[TO TES EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR. "] Szu,—The letters appearing on
this subject are moat interesting. I quite agree with " Contentus sorts mei " that " apparently necessary and inevitable expenses are not really so." Here I believe is the crux of the whole question. What a little we really need, and how much of our striving and straining is to get that which "we were better without." How few of us are strong enough to rule our own affairs and not be led into undue expenditure by the fancies of the man next door, next street. A systematic apportionment of income is most advisable, something like the following :—Rent and taxes, 10 per cent.; housekeeping, 40 per cent. ; insurance, 5 per cent. ; clothing, 15 per cent. ; charity, 10 per cent. ; education, 10 per cent. ; savings, 10 per cent. As the income increases a larger proportion should be allotted to the prudential items rather than to an increase of fixed charges, rent, &e. In middle-class households some of the work must of necessity be delegated, and here the element of waste is no small item. A careful overseer can save much in this direction. A deter- mination to cut one's coat according to one's cloth, and never under any condition outside of absolute starvation to go into debt, implies a strong will, a resolute purpose; but what is man worth if he cannot " rule his own house" ? I am strongly of opinion that if more thought and care were given to these affairs by our teachers and guardians of morals (clergymen, &c.), quite as much benefit would accrue to the community as from many of the public exhortations we are accustomed to bear. As a commercial man, I know that it is not the poor who cannot pay, but the wealthier class who will not, that are the greatest stumbling-block. To be obedient to the common-sense rules of life is not always as
easy as to follow the heavenly vision, but surely we need both.
Previous page
