'The conventional notions in this old country are not always suited
to your country, and I quite agree that even here they are carried
too far. Yet there are other people than the needy whose souls are
entrusted to the clergy here, and in order to fulfil that trust they
must mix on some degree of equality with the gentry, and with the
middle classes who are well-to-do. Then again, consider both as to
clergy and laity here. If they were all to lower themselves a peg or
two, and give up many not only luxuries, but comforts, numbers of
tradesmen, and others working under them, aye, even merchants,
manufacturers, and commercial men of all sorts, would be to some
extent thrown out of employ. The artificial and even luxurious state
of society here does really prevent many persons from falling into
the class of the needy. All this should be regulated in its due
proportion. Every man ought so to limit his expenses as to have a
good margin for charitable purposes of all sorts, but I cannot think
that he is doing good by living himself like a pauper in order to
assist paupers. If all men did so, labour of all kinds would be
overstocked with hands, and more paupers created. True it is, that
we all are too apt as means increase, some to set our hearts upon
them, which is wickedness; some to indulge in over much luxury, which
is wicked also; there should be moderation in all things. I believe
that more money is given in private charities of various kinds in
helping those who are struggling with small means, and yet not
apparently in the class of the needy, than the world is aware of; and
those who do the most are precisely those who are never heard of.
But do not mistake me. I am no advocate for luxury and idle
expenditure. Yet I think you carry your argument a little farther
than is just. The impositions that are practised, or attempted to be
practised, upon charitable people are beyond all conception.' The