a Central London Board from 65 to 83 per thousand; a South London Board from 32 to 51 per thousand; an East London Board from 17 to 26 per thousand. Yet these Boards are no nearer to the solution of the problem of poverty than other Boards which have adopted a contrary policy.
The worst of it is that a policy of lavish relief may go on for a few years, and then comes inevitable reaction. No rates nor even imperial taxation can cope with the increased demand or the wastage which is the result of such a policy. The State, or in other words, that section of the population which maintains itself independently, cannot stand the drag upon it indefinitely, and has to shake itself clear before it is itself submerged. But meanwhile it has taught the poor to look to it in all contingencies, and to live from hand to mouth, and when the crisis comes, as come it must, their suffering is ten times more acute because they have no reserves to fall back upon.
In the last ten years the expenditure on the relief of the poor has gone up from £8,600,000 to £11,500,000, or about 30 per cent., though they have been ten years of great prosperity. It has touched the highest point ever known in the history of the country, and is still growing. Meanwhile all sorts of proposals for further expenditure are in the air. A large section of the London School Board recently proposed to charge the rates with the feeding of school children. There is a tendency to turn Poor Law Infirmaries into municipal hospitals. Many would charge public bodies with the duty of finding work for the unemployed. Many more would throw the entire maintenance of old age upon the rates and taxes, and pension schemes varying in estimated
