The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-11-06 00:00:00

Dqe ,toctrbribe . berUere


SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 18S6.

-

DISTRESS AND CHARITY.

LOOKING broadly at the kindly-intentioned
appeal put foith by the Bishops of London,
Rochester, and Bedford, Cardinal &fanning,
Mr. Spurgeon, and Mr. Reaney, with a view
to obviating as far as possible suffering
among the poor of London during the winter
to come, we regret to say that we are not at
one with the worthy ecclesiastical appelants.
They aim high, for
.the banishment of
hunger and privation from the wealthiest
city in the world is a project worthy of all
commendation. But they are extremely
likely to miss the mark unless they alter
their sighting. In a problem of social
economy so complex as the one with which
they are essaying to deal, nothing practical
and effectual can be done by benevolence
without method, and the ruling method,
must be one which results from experience
and the most careful thought, not the mere
noble impulse of the moment. Otherwise
the kindly hand which would strike aside
want, misery, and distress will but perpetu-
ate the semi-starving substratum of society
which, shorn of independence, waits open-
mouthed for the bread it makes no effort to
earn. The London clerics who are seekirre•
to have ready the wherewithal to warm anCl
feed the indigent when winter winds are
blowing, seem to recognise that there is a
ne'er-do-well element among the poor who
will always try to take advantage•of charity
whenever it doe:4 away with the disagreeable
necessity for labour, and. these they would
as far as possible, refrain from assisting in
any way. But are they sure that their own
pans will not eventually work to the end of
making winter-relief a ermaner,t
tion
discriminating care, as well as heart,
men, it runs the rlsk of kimllinga fire e
will consume it. They, in their benevolence,
would, to make starvation impossible, estab-
lish a fund and machinery for paying wages
below the market rate for work that might
as well be left undone, or at anyrate be done
in the ordinary way. The proposition is
unsound, and could not produce permanent
good. Unless privation were abnormally
prevalent it would not, indeed, be justifiable
at all. The scheme is open to the objection
that it would compete unfairly with regular
labour, and would create a cesspool into which
all those too lazy to care for to-morrow or
to qualify themselves for regular occupation,
however humble, would filter. The im-
provident and the riff-raff from every
quarter would gravitate always to the charity
provided labour yards, and remain there for
a short time only—just long enough to get a
shilling or two for immediate needs—when
they would lapse again into loafing until
driven once more to the new work-yards for
another brief spell of abstention from idle-
ness. This class wculd thus be cleared off
from the casual wards of the workhouses,
with their discipline and restraint—which
in themselves are somewhat of a deterrent
from vagrancy and in a manner a public
safeguard—and let loose to prey upon the
industrious as their low cunning and oppor-
tunities permitted. We are in no wise ad-
vocates of an organised charity which sifts,
enquires, refers, and. examines the really
poor and distressed until it crushes their
hearts out, as some associations established
ostensibly for the relief of suffering do. We
would, however, have benevolence exerted
in such a way as not to injure society and
endanger its own ends, thus be:wming an
evil where naught but good is intended.
Spasmodic charity dictated always by senti-
ment, however laudable, is ever open to this
objection. It jumps at conclusions, and is
peculiarly apt to be imposed upon. All this
is old argument, to be sure, but the necissity
for its repetition does not appear to have
gone. The poor laws should deal at first
hand with all the poverty which concerns
the State, except such as arises from causes
which cannot be foreseen by the Legislature
or fram some exceptional calamity which
could not well be anticipated. Then we
should be spared the constant anpeals which
go forth through the land every now and
then, and conduce, we fear, to much pauper-
ism. The careless will continue so, and al-
ways congregate in centres where charity
gives them the food they will not stir them-
selves to earn as long as Mansion House and
other benevolent funds can be relied upon
to relieve them. We hold that, though
winter is upon us, neither in London or any
other great town is distress likely to be so
great, under all ordinary conditions, as to
require special means to meet it. The labour
market is no worse, rather better, indeed,
than it has been for several Novembers past,
and there is promise of further improvement
ahead. Without protracted severe weather
there is really, happily, no prospect of ex-
ceptional distress in the immediate future;
so that the appeal of the heads of London
religious bodies is, we submit, at least pre-
mature. The idle residuum will feel the
pinch of poverty, doubtless, as they alwa3s
, do on the smallest occasion, and always will,
as justly they should do. But the existing
Poor Laws and the already established be-
nevolent bodies will, we hope, ;be fully able
to deal with the pressing needs of those
these shiftless ones drag down to the depths
with them. London will not knowingly let
one die of want, neither will any other
British town. Material good cannot ever be
done by widespread charity without a heavy
accompaniment of Moral harm, however;
and the creation of a market for unneeded
labour at a much less. cost than what it
would fetch if legitimate ee held, be
' Tory mixed good indeed to the nation

generally even if hard circumstances pressed
keenly for the adoption at such a scheme.
The quystion of distress in towns in winter
and at other timys demand calm unsenti-
mental consid9ration. It is a difficulty which
may very easily be increased by those actu-
flt Id with th, loftiest motives; hut it cannot
certaisily be cleared, away by hastening to
assure those always ready to shirk life's
duties that their wants will be supplied by
the benevolent. We do not discourage
giving, where giving is demanded by
humanity, but our alms should be done
wisely, with the object of reducing depend-
ence, and stamping out;—not cultivating—
distress.