THE PIOUS FOUNDER.
[TO TIEN EDITOR OF THE " SP1OTATOR:]
SIR,—Many people will be grateful to you for the article in the Spectator of December 9th, in which you point out that, whatever Mr. Gladstone may say to the contrary, charitable bequests are of great value to the sick and suffering public, even though they may be nothing worth to the soul of the not-sufficiently-pious founder. But may I say a word in .defence—not of the bequests which you have so well defended, but of the poor unprotected soul who bequeaths them? You say, Sir, that Mr. Gladstone is "very rightly offended by the prevalence of the notion that there is merit in the giving-away of money for which you have no further use, and in being benevolent at the expense of your residuary legatees." But, Sir, if the man has done, as you say, a good work, why should he have no credit for it ? Mr. Gladstone says that there is "not the smallest grain of self.denial" in such bequests, and yet I have a lingering suspicion that it would cost one some self-denial to leave less to one's own children in order to leave something for the waif-and-stray children of other people. But assuming that there is no self-denial in these bequests, it surely does not follow that there is no merit in them. Is it not to a man's credit if he disposes of his property in such a way as to show not only a proper care for his own friends and relations, but also a sympathy for the suffering and an intelligent desire to promote the public welfare?
I contend that the action on which Mr. Gladstone pours the vials of his Parliamentary contempt, and which even you, Sir, find to be useful but not meritorious, is nothing less than a duty. You will say this duty ought to be done in our life- time. Certainly ; but this is no reason for leaving it undone in our death. As long as we have control of our money, we ought to spend some proportion of it on our neighbours, in the largest sense of the word ; and as the law at present allows us to have some control of our money after we are dead, it follows that we ought to leave some of it pro bone publico ; and if we do this duty well, is there no merit? Also I cannot admit that I am being charitable at the expense of my, residuary legatee because, being possessed of one shilling, I bestow by will ninepence on him, and take the odd three- pence, which is not his, and give it by will to a London hospital. I venture to trouble you with this letter, because it seems to me such a pity to discourage the performance of a most useful duty, by telling people that there is no merit in performing it.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
