‘I can never read it with a steady voice, nor tell it either.’

Sir John had thus replied to the tirade against English conventional luxury:—­

’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 following is the answer:—­

’April 23, 1860.

’My dearest Father,—­Thank you for writing your views about luxuries, extravagant expenditure, and the like.  I see at once the truth of what you say.

’What I really mean is something of this kind.  A high degree of civilisation seems to generate (perhaps necessarily) a state of society wherein the natural desires of people to gratify their inclinations in all directions, conjoined with the power of paying highly for the gratification of such inclinations, tends to call forth the ingenuity of the working class in meeting such inclinations in all agreeable ways.  So springs up a complicated mechanism, by which a habit of life altogether unnecessary for health and security of life and property is introduced and becomes naturalised among a people.