public charities in the city. There is no divided responsibility there, no seeking for scapegoats: if the poor are neglected or money is wasted, he is, as he says, always there, the man to be hanged on the nearest lamp-post.

The introduction of expert administration proved a triumph for all concerned. No sooner was the new system in working order than the cost of poor relief decreased considerably, although the poor were better cared for than they had ever been cared for before. In Denmark there is an old-age relief system founded on a law similar to our Old-Age Pension Law, and this works side by side with the poor relief system. Three years ago the full annual cost of the administration of poor relief together with old-age relief was in Copenhagen only 14,000l., although every administrator was paid. The full cost of poor relief, together with old-age relief, was only 10s. 74d. per head of the population, or 68. per head less than the cost of poor relief alone here in London. And this simply because there the administration was in the hands of experts who knew how to do their work skilfully, and obtain good value for their money, whereas here it was in the hands of amateurs who, through sheer inexperience, 'swattered' their money away. For the respectable poor fared infinitely better there than here, although the worthless fared worse; and the cost of living is every whit as high there as here. Surely that 6s. per head of the population ought to make us think not once or twice, but many times before again installing in office amateur Poor Law administrators.

Poor Law administrators will have much more difficult work to do in the future than they have had in the past, it must be remembered; for they will have to classify the destitute; and that is work so * difficult that, were it not done in other countries, one might almost doubt whether it could be done satisfactorily. But then in other countries it is done by trained officials.

That we should ever have an entirely official system of Poor Law administration here in London, as the Danes have in Copenhagen, is perhaps past even praying for; much as we should save if we had. Still, surely, we might have, as the Berliners have, at any rate some strained paid officials among the members of our Public Assistance Authority, and a trained paid chairman. If we could also have paid officials to do the work, with the help of Voluntary Aid Committees, that it is proposed to entrust to Public Assistance Committees, there would be some hope of poor relief being administered fairly and → economically.

Judging by a question which Mr. Marriott asked in his very interesting article, The Great Inquest,' in this Review last month, there is a tendency, in certain quarters, to look askance on this Poor Law scheme the Majority have framed, holding that under it the lot of the pauper would be made too pleasant. 'Is it really either safe or expedient,' he enquired, 'to take all the sting out of pauperism, and to seek,

by change of nomenclature or in other ways, to erase the distinction between poverty and pauperism, between dependence and independence ?'

To this question there can surely be but one answer, and that a very decided 'no.' Instead of erasing the distinction between poverty and pauperism, we ought rather, it seems to me, to seek to accentuate it, to seek to emphasise the fact that a great gulf separates those who support themselves from those whom their fellows must support, children excepted, of course. And in this there would be no injustice, nothing of which anyone could reasonably complain, providing we had, as the Majority recommend that we should have, in addition to our old-age pension system, a national insurance against unemployment system, national labour bureaux, and Voluntary Aid Committees always on the alert to give a helping hand to those overtaken by sudden and unmerited misfortune. If the community does its duty to the poor, if it secures them so far as it can against becoming paupers through no fault of their own, it has the right-nay, it is its duty— to deal out stern measure to paupers, and to bring home to them in unmistakable terms that they are not on a par with their non-pauper fellows. And it is one of the merits of the Majority scheme that under it, so far as I can judge, this is precisely what would be done.

In what concerns adults this scheme is founded, as we have seen, on the Danish relief system, and in no country is there so deep a gulf between paupers and the self-supporting poor as in Denmark; in no country is the line of demarcation between these two classes so distinct. The poor, no matter how poor they may be, are free of course to live their own lives and go their own way; no one has the right to interfere with them or say them yea or nay. But with paupers it is far otherwise; they live under close surveillance and practically in bondage. And as it is in Denmark, so will it be here, if our new poor-relief system be framed on the lines the Majority recommend. Then paupers of all degrees will be in a quite different position from that in which they are now; the liberty they now enjoy will be curtailed very considerably. Men may go in and out of workhouses at will now, and while there they may practically work or not as they choose. The Authorities will have the power then to detain where they will all who accept relief, and to send such among them as can work and will not, where they will be forced to work; the power, too, to keep them there not only for three days, but for three years. As things are, recipients of outrelief may, if such be their taste, spend their money on drink and lead squalid, vicious lives. As things will be, a careful watch will be kept over each one of them; and, unless he leads a decent, sober, cleanly life, he will speedily be transported nolens volens to an institution.

Under the proposed system, respectable men and women would, no doubt, if destitute fare better than they fare under the present

system; for if they could work they would be helped to find work— be helped, in fact, not to become paupers. And if they could not work, and must therefore become paupers, they would at any rate be enabled, although in bondage, to lead decent lives free from all association with the demoralising and degrading. Among those who apply for relief, however, the respectable form but a very small minority, it must be remembered. The overwhelming majority are loafers and ne'er-do-wells, even when not drunken rogues, and they would assuredly fare much worse. The average pauper must, indeed, of necessity fare worse, seeing that the fundamental principle of this system is classification with treatment according to merit, and he would have to prove his merit. Whatever other faults this scheme may have, it certainly does not 'take the sting out of pauperism,' even though it does change its name.

There is another point concerning which Mr. Marriott shows anxiety. 'Have we entirely forgotten the position of the industrious, self-respecting and independent wage-earners, upon whom -distribute rates and taxes how you will-the financial burden must ultimately fall?' he asks, seemingly taking it for granted that, under a system founded on the Majority Report, the cost of poor relief would be higher than it is under the present system. Whether it would actually be higher or not is of course a moot point; all that we can say is that, if it were higher, then the new system would be a disastrous failure. Supposing the actual cost were the same as now, however, the cost to the ratepayers would, of course, be lower than now, not only because the relatives of the poor would have to contribute more to their support, but also because money that is now often wasted would be devoted by the Voluntary Aid Committees to the relief of the poor. But it is not enough that the cost of poorrelief should be the same as now; it ought certainly to be lower. Foreign Poor Law administrators profess themselves quite scandalised at the way in which under our present system we waste our money. Never was there such an extravagant system as ours, they declare; never was there a system under which so much money was spent on the poor, or so meagre a return was obtained for the money spent. The average cost per head in English workhouses, it must be noted, in 1907 was 271. 5s. 01d.-in London workhouses 347. 9s. 11 d., while in Danish old-age homes it was only 187. 15s.; and in Swiss Labour Colonies it was nil, the inmates defraying their own expenses by their labour. Thus, in replacing our workhouses by old-age homes and labour colonies, we should reduce our expenditure, not increase it; providing, of course, we managed our new institutions as skilfully as they are managed abroad. Then many of our State children cost us now 30l., 401., and even 521., a year each; but were they, as the Majority recommend, either boarded out, or housed in some simple homely fashion, they need not cost more than perhaps 161.

a year each. In Berlin the average cost per head of the State children is 151. a year; while in South Australia it is 147. 18. ld.; and in Hungary 61. Yet the average State child is better cared for in those countries than here. Evidently, therefore, we might save money on our children without any detriment to them.

Roughly speaking, under the new system, the indoor poor would probably cost less than under the present system, while the outdoor poor would undoubtedly cost more. As for the unemployed, they, I am inclined to think, would cost less, as the money spent on labour bureaux, insurance against unemployment, and other arrangements for their benefit, would be more than compensated for by the saving that would be effected owing to fewer of them becoming paupers. Whether the poor as a whole would cost more or less would depend on the way their relief was administered. If we could have a thoroughly good system of Poor Law administration, I, for my part, have never a doubt but that under the Majority scheme the burden entailed by poor relief would be considerably lighter, in the days to come, than it is now.

EDITH SELLERS.

1909

WHAT EVERY GERMAN KNOWS

'By Jove! John, I've got my morning's work cut out here,' said his Lordship, looking up indulgently from a tangle of papers, maps, plans, and German newspapers piled impressively upon his writing-table.

The tall, square, fair-haired valet, who frequently acted as secretary, assumed an expression of deferential sympathy.

'It's what Burton in his "Anatomy of Melancholy" might have called a turgent calculus," he began.

'Turgent calculus!' drawled Lord Ottoway, turning round upon his bombastic amanuensis. I call it an incalculable calculus. It's all in German, too.'

The secretary returned no answer, and stood erect as a German soldier at the salute.

'There's some more little data here, I fancy. Ahem! Shall I put them down with the others, your Lordship?

Lord Ottoway swung round on his chair again.

'What?' he exclaimed testily, noticing for the first time an enormous pile of printed material stacked on the silver platter which the secretary held in both hands. The devil there is. Good heavens ! What on earth shall I do with it all? Yes, stick it down. No, not there! Here! Oh, well, all right, put them on that sofa over there; I can hardly see over the table as it is.'

The secretary deposited the bundle of papers on the sofa, carefully extracted a thin paper-cover booklet, and returned discreetly to the side of his master.

Lord Ottoway plunged disconsolately into the mass of papers on the table, and presently the smoke of his cigar got into his eyes, so that he was constrained to look up and wipe the tears out of them. Then he noticed John again.

'The deuce, John! What are you standing there for? What's that, eh? You don't mean to say there are more papers?'

'I thought this one might be useful,' said the secretary, insinuatingly, at the same time handing him the booklet. It's the latest thing on the subject, your Lordship.'

6

The latest thing! What do you know about it? Well, let me

see it.'