No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Extract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
. . . And Mr. Timothy worth a hundred and fifty thousand pound nett if he’s worth a penny. Compound interest at five per cent, doubles you in fourteen years. In fourteen years three hundred thousand—six hundred thousand in twenty-eight—twelve hundred thousand in forty-two—twenty-four hundred thousand in fifty-six—four million eight hundred thousand in seventy—nine million six hundred thousand in eighty-four—why, in a hundred years it’ll be twenty million. And we shan’t live to use it. It is a will. (From John Galsworthy’s To Let.)
The passage above comes from the concluding chapter of one of John Galsworthy’s masterpieces. Those who have read the book will recollect the scene. For those who have not I will explain. The old veteran, Timothy Forsyte, has directed his entire property to be formed into a trust which through the provisions of the will will probably remain intact for the better part of a century. The words quoted are put into the mouth of old Gradman, the solicitor’s clerk, and the glee, utterly free from envy, with which he utters them, is one of the most perfect touches in the book.
Now you can make a very interesting experiment with this passage. Give it to read to the average educated English Catholic of normal artistic sensibility and take note of his comments. He will admire what rightly deserves to be admired, the sensitive delineation of the lovable Gradman, the success with which the author brings home a sort of primitive force in old Timothy, that huge embodiment of the possessive instinct, a force that reaches beyond the grave and still continues to mould and impose itself on succeeding generations.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1936 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers
References
1 Timothy's fortune would of course necessarily be invested in mortgages and fixed interest-bearing securities.
2 It is very curious to note how many people in talking of the Merchant of Venice will speak of Portia as finding a “legal loophole.” This is misleading. Portia is not a person who has thought of a sort of “dodge.” She is the symbolic figure of natural justice vindicating her rights. It is most unfortunate that Shylock was a Jew, for this has caused certain other considerations to influence our minds in judging the play. But for this the great symbolism and moral lesson of this story would have been more widely appreciated.
3 I use advisedly the expression current shortly after the time this thing was introduced. The essence of the tick is to issue, in the form of profit-bearing loans certificates or promissory notes, in respect of treasure which you do not actually possess. This was the principle on which the Bank of England was founded, and on which all banking since has been carried on. It is in reality not Dutch at all, but, though coming from Amsterdam, has quite another origin.
4 I see that the already venerable superstition which would appear to refute this statement is not yet dead. I mean the superstition that modem money is in some special manner fruitful. Not even the Big Slump has killed it. Thus a Catholic priest, while actually inveighing against usury, writes: “The abolition of interest can hardly be advocated on moral grounds at this time of day. Catholic theologians have long agreed that, although money was not fruitful in the Middle Ages, it must be regarded as fruitful in our own times and therefore interest can always be charged for a loan whether productive or not. They would say (what is quite undeniable, I think) that the immense material changes since the Renaissance—in short, the unlimited expansion of production—have created a world in which there is always a profitable investment waiting for the limited amount of gold and silver which is called money.” Contrast this with the remark of a writer in a recent issue of the Fortnightly Review (apparently a stockbroker, and therefore one who, whatever might be his principles, at least knew his facts): “The ht thing to note about any investment is that it is probably a bad investment.” This illustrates my point very well and shows that this question cannot ever satisfactorily be studied by those unequipped with a knowledge of the concrete realities of the business world.
You have
Access