,THE PROBLEM OF POVERTY.
LTO TRH EDITOR 07 TRH "SPECTATOR."'
Sin.,—It requires some courage to argue the point with the Spectator, but dare I suggest that your interesting article on the above subject in last week's issue is hardly a complete state- ment of the case P No one with either practical or historical knowledge of this question will challenge the importance of the moral factors on which you rightly insist, or deny the part they have played in the dismal record of the centuries. But the causes of poverty are not always the same. Can we really assume, as your article seems to assume, that no pro- portion of poverty is a social creation for which the failures of society as a whole rather than the failures of the individual are responsible P This contention seems to me untenable in the lightof the industrial revolution. That great social and economic change—the product not of moral factors but of machinery— destroyed the old domestic system of industry, replacing handicraftsmen by " hands "; swept population off the land to herd in urban centres and to create social problems of the gravest kind, while puzzled men painfully adapted themselves to the new and, in many ways, miserable processes of industrial existence. Your article is silent as to the terrible sufferings of that period and the social conditions which sprang into being at that time, social conditions of which we are in a large measure reaping the fruits to-day. The history of the industrial revolution would also appear to disprove your contention that on the economic side poverty can never be overcome save by the increase of wealth and the absence of restrictive legislation. During this period wealth increased by leaps and bounds, and the rich grew rapidly richer ; but the condition of the people has sel- dom been more miserable. Arnold Toynbee writes: "The effects of the industrial revolution prove that free competi- tion may produce wealth without well-being. We all know the horrors that ensued in England before it was restrained by legislation and combination."
The singular moderation of Toynbee's fine spirit lends special emphasis to the principle which runs through his famous work, that a large portion of pauperism and misery is really attributable to social injustice and bad government, and that such evils call for remedy at the hands of the State.
Most assuredly character is not built up in a day, but in dealing with the moral failures of the poor it is well to remember that we of the classes more fortunately placed have never attempted character building on an empty'
mpty stomach. It is idle to suppose that the slum-born, slum-reared child, chronically under-fed and growing up under conditions below rather than above the poverty line, starts life in any position which will enable him to make " his moral being his prime care." I have in mind a boy I saw only last week in the slums of one of our great cities, the child of a consump- tive father and broken-down mother who were keeping the home together as best they might on a pittance mainly earned by the woman. There had been neither drink nor moral failure in that household: its record was one of struggle, pluck, and endurance. But there was bad health, extending over a time of years, resulting in dire poverty and an outlook of utter gloom. Such a case is typical of many a, hundred others.
Is it not increasingly difficult to accept the view that the great forces of the State are only to be at the service of the pauper, the lunatic, and the criminal, and that the honest and deserving citizen, if he falls on evil days, should be banded over to what Malthus drily called "the uncertain support of private charity " ? The Charity Organization Society has done a great work and has trained a whole generation in scientific methods of thinking and relief. But inevitably it has failed—as any voluntary society was bound to fail—in dealing with the problem of poverty through the organization of private charity. On the other hand it appears to view with un- necessary reluctance the efforts of the State to make good these deficiencies. Meanwhile a growing body of centre opinion, rejecting the extreme conclusions of both Socialists and individualists alike, feels that the imperative need of the hour is the working out of a middle term which will bring State and individual into a helpful co-operation. Statutory bodies largely composed of voluntary workers, such as the Care Committees, Juvenile Advisory Committees, &c., are springing up everywhere, and are among the most significant and hope- ful signs of the times. The State has arrived and has come to stay. Further, its activities in many directions will in all likelihood be regarded as increasingly justified by the large majority of people. But it rests with the individual to moralize and vitalize the State, to add to the power and authority of the State that driving force of faith, enthusiasm, and self-sacrifice—in a word, those spiritual factors which are essential conditions of all true reform.—I am, Sir, &o., VIOLET R. MARKHAM.
Moon Green, Wittersham, Kent.
[God forbid that we should. regard the present state of the poor as satisfactory 1 Our point is that it is due, not to freedom of exchange—for that and not Individualism is the true alternative of Socialism—which has never been tried, but to State action, which has been tried, and with very dis- appointing results. What is wanted in the economic region is higher wages, and these will not be obtained while we crush the poor to the earth by a yearly swelling burden of taxes and rates. Some State action we must of course have, but let us not suppose that the emancipation of the poor lies that way. At the present moment we are, by our so-called policy of social reform, manufacturing paupers, not worthy men and women.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
