indulges in the selfish gratification of direct alms-giving should be viewed as sinning, not simply against the unhappy recipient, but also against society generally, and punished as an enemy to the well-being of the community at large.
In London, and in all large towns, it is simply impossible for any person, unconnected with a methodized system of inquiry, to secure himself from imposition. Such is not simply the case in reference to the lowest section of the working classes, but equally so in regard to persons whose surroundings would lead to the conclusion they were utterly incapable of such soul debasing hypocrisy.
The question, What are we to do? naturally presents itself. To those who believe, as the writer does, that our Pauperism, and in a great measure Crime, are attributable to our leading vast numbers of the community to become utterly indifferent to all prudential motives, the answer is evident: undo by legislation all which has produced results so calamitous. As a means to that end, the writer would suggest that, the Government forthwith appoint a Commission, composed of practical men, to inquire into the working of all existing charities, and wherever they are found to encourage (directly or indirectly) a leaning on aid other than their own honest exertions, on the part of any of the community, away with them without a moment's hesitation.
Persons who have bequeathed funds for the use of the Poor purposed to benefit, not injure them; their gifts, therefore, should be treated in the spirit in which they were made, not in the letter of the deed of conveyance.
