VII. Relief of the Poor

CHAPTER VII. RELIEF OF THE POOR. § 452. We enter now upon the subject with which the conception of beneficence is almost wholly identified in some minds, and chiefly identified in many nlinds. With the word beneficence (or rather with the word benevolence, which commonly usurps its place) there usually springs up the idea of open-handed generosity to those in want. The giving of llloney or money's worth is so llluch the easiest and the Illost familiar mode of showing kindness, that by the unthinking, and especially by recipients, kindness is con ceived as little else. This species of beneficence, which, as we have seen, is one out of many, is daily presented to us in three different shapes. We have the law-established relief for the poor by distribution of money compulsorily exacted; with which may fitly be joined the alms derived froIn endownlents. We have relief of the poor carried on by spontaneously organized societies, to which funds are voluntarily con tributed. And then, lastly, we have the help privately given-now to those who stand in some relation of depend ence, now to those concerning whose claims partial knowledge has been obtained, and no,v hap-hazard to beggars. We will consider these three kinds in the order here presented.

§ 453. After all that has been said in preceding parts of (~76) RELIEF OF THE POOR. 37'7 this work, it is needless to argue at length that relief of the poor from public funds raised by rates, is, if considered apart froln certain antecedents to be presently named, inconsistent with that limitation of' State-functions which ethics insists upon. If, as repeatedly pointed out, the true function of the State is that of guarding the aggregate of citizens and the individual citizen against aggressions, external and internal, 80 that each may be able to carryon his life with no greater hindrance than that which proxirnity of other citizens involves-if the State's only other function is that of so controlling the uses Inade of the inhabited territory, as to prevent sacrifice of the interests of the joint owner, the com munity; then it follows that if it taxes one class for the benefit of another, it exceeds its functions, .and, in a Ineasure., contravenes the first of them.

This conclusion, however, holds as I have said "if considered apart from certain antecedents to be presently named." The antecedents referred to are those which become visible on going back to pre-feudal and feudal times, when serfs, though bound to the soil, had certain established rights to some produce of the soil; and those further antecedents which, at a later period, after cessation of serfdorn and accompanying divorce of the serf from the soil, eventually re-instituted his connexion and his lien by a poorJ]aw. While, in a measure, again tying him to his 10calitYbthis, in a measure, again recognized his claim upon its produce. So regarded, a poor-law may be said to have an equitable basis, and the poor-relief administered under it to be something more than a charitable dole. Entire usurpation of the land by the landlord, and entire expro priation of the labourer, were unjust; and the re-establish ment of the old relation in a freer form, n1ay be interpreted as a roundabout mode of admitting afresh a just claim.

Not improbably the relative stability of English institu378 THE ETHICS OF SOCIAL LIFE. tions during later times, has been indirectly due to absence of that disaffection ·which results where the classes having no property are wholly at the Inercy of the classes who have property. The beneficence which takes the form of relief adnlinis tered by public agencies, is difficult to deal with not only because it is thus complicated by considerations of justice, but because it is further complicated by considerations of accompanying injustices. Though, in early days, the legally-enforced aid to the poor was contributed almost wholly by those who, as land-o\vners, "Ter~ rightly called on to contribute it; yet, in later days, it has come to be in large measure contributed by others· than landowners others on whom there is no just claiIn. Hence nothing beyond enlpirical judgments concerning compulsory benefi cence seelll possible.

When, however, we remenlber that beneficence, properly so-called, loses its quality when it is made cOlllpulsory, and that both benefactor and beneficiary then cease to have those feelings which normally accompany it, w"e shall be inclined to think that could the just clairIls of each member of the coolmunity as a part owner of the land be otherwise recognized, and beneficence wholly dissociated from govern mental force, it would be far better. Let us contenlplate the evils of the present system. § 454. While, as admitted above, the community as a ,vhole is the ultimate owner of the territory inhabited, considered as unreclairned (though not of that value which clearing and cultivation have given to it); and while each III ember of the cOlnlllunity has a resulting lien upon it; yet no such" right to a maintenance out of the soil," irrespec tive of energy expended, as is often alleged, can be sustained. The land produces only in return for labour; and one who does not give the labour has no claim on its produce; or, at any rate, has a claim only to a share of RELIEF OF THE POOR.

the small amount it would yield if wild, which, with the existing population, would constitute nothing like a maintenance. It is argued that the poor work for society while young and hale, and should be supported by society when sick and old. Under a socialist regi1ne, which artificially apportioned payments for services, this ,,~ould be a valid position; but, as it is, society gives to the labourer when young and hale as much as competition proves his work to be 'worth: so discharging its debt. Further, there is the reply that if, during his period of activity he has been underpaid, the under-payment has been in large part due to the fact that he has been burdened by having to help indirectly, if not directly, to support the idle and incapable., Giving necessaries of life to those who do not labour, inevitably takes away necessaries of life froln those who do labour. The well-to-do are not pinched by this abstrac tion from the total supply of cOlnmodities. Those who are pinched are those who have but srnall margins. If they had not been thus depleted, they would have .been able to provide for a period of unproductive life.

Apologists contend that rapid multiplication is ever pro ducing a surplus of people for whom there is no work, but who must be supported. The first reply is that in proportion as provision is ITlade for such a surplus, the surplus will go on continually increasing. The second reply is that only if the work to be done by the com munity is a .fixed quantity, can the argument be sustained; since, otherwise, there must always be some further work which the surplus rnay be profitably employed on, in return for their maintenance. To say that some ought to do extra "rork that others may remain idle is absurd. Occasionally it is urged that since there must always be a' certain proportion of necessitous people-the diseased, the incapable, the unfortunate, the old-it is best that these should be relieved from funds administered by 380 THE ETHICS OF SOCIAL LIFE. 11len appointed for the purpose, 'who will look carefully into each case and adjust the aid to the needs. This irnplies a faith in officialism at large which experience, repeated generation after generation, fails to dissipate.

The assumption is that the agents employed, who in most cases ahn to get their salaries with the least trouble, will be the best critics of the character, conduct, and wants of the recipients; and that guardians will administer public funds more wisely than private persons would administer their ow'n funds. It ignores the enormous Inass of evidence collected in Parliamentary Blue Books, as well as in special works on the subject, proving that under this system in past days corruptions and abuses of every kind were created and fostered, resulting in a uni versal dernoralization. Let us not forget that cruel injustice to individuals and mischief to the community, are caused by a heavy taxation of those who are but just able to maintain them selves and fanlilies, and are striving to do it. Numerous cases occur in which worthy and diligent TIlen-sometimes thrown out of work by lack of demand and sometimes incapacitated for ,york by prolonged sickness-are com pelled to pay rates; and even have their goods seized that Inoney may be obtained for the maintenance of good for-nothings. More than this; it not unfrequently happens that nlen who are elnployed in parishes at distances from their o,vn, and could there maintain themselves but for the persecution of the poor-rate collector, have to abandon their places, return to tbeir own parishes, get froIn it money to bring back their wives and children, and then apply for relief. So that there is a breaking up of healthy industrial relations to maintain a system \vhich substitutes doles for wages.

Nor must we omit the fact that public administration of relief is doubly extravagant. It is extravagant in the sense that the distribution inevitably becomes lax, and, in RELIEF OF THE POOR. 381 the absence of personal interests, aid is given where aid is not required: often Inost lavishly to the least deserving. And it is extravagant in the sense that a large part of the total fund raised goes to nlaintain the machinery-goes in salaries of rate-collectors, relieving officers, masters of workhouses and their subordinates, parish surgeons, &c.: a part amounting in extr.eme cases in Ireland to more than two-thirds, and in some cases in England at the present time to lnore than one third-proportions which, if not paralleled generally, go along with high average pro portions. When we rernember that law-enforced charity is, as al ready shown, inconsi$tent with justice, ,ye are taught that in this as in all other cases, what is not just is in the long run not beneficent.* § 455. Less objectionable than administration of poor relief by a law-established and coercive organization, is .its administration by privately-established and voluntary organizations - benevolent societies, mendicity societies, &c. "Less objectionable" I say, but still, objectionable: in SOlne ways even more objectionable. For though the * In treating of Poor Laws as above, I have been aided by the writings of one specially qualified to judge-a late uncle of mine, the Rev. Thomas Spencer, of Hinton Charterhouse, near Bath. His antecedents and his ex perience gave his opinion a value which the opinion of scarcely one man in a hundred thousand could have. His special sympathy with his parish ioners was proved by his having established in Hinton a parish-school, a village library, a clothing-club, and land-allotments; by having also built model cottages; and by having at one time gone to the extent of giving every Sunday a meat dinner to a group of labourers. His general sym pathy with the working classes was proved by the fact that he devoted a large part of his spare time to the diffusion of temperance by lectures and writings; by the fact that he joined in the Complete Suffrage l\'lovement.

which aimed to diffuse poUtical power; and above all by the fact that he was the only clergyman who took an active part in the agitation for the repeal of the Corn Laws, and said grace at the first Anti-Corn Law banquet as well as at the last. His philanthropic feeling, then, cannot be questioned. As to his experience, it was no less wide and complete. Though originally a pauper's friend-always on the side of the pauper against the Qverseer382 THE ETHICS OF SOCIAL LIFE. vitiating influences of coercion are now avoided the vitiating influences of proxy-distribution relnain. If we have not a machinery so rigid as that set up by the Poor Law, yet we have a Inachinery. The beneficiary is not brought in direct relation with the benefactor, but in relation with an agent appointed by anum bel' of bene factors. The transaction, instead of being one which advantageously cultivates the moral nature on both sides, excludes culture of the moral nature as much as is prac ticable, and introduces a nUlnber of bad motives. Note the ill-workings of the system.

As ~Nith the Poor Law (especially the old Poor Law), those who were distressed but thrifty and well-conducted got no help, while help came to the improvident and ill-conducted; so \vith philanthropic societies in general. The worthy suffer rather than ask assistance; while the ,vorthless press for assistance and get it. The Mansion House Fund of 1885-'6, for instance, was proved to have gone largely for the support of "idlers, spendthrifts, and drunkards." "They did not see why they should not have some of the money going as ,veIl as their neighbours." In some cases applicants "den~anded their share." ,Vhere, as in another case, employrnent ,vas offered, less than one fifth proved to be good for anything; showing that the unen1ployed, so generally pitied as illused by society,are unemployed because they either cannot or will not work; and showing, by implication, that charitable agencies he afterwards became convinced of the immense mischief wrought under the old Poor Law; and when the new Poor Law was enacted, he forthwith applied it to his parish (having, I believe, gained the assent of the Poor I.Jaw Oommissioners to do this before. the Bath Union was formed), and very shortly reduced the rates from £700 a year to £200 a year; with the result of making the parish far more contented and prosperous. Then, on the formation of the Bath Union, he was appointed Chairman of the Board of Guardians and held that office for several years: thereby being made familiar with a wide range of facts. The outcome was that he wrote four pamphlets under the title-" Reasons for a Poor Law considered;" of which the net result is a verdict against Poor Laws in general.

RELIEF OF THE POOR. 383 enable them to evade the harsh but salutary discipline of Nature. The encouragement of hypocrisy, ,vhich goes along with this neglect of the good poor who do not complain and attention to the bad poor who do, becomes con spicuous when religious professions are found instrulnental to obtainment of alms. Clergy and pious WOlnen, easily deluded by sanctimonious talk, favour those who are most skilled in utterance of spiritual experiences, and in benedictions after receiving gifts. Hence a penalty on sincerity and a premium on lying ; with resulting demorali zation. This evil is intensified by sectarian competition. There are competing n1issions which collect and distribute money to push their respective creeds, and. bribe by farthing breakfasts and penny dinners. Nearly half the revenue of one Inission is distributed in credit-tickets, and "if the recipient wishes to . cash his ticket, he .cannot do so until after the evening service": this vicious system being carried even to the extent that the visitors try" to force its tickets on the most respectable and independent 'people "-pauperizing them to make hypocritical converts of them. Said one WOlnan, poor but clean and tidy, W'110 sa,v how ·the emissaries of the Ghurch favoured the good for-nothings :-" I didn't want any of the good lady's tickets . . .. but it's very 'urtful to the feelings to see that careless drinking people Iiving like 'ogs gets all, and them as struggles and strives may go ·without." And not only does there result a discourageluentof virtue and ail encouragenlent of vice, but there results a subsidiz· ing of superstitions. Unless all the confltcting beliefs thus aided are .right, which is irnpossible, there lllUst be a propagation of untruth as 'well as a re,varding of insincerity.

Another evil is that easy-going people are ewploite by cunning fellows who want to make places for themselves 384 THE ETHICS OF SOCIAL LIFE. and get salaries. .A. crying need is found; prospectuses are widely distributed; canvassers press those on whom they call; and all because A, B, C, &c., who have failed in their careers, have discovered that they can get money by playing the parts of Inanager, secretary, and collector Then, if the institution vehemently urged is established, it is worked in their interest. But it is not alv/ays estab lished. As there are bubble mercantile companies, so there are bubble philanthropic societies-societies kept up for a time merely for the purpose of getting subscriptions. Nay, on good authority I learn that there are gangs of men who make it their business to float bogus charities solely to serve their private ends. Not even now have we reached the end of the evils.

There is the insincerity of those who furnish the funds distributed: flunkeyism and the desire to display being often larger nloti yes than beneficent feeling. These swindling pronloters when writing to wealthy men for contributions, take care to request the honour of their names as vice presidents. Even where the institutions are genuine, the giving of handsome subscriptions or donations, is largely prornpted by the V\rish to figure before the world as generous, and as filling posts of distinction and authority. .A. still meaner motive co-operates. One of the nouveauw {riches, or even one whose business is tolerably prosperous, takes an active part in getting up, or in carrying on, one of these societies suppo~ed to be originated purely by benevolence, because he likes the prospect of sitting on a committee presided over by a peer, and perhaps side by side with the son of one. He and his wife and his darughters enjoy the thought of seeing his name annually , thus associated in the list of officers; and they contemplate this result more than the benefits to be given.

There are kindred vitiations of other organizations having beneficent ailns-..;.orphanages, provisions for unfor tunate and aged tradesmen, &c. Here again, the least RELIEF OF THE POOR. 385 necessitous, who have many frien<ls, are usually those to benefit, and the most necessitous, who have no friends, are neglected. Then there is the costliness and corruption of the selecting process-expensive •. and laborious can vassing, exchange of votes, philanthropic log-rolling. Evidently the outlay for working the system, in money and effort, is such as would be equivalent to a Inainten:1nce for many more beneficiaries, were it not thus wasted in machinery. N or is it otherwise with institutions thuught by most people to be indisputably beneficial-hospitals and dis pensaries. The first significant fact is that 30 per cent. of the people of London are frequenters of them; and the largeness of this proportion makes it clear that most of them, not to be ranked as indigent, are able to pay their doctors. Grati8 Inedical relief tends to pauperize in more definite ways. The out-patients begin by getting physic and presently get food; and the system "leads them afterwards openly to. solicit pecuniary aid." This vitiating effect is proved by the fact that during the 40 years from 1830 to 1869, the increase in the number of hospital patients has been five times greater than the increase of population; and as there has not been more disease, the implication is obvious. Moreover the promise of advice for nothing, attracts the mean-spirited to the extent that "the poor are now being gradually ousted out of the consulting room by well-to-do persons." People of several hundreds a year, even up to a thousand, apply as out patients, going in disguise: 20 per cent. of the out-patients in one large hospital having" given false addresses" for the purpose of concealing their identity. Swarming as patients thus do, it results' that each gets but little atten tion: a minute being the average for each, sometimes diminish to forty-five seconds. Thus those for whom the grati8 advice is intended get but little. Often" the assistance given is merely nominal;" and "is both a deception on the 386 THE ETHICS OF SOCIAL LIFE.

public and a fraud lI,pOn the poor." These gratuitous medical benefits, such as they are, "are conferred chiefly by the mmnbers of the unpaid professional staffs" of these charities. SOIne of them prescribe at the rate of 318 patients in three hours and twenty minutes-a process sufficiently exhausting for men already hard worked in their private practice, and sufficiently disheartening to men with little private practice, who thus give without .payment aid which otherwise they ·would get payment for, very much needed by them. So that the £600,000 a year of the metropolitan hospitals, which, if the annual value of the lands and buildings occupied were added would reach very nearly a Inillion, has largely the effect of delnoralizing the patients, taking medical care from those it was intended for and giving it to those for ·whom it was not, and obliging many impecunious doctors and surgeons to \vork hard for nothing. * These various experiences, then, furnished by so~ieties and institutions supported by voluntary gifts and sub scriptions, unite to sho,v that whatever benefits flow from them are accompanied by grave evils-evils sometimes greater than the benefits. They force on us the tl'uth that, be it cornpulsory or non-compulsory, social Ifnachinery wastes po\ver, and ,yorks other effects than those intended.

In proportion as beneficence operates indirectly instead of directly, it fails in its end. § 456. Alike in the foregoing sections and in the fore going parts of this work, there has been implied the conclusion that the beneficence which takes the fOrlTI of gi ving material aid to those in distress, has the best effects when individually exercised. If, like mercy it "blesses him that gives and him that takes," it can do * The evidence here summarized will be found in Medical Charity: Its Abuses, and how to remedy them, by John Chapman, M. D. Some of the sums and numbers given should be greatly increased; for since 1874, when the work was published, much hospital extension has taken place.

RELIEF OF THE POOR. 381 this in full measure only when the benefactor and beneficiary stand in direct relation. It is true, however, that individual beneficence often ~alls far short of the requirements, often runs into excesses, and is often wrongly directed. Let us look at its imperfections and corruptions. The most familiar of these is the careless squandering of pence to beggars, and the consequent fostering of. idleness and vice. SOlnetimes because their sympathies are so quick that they cannot tolerate the sight of real or apparent misery; sometimes because they quiet their consciences and think they compound for misdeeds Hy occasional largesse , sometimes because they are moved by that other-worldli ness which hopes to obtain large gifts hereafter by small gifts here; sometimes because, though conscious of mis chief likely to be done, they have not the patience needed to lnake inquiries, and are telnpted to end the matter with a sixpence or something less; men help the bad to become worse. Doubtless the evil is great, and weighs much against the individual exercise 'of beneficence-practically if not theoretically.

The same causes initiate and maintain the begging letter impostures. Occasional exposures of these in daily papers might serve as warnings; but always there is a new crop of credulous people who believe. what they are told by cunning dissemblers, and yield rather than take the trouble of verification: thinking, many of them, that they are virtuous in thus doing the thing which seems kind, instead of being, as they are, vicious in taking no care to prevent evil. That the doings of such keep alive numbers of scamps and swindlers, everyone knows; and doubtless a considerable set-off to the advantages of in dividual beneficence hence arises. Then, again, there meets us the objection that if there is no compulsory raising of funds to relieve distress, and everything is left to the promptings of sympathy, people 63 388 THE ETHICS ·OF SOCIAL LIFE. who have little or no syrnpathy, fornling a large part of the cOlnmunity, vdll contribute nothing; and will leave undue burdens to be borne by the Inore sympathetic.

Either the requirements will be inadequately met or the kind-hearted will have to make excessive sacrifices. l\tfuch force though there is in this objection, it is not so forcible as at first appears. In this case, as in many cases, wrong inferences are drawn respecting the effects oT a new cause, because it is supposed that while one thing is changed all other things remain the same. It is for gotten that in the absence of a coercive law there often exists a coercive public opinion. There is no legal penalty on a lie, if not uttered after taking an oath; and yet the social disgrace which fol1o",~s a convicted liar has a strong effect in lnaintaining a general truthfulness. There is no prescribed punishment for breaking social observances; and yet these are by lnany conformed to more carefully than are moral precepts or legal enact ments. }Iost people dread far more the social frown which follows the doing ofsonlething conventionally wrong, than they do the qualms of ·conscience which follow the doing of something intrinsically ·wrong.* Hence it may reasonably be concluded that if private voluntary relief of the poor replaced public compulsory relief, the diffused sentiment which enforces the one would go a long way towards Inaintaining the other.

The general feeling would become such that few, even of the unsyrnpathetic, \vould dare to face the scorn which would result did they skirk all share of the common * A most instructive and remarkable fact, which illustrates this general truth at the same time that it illustrates a more special truth, is that already cited in § 183, respecting the rudest of the l\iusheras of India, who have no form of marriage, but among whom" unchastity, or a change of lovers on either side, when once mutual appropriation has been made, is a thing of rare occurrence;" and, when it does occur, causes excommunication~ So that among these simple people, public opinion in respect of the marital relation is more potent than law is among ourselves. (For account of the Musheras see Oalcutta Review, April, 1888.) RELIEF OF THE POOR. 389 responsthility; and while there would probably be thus in sured something like due contributions from the indifferent or the callous, there would, in some of them, be initiated, by the formal practice of beneficence, a feeling which in course of time would render the. beneficence genuine and pleasur able.

A further difficulty presents itself. "I aln too lunch occupied," says the man of business when exhorted to exercise private beneficence. "I have a family to bring up; and IT1Y whole tilne is absorbed in discharging my responsibilities, parental and other. It is inlpossible for me, therefore, to make such inquiries as are needful to avoid giving misdirected assistance. I Inust make my contribution and leave others to distribute." That there is force· in the reply cannot be denied. But when we call to mind. the common relnark that if you want anything clone you must· apply to the busy man rather than to the man of leisure, ,ve may reasonably question whether the busy man may not occasionally find time enough to investi~ gate cases of distress which ·are forced on his attention. Sornetimes there may even result, from a due amount of altruistic action, a mental gain conducive to efficiency in the conduct of affairs.

At any rate it rnust be .admitted that individual minis tration .to the poor is the norrnal form of ministration ; and that, made more thoughtful and careful, as it would be if the entire responsibility of caring for the poor devolved upon it, it would go a long way towards meeting the needs: especially as the needs would be greatly diminished when there had .been excluded the artificially .. generated poverty with which we are sur rounded. § 457. But no,v, from this general advocacy of individual giving ver8U8 giving by public and quasi-public agencies, ! pass to the special advocacy of the natural form of indi.

390 THE ETHICS OF SOCIAL LIFE. vidual giving-a fornl which exists and which simply needs development. Within the intricate plexus of social relations surrounding each citizen, there is a special plexus. more familiar to hiIn than any other, and \vhich has established greater c1aiIns on him than any other. Everyone who can afford to give assistance, is brought by his daily activities into immediate ·contact with a cluster of those who by illness, by loss of work, by a death, or by other calamity, are severally liable to fall into a state calling f~r aid; and there should be recognized a claim possessed by each melnber of this par ticular cluster. In early societies, organized on the system of f~tatus, there went, along with the dependence of inferiors, a certain kind of responsibility for their welfare. The sinlple or compound family-group, formed of relatives standing in degrees of subordination, and usually posssess ing slaves, was a group so regulated that while the inferiors ,vere obliged to do what they were told, and receive what was given to them, they usually had a sufficiency given to them. They were much in the position of domestic animals in respect of their subjec tion, and they were in a kindred position in respect of due ministration to their needs. Alike in the primitive patriarchal system and in the developed feudal systeln, -w"'"e see that the system of statu8 presented the general trait, that \vhile dependents were in large measure denied their liberty, they were in large measure supplied with the means of living. Either they 'were directly fed and housed, or they were allowed sueh fixed proportion of produce as enabled them to feed and house theln selves. Possession of them unavoidably brought with it care for them.

Along with gradual substitution of the system of contract for the system of status, this relation has been ehanged in such manner that while the benefits of indeRELIEF OF THE POOR. 391 pendence have been gained the benefits of dependence have been lost. The poorer citizen has no longer any one to control him ; but he has no longer anyone to provide for him. So much service for so much money, has become the uni versal principle of co-operation; and the money having been paid for the service rendered, no further claim is recognized. The requirements of justice having been fulfilled, it is supposed that all requirements have been fulfilled. The ancient regi1ne of protection and fealty has ceased, while the modern regime of beneficence and gratitude has but partially replaced it. May we not infer, with tolerable certainty, that there has to be re-instituted something akin to the old order in a new form ~ ]\tray we not expect that without re establishment of the ancient power of superiors over inferiors, there may be resumed something like the ancient care for them ~ May we not hope that without the forma tion of any legal ties between individuals of the regulating class, and those groups whose work they severally regulate in one or other way, there may conle to be formed stronger moral ties? Already such moral ties are in some lneasure recognized. Already all householders moderately endowed with sylnpathy, feel bound to care for their servants during illness;· already they help those living out of the house who in less direct 'ways labour for them; already from time to time small traders, porters, errand-boys, and the like, benefit by their kind offices on occasions of misfortune.

The sole requisite seems to be that the usage which thus shows itself here and there irregularly, should b~ called into general activity by the gradual disappearance of artificial agencies for distributing aid. As before implied, the sym pathetic feelings which have originated and support these artificial agencies, would; in their absence, vitalize and de velop the natural agencies. And if with each citizen there remained the amount now taken from him in rates and sub392 THE ETHICS OF SOCIAL LIFE. scriptions, he "vould be enabled to meet these -private de mands: if not by as large a disburselnent, yet by a disburse ment probably as large as is desirable. Besides re-establishing these closer· relationships between superior and inferior, which during our transition from ancient slavery to nlodern freedom have lapsed; and besides bringing beneficence back to its normal form of direct relation between benefactor and beneficiary; this personal adnlinistration of relief would be guided by imlnediate knowledge of the recipients, and the relief would be adjusted in kind and arnount to their needs and their deserts. When, instead of the responsibility indi rectly discharged through poor-law officers and mendicity societies, the responsibility fell directly -on each of those having some spare means, each would see the necessity for inquiry and criticislll and supervision: so increasing the aid given to the worthy and restricting that given to the unworthy.

§ 458. And here we are brought face to face with the greatest of the difficulties attendant on all methods of miti gating distress. May we not by frequent aid to the worthy render tpem unworthy; and are ,ve not almost certain by helping those who are already unworthy to make thern nlore unworthy still? How shall we so regulate our pecuniary beneficence as to avoid assisting the incapables and the de graded to multiply? I have in so many places commented on the impolicy, and indeed the cruelty, of bequeathing to posterity an increasing population of criminals and incapables, that I need not here insist that true· beneficence will be so restrained as to avoid fostering the inferior at the expense of the superior-or, at any rate, so restrained as to minimize the mischief which fostering the inferior entails. Under present circumstances the difficulty seems ahnost insurmountable. By the law-established and privately RELIEF OF THE POOR. 393 established agencies, coercive and voluntary, which save the bad from the extrelne results of their badness, there have been produced unmanageable multitudes of them, and to prevent further multiplication appears next to impossible.

The yearly accumulating appliances for keeping alive those who will not do enough work to keep thernselves alive, continually increase the evil. Each new effort to mitigate the penalties on ilnprovidence, has the inevitable effect of adding to the IHuuber of the improvident. Whether assistance is given through State-machinery, or by Chario table societies, or privately, it is difficult to see how it can be restricted in such manner as to prevent the inferior from 0 begetting luore of the inferior. If left to operate in all its sternness, the principle of the survival of the fittest, "which, as ethically considered, we have seen to imply that each individual shall be left to experience the effects of his own nature and consequent conduct, would quickly clear away the degraded. But it is impracticable with our present sentiments to let it operate in all its sternness. No serious evil would result from relaxing' its operation, if the degraded were to leave no progeny. A short-sighted beneficence might be allowed to save them from suffering, were a long-sighted beneficence assured that there 'would be born no more such. But how can it be thus assured ~ If, either by public action or by private action, aid were given to the feeble, the unhealthy, the deformed, the stupid, on condition that they did not marry, the result would manifestly be a great increase of illegitimacy; which, implying a still more unfavourable nurture of children, would result in still worse lTIen and women. If instead of a "submerged tenth" there existed only a submerged fiftieth, it might be possible to deal "with it effectually by private industrial institutions, or some kindred appliances. But the mass of effete humanity to be dealt with is so large as to make one despair: the probleln seems insoluble.

394: THE ETHICS OF SOCIAL LIFE. Certainly, if solvable, it is to be solved only through suffering. Having, by unwise institutions, brought into existence large numbers who are unadapted to the re quirements of social life, and are consequently sources of lllisery to themselves and others, we cannot repress and gradually diminish this body of relatively worthless people without inflicting much pain. Evil has been done and the penalty must be paid. Cure can come only through affiiction. The artificial assuaging of distress by State appliances, is a kind of social opium-eating, yielding tem porary mitigation at the eventual cost of intenser Inisery.. Increase of the anodyne dose inevitably leads by and by to increase of the evil; and the only rational course is that of bearing the misery w"hich must be entailed for a tilne by desistance. The transition from State-beneficence to a healthy condition of self-help and private beneficence, lllust be like the transition froIn an opiulu-eating life to a nOflnal life-painful but remedial.