centralisation it has the same sort of attraction for the very poor and those whose lives are spent in shadow as a lighthouse has for birds, moths, and other winged things which are drawn to it and beat themselves to death against the glass. The poor get to measure their lives by it from the cradle to the grave. They look on it as a right either as a compensation for the wrongs of "the social system" or as an insurance because they have paid rates. It is idle to explain that if it is to be looked upon in that light every one would have the right to draw upon it in proportion to their contributions, and the whole system would have to be rearranged upon an actuarial basis. They have no notion where it comes from or what are its limits. It is a sort of purse of Fortunatus into which every one dips. The Socialist uses it, quite candidly, to advance his doctrines. The ambitious local administrator uses it to win popularity. The clergyman dips into it for his parish poor. The employer of labour—not unfrequently—uses it as a means of pensioning an old and worn-out employee. It is the prey of every one. "Where the carcase is there are the eagles gathered together." Meanwhile those who administer public relief are administering that of which their own contribution represents so small a part that the personal motive for economy and restraint is practically non-existent, and the number of those who have sufficient faith to bear unpopularity and reputation for harshness is exceedingly small.
But even if there were none of these difficulties, State relief remains as far as ever from charitable relief. The essence of charity is personal feeling, and it implies much more than the mere gift. But how can we say this of public relief? So far as the poor are concerned they learn to look upon it as a right, the withholding of which is an injury. "Why
