long weeks to get upon the track of their treasure; to use all their knowledge of art and men to circumvent the malignity of dealers; to experience the extremes of trepidation and of hope; to deny themselves comforts, and perhaps food, that they may pay the price which has at last, after infinite dispute, reached an irreducible minimum; and the pleasure of their possession is in the ratio of their pains.  But the man who enters a sale-room with the knowledge that he can have everything he wishes by the signing of a cheque feels none of these emotions.  It seems to me that money has lost more than half its value since cheques became common.  When men kept their gold in iron coffers, lock-fast cupboards, or a pot buried in an orchard, there was something tangible in wealth.  When it came to counting out gold pieces in a bag, men remembered by what sweat of mind or body wealth was won, and they had a sense of parting with something which was really theirs.  But a cheque has never yet impressed me with the least sense of its intrinsic value.  It is a thing so trivial and fragile that the mind refuses to regard it as the equivalent of lands and houses and solid bullion.  It is a thing incredible to reason that with a stroke of the pen a man may sign away his thousands.  If cheques were prohibited by law, and all payments made in good coin of the realm, I believe we should all be much more careful in our expenditure, for we should have at least some true symbol of what expenditure implies.

In an ideal state all incomes beyond 10,000 pounds per year should be prohibited.  Almost all the real luxuries of life may be enjoyed on half that sum; and even this is an excessive estimate.  Such a regulation would be of vast advantage to the rich, simply because it would impose some limit at which economy commenced.  They would then begin to enjoy their wealth.  Avarice would decline, for obviously it would not be worth while to accumulate a larger fortune than the State permitted.  We might also expect some improvement in manners, for there would be no room for that vulgar ostentation in which excessive wealth delights.  If a man chose to exceed the limit which the law prescribed he would do so as a public benefactor; for, of course, the excess of wealth would be applied to the good of the community, in the relief of taxation, the adornment of cities, or the establishment of libraries and art-galleries.  It would no doubt be objected that the great historic houses of the aristocracy could not be maintained on such an income; five thousand pounds a year would hardly pay the servants on a great estate, and provide the upkeep of a mansion.  But in this case the State would become the custodian of such houses, which would be treated as national palaces.  It is by no means improbable that their present owners would be glad to be rid of them on generous terms, which provided for a nominal ownership and an occasional occupation.  However this may be, it is certain that the rich would profit by the change, for their chance of getting the most and best out of life would be much increased by the limit put upon cupidity and ostentation.