Interesting, however, as figures of the kind suggested might be,
there is a far more interesting question arising out of our English custom of giviiig " tips " and Christmas-boxes, and that is : Do the majority of those who give money at Christmas and the New Year give willingly, or do they give much in the same spirit as that in which they pay rates and taxes,— because they must? Do they give cheerfully, or grudgingly and complainingly, exasperated that custom should render it necessary for them to " do as other people do," and fall in with the general custom of feeing tradesmen's assistants, postmen, policemen, turnkeys, gas-men, and so on, once a year ? And if they give cheerfully, is that evidence that the nation as a whole is generous, or merely careless ? or if they complain at having to give, are they justified in their com- plaint? But perhaps in dealing only with the question of Christmas-boxes and " tips" we are stating the question less broadly than it should be stated. Include, then, in the giving of Christmas-boxes the giving of " tips " all the year round ; the giving of odd half-crowns and half-sovereigns to servants and gamekeepers, and of sixpences and shillings to railway porters and cabmen, and then ask if such gifts are given willingly, and whether it works for the good of every one concerned that they should be given at all.
On the whole, we believe that in most cases such gifts are given cheerfully, and that the giving of them works in a general sense towards the sweetening of the lives both of giver and receiver. Let any man or woman run over the list of his or her personal friends and acquaintances, and ask, in thinking of each one of them, whether he or she would be likely to leave a house after paying a visit without giving something to the servants ; or whether he would allow a railway porter to put a couple of boxes on a cab without giving him something for doing so, even though the railway company's prohibition of fees to porters were staring him in the face ; or whether be would get up from a meal at a restaurant without handing something to the waiter ; or whether, as a householder, be would stand out against the custom of giving Christmas-boxes. Probably it would be found that there are only one or two out of the whole number against whom there would lie any suspicion of " meanness,"— for that would be the term which would naturally arise. But even if there are to be found, out of say a hundred acquaint- ances, only two or three who might be thought likely to resent giving the gifts that others give cheerfully, there still remains the question whether or not those whom we accuse of " meanness " may not be right after all. "Minorities are usually in the right"; may not the man who is set down by his friends as "mean" in the giving of presents be after all uttering a much-needed protest ?
To a certain extent that may be so. For in giving it is quite possible to go to the extreme, and to give wrongly, lavishly, and unfairly. It is clearly wrong—tq take only one instance for very rich men to give presents to servants which are out of all proportion to services rendered; wrong, because such gifts are given thoughtlessly, or if given purposely and deliberately, because they are given with ostentation, and with the idea of making the recipient regard the giver as a more important person than his neighbour. Here, as a corrective to the lavishness of the thoughtless giver, the " mean " man may do good by his protest. But after all, the real point to be urged against the man who would be regarded by his friends generally as likely to be mean in giving presents and " tips " is that he is mean in other matters. He does not, in reality, refuse to give " tips " because he conscientiously thinks that the system of "tipping " is a wrong system; he refuses because he does not like to part with his money in any circumstances whatever. He will be mean in other matters, because it is his nature to be so ; he will drive hard bargains with men who have not the power to exercise the rights that belong to them ; he will keep just inside the letter of the law, and yet violate its spirit without the smallest compunction. His great purpose in life is to get something for nothing ; and if he ever realises—which he probably seldom does, or if he does realise it, he must be supposed not to care—how much he is hated or despised, he is still able to set that hatred or contempt down as a tribute to his own capacity for getting on. It is this kind of man, the man who is mean in everything he does, who is mean in giving when giving is only a custom, not a necessity; and if such men are disliked by the community—which means that they are thought by the community to act wrongly—for being mean in their general outlook upon life, may it not be reasonably argued that they are acting wrongly in a particular matter,—namely, in the refusal to give the " tips" and presents prescribed by custom P To understand, however, the essential points of any argument directed for or against the English custom of giving presents "all round" at this season of the year, one thing is certainly necessary, which is, to get at the point of view of the recipient of the gifts given. Ought any man to look upon a butler, or a footman, or a tradesman's servant, or a policeman or postman or cabman, as a man who at a certain season of the year deliberately sets himself to extort money which he has not earned from persons who are afraid to refuse it to him? Ought the person to whom we give, or do not give, Christmas-boxes and " tips " to be regarded, that is, as annoyed, perhaps, or even disgusted, with his first experi- ence of giving Christmas-boxes as a householder, put himself in the position of the man who asks for the Christmas-box, or the porter who expects sixpence for carrying trunks to a cab, or the waiter who thanks him for the few pence he leaves behind him at luncheon or dinner.
Are these men crafty extortioners in their own home lives, or do they not themselves have to pay, and pay readily, small sums in the same way for smaller services rendered? It would be a great indictment of the lower classes of any nation if they could be supposed to regard themselves as extorting money day by day for work which they have not done. But, as a fact, they have done the work, and the small sums paid them by individuals are merely accessory to the general working of the law that supply and demand right themselves somehow. A railway porter's wages are fixed at a certain sum because it is known that he will, according to calculated figures, receive also a certain sum of money per annum directly from passengers. Similarly with waiters at restaurants, and similarly, too, with servants' wages in private houses. The cook may receive more from her employer than the upper housemaid; but the upper housemaid has at least the chance of extraneous additions to her yearly wages, which the cook has not. And the extra sums received yearly by railway porters, or cabmen, or housemaids for work which may be supposed to be, but is not as a fact, already paid for, may be variable. But variable though they be, we believe that very variability tends to the easier working of the joints of the community's machinery. Every penny received over the stipulated sum of wages is so much to the good, so much for the recipient to be thankful for; and the presence of a number of men and women in any community who realise that to be kind and obliging results in direct additions to their own material comfort cannot work for harm. Often, as is always the case with the best class of servants, the extra work done is done without deliberate expectation of direct reward; but those for whom the work is done are glad to reward it, and those who are rewarded are none the less happy for receiving a possibly unhoped-for gift. The result, we believe, is a general sweetening of the lives of those who give and those who receive.
One question remains, often debated, often decided offhand without reason. Are women meaner in giving than men P It cannot rightly be urged that they are. Women, after all, in buying or in giving are commonly making use of money that others have earned. They have been trustees of other people's money for two thousand years, and long use has made them careful of their trust. Of course, the petty meannesses of a certain kind of woman have afforded infinite opportunities for men's jests and contempt ; but those petty meannesses are nothing in comparison with the great meannesses of really sordid men. One conclusion shines out,—that the majority both of men and women have decided that a certain amount of "silver waste" is not only necessary, but pleasant, in the life of the community; and that majorities in great com- munities do not alter that kind of deliberately arrived at opinion.
JAPANESE ANIMALS.
Previous page
