THE POOR AGAINST THE RICH.*

Tar history of this litle pamphlet is not easily intelligible. The " article " was rejected, we are told in the preface, by the quar- terly periodicals. That it should be refused by the Quarterly _Review does not surprise us: it is far too uncompromising, too trenchant, and indeed tooclever, to suit the timid morality of that prudent, respectable, and somewhat aged journal. But how came the Edinburgh to let it slip ? There is nothing in it more " hard- hearted " than some of the late articles on Irish Poor-laws ; nor anything so audacious as Sydney Smith's well-known theory as to rustic courtship — " a ploughman marries a ploughwoman because she is plump." There is no reason, however, to regret that it has been converted from an article into a pamphlet. The life of lin article is a meny one : it is skimmed over by ten thou- sand eyes, but it scarcely lives longer than a newspaper; the current number, with all its contents, is forgotten before the en- suing number has appeared, and when once buried among the eighty volumes of old-Edinburghs or Quarterlies, it can hope for no resuscitation—from that tomb there is no resurrection. • A pamphlet is not "taken in," like a review, from mere habit ; it is bought for its own sake, and therefore has a chance of being care- fully read: it gets bound up among its fellows ; its title appears in the lettering of the fat volume that contnins it, and it has a chance of being recurred to whenever its subject comes under dis- cussion.

The pamphlet before us contains important remarks on an im- portant subject, clearly and pungently expressed. It purports to be a review of M. Leon Faucher's Etudes sur rAngleterre ; but, as is frequently the case with reviews, pays little attention to the author who has afforded it a peg. it quotes some of his exaggera- tions as to the prevalence of distress in Fngland; disposes uncere- moniously, but with quite as much ceremony as they deserve, of his nostrums of allotments of land to the poor, and the participa- tion. of the !operative in the profits of the capitalist; but is mainly employed in discussing the amount and the effects of English. obesity. Here, at least, is originality. The sufferings of the poor, and their oppression by the rich, are stock themes ; but we do not remember to have seen the reverse of the medal so distinctly pre- sented. before.

"When we come," says our author, "to look into the amount of what is givens without a shadow of return, by rich to poor in this country—not counting various services in person rendered by rich men—its magnitude is astonishing. Setting aside the enormous standing provision for sack and infirm, (the result of endowments,) and for educational objects, an English- man of fortune seldom has his purse out of his hand. He pays all sorts of legal demands for the subsistence of the poor in the first place ; next, he subscribes to various public charities, also to ploughing-matches, &c. ; he assists poor dependents; supports decayed relations; he gives alms on the highways ; be drops money into the charity-plate at dinners and after ser-

mons; he encloses five-pound notes to Police Magistrates, as from

X.' • he distributes coals, clothes, meat, at Christmas ; he gives land to build_ a echool upon; he pays for the doctors of. the poor; he lends to infe- rior; and never gets paid.; finally, he dies, and leaves bequests to half-a- dozen eleemosynary institutions, and to humble servitors, and not unfre- quently founds a provision for an annual gift. "The female members of the gentry class are, all this time, toiling at the work of benevolence in its domestic forms—overlooking schools, stitching sedulously at night-gowns and baby-linen, or at fancy-fair ' articles ; teaching girls straw-plaiting, lace-making; hearing catechisms on Sunday;

i

tormentg their acquaintance to purchase the useless productions of sur- abundant hands • distributing soup-tickets; in fine, cooperating, with their gentle, Lind efforts, in the grand and commendable purpose of mitigating the evils of poverty in the lower ranks of life. Go into what neighbourhoods you will, the standing feature in every country residence is 'the charity' busi- neas. Whew, indeed, is the rural abode, we would ask, where the visiter is safe from the plate,' or the subscription-book ? Is there a provincial dinner-table at which the topic of Poor-law, Board of Guardians, or the like,

does not take precedence of all others i

? It s hardly prudent to attend your host's parish-church even •' for it is ten to one but that you are 'let in' for a 'collection' at the door after sermon : and all this on the back of a tax amounting to something like seven millions of pounds per annum !"

Is the result of this enormous charity a preponderance of good? The anther does not expressly answer that question, but from the tone of his work we infer that to himself he answers it negatively.

He affirms, in the first place, that there Call " be no doubt that every shilling bestowed in alms is a shilling the less in that fund destined to remunerate labour withal." This sweeping proposition we venture not merely to doubt but to deny. When what would otherwise have been spent unproductively is given away, it is only changing one sort of expenditure for another. If instead of spend- ing threepence on a cigar I give it to a beggar, the probability is that in either case the labour of the tobacconist will be equally re- warded ; only, instead of my buying from him a Havannah, the beggar buys from him pigtail. Charity diminishes the fund for the remuneration of labour only when it diverts capital from re- production. But voluntary charity seldom does this : few men propose to themselves to give alms except out of their income. Com- pulsion of course may force them to do this; and this is one of the objections to compulsory charity, whether the dompulsion be legal or moral.

There is something very graphic in the author's description of the moral evidence with which the Socialist friends of the poor support what they suppose to be the ease of their client.

" We cannot too strenuously insist on the fact, that every complaint uttered on behalf of the poor and needy, against the possessors of property, as such, is at variance with the recognized fundamental principles of civilized society, which rule that the lawful possessor of property shall enjoy it, as far as that • The Case of the Poor against the Rich fairly Considered. By a MutualFriend. No Publisher's name.

enjoyment does not interfere with the interests of others. It is time, indeed, that we understood what this modern cry of reproach means. If we are never to be unmolested in the use of our own property (great or small, as the ease may be) so long as poverty is prevalent m the land, let the humanity- preachers say so, and we shall know how to deal with the demand. We have always presumed that one of the privileges belonging to the rich and elevated classes is that of delegating to others the function of dispensing their

and that, when a liberal contribution to the solace and relief of the poor had been made, the donor might be permitted to frame his own life after his own tastes. But the charity-crusaders would have it otherwise. They positively erect it into an accusation against a nation, that any one man should be re- clining on a soft chair digesting his mutton and claret in a placid state of mind, whilst thousands of shivering wretches are starving in cellars and garrets.' This sort of appeal to the vulgarest of all fallacies succeeds in alarming many kind and timid persons; and they accordingly, when attacked by thealms-levier, (who puts this phrase to their heads with as much effect as if it were a pistol,) stand and deliver' their money."

Concurrently, however, with the "prodigious exertions made by the hu- mane of all ranks in this country—by alms, by legal provision for the desti- tute, and by protective laws—to redeem their suffering brethren, the sore does not disappear ; nay, it even seems to extend its baleful ravages."

From these premises the ultimate conclusions of the author may be inferred. They are— "First, that the evils of wide-spread poverty, privation, and physical deterioration, are not to be annulled by either compulsory government adieu or private benevolence ; and next, that the remedy, if any such may be hoped for, must be sought by enlightening the lower classes themselves upon the real principles which affect the condition of individuals in civilized com- munities."