earner. Yet even as it is, a millowner, who will definitely establish a village industry, will, ipso facto, have the pick of every respectable and God-fearing working man in the trade. Ask the proprietors of Port Sunlight if this is not the case. VI SOME ASPECTS OF THE PROBLEM THE OF CHARITYI HERE can be no doubt that the condition of the people of Great Britain as a whole has greatly improved during the past century, and that the poorer classes have fully shared in the general advance. But though this is a fact, at which all who have the interests of the country at heart must rejoice, it affords no justification for that kind of indolent optimism, which would act as though the existing state of affairs was perfect. There is still a vast problem before the statesman and the philanthropist. All over the country there are numerous families whose resources are too small to enable them to cope with any sudden misfortune, while in our large towns, and especially in London, there exists a mass of misery and degradation of an apparently permanent character. Overcrowded and insanitary dwellings still stand out in gloomy contrast to The purpose of this article is to focus some of the things that are already known, rather than to break new ground. The writer is unable to claim that practical experience of life in the poorer parts of London which his fellow - essayists possess, and has therefore thought it well to give references to authorities (when possible to Mr. Charles Booth) for such statements of fact as he has had occasion to make. Upon the whole subject he is indebted to books or articles by Mr. Booth, Professor Marshall, Miss Octavia Hill, Canon Barnett, Mr. C. S. Loch, Mrs. Bernard Bosanquet, Miss Dend, Mr. Mackay, and others. His sincere thanks are also due to Mrs. Alfred Marshall, who has very kindly supplied him with many useful criticisms and suggestions. 2 Cf. Professor Marshall, "Economics of Industry," p. 774. the luxurious homes of wealthy men. There are still the shiftless and the workless, the victims of accident and misfortune, the sickly, the vicious, and the starving, still "those mute myriads that speak loud to us : Men with the wives, and women with the babes, Mr. Charles Booth estimates that 30 per cent. of the population of London are either 'poor' or 'very poor,' the 'poor' being those who have a sufficiently regular though bare income, such as 18s. to 21s. per week for a moderate family, and the 'very poor' those who, from any cause, fall much below this standard. In the fourth week of last December the ratepayers of London were supporting over 100,000 persons, nearly 70 per cent. of whom were receiving indoor relief; while on one day in January, 1899, the total number of persons in receipt of relief (exclusive of vagrants) in the United Kingdom amounted to some thousands over a million.2 Strenuous efforts are being made both by public and private agencies to deal with the problem which these figures reveal. In London alone the gross annual expenditure upon legal relief is nearly three and a half million pounds. Private charity contributes large sums both directly and through hospitals and asylums, while many persons all over the country devote the best of their time, thought, and labour to work among the poor. Mr. Lecky goes so far as to say that, in his opinion, "there has never been a period in England, or in any other country, where more time, thought, money, and labour were bestowed on the alleviation of suffering, or in which a larger number of men and women of all classes threw themselves more earnestly and more habitually into unselfish causes."3 But in spite of this, it cannot be denied that in many quarters there is still considerable apathy with regard to social questions. In London there are coming to be two I "Life and Labour of the People of London," vol. i. p. 33, and vol. ii. p. 21. 2 Annual Abstract of Labour Statistics, 1898-1899, p. 100. 3 "Democracy and Liberty," vol. i. p. 205. separate cities, the one of the 'haves' and the other of the 'have-nots'; and everywhere the majority of the rich are often shut off by an impassable barrier from the poor among whom they live, passing between the rows of their houses every day, but never witnessing or imagining what manner of life they lead, and therefore never experiencing those stirrings of sympathy which the spectacle of its dreariness might be expected to arouse. Thus their affections are concentrated, and their gifts are showered, upon friends of their own station, whose need for them is small. "This is wonderful-oh, wonderful!" says Ruskin, of the gentle English lady, "to see her, with every innocent feeling fresh within her, go out in the morning into her garden to play with the fringes of its guarded flowers, and lift their heads when they are drooping, with her happy smile upon her face, and no cloud upon her brow, because there is a little wall around her place of peace; and yet she knows in her heart, if she would only look for its knowledge, that outside of that little rose-covered wall the wild grass to the horizon is torn up by the agony of men, and beat level by the drift of their life-blood." To those who are wounded in the industrial warfare the poor are more generous than the rich, because they can realise their position more clearly, and enter more fully into their feelings. We have the authority of Mr. Charles Booth for the statement that "the poorest people give the most in proportion to what they have in charity. The widow's mite is a recurring fact of daily life, and no credit is claimed for it." But the keen sympathy of the poor is always handicapped by lack of means, and sometimes rendered positively harmful by lack of wisdom. The leisured classes possess larger means and better opportunities for acquainting themselves with sound principles of charity, and therefore society is entitled to demand of them, not merely a more sympathetic interest in social questions, but a real contribution towards their solution. At present, however, many of them either give, without inquiry, to all who are sufficiently importunate, or else reinforce their natural selfishness by the reflection that "Life and Labour of the People," vol. iv. p. 427. alms-giving is contrary to 'the laws of political economy,' and refrain from giving at all. A superficial acquaintance with economic theory enables them to argue that since many forms of charity do more harm than good, it is better to keep on the safe side, and have nothing to do with any form of it. But, obviously, this conclusion is fallacious, and the only inference that can fairly be drawn from the premises points to the extreme importance of learning to distinguish between good and bad methods of charitable action. In order that this may be possible, it is first necessary to make clear the precise meaning which is attached to the term 'charity,' and the purpose at which charitable action aims. There are some philosophers who maintain that the ultimate goal, for which all men should strive, is the realisation of the greatest possible sum of pleasurable feeling in the world, and there are others who hold that character and not happiness is the all-important thing. Fortunately it is unnecessary for any one engaged in the practical work of charity to decide between these two views, because his course of action would have to be very much the same whichever he adopted. If he reforms a degraded character, by converting the drunkard to sobriety, or the vicious to a moral life, he at the same time turns him into a more efficient worker, who is better able to earn enough for a comfortable, happy, and independent life. On the other hand, if he finds a family occupying a filthy and overcrowded room, in a halfstarving condition and without any of the decencies, not to say comforts, of life, he will find it exceedingly difficult to elevate their character without first doing something to improve the miserable circumstances of their lives. Thus, whatever view he may take about the 'ultimate good,' his direct aim is to improve both character and material conditions. Since, however, this is the avowed object of many whose work would not generally be classed under the head of charity, it is hardly narrow enough to serve for the basis of a definition. The purpose of charity, whether public or private, may therefore be distinguished from that of general philanthropy by a reference to the fact that those |