Sir HENRY KNIGHT seems to be of opinion that luxurious living,
Aldermanic and otherwise, must be a good thing for the poor, because
"Money spent in entertainment goes into the pockets of the working
classes." If that is so, Dives, in order to benefit Lazarus, can
hardly do better than go on faring sumptuously every day. And yet
somehow, as a matter of fact, the more Dives feeds the more Lazarus
famishes. How is this, O Knight of the Round (Dinner) Table?
"Neither luxury, nor anything else," says the philosophical ex-Lord
Mayor, "can be indulged in without purchasing the materials which
contribute to or from which the luxury is obtained." _Argal_, the
more luxury among the rich the more money in the pockets of the poor.
Cheering thought!--for civic _gourmands_ and fashionable fine ladies!
Did not a great financier once suggest that England, which fought
itself into debt, might drink itself out of it? Here seems to be a
chance of eating ourselves out of poverty, of dining ourselves out of
destitution. Are there any real "Unemployed" about? Let those who have
money spend more of it in "entertainments" and the problem is solved
without recourse to Mansion House Funds, Public Works, Eight Hour
Movements, or other schemes philanthropical or revolutionary.
KNIGHT'S panacea for poverty, this proposal to cure it by
"entertainment," is certainly, in one sense, entertaining. But it is
to be feared that it can hardly be entertained.
* * * * *