d capable of Sir William
Follett's superior aspirations? Was it not abundantly justified by his
splendid qualifications and expectations? Why, then, should he not toil
severely--exert himself even desperately--to provide against the direful
contingency to which his life was subject? Alas! how many ambitious,
honourable, high-minded, and fond husbands and fathers are echoing such
questions with a sigh of agony! Poor Follett! 'twas for such reasons
that he lived with an honourable economy, eschewing that extravagance
and ostentation which too often, to men in his dazzling position, prove
irresistible; it was for such reasons that he _rose up early, and went
to bed late, and ate the bread of carefulness_. Had he been alone in the
world--had he had none to provide for but himself, and yet had
manifested the same feverish eagerness to acquire and accumulate
money--had he loved money for money's sake, and accumulated it from the
love of accumulation, the case would have been totally different. He
might then have been justly despised, and characterized as being _of the
earth, earthy_--incapable of high and generous sentiments and
aspirations--sordid, grovelling, and utterly despicable. Sir William
Follett had, during twenty years of intense and self-denying toil,
succeeded in acquiring an ample fortune, which he disposed of, at his
death, justly and generously; and how many hours of exhaustion, both of
mind and body, must have been cheered, from time to time, by reflecting
upon the satisfactory provision which he was making--which he was daily
augmenting--for those who were to survive him! Who can tell how much of
the bitterness of death was assuaged by such considerations! When his
fading eyes bent their aching glances upon those who wept around his
death-bed, the retrospect of a life of labour and privation spent in
providing for their comfort, must indeed have been sweet and
consolatory! Surely this is but fair towards the distinguished dead. It
is but just towards the memory of the departed, to believe his conduct
to have been principally influenced by such considerations. All men have
many faults--most men have grave faults. Is parsimony intrinsically more
culpable than prodigality? Have not most of mankind a tendency towards
one or the other? for how few are ennobled by the ability to steer
evenly between the two! And even granting that Sir William Follett had a
_tendency_ towards the former failing, it was surely exhibite