GIFTS OF MONEY.
WHAT are the conditions under which an honourable and self-respecting man can accept a gift of money ? That is a question which has been raised in many men's minds by the recent disclosures in connection with Mr. Hooley's bankruptcy. We find Lord Albemarle declaring that he thought the cheque for £9,000 he received from Mr. Hooley was given him "quite voluntarily." He understood it, he says, "to be the result of a ' deal' he had done for me on his own responsibility in another undertaking, and I accepted it as such." But as Mr. Hooley might admittedly have kept the money in his own pocket, this is only a roundabout way of saying that the money was a free gift. Apparently Lord Albemarle considered that there was nothing odd or requiring explanation in the acceptance of this £9,000 from a man who was not a relation or even a friend. We wonder whether this is a common frame of mind nowadays. If it is, the fact marks a great change of manners. The rale of conduct in former days used undoubtedly to be that a man could not accept a gift of money unless he was in very great straits, and then only from some one who had a right to offer it to him. It was distinctly an insult to offer a man money, whatever his condition, unless you were a very
near relative or a very dear friend. Only when the would-be donor was able to insist that he was so near a relation or so close a friend that there could be nothing ob- jectionable in the transaction was it possible to offer a gift of money. If the money could fairly be said to have been earned, then, of course, no question arose, but a gift was im- possible unless the right to give money was clearly established. We are more like brothers than friends, and if I were in a difficulty I could take money from him as easily as from my own father.' To say that was to suggest the very closest tie of friendship conceivable. But unless Lord Albemarle is an exception, all that is ()hanged. Now, apparently, the merest business acquaintanceship makes it possible to take a cheque for £9,000. There was in the case of which we are speaking no question of the money having been earned. Lord Albemarle is quite explicit in denying that hypothesis. The money, he in effect declares, was not paid to him in consideration for any- thing he had done. We do not in the least wish to challenge Lord Albemarle's account of the transaction, or to doubt his bona fides in the matter, but it is clear that if he had had a more old-fashioned way of regarding gifts of money, he would not have found himself placed in his present disagree- able predicament. The old-fashioned way, and, as we venture to think, the much better way, would have been to return Mr. Hooley's cheque with the remark that he had not done any- thing or agreed to do anything for which money was payable, and that he was not in the habit of taking voluntary and free gifts from his acquaintances. But Lord Albemarle's case is not a solitary one. It appears from the evidence in the Hooley and other such cases that it is becoming a habit in business to pay cheques to persons of position who make useful introductions. A introduces B to C, who wants to know B, and when the introduction is completed C sends A a cheque,—of course as a perfectly voluntary and free gift. We know very well how old-fashioned people would treat such gifts. Apparently the modern man puts the cheque in hie pocket, and regards the transaction as the most natural thing in the world.
Declarations as to what old-fashioned people would do in regard to gifts of money and what is done by the men of the present day are, however, not a very helpful way of looking at the problem. One wants, if possible, to go a little deeper. It is obvious that there are certain conditions under which a man may and does take free gifts of money, and does not lose in the least in honour and self-respect. It is often said that a clergyman is an exception to the rule against taking money, and that he may always take a gift from any untainted source. That is true, but the principle that underlies it is perhaps not so clear. In our opinion, a man may offer a clergyman assistance in the shape of money— provided, of course, that the clergyman is in need of it—
because the clergyman is engaged in fulfilling a public service. To give money to a clergyman is only pro Canto endowing a minister of religion. Just in the same way, a poet or painter may quite rightly receive a gift of money because he is capable of, and is engaged in, performing a true service to the public. Coleridge and Wordsworth, if we remember rightly, received each an annual allowance from an enlightened man of means, who saw that without such aid the world would suffer a great loss, for the necessity to earn a livelihood by ordinary means kills the poetic gift. The possession of the gift of poetry, or of painting, or of sculpture, or of music is a public trust, and the poet, painter, sculptor, or musician has a clear and undoubted right to allow a man who is neither a friend nor a relation to help him to carry out that trust. This was understood clearly enough in Italy during the Renaissance. A painter did not lose self-respect by letting himself be supported by a great noble. So now a poet or musician might be endowed without the slightest loss of dignity. Millionaires, indeed, in want of a public service to perform could not do better than endow a poet or painter of promise, tempted to spoil his art by pot-boiling. They need not be afraid of insulting the poet or painter by the offer of an annual gift, nor need the poet or painter feel there is any- thing dishonourable in accepting money which will enable him to give his art its rights. Another class of men who can with a perfectly free conscience accept money gifts and retain their self-respect are students working at some special subject of human or historic interest, or philanthropists who are giving up their lives to the alleviation of human misery. All such gifts are covered by the principle that public se rvice justifies the giving and receiving of money oifts a The more closely we consider the subject of gifts the more it becomes clear that a principle analogous to that of nudum pactum in contracts applies in human conduct. There must be valuable consideration for all gifts. If there is natural love and affection, as of parents or very close friends, the gift is good. Again, the performance of public services is a valuable consideration. When, however, none of these con- ditions apply, and when also the money has not been earned, the man of scrupulous honour and of strict indepen- dence will always refuse a gift of money. He will ask himself, =Why should I take the money offered ? What have I done to earn it? It is not given me out of natural love and affection. It is not bestowed that I may carry on some public work. It is, then, either given to gratify the idle whim of a rich man, and so an insult to my independence, or else it is bestowed in order that the donor may feel that I am his dependant. It is given, that is, to secure me in some way or other. Under such circumstances, I have no possible excuse for accepting it, and I will not.' Oar readers will say, and say truly, that very few people are likely to be tried by such gifts, because very few rich men scatter their money in this way. Possibly; but that is only another reason for rejecting any gift of money which cannot show for itself good considera- tion. If such good consideration is not obvious, then in all probability there is a secret reason for the gift which, if it could be discovered, would make rejection certain and instant. The chances of any one giving anything without expecting something in return are so remote that even if an idle and purposeless gift of money could be honourably accepted it would be wiser always to assume a cryptic purpose. Of course all that we have said above must be limited by the law of necessity. If a man and his family are starving they will naturally, and rightly, take help from any source that is prima facie honest. Against the giving and receipt of charity no man may enter a caveat. It is wise, however, to remember that there is no necessity for any one to live at the rate of £1,000 a year. A man who accepts doubtful gifts of money to raise his income to a height of this kind is not in receipt of charity bat is being bought. Possibly it is only his name, or his gratitude, or the indulgence of his powerful friends, that is being purchased by the cheque, but in that case the receiver of the gift is selling something which he has no right to sell. Because a thing has an exchange value in economics we are not bound in morals to put it on the market. Marlowe says : "'Tis wisdom to give much ; a gift prevails Where smoothly speaking oratory fails."
That is quite true, and the best possible reason for not accepting cheques which have not been properly earned.
Previous page
