Chapter II.

The Problem.

The present age is marked by extreme social inequalities. A square mile in a modern city will hold many plutocrats and thousands of proletariats. The distinctive feature of the time is the persistence of poverty in its most appalling aspects amid the rapid growth of wealth.

Former ages, it is true, have been worse than ours in the prevalence and depth of poverty. The lot of the common people to-day is better than it has ever been. The statistics of trustworthy investigators establish this point beyond question. The movement towards amelioration of social conditions never halts, although its progress for the most part is wofully slow. Giffen and other statisticians save their readers from pessimism. In Gregory King's time one in ten of the population of England was in receipt of alms, while now the proportion is only one in thirty In 1688, 74 per cent, of the population belonged to the working class, and obtained 26 per cent, of the products of industry; in 1867 the figures were 80 per cent, and 40 per cent, respectively Mulhall estimates that the navvy earned £30 a year in 1890, as against £12 in 1800, while bread was twice as dear at the begining of the century as at the end. The tendency throughout has been upward and onward. There have been temporary set backs, but then the law of advancement is ever that of the incoming tide, each successive flow reaching farther than its predecessor, and each successive ebb stopping short of its former backward mark

What amazes one, however, is the sluggishness of the movement. We feel we have a right to expect a higher speed of improvement. "Fifty years ago," one writer has pointed out, "the tide of human progress was in full flow, and a breath of passionate hope was passing through all Europe. Italy was feeling her way to deliverance. America was emerging like a giant from the sea; Germany collecting her energies for a tremendous struggle. Tenny-son was writing his first Locksley Hall."

"Men my brothers, men the workers, ever reaping something new; That which they have done but earnest of the things that they shall do:

For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see.

Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be."

Men saw visions and dreamed dreams. A buoyant hope impassioned the hearts of men in that period, when the railway and steamship were making all nations neighbors, and the long dormant energies of nature were being awakened to stupendous activity in man's behoof. Education has since poured its strength into the minds of the poorest. The light of popular knowledge has risen upon the darkness of ignorance and error. The citadels of injustice, prejudice, and prerogative have been stoutly assailed. The world, especially the English-speaking world, has witnessed during the past half-century a movement akin to that of the Renascence or Revival of Letters in the 16th century. That ancient revival touched only the upper classes; this latter one has awakened into activity the somnolent brain of the common laboring

Yet what are the results of popular education? It has increased the industrial efficiency of the worker. It has widened his outlook. But its effect on reducing social inequalities is scarcely perceptible. The progressive march of invention, the more alert intelligence, has multiplied beyond calculation the productive capacity of the nations. The wealth per capita has been immeasurably augumented. A machine will do in an hour what a dozen men could not do formerly in a year. The amazing improvements in transportation have annihilated distance, brought the grain fields of the remote comers of the earth to the gates of ancient cities, and removed the possibility of famine in a civilised country. Into a city like London there streams daily tributary produce from all lands and climes. The industrial organism, though infinitely complex, is so nicely adjusted by trade that abundance in, one country runs as naturally to wants in another as water to lower levels. Where, however, is the corresponding gain to the masses? The destitute are still with us, and as this chapter is penned, the British House of Commons is discussing a Bill to provide for the adequate nourishment of imperfectly developed school children. There is enough productive energy in the world to furnish wholesome food, warm clothing, and good shelter to all its inhabitants. Whilst this fact stands indisputable, hundreds of thousands in Britain are yearly in receipt of poor relief. Trade Unionism has flourished for many decades. It has opposed a collective body of workers to the employers in bargaining for a share of the national product. It has secured legislation against child-labor, against insanitary conditions of employment, and against the exhaustiaccute;on which follows toil for an excessive number of hours per day. Many other ameliorations lie to its credit. Yet Dives grows richer and Lazarus still begs at his gate.

Let there be no misunderstanding. Amendment has been effected. Wages have increased, and that substantially. Mr A. L. Bowley, in a paper on "Wages: in the United Kingdom in the 19th Century," says: "In 1891 a million men, women, and children page 10 earned, per head, 40 per cent, more in actual coin and 92 percent more in real wages (if the purchasing power of money is allowed for) than their million predecessors in the same trades in 1860." There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of Mr Bowley's statement. Nevertheless, in the cities of Great Britain, one in every three persons lives below the line of subsistence which must be reached to secure the highest industrial efficiency.

The condition of destitution to which a large proportion of our fellow beings in all thickly populated countries is reduced is enough to rend one's heart strings.

Godard, in his work "Poverty, its Genesis and Exodus." affirms that in England, although relatively the number of the poor is some-what less to-day than it was, the annual wealth produced is nearly double what it was three generations ago, and "never in the whole history of England, except during the disastrous period at the beginning of the century, has the absolute number of the very poor been so great as it is now." The same writer, after mentioning that Giffen in 1886 estimated the total income of the United Kingdom at £1,270,000.000, estimated the income for 1891 at £1,350,000,000, which worked out at about £175 a year for each family of five. Thirty millions of people, dependant on the wage earners, obtain, he says, £500.000,000 only, the remaining eight million receive £850,000,000. The average annual income of the one class is less than £17 per head, that of the other class £106 This shows a striking inequality in the distribution of wealth.

The statistics of pauperism are still more distressing. Mr Kelogg, Secretary of the New York Charity Organisation Society and Professor Ely both estimate the total number of paupers in the United States in 1890 at 3.000,000. Over 10 per cent of the people of Buffalo received alms in 1876. This estimate included only the recipients of public charity. No account was taken of those who received alms privately "The States Charities Record," organ of the States Charities Association of New York states that during 1888 nearly half a million people received public aid, which would give at the same ratio for the entire country over 5,000,000 paupers. This estimate for the State of New York did not include the inmates of goals, workhouses etc. It was computed that at least 750,000 people in New York state were being supported in some measure by private or public charity.

Unfortunately, the writer has been unable to obtain more recent statistics for the United States. But it would appear that to speak of the "submerged tenth" is far from an exaggeration in a country of such vast territory and inexhaustible re sources as America.

Professor Ely has attempted a calculation of the direct and indirect cost of pauperism. The direct public outlay Per year page 11 he estimates at £5,000,000. This he considers a low estimate, as New York State alone expends, through its various charitable institutions over £2,600,000. Placing the average number of persons in the country supported by charity at 5,000,000, and estimating the loss of productive power for each at £20 a year, he arrives at an indirect loss to the nation of £10,000,000. This has to be added on to the direct expenditure. Concluding, he says that £20,000,000 a year must be regarded as a conservative estimate of the total direct and indirect pecuniary loss of the country arising from pauperism.

The mere statement of these figures shows that the problem of poverty has claims upon the attention of the economist as well as upon the sympathy of the philanthropist. Pauperiaccute;sm is a costly evil.

The condition of the people in Great Britain is still more appalling. Giffen, in his "Essays on Finance," talks of the "class of 5,000,000 whose existence is a stain on our civilisation." It is the lot of at least one in five of manual labourers to belong to this class, and the lot of sixteen in one hundred of the whole population. The number of actual paupers in 1906 was 926,741 in England and Wales. 111,405 in Scotland, and 104,362 in Ireland, making a total of 1,142,508. Of these a large proportion were able-bodied. When Charles Booth wrote "Labour and Life of the People of London." the population of the city numbered about four millions. He found that of this number 30 per cent., or 1,292,737 persons, were living below the "poverty line," and earning not more than £1 1s weekly per family. In addition there were 99,830 inmates of workhouses, hospitals, prisons, etc., bringing up the total of the poor and unfortunate to nearly 1,400,000 and this out of a population of 4,000,000. At the present time it is calculated that one in every five in London will die in the workhouse, hospital, or lunatic asylum. In 1892, out of 86,833 deaths in that city, 48,061 were of persons twenty years of age and over; and of these 12,713 died in workhouses, 7,707 in hospitals, and 411 in lunatic asylums. In all 20,831 persons died in public institutions. In 1887, 20.7 per cent, died in such institutions; in 1888, 22.2 per cent.; in 1891, 24.2 per cent.; in 1892, 23.9 per cent. Considering that comparatively few of the inmates are children, it is probable that one in three of the adult population of London will be driven into these refuges to die, and the proportion in the case of the manual laboring class must be greater

The cost to Great Britain is enormous. The amounts distributed by public institutions for the relief of the poor in the years 1901 to 1905 inclusive are shown in the following table:— page 12

Year	England and Wales.	Scotland.	Ireland.	Total
	£	£	£	£
1901	11,548,885	1,105,363	1,165,040	13,873,288
1902	12,261,192	1,193,651	1,221,277	14,676,120
1903	12,261,192	1,235,053	1,173,203	15,256,579
1904	13,393,494	1,900,743	1,221,111	15,891,348
1905	13,861,981	1,402,354	1,253,355	16,507,690

In addition, says Mr Mulhall in his "Dictionary of Statistics," various charitable associations, independent of public control, spend £10,000,000 annually, and the charity of individuals is known to be enormous.

So far as can be discovered, no estimate has been made of the indirect loss, but adopting Professor Ely's basis of calculation it is at least twice as great as the direct loss. Pauperism, then costs Great Britain directly through actual expenditure, and indirectly through loss of productive power, considerably over £40,000,000 a year. Surely here is a problem of waste sufficient to arrest the attention of statesmen and economists! Surely here is a problem of misery, pain, and degradation enough to stir the sluggishness of our apathy into frenzy of reforming zeal! In the presence of the suffering which these figures spell cut, we cannot look on with quiet pulse; we cannot stifle the instincts of humani-tarianism; we cannot dungeon up our hearts from sympathy. From many an earnest man the appalling spectacle has wrong the wail of despair. Says Professor Huxley: "I do not hesitate to express the opinion that if there is no hope of a large improvement of the condition of the greater part of the human family; if it is true that the increase of knowledge, the winning of a greater dominion over nature which is its consequence, and the wealth which follows upon that dominion, are to make no differnce in the extent and the intensity of want with its concomitant physical and moral degradation amongst the masses of the people. I should hail the advent of some kindly comet which would sweep the whole affair away as a desirable consummation." "What profit it" Huxley further asks, "to the human Prometheus that he has stolen the fire of heaven to be his servant and that the spirits of the earth and the air obey him, if the vulture of pauperism eternally to tear his very vitals and keep him on the brink of destruction?" No more need be said to justify inquiry into the nature of poverty, its cause, and its cure.

The conditions of life to the Australasian Colonies do not exhibit these distressing features in such accentuated form Nevertheless, it is noticeable that as population advances these inequalities manifest themselves in greater and greater degree There is more poverty in Britain than in America, in America page 13 than in Australia, in Australia than in New Zealand. Some mysterious connection exists between density of population and poverty—nay, more paradoxical as it may seem, poverty seems to increase with wealth. The wealth of Britain per capita is greater than that of New Zealand. Give New Zealand forty million-people, and what assurance has it that its social condition would not be as grave as that of Britain? It is generally re-cognised that the causes which produce inequalities in older countries operate in younger countries. The difference is simply one of degree, which tends to vanish as the younger countries approach the older ones in wealth and population.

It behaves those countries and colonies, therefore, that stand at the beginning of their history, to look searchingly upon older nations and to follow carefully social phenomena back to their causes. To avoid the same grievous results we must destroy the cause; to destroy the cause we must know what it is, and understand its nature.

What, then, is the meaning of the persistence of poverty with expanding capacity for production? Something is seriously amiss. Is it lack of thrift? Is it moral weakness? Is it want of qualities of stable character amongst the masses of men? Is it the operation of unjust economic laws? Is it the absence of equality of opportunity in the rivalry of life? It will appear as the argument proceeds that there are many causes, both moral and economic, each contributing its effect. The more conspicuous of them which are amenable to immediate redress, must, however, chiefly occupy us with a view to the maximum amelioration in this our own day. We are not so much concerned with the ideal state of the far-distant future, as with the prospect of substantial and lasting improvement of social and economic conditions for the benefit of this generation and the next.

Attention must first be withdrawn from alleged remedies which carry in them no power of relief. The next best thing to finding out what is right is finding out what is wrong. This process of inquiry will be adopted in these pages. An attempt will be made to expose the fallacies inherent in many articles of the popular political faith. That done, energy will be released and the ground cleared for the treatment of remedies which it is submitted will be efficacious. The need of the time is clear vision, not to comprehend the ultimate destiny of mankind, but to see distinctly firm ground upon which the next few strides of progress may be taken. We want, to move in the right direction and avoid the necessity of any retracing of steps.

As to the spirit in which the inquiry is conducted it is best expressed in the words of Lecky: "We must be prepared to follow the light of evidence even to the most unwelcome conclusions, to page 14 labor earnestly to emancipate the mind from early prejudices, to resist the current of the desires and the refractory influence of self-interest, to proportion conviction to evidence, and not to introduce the bias of affection into the inquiries of reason."

The writer holds no brief for any class or interest. He is deeply sensible of the inequalities which mark our social conditions, and is warm with the conviction that they are susceptible of redress.