Inquiry.

saved or rescued from indigence. The former, making allowance, of course, for special circumstances in each individual instance, we may call, for want of a better word, ineligible for charity— the latter eligible. In England there is State charity, or at least a state fund for the destitute: it rightly deals with the indigent. Subject, therefore, to considerations to be afterwards dealt with, charity can, without fear of consequences, limit its scope to the curable. It may be said that the Poor Law does its work with a want of uniformity, and at best but indifferently well: if so it should be improved, and not superseded, by charity. The true position of charitable work remains intact. All eligible cases should properly be dealt with by it. But how can a distinction be drawn? By no other plan than either a thorough personal acquaintance with the history and circumstances of those in distress, which is possible when there has been a long-continued familiar intercourse or frequent and sufficient contact with them; or by an inquiry which will be a satisfactory substitute for this. It will hardly be said that the former is possible, unless in a very few exceptional instances, in London or large towns: it is very often impossible even in the country. We may content ourselves therefore with considering what is the best substitute. Rich and poor do not live in the same quarter of the town: the former therefore cannot pretend to know much about the latter: individuals no doubt make inroads, but they seldom become members, as it were, of the same community. Yet whoever gives charitable aid, undertakes a responsibility: he is not, for instance, entitled to injure the person he thinks he will help. To make sure that he does not, he must learn all the circumstances, which will indicate how he can help effectually. We may even put it more strongly-he has no right to interfere, unless he justifies his interference not merely by a well-meaning but by a well-directed charity. Inquiry then is the acquisition of such information as may make charity productive of good results. Two kinds of knowledge are required for the purpose: a knowledge of the social life of the class of which the person in distress is a member (for this purpose the services of an inquiry officer are desirable), and a general knowledge of character a discernment of the value of evidence, combined with a knowledge of the modes and possibilities of charitable assistance (for this purpose a well-educated and instructed almoner is a sine qua non). And to check the individual judgment, which is always necessary, there should be a committee, especially a committee containing members of all classes and having all kinds of influence and special knowledge. Many have no aptitude for almoner's work; none can do it to good purpose without study and training. Doctors have to be registered and certificated. Charity is the work of the social physician. It is the interest of the community

that it should not be entrusted to novices or to dilettanti, or to quacks.

The scope of the inquiry generally necessary may be indicated by the following heads, on which usually information must be obtained: (1) The parents; earnings at the time of application and previously; cause of leaving last employ; their children; the ages of parents and children; whether the children go to school, and, if so, where; or, if they are employed, what they earn. (2) The previous addresses of the family. (3) Their references. (4) Whether they belong to a club, or have relations who ought to assist. (5) What debts they have; and what their rent is. (6) How they are obtaining a living at the time of application, and how they think they can be thoroughly helped.

Then follows the investigation on this basis: to learn the cause of distress; to verify; to search out the best mode of helping; to throw a fair share of the burden of assistance on relatives; by visiting the home, and in other ways to ascertain the character of the family; to learn on whom, if the head of the family lacks force of character or is weak, reliance can be placed to re-establish the family fortunes; to settle what means of future thrift and self-support can be organised. A sympathetic and thorough investigation will elicit facts on all these points. Upon them the committee will then have to decide. We say 'the committee,' but if a private almoner can spare the time to work in this fashion and has the necessary resources at his command, the ends of charity will be equally gained. Yet single-handed he cannot effect so much as he might if associated with others. This investigation will indicate who are the curable, and will limit the field of charity, as apart from that of the Poor Law and other public bodies.

To these suggestions in regard to the necessity for inquiry and Objections to inquiry the desirability of the formation of Assistance or Relief committees, considered. and the limitation of the field of charity, one or two objections may be made. Inquiry will check enthusiasm and devotion, it may be said. Facts prove the contrary. Inquiry startles the novice as a revelation of new knowledge; but it gives him eventually a security in his work, which imposes on him many restrictions, and requires of him perpetual thoughtfulness, but which is as a high road compared with the fool's paradise in which he formerly walked boldly along. Also, this inquiry throws into prominence the imperative necessity of nourishing and bringing into operation all the finer elements of charity-personal influence, a long-suffering patience, a quick sympathy, the setting aside of social prejudice and patronage for charity's sake. It shows that material help, if these things are lacking, is but as husks, flung before the poor as if they were without common humanity. It is needless to add that religion, if sternly refusing to attract by loaves and fishes,

will increase her opportunities for exercising a rightful authority and influence. But committees, it may be said, curtail the proper individuality of the almoner. This is the individual's fault, if it be so. Many work in co-operation, who otherwise would not work at all; and as inquiry shows the need of those kinds of charity which are usually the most neglected, so does the committee afford occasion to each member for meeting these higher wants, according to the best use of his individual powers. No doubt committees may become official, as individuals may become indolent. Another argument is that people ought only to be asked to state their troubles privately; that, however guarded, their statement is in the nature of a confession, and should be made, heard, and considered in this spirit. The facts ought not to be revealed to more than one or two. Of course such a view is quite inapplicable to scores of the seekers for charity—public opinion in their class has rubbed off this fineness of feeling: it is one of charity's works to replace it. But it is applicable to some cases; and in them the personal and, as it were, private work may well be delegated to an individual, if he be without doubt one who with much kindness of heart is yet sufficiently instructed and experienced to be able to obtain corroborative testimony, and to judge of evidence, for unhappily the stress of life, in which vice plays a part, creates an hypocrisy, the cunning simulation of which has an air of reality, that deceives all but a very few. Then it may be said, true charity recognises no limits; none are so abandoned that it cannot hope for them. Facts again prove the contrary, with some limitations. When the will is weakened and the nerve irresolute, the lives of many become hopeless: as they have sown they reap; on the bed they have made they lie. Hope must therefore limit its hopefulness; if it be worthy of the name, it must spring from a knowledge of the true condition of the unfortunate, however determined it may be to make the best of the facts. This makes one limit. And there is another. Were all the powers of religious and material charity co-ordinated and available for the rescue of the individual, each ready to assist according to its kind and the circumstances of the patient, the ability of charity to help to good purpose would be enormously increased. As this co-operation becomes a reality, charity will be able to extend its usefulness. Experience, however, of the sum and character of the means available, and of the conditions and causes of distress in a large number of cases, imposes a natural limit to remedial work, which may be gainsaid, but does in the issue prove itself a matter of fact. What that limit is a methodic study of charity and its results will show to each.

These general principles then may be allowed-that charity has to discriminate; that for this and other purposes inquiry is necessary; that, as far as possible, it has to cure and not merely

to alleviate distress; that to do this and to know its own limits, it must be instructed in the modes of assisting, spiritual and material; and that to use these modes beneficially the charitable must co-operate-combining the resources of charity, supplementing individual action, and taking common counsel.

VI.-ON INTERIM OR INSTANT HELP.

It will be said that while this careful inquiry is being made, and suitable help in all quarters is sought, the applicant will starve. If the case is ineligible-to be dealt with eventually by the Poor Lawthere will be delay none the less, and this delay will be cruel. People in real distress only ask when every other hope has failed; and coming in the direst need, they are thus quietly left in their need, while elaborate measures are taken to aid them. This evil, so far as it exists, may be met by interim help-especially in cases in which it has been decided to give assistance. The applicant in some instances may be placed in a refuge or other temporary abode. If he has already been in the workhouse, he may be sent to the relieving officer, and the interim help will thus be supplied by the Poor Law, while the case, if suitable, will eventually be helped by charity. The greatest care is necessary in dealing with these cases of urgency. Urgency is often the most effective instrument for extorting alms, and many of the poor are quite ready to use it to gain the interim help of a few shillings. They have many resources besides the charity of their superiors. Nothing but a knowledge of their ways of life will be a sufficient guide to the almoner. Yet, as even plausible allegations of hardship are likely to discredit the cause of wise charity, it must be remembered that it is a small matter to spend a few shillings in a case about which you are settling once and for all whether it should be left to the Poor Law or thoroughly dealt with by charity. Were almoners ready to accept some common principles of discrimination, so that ineligible applicants, when adjudicated on, were left to the Poor Law only, instead of having merely one source of charity cut off, interim help might be given and would be fully justified in very many cases. The proper use of the large mass of charity referred to in Section V. of the Register, 'Relief in Distress (temporary),' is for interim help only.

VII.-ON CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS.

Generally speaking, the test of the usefulness of charitable institutions is, whether or not they produce self-help in the recipients of their bounties and in the people at large. If they do not, they are misnamed charities, for they are undermining the manliness of the people. What then, to prevent their abuse, are the self-im

The test of institutions.

charitable

on admission.

posed safeguards of charities? A consideration of the modes of Restrictions admission will show that the restrictions have rather the object of limiting their use than of guarding it. Destitution, for instance, is a frequently recurrent condition; but this, so far from being a protection, is rather a temptation to abuse, for vice can soon reduce a family to destitution, and improvidence often leaves the individual in extreme want towards the end of life. Passing by smaller restrictions-election by votes is in many large institutions necessary to admission. The evils of this system have been modified in several instances; but it is in principle a limitation and not a safeguard. The chief plea for it is, that large establishments dependent on a regular income must give to each contributor a specific advantage—a quid pro quo in the shape of patronage— and that otherwise the income would be diminished. The contributor in fact purchases by his contribution a quantum of influence in the admission of candidates, according to a regular tariff. The rules of the institution lay down certain conditions, but if these are satisfied, the choice rests with electors, who are canvassed and often induced to subscribe for the benefit of particular candidates. The question therefore is, not which candidate most requires assistance, but which has the most interest; and the fanning up of this interest depends on the circulation of papers and a clever manipulation of the voting power of the institution. A large donor has many votes and much influence. But a large donor has often very little time to learn the relative merits of candidates, and he may be a most uninstructed almoner. As in other matters, the choice demands skill and not a battle of interests. The plea that the system is necessary to the maintenance of institutions is in itself invalid. If the system is working in a manner detrimental to the poor at large it should be altered, or, if the logical alternative must be pressed, it is only right that the institution should be closed. Recent changes and experiments show, however, that it is not necessary to the maintenance of institutions. Admission by election is only one of various similar questions, which ought to be discussed dispassionately and with a recognition of the obvious, but sometimes forgotten, fact that charitable institutions exist only for the benefit of the poor, and have to justify their existence on these terms. No one can pretend to have solved the problem of the best methods of assistance; everyone, therefore, should be ready to make frequent reforms. Charity, by its very nature, is extremely exposed to misuse. Its funds must always be a last hope to indolence and improvidence. Its rules have something of the force of social custom: they re-act on the lives of possible recipients, who form their habits according to the chances open to them. Charity, especially institutional and public charity, must thus, in the interests of the poor, be always in an attitude of wise self-protection, changing