CHARITY
AND
lower classes, those most tempted to dependence—say some six or seven millions of the people—a very potent influence definitely antagonistic to the good development of family life, unless it be limited to very narrow proportions ; as, for instance, to restricted indoor or institutional relief for the sick, for the aged and infirm, who in extreme old age require special care and nursing, and for the afflicted, for whom no sufficient charitable provision is procurable. As ample experience shows, only on these conditions can poor-law relief be justified from the point of view of charity and the common good. In marked contrast to this opinion is the agitation for pensions. These, it was at first proposed, should be given out of the national exchequer to all persons over 65, at the rate of five shillings a week; and, were the plan adopted in spite of its great cost, a system of state alms for the aged would be set on foot, unlike the annona civica, since it would be available not for citizens only, a comparatively small part of the population, but for the whole population, yet like the annona, since it would be claimed as a right —a huge charity endowed with unlimited funds, funds which ultimately may largely exceed the normal cost of the army or the navy. Schemes of the kind are being adopted in some colonies—in New Zealand, for instance, and Victoria—with some apparent safeguards. In England, failing any such plan, the Local Government Board in 1900 urged the boards of guardians to give large outdoor relief to aged deserving people, and laid no stress on the test of destitution, the neglect of which led to many of the difficulties of the old poor-law. History has proved that demoralization results from the wholesale relief whether of the mass of the citizens, or of the able-bodied, or of the children, and the fact that it is now proposed to limit the endowment to the aged makes no substantial difference. The social results must be similar; but social forces work slowly, and usually only the unanswerable argument of financial bankruptcy suffices to convert a people habituated to dependence, though the inward decay of vitality and character may long before be manifest. Ultimately the distribution of pensions by way of out-door relief, corrupting a far more independent people, would work a far greater injury than the annona civica. Such an endowment of old age might indeed be justified as part of a system of regulated labour, which, as in earlier times, could not be enforced without some such extraneous help, but it could not be justified otherwise. It is naturally associated, therefore, with socialistic proposals for the regulation of wage. In the light of the principles of charity, which we have considered historically, we have now to turn to two questions : charity and economics, and charity and socialism. The object of charity is to render to our neighbour the services and duties of goodwill, friendship, and love. To prevent distress charity has for its further nomicsof an °^ject t° preserve and develop the manhood charity. d womanhood of individuals and their selfmaintenance in and through the family ; and any form of state intervention is approved or disapproved by the same standard. By self-maintenance is meant self-support throughout life in its ordinary contingencies—sickness, widowhood, old age, &c. Political economy we would define as the science of exchanges. Here it has to be considered in relation to the purposes of charity. By way of illustration we take, accordingly, three points : distribution and use, supplementation of wage, and the standard of well-being in relation to wage. (1) Distribution and Use.—Economy in the Greek sense begins at this point—the use of means and resources. Political economy ignores it. Yet from the point of view of charity it is cardinal to the whole issue. The distribution of wage may or may not be
CHARITIES
685
largely influenced by trades unions ; but the variation of wage, as is generally the case, by the increase or decrease of a few pence is of less importance than its use. Comparing a careful and an unthrifty family, the difference in use may amount to as much as a third on the total wage. Mere abstention from alcohol may make, in a normal family, a difference of 6s. in a wage of 25s. On the other hand, membership of a friendly society is at a time of sickness equivalent to the command of a large sum of money, for tlm common stock of capital is by that means placed at the disposal of each individual who has a share in it. Further, even, a small amount saved may place the holder in a position to get a better market for his labour; he can wait when another man cannot. Rent may be high, but by co-operation that too may be reduced. Other points are obvious and need not be mentioned. It is evident that while the amount of wage is important, still more important is its use. In use it has a large expansive value. (2) Supplementation of Wage.—The exchange between skill and wage must be free if it is to be valid. The less the skill the greater is the temptation to philanthropists to supplement the lesser wage ; and the more important is non-supplementation, for the skilled can usually look after their own interests in the market, while the less skilled, because their labour is less marketable, have to make the greater effort to avoid dependence. But the dole of endowed charities, outdoor relief, and any constant giving, tend to reduce wage, and thus to deprive the recipients of some part of the means of independence. The employer is pressed by competition himself, and in return he presses for profit through a reduced wage, if circumstances make it possible for the workman to take it. And thus a few individuals may lower the wages of a large class of poorly skilled or unskilled hands. In these conditions unionism, even if it were likely to be advantageous, is not feasible. Unionism can only create a coherent unit of workers where there is a limited market and a definite saleable skill. Except for the time, insufficient wage will not be remedied in the individual case by supplementation in any form—doles, clothes, or other kinds of relief; and in that case, too, the relief will probably produce lessened energy after a short time, or in other words lessened ability to live. An insufficient wage *may be prevented by increasing the skill of the worker, who will then have the advantage of a better series of economic exchanges, but hardly otherwise. If the supplementation be not immediate, but postponed, as in the case of old-age pensions, its effect will be similar. To the extent of the prospective adventitious gain the attraction to the friendly society and to mutual help and saving will grow less. Necessity has been the inventor of these ; and where wage is small, a little that would otherwise be saved is quickly spent if the necessity for saving it is removed. Only necessity schools most men, especially the weak, to whom it makes most difference ultimately, whether they are thrifty or whether or not they save for the future in anyway. (3) The Standard of Well-being or Comfort in Relation to Wage.—With an increase of income there has to be an increase in the power to use income intelligently. Whatever is not so used reacts on the family to its undoing. Constantly when the wife can earn a few shillings a week, the husband will every week idle for two or three days. So also if the husband finds that in a few days he can earn enough to meet what he considers to be his requirements for the week. In these circumstances the standard of well-being falls below the standard of wage ; the wage is in excess of the energy and intelligence necessary to its economic use, and in these cases ultimately pauperism often ensues. The family is demoralized. Thus, with a view to the prevention of distress in good times, when there is the less poverty there is the more need of charity, rightly understood ; for charity would strive to promote the right use of wage, as the best means of preventing distress and preserving the economic well-being of the family. The theory of charity separates it entirely from socialism, as that word, is commonly used. Strictly socialism means, in questions affecting the community, a dominant regard for the common or social good in so far as it is contrary to private or individual advantage. But even so the antithesis is misleading, for the two need not be inconsistent. On the contrary, the common good is really and ultimately only individual good (not advantage) harmonized to a common end. The issue, indeed, is that of old Greek days, and the conditions of a settlement of it are not substantially different. In fact, however, the word socialism is used to mean the acquisition of class benefits of a personal nature for a particular class, usually called the working or labouring class, at the expense of the rest of the community. In this sense the annona civica, the poor-law, and old-age pensions, and many other schemes, are social-
