WCP573

[1]

[in ARW’s hand] Answd Explanatory

[later annotation in pencil] C Robinson 90^th

"Alastor House,"¹

93, Coleraine Road,

Westcombe Park,

London, S.E.

8/1/13.

[in ARW’s hand] Studies Sc. & Social, Economic & Soc. justice. vol. II. pages 446 — 517 — 519. {Chapters XXIV & XXVIII.

Dr. Russell [sic] Wallace,

Dorset.

Dear Sir,

In reading an account of your life and works in today’s "Daily Telegraph"² I see you are credited with the opinion that an "unborn heir" should have no rights. I beg to say the expression "unborn heir" is a contradiction of terms as an individual could not be an heir until he is born. If it is meant that a man should not have the privilege of working and acquiring wealth to leave to his children I say that this is a pernicious doctrine³ and I beg to differ from you.

It is obvious that if a man follows the dictates of self-denial in order to accumulate something which will give his children a better chance in the struggle for existence it follows that he is doing a holy thing.

You appear to think that a man’s money should be administered for his heirs by the State — or in other words — by a body of politicians who have intrigued themselves into power, generally battenning [sic] on the soft jobs they get by the apathy or stupidity of the British Public.

I notice that you hold spiritualistic doctrines, and therefore, you must believe that a man’s children are really himself and that in begetting children he is simply multiplying his personality on this physical plane and what he therefore does for his children he is virtually doing for himself in re-incarnation.

I hold that for the State or any other Body to appropriate any portion of a man’s wealth that is left to his children, or anybody else is robbery.

[2] (2). If I am wrong my mind is always open for further light.

Yours faithfully | [illeg.] Robinson [signature]