LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE MORALITY OF BEGGING.
go THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR:1 SIR,—The argument against mendicancy with which you close your article on the "Morality of Begging" is, I think, hardly one which will commend itself to those readers who have agreed with the former part of your article. At any rate, to men who disagree entirely with your defence of mendicancy, your justifica- tion of its suppression seem e as unjust as your defence. I mew that there are plenty of other people besides beggars who "visibly profit by their idleness," and who incite others to imitate their example, and "who are fed, lodged, and clothed without toil." If, therefore these were the only reasons for punishing the beggar, there are plenty of people in the West End of London who would be compelled to show cause for their existence in a similar manner. I trust, therefore, that you will allow me to say a word or two on certain arguments which you have overlooked, in the early part of your article ; arguments of which some, I know, have weight with many people, of which one has special weight with myself.
In the first place, then, many of us doubt extremely whether the "admitted virtue" of almsgiving is so pure an act of self-sacrifice as you seem to think. Is it not the most importunate beggar, as a rule, who gets most, and must not this preference be mainly due to the desire to get rid of him ? Surely no act of self - sacrifice, but one of pure self-indulgence, and tending to incite not to virtue, but to insolence, on the one side, to laziness, on the other ; and even where a person is moved by the sight of the beggar's appearance, is there not a feeling of doubt very often of the usefulness of the gift, quieted or suppressed for a time by the reflection,—" How much more uncomfortable I shall feel if this man should really stiffer from my refusal, than I should feel if I am cheated by him ?" This last feeling, indeed, seems to find sympathy from the writer of your article, for he rejects as " imper- fect " the plea "that charity sometimes benefits the undeserving." But surely, if we look at the beggar not as a subject for the exhibi- tion of our virtues or a means for easing our consciences, but as a human being, we may find that to encourage him in roguery and pretences (not merely in idleness) is worse than to let him starve. It is not a question of whether our money goes (as most money does go) to people who fail to use it to the best ad- vantage, but whether we encourage a system of fraud, which has- grown to an enormous extent, and which the giving of money in the street or to begging-letter writers generally tends to encourage.
But while these are, I think, the arguments which have most weight with the modern opponents of mendicancy, I wish to add one which has much weight with me, and which applies, I fully admit, to many habitations of " charity " besides the relief of street-beggars. The continual giving of money to particular people (without any tangible return) produces a feeling of dependence on their part, which has its outcome, if not in abject servility, at least in that deference to mere wealth which is one of the greatest hindrances to real equality of intercourse in England. Of course- it is easy enough to show that other benefits are as necessary to the receiver as this money is, but (with the exception of the social ad- vantage conferred by special attentions from any one of the highest rank), I do not know any that produces such a feeling of dependence as to hinder equality of intercourse. Of coarse, where there, is an obvious sense of duty in the giver away, either from relationship or from past services received, the case is often different ; but where the money is given simply as "charity," this, I think (except to exceptionally healthy-minded people), can be shown to be, generally, the result. Where the relief given is given once for all, and in a manner that makes the receivers able to stand by themselves, the state of perpetual dependence is not produced,
and therefore there is less fear that the relief will promote the exaggerated deference for wealth. But that is not the kind of relief treated of in your article.—I am, Sir, &c.,
C. E. MAITRICE.
Previous page
