" MEANNESS " IN GIVING.
ITO THE EDITOR OF THE 'SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—With the greater part of your article on the above subject in the Spectator of January 2nd I can heartily agree. Human nature being what it is, it cannot be thought a bad plan to make part of a man's pay a certainty, to ensure that his work gets done, and to leave the rest an uncertainty, to ensure civility in the doing. And the system being what it is, presumably the man who falls in with it is more generous in all his dealings than most of those who refuse. But I have two heavy counts against the system. It is unfair to some who would give, but have not the means to do so ; and it does not conduce to self-respect in the class to which the workers belong. When a porter has dealt with my baggage, and. I have given him the conventional gratuity, I always think of some poor old woman whose box and brown-paper parcels require just as much looking after as my own more presentable effects, and I ask whether she can be sure of it. I remember a trifling incident which made me feel, when I went to America, bow much better was the system there. A working man had shown us our way, as far as it coincided with his own. At parting, knowing us to be Englishmen, he drew himself up, and retired half across the pavement, took off his cap most courteously, and said : "Good evening, Gentlemen." My friend and I said to each other that an Englishman in similar circumstances would not have retired out of arm's length for fear lest we should offer him a gratuity. Surely our American friend provided better for his own self-respect. —I am, Sir, &c., L. G. MvaarE (Bishop).
S. Mary's Vicarage, Marlborough.
Previous page
