in the newspapers, but with which they themselves, for want of opportunity, are not brought directly into contact. This sort of charity—which is very real charity—often fails for want of knowledge. It too often becomes the prey of the professional mendicant. It seldom knows much of the result of its action. It is spasmodic and uneven. It ebbs and flows according to circumstances frequently quite accidental. A picturesque report in a newspaper causes it to overflow. The fact that it has been imposed upon in an individual case causes it to recede almost out of sight. It is a very true charity because it proceeds from altogether the best motives, and it is of almost unlimited volume. If it were only possible to inspire it with greater knowledge and greater sense of responsibility it might become, as indeed it sometimes does become, of the greatest value as a supplementary force to the charity of natural obligations, and might serve to fill up its deficiencies. As it is, this sort of charity too often supplements irregularly small doles of Poor Law relief. Charity tries to throw part of its responsibility upon the Poor Law, and the Poor Law tries to throw part of its responsibility upon charity. Neither knows with any certainty what the other is doing, and their unfortunate victim falls between two stools. Many believe that Poor Law and charity should be kept quite distinct, and that the Poor Law, being a compulsory obligation, should not be regarded as charity at all. But those who think otherwise, and believe that charitable relief can legitimately supplement Poor Law relief, should at least feel the responsibility of being sure of their facts.
The position, then, is this. We have a great inert mass of poverty to deal with, the existence of which we all admit and we all deplore. In which direction does the remedy lie? Does it lie in the
