and bankruptcy may often be the outcome of an\nextravagant or profligate disposition, and need not be directly\nconnected with an excess or deficiency of means. But this solicitude\nto obey the rigid, conventional, and universally accepted measure for\nclassing the community according to their incomes, this horror of\ndropping in the scale, is responsible for much suffering and secret\ndespair, especially among women who have not been trained to work and\nfind themselves turned adrift on the world with a bare pittance.\n\nHigher in the scale, where there is an ample competence, the amount\nspent on appearances is frequently unreasonably excessive. The craving\nto associate with people who are richer and the fear of being thought\nbadly off, knowing that that is the equivalent of becoming socially a\npariah, produces a serious deficiency in the more important needs of\nlife, bitterness at the hardness of fate, stinting, useless saving, and\nsometimes eventual impoverishment and ruin.\n\nBut without having actually to face catastrophe, these people, simply\nby the injudicious and ill-managed administration of what they have\ngot, cannot live the full and decent lives their circumstances allow\nthem. This is true of a very large well-to-do class who cry out for\nmore money while they are spending too large a portion of what they\nhave in things which, for them, are unnecessary extravagances, but\nwhich they cling to as indispensable.\n\nThey are probably slackening their exertions in directions where they\nwould be all the better for a little extra stimulant in the shape of\ntrouble and effort. The constant easy satisfaction of their small\nrequirements has an enervating and weakening effect on their character,\nand there is neither charm nor adventure in their lives, for there\nis a point when satisfaction almost suffocates. Human nature is so\nconstituted that energy increases in proportion as it is used. The more\na man has to do, the more he wants to do, the more he can do. All kinds\nof insignificant little daily efforts keep the machine perpetually in\nmotion and in order, ready and alert for more work, and the spirit\nof disinclination is shut out. Relax those efforts, augment sensuous\ncomforts, and the machine will require starting and restarting,\nwith a continual extra spurt and additional exertion. The spirit of\ndisinclination insinuates itself, and indolence and apathy creep in.\nIt has been shown in the animal world that the spoilt and carefully\ncombed and washed pet is far less intelligent than the animal who has\nto look after himself, scratch his own fleas, and lick the dirt off his\npaws. We are under the impression that if we can get rid of the various\nirritations of daily life, which are our fleas, the time spent in\nscratching will be devoted to work of a higher order more in conformity\nwith our powers. But, given the time, somehow we do not manage to do\nthe extra work. The ambition of every man who acquires more money is\nnot to increase the field of personal activity, but, on the contrary,\nto restrict it. The natural tendency is towards ease rather than\naction. But as soon as men find out that ease begets indifference and\nindolence amounting to atrophy, and leading at last to a cessation of\nthe ordinary powers of enjoyment, and that action is a spur to the\nfaculties, making them more alive, more sensitive, and more susceptible\nto enthusiasm and appreciation, they will be on their guard against the\nsnares and wiles that beset the path of everyone who makes a special\nbusiness of smoothing away all the roughness in his domestic and social\nsurroundings.\n\nSpending money to save oneself trouble often produces trouble and worry\nof a different and very likely more vexatious kind, and at the same\ntime reduces by that much the good effects on the character produced by\na certain amount of bracing discipline and general tightening of the\nreins of conduct. Precisely in the same way as reducing hygienic or\nphysical exercise diminishes muscular efficiency. The recurring sense\nof accomplishment, however trivial and apparently insignificant that\naccomplishment may be, is invigorating to the nature and of enduring\nvalue. As Carlyle says in one of his letters to his future wife: \u201cLet\nus not despond in the life of honourable toil which lies before us. Do\nyou not think that when you on one side of our household shall have\nfaithfully gone through your housewife\u2019s duties, and I on the other\nshall have written my allotted pages, we shall meet over our frugal\nmeal with far happier and prouder hearts than thousands that are not\nblessed with any duty and whose agony is the bitterest of all, \u2018the\nagony of a too easy bed\u2019?\u201d\n\nIt is too much to ask that everyone should at once recognise what\nsort of expenditure will really be repaying and fill their lives\nwith genuine happiness and what is only empty, disappointing, and\nsuperfluous. But they are wrong when they suppose, as they so often\ndo, that they are suffering from want of money; and they are wrong\nin believing that more money will cure their discontent. The problem\nfor them is more than half solved once they come to realise that they\nare showing themselves to be incapable of the responsibility they\nalready possess, and that more money would only mean an increase of\nresponsibilities without any fresh acquisition of knowledge as to how\nto discharge them. All around them they observe an implicit obedience\nin small matters as well as great to what we may call the law of gain.\nThey join in obeying this law, which is nothing more than an artificial\nconvention of an ill-organised society.\n\nThe word convention has frequently been used, for it best describes the\nfixed authority for conduct and ethics which has been set up by the\ntacit consensus of public opinion, and which people accept and obey\nwithout inquiry. This force--for it amounts to a force--drives the\ngreat body of uneducated, under-educated, and ill-educated people, who\nnever stop to inquire or investigate. If a stick is put across a gap\nin a hedge and a flock of sheep is driven through, the first few sheep\nwill jump the stick, and then, even after the stick has been removed,\nthe rest of the flock will all jump when they come to the gap, and\nnot one will stop to see if there is any reason or necessity for the\njump. So it is with human beings, who find it easier to do as others\ndo rather than take the trouble to exercise any separate powers of\ndiscrimination which might convince them of the necessity of striking\nout a different line of their own. One line of conduct may suit a large\nnumber of individuals, but it is inconceivable that it should suit all,\nand there is a great revivification of the faculties in a man when he\nfirst realises that what may be right for others need not be right for\nhim.\n\nA lady once remarked, with a sigh, while arranging her drawing-room,\n\u201cOne must have a silver table,\u201d meaning that a small table on which\ncould be displayed various gimcracks of silver was a necessity of\nfashion in the disposition of drawing-room furniture. If she had\nsaid, \u201cI won\u2019t have a silver table,\u201d or, \u201cI\u2019m going to have twenty\nsilver tables,\u201d she would have been an exceptional and original being\nexercising an independent judgment at the risk of being thought\neccentric. But her only desire, and the only desire of the majority of\nher fellows, is to conform.\n\nAnother cause of mischief is that most people have their eyes turned\ntowards those who are better off than they are themselves, and they\ncontinually and instinctively make mental comparisons which serve\nonly to increase their longing. Seldom do they turn their eyes to\nthe millions who are less fortunate in the way of wealth and make\ncomparisons in that direction, else they might come to the unpleasant\nconclusion that they have themselves already more than enough, and\nperhaps too much. To live simply they foolishly suspect means something\ndisagreeable, unattractive, tedious, and arduous; whereas if they\nonly gave it a trial, they might find that the very simplification of\ntheir manner of living would set free their energies and attract them\nto new and absorbing interests, and a kind of happiness might become\ntheirs which far surpasses in intensity the greatest pleasures wealth\never bought, and which, instead of being transitory and ephemeral, is\nlasting.\n\n\u201cThe superior worth of simplicity of life,\u201d says J.\u00a0S. Mill, \u201cthe\nenervating and demoralising effect of the trammels and hypocrisies of\nartificial society, are ideas which have never been entirely absent\nfrom cultivated minds since Rousseau wrote; and they will in time\nproduce their effect, though at present needing to be asserted as much\nas ever, and to be asserted by deeds, for words on this subject have\nnearly exhausted their power.\u201d\n\nAsceticism, pedantry, intentional unconventionality, and the affected\n\u201csimple life\u201d have all served to damage the force of the arguments in\nfavour of plain living; and it is often supposed that it is jealousy\nof the rich that causes the occasional outbursts against luxury. But\nanyone who can watch for a moment and analyse social phenomena will\nvery soon come to the conclusion that there is nothing in the lives\nof the rich of which anyone need be envious. Millionaires themselves\nare the first to admit that their money brings them no happiness. The\nconfession has been made by one of them that the very fact of being\nable without the least difficulty to satisfy his smallest or his\nlargest fancies was in itself the very antithesis of pleasure. He had\nlearnt that the continuous craving to satisfy human wants, far from\nbeing a misfortune, constituted an intrinsic element in the production\nof happiness. The hope perhaps long deferred, that some particular want\nmight eventually be satisfied was a treasure he had for ever lost the\npower to appreciate. It is delay, and not immediate satisfaction, that\nenhances the value of acquisition. \u201cMillionaires who laugh are rare,\u201d\nsays Andrew Carnegie.\n\nSuperabundance, surfeit, the cloying sweetness of excess, the\nconsequent lack of restraint and reserve must encourage the development\nof moral sickness, nausea, and intellectual inertia. In all\nprofessions, arts, trades, and crafts the fixing of a limit within\nwhich to operate is the secret of the attainment of a high quality\nof work because it is the recognition of human limitations. The same\nprinciple holds good for every human being in the administration of his\nworldly possessions and the management of his own life. Economy should\nbe the key-note rather than profusion, strength lies in reserve rather\nthan in excess.\n\nWe are only saying to a man who is sitting before a table laden with a\nvast quantity of different dishes heaped with all kinds of appetising\nfoods: \u201cBeing an ordinary mortal your digestion will not stand more\nthan a limited quantity of that food. If you continually eat more than\nwhat is good for you, you will be ill. A certain amount of food will\nnourish you, a larger amount will simply make you sick. We do not say\nyour food is too good, nastier food would be better for you, nor do we\nsay that you must never have a feast: but we assure you that if you\nhabitually gorge the surfeit will injure your digestive powers, will\ndestroy your own enjoyment of the meal, and at the same time, by this\nthoughtless waste, you are depriving many who have an insufficient\nquantity of what is rightfully theirs. In any case, you can never\nmanage to eat all these dishes by yourself. What good are they to you?\nTo propose that you should be relieved of some of your superfluity is\nthe suggestion of a friend and not of an enemy. Just reflect as you\nsee this huge meal spread before you that the great majority of your\nfellow-men have not more than one meagre and inadequate dish.\u201d He would\nprobably reply: \u201cI am the best judge of what is good for me. The food\nis mine. If I do not eat it I am not going to allow anyone to deprive\nme of it, but I can always give part of it away if and when I feel\ninclined\u201d--and he will continue with a dull gaze of satiated weariness\nto regard the piles of food before him.\n\nThis is a fair metaphor, because we have all been forced to learn\nthe precise nature of our limitations with regard to the consumption\nof food. Is it unreasonable to hope that in time we may become as\nconscious of our limitations in the consumption of other materials no\nless important?\n\nIf the rich protest that they have a perfect right to amass what\nfortune they like, and that it is tyranny and an infringement of their\nliberty to deny them this right, they can be told plainly that their\nliberty will only be respected if they in their turn will respect\nthe liberty of others, which cannot be effectually secured except by\nrestraining license. As it is, they are manifestly depriving others\nof their liberty and elementary rights by the outrageous license they\nnow allow themselves. No one cries out louder than a rich man if by any\nchance he loses part of his fortune. The reduction of his income from\nfifty to thirty, or from twenty to ten thousand a year is a catastrophe\nfor which he unceasingly asks the sympathy and commiseration of his\nfriends. The dismissal of the second footman is a hardship which\nrequires courage to face, the sale of a corner of the estate is the\nsign of ruin! He stands in striking contrast to those who, having to\nface genuine poverty, often show fortitude and pluck in the face of\nbitter misfortunes.\n\nBut as an excuse for the rich man it ought frankly to be acknowledged\nthat his life is made extremely complex and difficult. If this much\nalone were apparent to him he might pause in his eager chase. A man\nwith work, with a profession or trade, a woman with a profession or\nwith house and parental duties, not only have their time occupied, but\nhave their thoughts filled and have fewer alternatives of conduct,\nwhile at the same time they are not freed from the conflicting\nobligations which make every life a serious problem. But the rich man\nhas before him unlimited alternatives without any constraint. He\nhas to invent and conceive for himself his sphere of usefulness and\nselect the particular form of occupation he thinks will suit him. He\nsuffers from misgivings in embarking on one form of activity, that he\nmight have done better to choose another. If he is not careful, idle\nbusiness, the inevitable outcome of his estates, his establishments,\nhis social duties, and other appurtenances of his elaborate entourage\nwill take up the greater part of his time and absorb all his thoughts.\nHowever conscientiously he may desire to encourage works of utility\nand throw himself into profitable pursuits, he must find himself\nembarrassed not only with his load of wealth, but with the limitless\nhorizon before him, the entire absence of any disciplinary compulsion,\nand the withdrawal of the restraints which shield the course of a\nsimpler life. Not only is the volume of water larger, but there is no\nriver bed. The shifting action of the stream, therefore, is far more\nlikely to be devastating than fertilising.\n\nWaste and loss will everywhere be found in money\u2019s trail. Talents\nwhich under free, unhampered conditions might have grown and blossomed\nhave been withered under this golden blight. Many men and women might\nhave done valuable work and even attained great achievements had\nthey been compelled to work for a living, to toil, to labour, and to\nstrive instead of being choked with the glut of riches. With a very\nfew exceptions, men in the creative arts and in science have not been\nmen who by any standard could be described as rich. The greatest\ntreasures the world possesses in painting, music, literature, poetry,\nand architecture are gifts from men who were never burdened with\ngreat possessions. No genius, no creative spirit, no hungry inquirer,\nno philosopher can exist in the hot-house atmosphere and cramping\nconditions which surround riches.\n\nOn the other hand, extreme poverty has very much the same effect,\nkilling the too sensitive and fragile spirit in its exertions to be\nfree, wasting what might be a useful and perhaps remarkable life,\nand forcing men of high powers to stoop to the prostitution of their\ntalents in order to gain enough for their very subsistence. But in\nthe latter case, anyhow, the fight is a great and vigorous combat\nfor existence which a man must take up or perish, and which, if\nhe succeeds, equips him with strengthened faculties and a richer\nexperience for the further stages on his life\u2019s journey. Poverty is\nmerciless and cruel, but it cannot be denied that it is a far better\nteacher than riches. The contest with money has no stimulating\neffects, it weakens and paralyses a man\u2019s moral and intellectual fibre,\nstunts and smothers his finer ambitions, and if he has the unusual\nstrength of character to free himself, it can only be done by casting\nfrom him deliberately and finally his self-imposed burden.\n\nArt, literature, and music are all suffering severely from the\nfinancial taint known as commercialism, which tends to popularise\nsecond-rate work, degrade the public taste, and steepen the already\nstiff path chosen by those who are aiming at a high standard of\nworkmanship rather than popular recognition. \u201cWill it pay?\u201d is a\ncolloquialism as general in use as remarks about the weather.\n\nWhen compared with other nations, it would seem that we in England\nare more deeply infected with this belief in money than they are\nelsewhere. Our very prosperity, generally described in figures of\nmaterial expansion, may account for this. The more money there is in\ncirculation, the more chance there is for larger quantities of it to\nget lodged in a single pocket, the keener becomes the competition to\nacquire it, the stronger is the power, the influence, and the example\nof rich men.\n\nAmerica cannot be very far behind, where comment is now being made\non cases of insanity and the suicidal mania among the children and\ndescendants of very rich people, brought about by the mental and\nnervous strain and exhaustion to which multi-millionaires are subjected\nin their mad race for wealth. It produces in the children what they\ncall over there \u201cthe money twist\u201d in the brain. Nevertheless, in\nhis survey of English life the American writer already quoted says,\n\u201cThe struggle to get it (money) is unparalleled anywhere else in the\nworld.\u201d[16] And this was also the verdict of one who wrote a few years\nago with an intimate knowledge of Continental life:\n\n  \u201cThere is no nation in the world that has so acute a sense of the\n  value, almost the necessity of wealth for human intercourse as the\n  English nation.... In England they silently accept the maxim, \u2018a\n  large income is a necessary of life,\u2019 and they class each other\n  according to the scale of their establishments, looking up with\n  unfeigned reverence to those who have many servants, many horses,\n  and gigantic houses, where great hospitality is dispensed.\u201d[17]\n\nIn the economic structure, just as in an architectural structure, what\nshould be aimed at is a proper relation between weights and supports.\nOne section of our social building is too heavily weighted and there\nis an unnecessary waste of material in supplying the adequate supports\nand buttresses to meet the stress, which is all on the one side. It is\nthis want of balance and disproportionate pressure which tends very\nmaterially to imperil the whole edifice.\n\nDoes it amount to a national danger? and if so, how can it be warded\noff? are questions that may well be asked. But this would carry us too\nfar and involve a discussion as to the extent to which legislation or\ntaxation or an improved system of education might shield us from any\nrisks. It lies outside the scope of our present argument, which must\nbe confined to demonstrating the existence and universal nature of the\npassion, its unjustifiable claims and evil consequences.\n\nHow to put a stop to the waste caused by an unproductive surplus\ngetting piled up in the hands of the rich is nevertheless admitted by\nmodern economists to be a matter that urgently needs solution. \u201cThe\nprincipal problem of modern industrial civilisation,\u201d says Mr. J.\u00a0A.\nHobson, \u201cconsists in devising measures to secure that the whole of\nthe industrial surplus shall be economically applied to the purposes\nof industrial and social progress instead of passing in the shape of\nunearned increment to the owners of the factors of production whose\nactivities are depressed, not stimulated by such payments.\u201d[18]\n\n\n\n\nChapter VIII\n\n  The problem of riches--Necessity for scientific investigation\n    into the lives of the rich--Interdependence of riches and\n    poverty--Analysis of expenditure on houses, servants, clothes,\n    food, amusements--Impressions of a poor crowd and a rich\n    crowd--Tragedies.\n\n\nOn all sides it is admitted that there is a problem of Poverty, but\nit has never yet been suggested that just in the same way there is a\nproblem of Riches. Not the problem of how to become rich and how to\ninvest money and make more money, that is the very obsession which\nought to be dispelled, but the important question of how the rich\nspend their money, how they live, to what objects they devote their\nriches, and whether the vast accumulations are being disposed of to\nthe greatest advantage. The connection between riches and poverty is\ncapable of proof, that is to say, the maladministration of wealth by\nindividuals can be shown to be closely linked to the disorganisation\nof labour which creates such evils as sweating and unemployment. But\nbefore further advance can be made towards any possible solution there\nmust be a dissection and analysis of the lives of the rich as well as\nof the poor, so that some knowledge may be acquired of both sides of\nthe medal which will demonstrate their interdependence.\n\nWe are allowed to extract every conceivable detail of the most intimate\nnature from the poor householder, but any sort of inquiry as to how the\nrich live is regarded as an impertinence. Even the suggestion that they\nshould make a return of all their income, as a man of moderate means\nmust do for income tax purposes, is scouted as inquisitorial.\n\nWe inquire into the lives of the poor in order to ascertain the actual\nfacts, so that with a full knowledge of the evil we may set to work\nscientifically to improve their condition. But this is really only half\nthe problem. No investigation can be complete unless an equally careful\nand exhaustive inquiry is made into the way the rich live. It cannot\nbe regarded as an inquisitive prying into personal and private habits,\nfor when the expenditure is on such a scale as to have extensive\neconomic consequences it ceases to be of a private nature and ought to\nbe investigated on public grounds. Not only might the inquiry be made\nwith a view to the improvement of their own way of living--though they\nwould refuse to admit there was any room for improvement--but by this\nmeans more light would also be thrown on the problem of poverty.\n\nIt is the question of distribution that is admittedly the insoluble\ndifficulty, and yet we set to work to examine the barren patches and\nleave out of account the land that is soured by over-fertilisation. To\naccomplish a successful work of irrigation attention must not only be\nturned to the dry and arid land, but to the marshy, low-lying parts\nthat have got more of the water than they need and require draining,\notherwise an even flow over the whole can never be engineered and the\nfull capacity of the soil cannot be given a fair chance.\n\nIt is absurd to suppose that any section of the community, whatever\npretensions they may have, can live as they like without affecting the\nlives and wellbeing of their fellow-men. Riches may set up a fence,\nmake those inside it believe that they are living in a world apart\nand blind them to what is going on outside, but riches have no power\nto sever the moral and spiritual, as well as the invisible economic\nties which bind every individual from his birth to his death with the\nwhole of the rest of humanity. This attitude of aloofness which the\nrich adopt makes it true to say of them that \u201cthey are outcasts and\nare cut off from natural and human relationship with the great mass\nof mankind.\u201d[19] The people who consider the richness of the rich\nhas nothing to do with the poverty of the poor are in the habit of\nasserting that even if all incomes large and small were added together\nthere would not be enough \u201cto go round.\u201d They fail to remember that\nmoney which is invested without any return, or only getting a very low\nreturn, has not the same value and cannot go as far as the same sum\nbringing in a high return from a remunerative investment.\n\nThe attacks of a vaguely disparaging nature made against the rich\nare often beside the mark from the lack of accurate knowledge of\ntheir position, their habits, and their methods. But ought not the\nexpenditure of these accumulated masses of money to be subjected to\nsome scientific scrutiny? Can another \u201cPersonal Service Association\u201d\nbe established among the poor for visiting the rich? It is just as\nnecessary. Can a supplement be compiled to Mr. Charles Booth\u2019s _Life\nand Labour of the People_, Mr. Rowntree\u2019s _Poverty: a Study of Town\nLife_?\n\nWhat would be the fate of an investigator who dared to pursue his\ninquiries at houses in Mayfair or Belgravia? In response to the bell\nthe massive front door would slowly open, and out of the darkness of\nthe hall would emerge the solemn figure of an overfed butler flanked\nby two giants with powdered hair. The investigator, note-book in hand,\nif he had the courage to proceed, would ask his string of queries as\nto how many rooms the house contained, how many people, the cost of\nliving, the health of the children, the employment of the man, etc.\netc. But he would not get very far before the incensed and outraged\ndignity of his audience would take an active form and he would find\nhimself hurled down the steps into the street.\n\nNevertheless, such a book would be of enormous use. It would serve to\nestablish a concrete basis from which useful economic and sociological\ndeductions might be made, however disagreeable some of the disclosures\nmight be incidentally. It would not be an invitation to the masses\nto spoil and rob the rich any more than the books on Poverty are an\ninvitation to the rich to largess more of their wealth among the poor.\nIndeed, there is no question of spoliation, it is all a matter of\nadjustment. The blame cast on the rich would no doubt be heavy because\nthey have the power of initiative, education, and free choice to act\ndifferently, while the poor are merely the slaves of the overwhelming\nforce of circumstances and the victims of a system which they have\nneither the intelligence to understand nor the power to resist.\n\nThe following authentic information, based on actual facts and not\nhearsay, will give some small idea of what this suggested investigation\nmight produce. Extracts are also given from reports on the state of the\npoor for the sake of completeness rather than contrast.\n\nFor instance, we read a brief description of the household of a man of\n\u201cno occupation\u201d:\n\n  \u201cMarried. Two rooms; two children; parish relief; ill, incapable.\n  Two little girls, one consumptive. The rooms are miserable, badly\n  ventilated and damp. This house shares one closet with six other\n  houses, and one water tap with three others.\u201d\n\nOr of a \u201cregular loafer\u201d:\n\n  \u201cMarried. Two rooms; one child. Wife sews. House very dark on\n  account of high buildings opposite. Kept tidy and clean. This house\n  shares one closet with two other houses, and one water tap with six\n  others.\u201d[20]\n\nSurely we ought to know the description, though it cannot be so brief,\nof the household of another man of \u201cno occupation\u201d:\n\n  \u201cMarried. Two children. Four houses. London house, ---- Street, W.\n  Sixty-two rooms; one of the country houses considerably larger.\n  Thirty-six indoor servants:\n\n    1 house steward.\n    2 grooms of the chamber.\n    1 valet.\n    2 under butlers.\n    3 footmen.\n    2 steward\u2019s room footmen.\n    1 gate porter.\n    1 hall porter.\n    1 usher of the servants\u2019 hall.\n    2 odd men.\n    1 house carpenter.\n    1 chef.\n    1 kitchen porter.\n    4 kitchen and scullery maids.\n    2 still-room maids.\n    6 housemaids.\n    1 linen maid.\n    1 lady\u2019s maid.\n    1 housekeeper.\n    2 nurses.\n\n  Owns about 20,000 acres of land. (A larger staff of servants\n  than this could be quoted. In one country house as many as ten\n  housemaids are kept.)\u201d\n\nOr let us take the inhabitants of a six-roomed house:\n\n  \u201cGround floor, in the front room lives a widow who does repairing\n  and is very poor. The back room is occupied by two prostitutes. On\n  the first floor front room live man and wife with seven children.\n  He loafs and she washes. They are very dirty and miserably poor. At\n  the back live a man and woman with two children. He is consumptive\n  and does nothing in particular. She goes out begging with the\n  children. On the top floor in two rooms are man and wife with eight\n  children. He spends his time about the public-houses. She does\n  anything she can. The eldest boy, a decent lad, is at a chemist\u2019s\n  shop, but he is consumptive. Six rooms; twenty-six people.\u201d[21]\n\nThe occupation of twenty-six of the people who live in another house\ncontaining seventy-two rooms is as follows:\n\n  Butler (wages \u00a3120),[22] valet, groom of the chambers, under\n  butler, three footmen, one steward\u2019s room footman, usher of the\n  servants\u2019 hall, odd man, chef (wages \u00a3150),[22] kitchen porter,\n  four kitchen and scullery maids, five housemaids, two still-room\n  maids, one lady\u2019s maid, one needlewoman, one housekeeper.\n\nThis staff ministers to the wants of a man, his wife, and three\nchildren.\n\nIn the country, at a stone\u2019s throw from one another, we find a man, a\nfarm labourer, living with his wife and six children in a four-roomed\ncottage on 14s. a week, and another man, without any permanent\nemployment, living with his wife and a staff of twenty-three indoor\nservants in a house containing over sixty rooms, with the choice of two\nother large country houses and a London house, and owning over 50,000\nacres of land, a great deal of which is kept for shooting.\n\nIn another part of the country the medical officer of the county\nreports: \u201cIn a house consisting of living-room, bedroom, and a small\nscullery live father, mother, three sons, also three children under\nten and two men lodgers. Seven sleep in the bedroom, which has a low\nceiling and has been divided, and five sleep in the living-room; the\nonly window of the latter room will not open, and the window of the\ndivided upstairs room is near the floor level.\u201d\n\nThe landlord and lord of the manor of this district lives with his\nwife and family in a house containing over one hundred rooms, and is\nattended by a staff of forty-four indoor servants. He has the choice of\nthree other country residences and a town house, and owns over 186,000\nacres.\n\nWe find some women occupied in the following way:\n\n  \u201cMrs. B. and her daughter support themselves on shirt work. The\n  mother is a shirt finisher, the daughter a machinist. They work\n  seven or eight hours a day--the daughter\u2019s book shows an average of\n  11s. 3\u00bed. over four weeks--the mother\u2019s 9s. 1d. over nine weeks.\n  When the mother earns 10s. it means working from 5:30 a.m. till 10\n  or 11 p.m. She gets 2d. per dozen for finishing, i.e. 72 buttons\n  and 48 bars.\u201d[23]\n\nOr:\n\n  \u201cMrs. C. is always busy mending, making, washing, or baking, and\n  certainly makes the best of all that comes in her way. She states\n  that she can never afford money for recreation or for a holiday out\n  of the town.\u201d[24]\n\nWhile others are occupied as follows:\n\n  Early cup of tea, one hour for dressing, late breakfast, writing\n  notes, two hours shopping, half an hour for dressing, one hour for\n  luncheon (three courses), drive, pay or receive calls, quarter of\n  an hour for dressing, one and a half hour for tea and gossip, an\n  hour\u2019s rest, one hour for dressing, one and a half hour for dinner\n  (six courses); theatre, ball, or bridge; supper, bed.\n\nWe might have hit upon the day in the week on which an hour or so was\ndevoted to an \u201cintellectual\u201d lecture or a committee meeting for some\ncharity.\n\nThe annual average estimates of clothing are instructive:\n\n          FEMALE                     _s._  _d._\n\n    Boots                             9     0\n    Dress                             8     0\n    Blouse                            2     0\n    Aprons                            2     0\n    Stockings                         1     6\n    Underclothing                     2    10\n    Stays                             2     6\n    Hats                              1     6\n    Jacket and shawl                  2     6\n                                     --------\n                                     31    10\n\nTo balance this we find:\n\n          FEMALE                         \u00a3\n\n    Boots and shoes                     30\n    Dresses, evening and day           170\n    Blouses                             25\n    Aprons                               0\n    Underclothing                      120\n    Hats                                45\n    Cloaks and furs                     65\n    Gloves                              20\n    Veils, boas, scarves, etc           70\n                                     -----\n                                      \u00a3545\n\nA fair average instance has been taken. Double this amount is quite\ncommon. The case might be given of a woman who in 1908 spent in gowns,\ncoats, and cloaks alone \u00a32090 in two months. On the other hand a woman\nof the same class, a peer\u2019s daughter, living in the top floor of ----\nRoad at 5s. a week rent has to adjust her dress budget to fit in with\nan income of \u00a360 a year.\n\n          MALE:                                         _s._   _d._\n\n    Boots                                               11      0\n    Socks                                                3      0\n    Coat and waistcoat (second-hand)                     5      6\n    Trousers                                             7      6\n    Overcoat (second-hand, 15s., lasts three years)      5      0\n    Shirts                                               4      0\n    Cap and scarf                                        1      3[25]\n                                                       ----------\n                                                        37      3\n\n          ANOTHER MALE:                                 \u00a3   _s._   _d._\n\n    Boots and shoes                                    35    0      0\n    Suits (day, evening, shooting, and flannels)       90    0      0\n    Socks, underclothing, gloves, handkerchiefs,\n        white waistcoats, etc.                         86    0      0\n    Hats and caps                                      10   10      0\n    Overcoats                                          35    0      0\n                                                      ---------------\n                                                      \u00a3256  10      0\n\nA normal case has been purposely chosen. The budget might have been\ngiven of a man who has ten evening suits, spends \u00a310 a month on gloves\nand ties, and pays 25s. apiece for his pocket-handkerchiefs.\n\nBefore leaving the subject of clothes, one or two extracts may be\nquoted concerning those who help to make them:\n\n  \u201cMrs. ---- gets 2s. 6d. a dozen for making coats and 2s. 3d. a\n  dozen for reefers, and says ten years ago she got 5s. a dozen;\n  eighteen years ago 1s., 1s. 6d., and 2s. a coat; and in her early\n  days, when most of the work was done by hand, 5s. a coat.\u201d\n\n  \u201cMrs. K. makes artificial flowers when she can get work. When\n  visited, she was working at sprays with twenty-four small flowers,\n  leaves, and stem, at 1\u00bdd. per spray.\u201d\n\n  \u201cMiss B. makes elaborate net blouses with tucks and insertion for\n  1s. to 1s. 4d. each. The wholesale price for these blouses is 8s.\n  11d., and the retail price 12s. to 15s.\u201d\n\n  \u201cA maker of pyjamas was paid 11s. 3d. for entirely making a dozen\n  suits, but gave up the work and took to shirt-making, because the\n  employer found someone who would do it for 6s. 3d.\u201d[26]\n\nFood offers, perhaps, the most striking study. In making this analysis\nit would almost seem necessary to remember that the cubic capacity\nof the adult human stomach does not vary to any appreciable extent,\nand, on the whole, appetite is liable to be keener with those who\nendure physical toil than with those who do nothing. Again, no extreme\ninstances, one way or the other, will be given.\n\nMan, wife, and child for five weeks:[27]\n\n                                        _s._   _d._\n    Meat and liver                       8      5\n    Potatoes and vegetables              2      3\u00bd\n    Fish                                 0      9\n    Bacon, eggs, and cheese              3      6\u00bc\n    Suet                                 1      0\n    Butter and dripping                  2      9\n    Bread                                8      9\u00bc\n    Flour                                4      1\u00bd\n    Rice                                 0      6\n    Fruit, jam, and sugar                8      4\u00bc\n    Milk                                 3      2\n    Tea and coffee                       3      6\n    Pepper and salt                      0      2\u00bd\n                                   ---------------\n                                   \u00a32    7      4\u00bc\n    Average for one week                 9      5\u00bd\n\nOr man, wife, two boys, and a girl:\n\n                                    \u00a3   _s._   _d._\n    Food and drink for three weeks  2    0      7\u00bc\n    Average for one week            0   13      6\u00bd\n\nThe study of the diet of this family reveals a deficiency of 25% in the\nprotein and 7% in fuel value.[28]\n\nHousehold books for one week--seven in family, nineteen servants:\n\n                                        \u00a3\n    Butcher                            16[29]\n    Baker                               5\n    Poulterer                          12\n    Dairy                               9\n    Fruit, flowers, vegetables         16\n    Fishmonger                          9\n    Grocer                              5\n                                      ---\n                                      \u00a372\n\n(Two dinner parties were given during the week.)\n\nThe household of an \u201cunemployed man,\u201d living in ---- Square, S.W., four\nin family and fourteen servants:\n\n                                      \u00a3   _s._  _d._\n    Butcher                          15    2     7\n    Greengrocer                      10   10     0\n    Ice merchant                      1   18     0\n    Fishmonger                        7   10     0\n    Grocer                            5    5     0\n    Milkman                           4   10     0\n    Poulterer                        12    0     0\n    Baker                             3   17     0\n                                    --------------\n                                    \u00a360   12     7\n\nIn addition, three hundred eggs were sent up from the country, as well\nas fruit, vegetables, and a little poultry. One or two guests were\nentertained at luncheon, but the family dined out one night of the\nweek.\n\nThe laundry bill in this house averages \u00a338 a month.\n\nThe cost of coal in one household for the year, \u00a3800.\n\nOther examples:\n\nHousehold books: four in family, twelve servants--one week, \u00a349.\n\nHousehold books: five in family, fourteen servants--one week, \u00a363.\n\nA single meal:\n\n    Bread                          1d.\n    Cheese                         1d.\n    \u00bc lb. of meat                  3d.\n    Potatoes and onions            2d.\n    Jam                            1d.\n    \u00bd pint of beer                 2d.\n                                   ---\n                                   10d.\n\nAnother meal:\n\n                            Cantaloup Glac\u00e9.\n                             Tortue Claire.\n                             Bisque Nantua.\n                      Truites Saumon\u00e9es Michigan.\n                     Mousse de Jambon \u00e0 l\u2019Escurial.\n                       Selle d\u2019Agneau Montefiore.\n                       Poularde Strasbourgeoise.\n                            Salade Indienne.\n                      Cailles flanqu\u00e9s d\u2019Ortolans.\n                    Asperges Verts. Sauce Mousseuse.\n                          P\u00eaches Framboisines.\n                              Friandises.\n                         Fanchonettes Suisses.\n               Hock, Claret, Port, Coffee, and Liqueurs.\n\nThis dinner for twenty people cost \u00a360, or \u00a33 a head, without wine.\n\nIf the figures in these instances, with regard to food expenditure,\nreally represented quantities consumed, the dangers from overfeeding\nin the one set of cases would far exceed the dangers from underfeeding\nin the other. The cheerful bell that announces the servants\u2019 midday\nmeal no doubt heralds the consumption of a vast amount of food; but it\nis a debatable point whether sheer waste does not account for almost\nas much. Quarts of cream are emptied down the sink, joints and birds\nonly half eaten are thrown away, and the pig-tub receives a rich enough\nallowance of vegetables, fruit, and cakes to satisfy the appetite of a\nlarge family. In fact, in one house, where the household books averaged\n\u00a363 a week, the matter was looked into, and a reduction was made to \u00a334\nwithout any diminution in the number of servants.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nDancing is a form of amusement appreciated by all classes.\n\nAt ---- Hall, Fulham, and many other similar places the tickets for the\nSaturday night dance cost 9d. each. If two hundred people are present,\nthe cost would be \u00a37 10s.; allowing 3d. a head for refreshments (\u00a32\n10s.), the total amount will be \u00a310.\n\nAt ---- Hotel, S.W., a ball was given lately for two hundred people,\ncosting \u00a31237.\n\nGranting that the amount of enjoyment derived from these two\nentertainments is equal, though in all probability there would be\nmore genuine and honest pleasure in the former than in the latter,\nthe two sums simply represent the different standards of living. That\nten or even twenty times as much may be spent to give people who are\naccustomed to a higher scale of living the same amount of pleasure is\nperhaps intelligible, but it seems to require a sum which amounts to\none hundred and twenty-three times as much.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTwo bachelors take a night\u2019s lodging.\n\nThe one, a working man, goes to ---- House, S.E.\n\n  \u201cWorking Men\u2019s Hotel, accommodation for 800 beds. 6d. per night.\n\n  Tea, coffee, and cocoa always ready, \u00bdd. per small cup, 1d. per\n  large cup.\n\n  Hot soup or porridge, 1d. and 1\u00bdd. per basin.\n\n  Cut from the joint and two vegetables, 5d. on week-days only; on\n  Sundays, 6d.\n\n  Beefsteak pudding and two vegetables, 4\u00bdd.\u201d\n\nHis night\u2019s stay, with supper and breakfast, would cost rather over one\nshilling.\n\nThe other will go to ---- Hotel, S.W. (for men who do not work).\n\n                                       \u00a3   _s._   _d._\n    Room                               0   12      0\n    Dinner, with bottle of claret      1    7      0\n    Coffee, liqueur, whisky-and-soda   0    5      0\n    Breakfast                          0    6      0\n    Tips                               0   10      0\n                                      --------------\n                                       \u00a33   0      0\n\n(There are suites of rooms in these hotels for three to nine guineas a\nday, which are all occupied during the season.)\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIf, instead of these few isolated instances of the cost of living,\nclothes, and entertainment, a systematically compiled list could be\nfurnished tabulating some hundreds of cases, it would give a much more\ncomplete idea of the habits and customs of this stratum of society. And\nit would show that the cases here quoted are fair examples of average\nnormal expenditure.\n\nIn both the extremes of excess, at the top and at the bottom, there are\nhopeless tragedies.\n\n  (_a_) Mrs. L., a married daughter of the deceased, said the old\n  couple occupied a back room for which they paid 1s. 6d. a week.\n\n  _The Coroner._ Have the old people enough to live on?\n\n  _Witness._ Father could not work, and mother sold matches and laces\n  to keep things going as best she could, but, of course, she could\n  not earn more than about 3s. a week.\n\n  _The Coroner._ Then she cannot have had enough to eat, as after\n  paying rent this old couple have only had 1s. 6d. a week to live\n  on, a most awful thing to contemplate.\n\n  _Witness._ No, I don\u2019t think she did have enough to eat, and she\n  had been very bad in health also. Poor old mother used to work very\n  hard for years at the wash-tub, but her strength failed her at the\n  last; but she battled on to keep dad.\n\n  The Medical Officer said death was primarily due to pneumonia and\n  pleurisy.\n\n  _The Coroner._ Is it a case of want?\n\n  _Witness._ Yes.\n\n  _The Coroner._ Can I class it in my report as a death from\n  starvation?\n\n  _Witness._ Yes.\n\n  _The Coroner._ It is a pitiful story and one that is getting all\n  too frequent.\n\n  The jury returned a verdict of \u201cDeath from starvation.\u201d\n\n  (_b_) xxx,000 a year and money accumulating. At first the enjoyment\n  of the pleasures which money can give. The money continued to\n  accumulate. Dawning realisation that it did not mean happiness,\n  that it did not mean even health, and that affection and gratitude\n  cannot be bought. The money still accumulating. All wants,\n  rational and irrational, satisfied: the starting of peculiar\n  fads, capricious gifts, fantastic charities. The money still\n  accumulating. Ennui, disillusionment, gradual exhaustion and\n  depression. Recourse had to some novel form of excitement; refuge\n  taken in stimulants. The money still accumulating, but slowly\n  choking. Despair, complete demoralisation, and at last welcome\n  death. The money still accumulating, to drag down some heir and\n  claim another victim.\n\nLet us see how the two sorts of crowds have impressed two writers.\n\n  \u201cWhat struck every observant delegate was the utter blankness of\n  the faces that looked up at us from the pavement or down on us\n  from the windows, with scarcely enough capacity for human interest\n  to wonder who we were and what we wanted. Never a sign of humour.\n  Stooped shoulders, hollow chests, ash-coloured faces, lightless\n  eyes, and, ghastliest of all, mouths with bloodless gums and only\n  here and there a useful tooth. Literally hundreds of women between\n  seventeen and seventy crowded close to our motor-cars that day, and\n  the marks were on them all.\u201d[30]\n\nAnd:\n\n  \u201cYours is the three hundredth carriage in this row that blocks the\n  road for half a mile. In the two hundred and ninety-nine that came\n  before the four hundred that come after you are sitting, too, with\n  your face before you unseeing eyes. Resented while you gathered\n  being; brought into the world with the most distinguished skill;\n  remembered by your mother when the whim came to her; taught to\n  believe that life consists in caring for your clean, well-nourished\n  body and your manner that nothing usual can disturb; taught to\n  regard Society as the little ring of men and women that you see,\n  and to feel your business is to know the next thing that you want\n  and get it given you; you have never had a chance. Sitting there\n  in your seven hundred carriages you are blind--in heart and soul\n  and voice and walk--the blindest creatures in the world ... and you\n  are charming to us who, like your footman, cannot see the label\n  \u2018Blind.\u2019 The cut of your gown is perfect, the dressing of your hair\n  the latest, the trimming of your hat later still; your tricks of\n  speech the very thing; you droop your eyelids to the life, you have\n  not too much powder; it is a lesson in grace to see you hold your\n  parasol. The doll of Nature! So since you were born; so until you\n  die!\u201d[31]\n\nIf the suggested volume, _The Life and Leisure of some People_, or\n_Riches: a Study of Town Life_ is ever written, any comment on the\ncarefully tabulated investigations would be quite unnecessary. As\nin the case of the books on Poverty, the bare statement of facts is\neloquent enough by itself.\n\nMr. Rowntree concludes his book with this pregnant phrase:\n\n  \u201cThat in this land of abounding wealth, during a time of, perhaps,\n  unexampled prosperity, probably more than a quarter of the\n  population are living in poverty is a fact that may well cause\n  great searchings of heart.\u201d\n\nThis might be paraphrased:\n\n  \u201cThat in this land, where more than a quarter of the population are\n  living in poverty, the abounding wealth of the country should be\n  retained by a comparatively small number of people, who squander\n  their riches in a way that brings no happiness to themselves and\n  inflicts misery and hardships on others, is a fact that may well\n  cause great searchings of heart.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nChapter IX\n\n  Religion and money--Attitude of clergy--Emphatic condemnation\n    of riches by Christ--Notable texts and sayings--Want of\n    conviction--Importance attached to dogmatic religion--Necessity\n    for stronger denunciation.\n\n\n  \u201cThe religion we profess has for one of its most significant\n  and salient features the denunciation of wealth as a trust or a\n  pursuit: Christianity condemns riches as a snare, a danger, and\n  almost a sin, and even Pagan-nurtured sages and statesmen are\n  never weary of pointing out how this disastrous passion vitiates\n  all our estimates of life and its enjoyments, and fosters and\n  exasperates all our social sores. Yet in England and America,\n  perhaps the two most sincerely Christian nations in the world--one\n  the cradle, the other the offspring of Puritanism--the pursuit\n  nearest to a universal one, the passion likest to a national one\n  is money-getting; not the effort after competence or comfort, but\n  the pushing, jostling, trampling struggle for vast possessions or\n  redundant affluence.\u201d\n\nThe above is a quotation from the _Enigmas of Life_, by W.\u00a0R. Greg. He\nwrote this in 1873, and the passage goes on to observe that there were\nsigns of a sounder perception which might herald a reaction against the\nstruggle for money. His forecast, however, was wrong, for even in the\nlast thirty years the scramble has become much wilder, the power of\nwealth greater, the influence of the wealthy more extensive, and the\nmillionaire more common, while luxurious living has outstripped all\nreasonable bounds.\n\nThe Christian condemnation of riches remains as emphatic as when it\nwas first uttered, but the Church continues to explain it away or\nto disregard it, and the clergy as a whole neither preach it nor do\nthey attempt to practise the doctrine laid down by their Master. The\nclergy of the Church of England, in fact, are among the readiest to\naccept the hierarchy of modern society founded on the gradations and\nvaluations of wealth. Even in the village churches the very seats are\nassigned in such a way as to acknowledge the worldly standard of means.\nThe front rows are reserved for the squires and their dependents,\nthe \u201cgentry\u201d behind them, the \u201cpoor\u201d at the back; while the vicar\ninconsistently declares from the pulpit that they are all equal in the\nsight of God. The Church as a profession (every decade it becomes more\nof a profession and less of a calling) is arranged on the ordinary\nworldly system of increase of salary according to rank and promotion.\nAnd, indeed, if it were suggested to them that an increase of their\nspiritual practically implied and necessitated a decrease of their\nmaterial responsibilities, and that the performance of the former is\nby their own testimony interfered with by the existence of the latter,\nwith a very few exceptions they would scoff at such a fanciful idea.\n\nIf confronted with the words of the Gospel on the subject of riches,\nthey shuffle and seek excuses by declaring that they are figurative,\nand that they point to an ideal which unfortunately is unpractical\nand not compatible with our modern social system, which in its highly\n\u201ccivilised\u201d development has got beyond extreme and uncompromising\nmaxims of that kind. But we cannot get beyond what is eternally true,\nnor surely should we desist from some attempt to reach forward towards\nit, however unattainable and distant the ideal may seem. Whatever\ndoubts Christians may have as to what Christ\u2019s meaning was in some of\nHis preaching, there can be no two opinions as to His view on this\npoint. There is diametrical opposition between His injunctions and our\nbelief. The world says nothing makes life easier than to have money and\npossessions; Christianity says nothing makes life more difficult. As\na body the clergy see nothing incongruous in taking up this stand on\nthe side of the rich; they overlook their consequent estrangement from\nthe poor, and they ignore the fact that they are gradually drifting\naway from any close contact and sympathy with the life and soul of the\npeople. The elasticity of their religion has amounted in this case, as\nin others, to its distortion.\n\nLong before the Christian era philosophers propounded this same\ndoctrine, and many reformers have done so since. As a single instance\nwe need only repeat the words of Sir Thomas More:\n\n  \u201cFor where is the justice that noblemen, goldsmiths, and usurers\n  and those classes who either do nothing at all or in what they do\n  are of no great service to the commonwealth, should live a genteel\n  and splendid life in idleness or unproductive labour; whilst in the\n  meantime the servant, the waggoner, the mechanic, and the peasant\n  toiling almost longer and harder than the horse, in labour so\n  necessary that no commonwealth could endure a year without it, lead\n  a life so wretched that the condition of the horse seems more to be\n  envied?... Thus after careful reflection, it seems to me, as I hope\n  for mercy, that our modern republics are nothing but a conspiracy\n  of the rich pursuing their own selfish interests under the name\n  of a republic. They devise and invent all ways and means whereby\n  they may, in the first place, secure to themselves the possession\n  of what they have amassed by evil means; and in the second place,\n  secure to their own use and profit the work and labour of the poor\n  at the lowest possible price.\u201d\n\nWould he find words to express himself were he alive to-day?\n\nBut of them all no one has emphasised so clearly or insisted so\nstrongly on the vanity and danger of worldly goods as Christ did.\n\nThe rich man consults Him, and tells Him that all the chief\ncommandments he has observed from his youth. But Christ sees what is\namiss, and the man goes away grieving, \u201cFor he had great possessions.\u201d\nThen follows the great generalisation: \u201cHow hardly shall they that have\nriches enter into the Kingdom of God. It is easier for a camel to go\nthrough the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of\nGod.\u201d As to whether or not the \u201cneedle\u2019s eye\u201d was the name of a narrow\ngate of the city through which heavily laden camels could not pass,\ndoes not signify. The meaning is clear beyond question. In the Kingdom\nof God upon earth, that is an ideally constituted human society, there\nis no place for a man encumbered with riches; his presence would\nassuredly disturb the even balance of the whole. Rousseau saw that it\nwas a condition of good government that no citizen should be rich\nenough to buy another, and no citizen poor enough to be compelled to\nsell himself.[32] If all the social organisation of humanity, the\narrangement of which rests apparently to a great extent in our control,\nwere so constituted as to allow each man a full competence, far from\nits producing a deadening equality as some pretend, it would free\nthe human race to make the most of its varied natural capacities and\ntalents which are now mostly lost, and a competition of achievement and\nservice founded on altruism would take the place of a competition for\ngain and profit based on egoism. The ideal may be unattainable for the\npresent because we have drifted so far from it, but that is no reason\nfor discarding it altogether and turning our faces in the exactly\nopposite direction.\n\nThere are many other equally noteworthy sayings in the Gospels, staled\nby custom and familiar to most of us in the same way as the Church\nservice becomes familiar to children without their understanding one\nsingle syllable of what it all means.\n\n\u201cLay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where the moth and\nrust corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal.\u201d And again,\n\u201cThe seeds that fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked\nthem, and they yielded no fruit. These are such as hear the Word, and\nthe cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the lust of\nother things entering in, choke the Word and it becometh unfruitful.\u201d\nAnd yet again the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. These are not\nmere fantastic and rhetorical figures of speech, but are a few of the\nmany instances of the reiterated insistence on the supreme importance\nof the dispersal of the riches heaped in the hands of the few. It is\nneedless to multiply texts to prove that it is one of the cardinal\ndoctrines of Christ\u2019s teaching. He was profoundly impressed with the\nimpediment, the handicap, the burden of wealth, the undischargeable\nresponsibility which weighs men down and incapacitates them from\nparticipating in a juster and more perfect arrangement of society. And\ndown through the ages many a great mind has strongly endorsed this\nlasting truth which, let it be remembered, though the world is blind to\nit, is as strictly utilitarian as it is moral.\n\nThere is nothing in the least complex about this teaching. It is almost\nself-evident; far easier to teach and far simpler to preach than the\nintricate speculative tangles of dogma which are cast like nets from\npulpits over the minds of congregations. But there is this difference,\nthat while the latter is only an intellectual effort on the part of the\npreacher or on the part of some other divine who has prompted him, the\nrenunciation of worldly riches cannot be preached by any man who makes\nno attempt to practise it.\n\nThe clergy are like the rest of us, they do not really believe in\nit; they cannot therefore act as if they did; they are persuaded\nin their inmost hearts that to be richer must mean to be happier,\nand so they take refuge in what is for their congregations the less\ncomprehensible and for themselves, therefore, the less embarrassing\nside of their religion. Accordingly, from our moral physicians we can\nget no guidance, on the contrary, with a very few notable exceptions,\nthey encourage the fallacious belief in money-making, and slur over\nthis important part of Christ\u2019s message. Why did He associate with the\npoor and choose His disciples from among their ranks? Not because He\nhoped to enrich them, but because their deficiency in worldly goods\nmade them fertile ground for the seed of His doctrine of self-sacrifice\nand humility. If we reject His teaching, well and good, we can discard\nthis with the rest, but it is just those who do the most lip service to\ndogmatic Christianity who calmly ignore this unqualified essential.\n\nIt would be unfair to insist that no Churchmen are aware of these\ndangers. Occasionally a voice speaks out boldly.\n\n  \u201cWe are not in touch with the mass of the labouring people,\u201d says\n  the Bishop of Birmingham. \u201cIs not the reason of this because we are\n  the Church of the rich rather than of the poor--of capital rather\n  than of labour? By this I mean that in the strata of Society the\n  Church works from above rather than from below. The opinions and\n  the prejudices that are associated with its administration as a\n  whole are the opinions and prejudices of the higher and higher\n  middle classes rather than of the wage earners.... Capital and\n  labour are names now for great class interests and organisations\n  representing men in many, and the Church finds itself in fact and\n  on the whole moving in the grooves which are precisely those from\n  which Christ warned us off: it finds itself expressing the point\n  of view which is precisely not that which Christ chose for His\n  Church.... Our whole system of Church charity expresses a bounty\n  administered out of benevolent feeling, by a wealth which makes no\n  apology for enjoying itself to a poverty which it makes no pretence\n  to share.\u201d[33]\n\nOr the Bishop of Manchester to the Church Congress in 1908:\n\n  \u201cI suggest that our religious revival may lead us to a new\n  appreciation of the spirit of brotherhood--one of the great\n  ideals of the democratic movement. Secondly, I suggest that our\n  religious revival may take the form of a mission to the wealthy\n  and prosperous. It is the curse of riches that they blur and even\n  conceal altogether the heavenly vision. They tend to make pleasure\n  the business of life. A man\u2019s wealth is measured by the time and\n  money that he can spend on amusement. So the outlook, not only of\n  the rich, but of all classes, becomes narrowed and confused.\u201d\n\nAnd of course other instances could be quoted, but the main body of the\nChurch shows no disposition to follow. They are bound to the governing\nclasses, and the governing classes have the money and therefore the\npower such as it is.\n\nThe Free Churches on the whole are bolder, for they deal with a\nsimpler class. But neither do they tirelessly condemn money-hunting,\nbecause, being poor themselves, they are far too dependent on the large\nsubscriptions of the richer members of their congregations. But not\neven by building chapels can a rich man justify himself, though he may\nbe blessed as a benefactor by his co-religionists.\n\nThe Roman Catholics too, who anyhow in their churches do not give any\nspecial privileges to rank, have their tongues tied by the lavish\ndonations of rich and noble patrons which they are only too glad to\nreceive. To emphasise the Christian condemnation of the rich man would\ntherefore not be politic or in accordance with what they conceive to be\ntheir best interests.\n\nIt is not as if Christians of all sects and denominations could not\ndiscover texts and arguments enough in their Bibles to support them\nwere they to alter this course and advance courageously along the\nstraight way. The best words ever uttered on the evil and folly of\nriches are to be found in its pages in the Old Testament as well as the\nNew. A collection of these sayings would form the strongest indictment\nof wealth that could be framed.\n\nThere is the great Proverb, \u201cA good name is rather to be sought than\ngreat riches, and loving favour rather than silver and gold.\u201d Or the\npassage from Job, \u201cThough he heap up silver as the dust and prepare\nraiment as the day, he may prepare it, but the just shall put it on\nand the innocent shall divide the silver,\u201d and \u201cWill he esteem thy\nriches? No, not gold nor all the forces of strength.\u201d Or the Psalmist\u2019s\nwarning, \u201cIf riches increase, set not your heart upon them.\u201d Or the\nwords of Ecclesiastes, \u201cThere is a sore evil which I have seen under\nthe sun, namely, riches kept for the owners thereof to their hurt.\u201d\n\nBut we must resist the temptation of making a collection of quotations\nhere. The declarations of this truth are well known, even though they\nmay not be accepted or appreciated. The truth about money may still be\nlooked upon as impracticable Utopianism; one day it may be discovered\nto be sound economics. The practice of restraint and renunciation is\nnot only theoretically sound, but both subjectively and objectively\nexpedient.\n\nThere is, we must confess, a recurring note in modern thought, the\nconstant use of which is amounting almost to a popular mannerism. It\nis a method of reasoning which inclines men to spurn deep convictions\nor strong single-minded purpose as clumsy, uncouth, and unphilosophic,\nand to welcome in their place involved generalisations and a spirit of\nabstract compromise and theoretical balancing. Whether this tends to a\nmore profound acquisition of knowledge and a more exact and scientific\nadjustment of mental conceptions, is not for us to say, but that it\ncasts a weakening spell over personal initiative and greatly impedes\ndecisive action is clear beyond doubt.\n\nAs for the Church, it is failing in its mission, because it refuses to\ninsist equally on the two aspects of the message it has undertaken to\ndeliver to mankind.\n\nIf religion is received in a purely dogmatic sense, it can appeal only\nto our emotions and to the spiritual cravings of the more mystical\nside of men\u2019s natures. This is only confusing and quite unsatisfying\nto our more rationalistic inclinations, which prefer a simple and\ndirect ethical teaching. Christianity combines the two elements--the\nmystical and the rational--and fuses them together. Unfortunately\nthere is a proneness to detach the former as all-important and\nsufficient in itself and to neglect the latter. The former has been\nbuilt up gradually in successive centuries of varying and imaginative\nspeculation, and however much it may appeal to the religious-minded,\nit is valueless when broken off from the latter. The ethical precepts\nfor duty and conduct are, on the other hand, immutable, and in their\npristine simplicity carry all their original force of authority and\nlose nothing from being divorced from dogmatic teaching. It requires no\nheights of spiritual exaltation to accept Christ\u2019s explicit precepts\nas to sacrifice, humility, altruism, and the renunciation of worldly\npossessions, but men are encouraged by the Church to seek consolation\nin a fog of doctrinal obscurantism. Christ no doubt foresaw that we\nshould take refuge in the incomprehensible in our failure to accept\nwhat to the humblest intelligence was perfectly comprehensible when he\nsaid, \u201cNot every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into\nthe Kingdom of Heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is\nin Heaven.\u201d\n\nHis immediate successors were not handicapped by considerations for or\nsubservience to those in authority who held the worldly power, and they\nspoke with no uncertain voice.\n\nWhat is wanted in the Church to-day is something of the uncompromising\nspirit of those bygone days. Not condonation, or at the most\nhalf-hearted criticism, but wholesale denunciation in words of splendid\nvehemence such as the passage in the Epistle of St. James:\n\n  \u201cGo to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall\n  come upon you. Your riches are corrupted and your garments are\n  moth-eaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rest of them\n  shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were\n  fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days. Behold,\n  the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which\n  is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which\n  have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth.\n  Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have\n  nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter. Ye have condemned\n  and killed the just, and he doth not resist you.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nChapter X\n\n  Results of influence of money--No motive in lives of the\n    rich--Money as our master--If money ideal could be\n    discarded--Possibility of change of ideal for all classes.\n\n\nOnly the surface of the subject has been touched, only a few of the\nmany heads into which the discussion might be divided have been\nconsidered at all, and only some of the more patent dangers have\nbeen very briefly indicated. But enough has been said to support the\noriginal contention and to bring us fairly to the conclusion that in\nall directions the influence of the money possessed by individuals\nbeyond the limit of what constitutes a full competence is harmful\nand noxious. It has a hardening, crippling, and deadening effect on\nthe highly susceptible and sensitive organism of human vitality,\nlike varnish would have on the wings of a butterfly. It substitutes\npatronage for fraternity, arrogance for humility, indolence for\neffort, vanity for love, the spirit of submission for the spirit\nof independence, an artificial class society for a natural society\nof mutual respect and affection. It saps vitality by surfeit and\nsuperabundance, and at the same time stunts healthy development by\nmisery and want. It is a false and vicious standard for estimating\nworth. Greed and Cupidity are its parents, Envy and Jealousy its\nchildren.\n\nBut it is easier to disregard all this and to go on in what appears\nto be the natural and, indeed, inevitable course. We must take the\nworld as it is, is the common cry, not as it ought to be, and unless\nwe are prepared to be submerged and trodden under, we must follow in\nthe throng and push forward and struggle with the rest. Some of us are\nable to feel resentment at A\u2019s riches, but, alas! it is not because\nhe is _rich_, but because _he_ is rich. It is said that the craving\nto satisfy material wants is as inseparable a part of human nature as\nany other appetite. This may be so to some extent, but it is clearly a\nmatter of proportion. After the appetite has reached a certain point\nit is no more natural than gluttony, drunkenness, or any other form of\ndebauchery. In far too many cases that point has long been passed and a\nstate of society has been evolved to suit the new order, and not only\nto excuse, but to extol and strengthen the power of money.\n\nLet men live, whatever kind of life they choose, without interference,\nlet them indulge their hobbies and amuse themselves within bounds; but\nlet them recognise that there _are_ bounds, and that the inter-cohesion\nof the isolated atoms in the whole mass of human life is such that\nevery step they take over those bounds they are depriving someone\nelse of living the life _they_ choose, indulging _their_ hobbies, and\namusing _themselves_.\n\nThe rich are mostly unconscious of the harm they are doing. There is no\ndeliberate intention in any of their actions. They travel carelessly\nalong the broad road laid down for them by custom, and they never count\nthe costs or examine the consequences. Their lives, more especially\nthose of their women, are entirely aimless and certainly devoid of\nany determined motive. As long as they are allowed to pursue their\ncourse undisturbed, making or spending the money which they look on as\ntheir own in any way that suits their fancy, they make no complaint.\nThey ask the State to guard them securely in the enjoyment of their\ngreat possessions, and they employ the energy they derive from them\nin poisoning the springs of national prosperity. The moment it is\nsuggested that some small share of their gains should be taken by the\nState for the general benefit and for safeguarding the security of\nothers besides themselves, they, including even those of them who have\ndeclared their wealth to be a burden, send up a wail of execration and\nprotest with all the force they have at their command.\n\nThis condition of things, as it has been shown, brings no happiness\nto the rich and it brings great mischief to the State. Individual\nenergy is dissipated and human capacity is misapplied in a society\nwhere effort is so ill-directed in the extremes of riches and poverty;\nwhile the social power of the community is wasted in a society where\ncapitalists control so many of the sources of wealth.\n\nMoney, by convincing us of its indispensable nature and egging us on\nin the scramble for more, has, however much we may resent it, got\nthe upper hand and has practically enslaved us. A comparison can\nbe made with the modern mania for speed. The rapidity of the means\nof locomotion encourages a perpetual rush and deludes people into\nsupposing that the faster they go the more they will accomplish. There\nis a foolish belief that steam, electricity, and petrol have been\nturned to our own use and have been mastered, whereas these giant\nforces are playing with us and stirring us, like ants in a disturbed\nant-hill, into an almost ridiculous state of flurry and confusion\nwhich is detrimental both to our minds and our bodies, and the sum\ntotal of our higher accomplishments is more likely to show a decline\nthan an increase from the days before these forces were let loose. But\nrapid locomotion is at present too fascinating for us to resist. Just\nin the same way the allurements of money are carrying us away down a\nsteep incline to unforeseen perils.\n\nWhere and when shall we stop? Some say that society, having got on to\nthis dangerous downward slope, gradual evolution to a healthier state\nis no longer possible; but, as in the case of the abolition of slavery\nand the abolition of autocracy, the change can only be brought about by\na cataclysmic upheaval. As the power of money augments and vast riches\nare piled higher and higher, it is becoming the more apparent that an\nopposing force of bitter antagonism is being created which may one day\ngain strength enough to sweep away the vampire of capitalism.\n\n\u201cWealth is in the hands of the few rich and the suffrage in the hands\nof the many poor. In the concentration of wealth and the diffusion of\npolitical power lies the great danger of Modern Society. The danger\nbecomes every day greater, and democracy, which seemed to have saved\nsociety, is really destined to overturn it.\u201d[34] Perhaps it can save\nit by overturning it. But at present any such danger would seem remote,\nas, in spite of the great advances made by organised Labour, the mass\nof the people, more especially those herded into towns, are sadly\nlacking in vitality. In the first stages of the rise of democracy there\nhave been thrown to the surface men of great business ability, but of\nno imagination, and firm believers in money. The process of a deeper\nand more general enlightenment must of necessity be slow.\n\nOn the whole, we need have no fear that plutocracy will ever gain\ncomplete ascendancy, even though it may have aristocracy, royalty,\nand at times political power to support it. But it is not so much the\nattack from without that is likely to destroy the entrenched position\nof the rich as the rot within which is steadily undermining their\nstronghold with corruption and decay.\n\nA cataclysm, in the shape of a social revolution, is too apt to lead\nto reaction, and the fundamental alteration of social relations would\nonly be delayed thereby. This, however, in a smaller or larger degree,\nis the course of advance that progress takes. Rising, falling, and yet\nadvancing in a spiral shape. History never repeats itself exactly, the\npath never passes over the same point; but a cyclical resemblance\noccurs in the course of events which sometimes makes us feel we are\nonly the sport of circumstances. And yet at the same time, within us\nthere seems to be stored up a latent power strong enough to break\naway and make great changes if our efforts could only be united in\nsympathy and fortified by agreement. The tendency of society may be\ndownward and in the wrong direction, but the natural trend of human\nendeavour, free and unfettered, is upwards towards a better state,\nand there are encouraging indications that in the future, the distant\nfuture, perhaps, this power will prevail and we shall all unite in a\nbetter purpose. At this moment certainly there is no room for despair\nwhen we see around us a growing indignation and impatience with social\ninjustice. Never before has humanitarian impulse been so well fortified\nby scientific theory in its attempt to cope with the evils of poverty\nand destitution. All we want is an equally scientific discernment of\nthe evils of riches and waste.\n\nIf the money ideal could only be discarded with the same universal\nalacrity and conviction with which it is now clung to and cherished,\nthe change and improvement in our social life would be as miraculous\nand yet as natural as the change from the dark chill of winter to\nthe sunshine of spring. But it will not be by bitter vituperation\nand invective that the change can be brought about. The attack must\nbe directed not against particular individuals, not against isolated\nfollies, nor against single instances of wicked extravagance,\nthoughtlessness, and cruelty, but against the stereotyped system which\nis responsible for it all. The awaking to a different faith must take\nplace just as much among the poor as among the rich. The former must\nbe taught to recognise that cringing submission to so-called superiors\nis neither to their own nor to anyone else\u2019s advantage; the latter\nmust learn that to isolate themselves in a fool\u2019s paradise of ease\nand thoughtlessly to assume impossible responsibilities is fatal to\ntheir own happiness and to the welfare of their fellows. And the large\nmedium class, who are well-to-do but not rich, living modestly but not\npoor, must be shaken from their indolent and self-complacent position\nof spectators securely railed off from the arena where the combat\nis taking place; thanking heaven they are not among the victims and\nsecretly admiring the assailants, though proudly conscious that they\nthemselves can be exonerated from all blame. There are too many in this\nclass who, to put it plainly, hate the poor and reverence the rich,\nand they will be the last to be reached or influenced by the cleansing\nspirit of enlightened thought.\n\nAny transformation must proceed from within. The effectual resistance\nto what seems to be the compulsion of modern conventions and habits can\nonly arise from a clearer knowledge and a more complete comprehension\nof the falseness of these conventions and the worthlessness of these\nhabits. In order to combat vanity, selfishness, and love of ease, not\nonly a change of front and ideal is essential, but there must also be a\nsupreme and sustained effort to stand up against and head back the dead\nweight of opinion which has gained impetus from never being checked.\nThere must be sincere and deep-seated conviction. Without this any\npolitical or social revolution will fail. \u201cThe mightiest changes have\ncome from religious and moral changes in men\u2019s hearts.\u201d\n\nThe fervent devotion to the service of Mammon acts as a baneful\ninfluence working havoc and destruction in men\u2019s lives. Instead of\nignoring or excusing it, attention must be called to it loudly,\nrepeatedly, and emphatically by all who are convinced of its dangers\nand wish to warn their fellows against its deadly infection.\n\n\nTHE END\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1] Johnston, _England As It Is_.\n\n[2] _The Social Horizon_, 1892.\n\n[3] _Manchester Guardian_, 29 September, 1909.\n\n[4] Public Health and Social Conditions (Cd. 4671), 1909.\n\n[5] A. Wylie, _Labour, Leisure, and Luxury_.\n\n[6] The late Duke of Argyll.\n\n[7] _Ruff\u2019s Guide._\n\n[8] _Hunt\u2019s List._\n\n[9] Turgenief.\n\n[10] Mr. Pretyman, House of Commons, 1909.\n\n[11] Lord Lansdowne, House of Lords, 14 August, 1907.\n\n[12] Price Collier, _England and the English_.\n\n[13] J.\u00a0A. Hobson, _Imperialism_.\n\n[14] William Cobbett, _Advice to Young Men_.\n\n[15] E. Gosse, _Father and Son_.\n\n[16] Price Collier, _England and the English_.\n\n[17] P.\u00a0G. Hamerton, _Human Intercourse_.\n\n[18] J.\u00a0A. Hobson, _The Industrial System_.\n\n[19] Miss Llewellyn Davies, letter to the Press, 1907.\n\n[20] Rowntree\u2019s _Poverty_.\n\n[21] Booth\u2019s _Life and Labour of the People_, Vol. II.\n\n[22] Butlers and chefs could be quoted with wages of \u00a3250 and \u00a3300.\n\n[23] _West Ham: a Study in Social and Industrial Problems._\n\n[24] Rowntree\u2019s _Poverty_.\n\n[25] Rowntree\u2019s _Poverty_.\n\n[26] _West Ham_, pp. 270\u20136.\n\n[27] Booth, Vol. I.\n\n[28] Rowntree\u2019s _Poverty_.\n\n[29] Odd shillings omitted.\n\n[30] Mr. J.\u00a0A. Macdonald, _Toronto Globe_, September, 1909.\n\n[31] John Galsworthy\u2019s _A Commentary_.\n\n[32] _Social Contract_, II. 11.\n\n[33] Sermon at Barrow-in-Furness, Oct., 1906.\n\n[34] Arnold Toynbee.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber\u2019s Notes\n\n\nPunctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a\npredominant preference was found in the original book; otherwise they\nwere not changed.\n\nSimple typographical errors were corrected.\n\nPage 159: The quotation from John Galsworth (\u201cYours is the three\nhundredth carriage...\u201d) is missing some text, and in other ways is not\na faithful reproduction of the original.","title":"The Camel and the Needle's Eye","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":36813}