no psychological analysis, and altogether ignores the old and well-recognised distinction between poverty and pauperism. In the words of an old writer:—
"It is of the utmost importance to distinguish between poverty and pauperism, for, by confounding them, poverty is dishonoured and pauperism countenanced. Supply poverty with means and it vanishes; but pauperism is the more confirmed. Poverty is a natural appetite merely wanting food, pauperism a ravenous atrophy which no food can satisfy. Poverty strives to cure itself, pauperism to contaminate others. Poverty often stimulates to exertion, pauperism always paralyses. Poverty is sincere, pauperism an arch-hypocrite. Poverty has naturally a proud spirit, pauperism a base one—now servile, now insolent. Poverty is silent and retiring, pauperism clamorous and imposing: the one grateful, the other the reverse. There is much that is alluring in poverty, but pauperism is altogether hateful. It is delightful to succour the one, and irksome to be taxed for the other. Poverty has the blessing of heaven, as well as of those who relieve it. Pauperism, on the other hand, has nothing in common with the Christian virtues." Except for a few stray phrases, the Report takes little heed of this side of the question, and it is noteworthy that the chapter upon the "causes of pauperism" is one of the few chapters which ends with no "conclusions." It approaches the subject of administration as a cause of pauperism, a question which is at the root of the difference of opinion between different schools of thought, half timidly, as "controversial." But it is for the very purpose of deciding controversial questions that a Royal Commission is appointed.
Elsewhere we find the same indecisiveness. Its characteristic is that it attempts to convey its opinions by suggestion and illustration, and though
