CHARITY. Few words have suffered greater changes either in meaning or in application than the word "Charity." It repre sents both a personal and a social endeavour to ameliorate the conditions which prevail in society. The endeavour should be founded on an intelligent examination of the factors that go to make up our social and industrial life and should be guided by a definite purpose. Most people have some sort of theory as to what is just and right in our relations with our fellowmen, but it is often so vague and undefined that its application is in effective if not positively harmful. Most of the words used in Greek, Roman or Hebrew literature to signify good will are primarily words expressive of the affections, of the relations exist ing between parents and children or between husband and wife, such as et-ytiH amor, amicitia. Caritas or charity on the other hand had a somewhat different meaning and referred rather to the relation of the individual to those outside his family; in the first instance caritas signified a high price, thus dearness. It was not dissimilar in meaning to the word Xapts which also had a commercial sense but signified as well gratitude, grace, kindness. In English ecclesiastical documents it was spelt charitas. In the authorized version of the New Testament ereyair, is translated charity, and it was used by St. Paul as a translation of the Hebrew word hesed, which in the same version of the Old Testa ment is translated "mercy"; e.g., "I desired mercy and not sacri fice." Almsgiving, sedaquah, is translated by the word iXen.tocrinin in the Septuagint and in the Authorized Version by the word "righteousness"; it represents the deed which is done or the gift which is made under a sense of religious obligation.
In the early Christian period almsgiving has this meaning ap plied to a wide range of actions and contracts. The word caritas, charity or love, gradually assumes a higher meaning and repre sents an ideal social relation ; e.g., in such phrases as "love of man." It has no necessary relation to relief or alms. It may mean a consideration shown for the welfare of others either individually or generally, although as a matter of fact charity has largely concerned itself with the help of the class usually called the poor, and with problems of distress. Relief need not, however, be an essential part of charity or charitable work; it is only one method by which those who have the means at their disposal can come to the assistance of others. The history of charity is a history of many social and religious theories, influences and endeavours that have left their mark alike upon the popular and cultivated thought of the present day. Inconsistencies of charitable effort may be accounted for by the evolution of society itself, by the growth of the educated social instinct. It is now generally recognized that in addition to such suffering and want as befalls the evil-doer as a result of his ill deeds, there is a vast amount of suffering due to general social causes for which the sufferer is not responsible. Formerly it was the custom to say that the individual should alleviate this distress; to-day the feeling is general that society has a large amount of responsibility and is bound not only to alleviate it, but to remove its cause. Charity and in its broadest sense—philanthropy—is thus becoming an accepted part of social politics.
It will be readily understood that a history of charity would be a history of all the social and religious forces which have lef t their mark upon past generations in many countries. The growth of the habit of charity really represents a gradually educated social instinct. Every investigation into the conditions of social life has necessitated some sort of change in our view of charity, and legislation, as expressed in practical administration, has so removed the recipients of such charity from the sphere of what was formerly understood by charitable action that no charity can now be considered without reference to public relief. Charity has to be regarded in its bearing on every form of social relation ship; e.g., thrift and national savings, parochial management, hospitals and medical relief, friendly visiting and almonership, distress resulting from unemployment, insurance against sickness and against unemployment, the utilization of endowments and their adaptation to new needs and emergencies. To a large extent the questions of widows and orphans, of vagrants and wayfarers, of the sick and the aged (in mediaeval times entirely a matter for the charity of the individual or of the institution) are now bound up with State law and public administration.
The Historical Growth of Charity.—The study of early communities is the study of the development of the family. It is only slowly that the larger social life of the tribe or clan has developed. In the earlier stages of civilization men were drawn together by unconscious physical causes which only very slowly and gradually, after thousands of years, became conscious ethical motives. At first even the child hardly belonged to the family; it belonged to the tribe. But when the social value of the bond between mother and father and child came to be recognized, the social value of the bond between members of the same clan became more obvious. As the parents' responsibility for their child increased, the interest of the State also developed, although even up to the 18th century it was undefined and uncertain. The Greek Community.—If we take the Odyssey and Hesiod as representing the literature of the early Greeks we find the clan family and the phratry together constituting the self-con tained unit of society with fairly clear views as to the necessity of helping the poor, of offering hospitality, of dealing with the wayfarer or vagrant. Everyone outside the phratry was a stranger; the man who had no brotherhood and was subject to no law, who had no hearth and no family was always suspect. He was in a difficult position because, although he wandered from place to place and received the alms of the community, he was a stranger, and in a country where hospitality was unknown and strangers were feared, he was liable to be attacked. Generally speaking, however, the wayfarer could find food and shelter and water for washing at the houses of the well-to-do, or he could share the hospitality of the peasants. The man who was a way farer and beggar almost by profession was not unknown. Begging was a recognized means of gaining a livelihood. Penelope, not recognizing Ulysses, said that if his tale were true she would give him better clothes and then he might beg his bread through out the country-side. A system of almsgiving was recognized as a duty. The laws of social life as stated by Hesiod about 700 B.C. are comparatively simple. The groundwork of Hesiod's charity is neighbourly help, but this help is limited in character in so far as the community is concerned. A beggar is expected to do some sort of work in return for his food and shelter. In the later Greek State, society consisted of citizens and slaves, the slaves enabling the citizens to have leisure for educa tion, war and government. The slaves formed the larger part of the population and were permanently dependent upon members of the civic class, so that the only poverty was that of the poor citizens, who were cared for in the first instance by the clan family. There was a growing sense of responsibility in regard to orphans, and guardians were appointed to care for them. Public policy and charity both dictated the policy of relieving the poverty of citizens and preserving citizenhood. In Crete and Sparta the citizens were wholly supported out of the public re sources. In Attica the citizens were aided in various ways ; e.g., by legal enactments for release from debts, by emigration, a free supply of corn, poor relief for the infirm, and relief for the children of those fallen in war, not to speak of voluntary public service and gifts from individuals. Aristotle criticises very severely the distribution of public money to the poorer citizens and suggests the direction in which reform must be sought. He thinks that the habit of distributing the surplus revenues to the poor instead of holding back a certain proportion for a time of greater need is a mistake. He regards it as pouring water through a sieve. The problem for him is how to contrive that poverty should become temporary and not permanent, and his proposals are adequate public aid and voluntary charity. Public relief, he urges, should be given in larger amounts so as to help people to purchase small farms or start in business ; the well to-do should in the meantime subscribe to pay the poor for their attendance at the public assemblies. Aristotle evidently tried to show that unless the purpose of civil and social life was carefully considered and clearly realized by those who desire to improve its conditions, no change for the better could result from individual or associated action.
Charity in Roman Times.—The two words which most clearly define the Roman attitude towards what we call charity are liberalitas and bene ficiurn. Liberalitas, according to Cicero, lays stress on the mood, the attitude of the liber, the free-born man who is independent and superior giving help to someone who is dependent and inferior. Beneficium on the other hand indicates the deed and its purpose. Cicero lays down three con ditions which should be observed :—( ) Not to do harm to the person one would benefit ; (2) not to exceed one's means ; (3) to have regard to merit. The character of the person whom we would benefit should be considered and the deed or gift graded according to social relationship. In this connection there were three important factors in Roman life : the family, the plebs and slavery. The plebs who were the clients of the great patrician families were gradually impoverished and slavery increased pari passu. The impoverishment of the plebs led to the annona civica or free supply of corn to the poorer citizens, to the sportula or organized food supply for poor clients, and ultimately to the maintenance of children of citizens by voluntary and imperial bounty. The task of relief became hopeless under these condi tions and the impoverished citizen degenerated into dependent, beggar, pauper and slave. The clan family in Rome was the dominant political factor. In its development it became un social, and the stronger clan families crushed the weaker. They obtained possession of the ager publicus which belonged to the State and in early days was distributed to citizens without property. More and more this land was acquired by the rich families, and although many attempts were made to compel them to surrender it, they were mostly unsuccessful, and other measures had to be taken to enable the poorest citizens to live. The right to relief was dependent on the right of citizenship; it was hered itary and passed from father to son. It was thus in the nature of a continuous endowed charity affecting not one family or group of families, but the whole population.
The Lex Claudia, passed in 58 B.e., which gave corn gratui tously to the plebs urban, naturally attracted to Rome many people who wished to live without working and found it difficult to live elsewhere. The same system was introduced into Con stantinople, Alexandria and Antioch. Later on, it became an imperative necessity to restrict the civic bounty to as few persons as possible. Those who received it, received it as a statutory right and no labour was required in return. The system was bad because it compelled those who worked hard to maintain the idlers, and it led to an increase of slavery since the man who could not live upon his grant had no alternative but to become a slave. Thousands of citizens were unable to obtain land upon which they might have been able to gain a livelihood, and so were compelled to live in the towns, becoming gradually subjected to the conditions of a degrading pauperism. The sportula, to which reference has already been made, represented the charity of the patron to his clients and of the head of the clan family to those who attended at his house. It became a charity suffi ciently important for State regulation ; Nero limited the amount that might be paid in money and Domitian restored the custom of giving food.
The sub-apostolic church was congregational, the centre of a system of voluntary and personal relief connected with the congregational meals, the 6.7a7rac and under the supervision of a single officer or bishop. Out of this was developed a system of relief controlled by a bishop assisted by deacons or presbyters, while the aya 7rac consisting of offerings laid before the altar still remained. Finally these offerings became a dole of food or poor people's meal. The church fund during the second period of Christianity (c. A.D. 150-200) was a friendly fund supported by voluntary gifts used to succour and bury the poor, to help destitute and orphan children, old household slaves and those who suffered for the faith. With the growth of the parochial system parishes were placed under the charge of priests and deacons. It was the duty of the deacons to care for the poor, widows, orphans, wards and old people of their several districts. They drew up lists of those who received regular relief, and in Rome, as this system developed, the sick and infirm were super intended by persons appointed to inspect every street and a distribution was made in kind on the first day of every month. Before St. Gregory sat down to his meal a portion was separated and sent out to the hungry at his door. The Roman plebs had thus become the pauperes Christi. At the same time there was a system of relief independent of the churches, and the hospitium was now part of a common organization of relief very much on the lines of poor relief in the middle ages when the churches on the one hand and the public authorities on the other relieved the poor in times of scarcity and distress.
We have referred to the two methods of relief which have usually been prominent, relief administered locally, chiefly to residents in their own homes, and relief administered in an institution. At the time of Charlemagne (742-814) the system of relief was parochial, consisting principally of assistance in the home. After that time, except probably in England, the institutional method appears to have predominated and the monastery or hospital in one form or another gradually encroached on the parish. St. Francis differed from the teachers of his own period since he brought reality once more to bear upon the question of social duty. For him the poor were once again the pauperes Christi; to follow Christ was to live among the people the life of the poor man. The disciple was to work with his hands, to receive no money, to earn the actual necessaries of life, though what he could not earn he might beg. To work for food and lodging was a right so long as he was bringing a better life into the world, and anything in excess of his normal requirements must be given to the poor. He would possess no property, no buildings or endowments, and in effect the move ment was a lay movement, the force of which consisted in its simplicity and directness. It was inspired by a social endeavour and entirely transformed the idea of charity.
The system of relief had thus become a system of charitable endowments in connection with churches, monasteries and hos pitals. This must be contrasted with the modern method of voluntary associations or rate-supported institutions. As the towns grew in size, guilds sprang up and charities were founded for members of the guilds. Rich men left their estates to their guilds to maintain decayed members in hospitals and almshouses, to educate their children, to give dowries to their daughters and to assist their widows. The boroughs also established charities, gave outdoor relief to the registered poor, and took over the duty of caring for the orphans; and thus towards the close of the middle ages the towns were gradually usurping what had formerly been the province of the Church. By the Statutes of Labourers, beginning in 1531, an endeavour was made to enforce a settled wage and restrain migration from the country to the town. An attempt was also made to suppress mendicity, the idea being to keep the people in some settled industry of the crafts or of agriculture or to force them back into such occupa tion if they had left it. The beggar was punished as unsocial. It is his fault if he belongs to no one; he must be made some body's dependent and kept so, and if no one will keep him his mendicity must be organized. Out of the failure to organize mendicity springs the poor law, and for at least two centuries the idea of statutory wage control and statutory poor relief seems to have been firmly fixed in the English legislative mind. In Henry VIII.'s time the system of relief from endowed charities, supported chiefly by rents from landed property, began to dis appear and since the monasteries and religious houses were dissolved, little was left but relief in the shape of alms given in an isolated and unmethodical way. The property of the hospitals and the guilds was in many cases confiscated and a new organiza tion of charitable relief had to be created. The poor could only be relieved as it seemed by a compulsory rate, and the administration of statutory relief naturally devolved on the central government. A poor law was enacted which still remains on the statute-book, although it has been modified by innumerable Local Government Board orders. The principle of poor law relief from a compulsory rate having been adopted, it was enacted (1572-73) that the aged and infirm should be cared for by the overseers of the poor, a new authority, and in 16o1 the duplicate acts were passed, viz., that for the relief of the poor (43 Eliz. 2) and that for the furtherance and protection of endowed charities. Thus the poor were given the condition of a legally recognized class endowed with a claim for relief.
Poor Relief Act, 1662.—The Poor Relief Act of 1662 brought in the law of settlement which made the English labourer a settled but landless serf, supported by a fixed wage and a State bounty. The poor law was philanthropic in its origin, but philanthropy rapidly disappeared. Its object was to relieve the poor by home industries, to apprentice children, and to provide necessary relief for the poor unable to work. The economic fallacy of home industries founded on rate-supplied capital soon declared itself, and when workhouses were established in the i8th century, the same industrial fallacy recurred. The farmer paid the labourer as small a wage as possible and left it tc, the parish to provide whatever he might require in addition during his working life and his old age. The policy adopted by Queen Elizabeth for the relief of the poor included a scheme for the reorganization of voluntary charity as well as plans for the extension of rate-aided relief. Accordingly in the poor law it was arranged that the overseers (the new civic authority) and the church wardens (the old parochial or charitable authority) —should act in conjunction and should raise the necessary means by taxation of every inhabitant. What the church wardens were unable to obtain from endowments they and the overseers could secure by taxation. Towards the end of the i8th century, when the administration of poor relief fell into confusion, many charities were lost or were in danger of being lost and many were mismanaged. In 1786 and 1788 a committee of the House of Commons reported on the subject. In 1818, chiefly through the instrumentality of Lord Brougham, a commission of enquiry on educational charities was appointed, and in 1819 another commission was set up to investigate charities for the poor in England and Wales. These inquiries were continued until 1838 when a select committee of the House of Commons made a strong report urging the establishment of a permanent and independent board of inquiry to compel the production of ac counts, to secure the safe custody of charity property and to adapt it to new uses.
Charity Commissioners, 1853.—A commission followed in 1849, and eventually in 1853 the first Charitable Trust Act was passed under which the charity commissioners of England and Wales were appointed. Where charities have been remodelled under schemes of the charity commissioners, there are now ap pointed, besides trustees elected by corporations, ex officio trustees who represent some office or institution of importance in con nection with charities. The charity commissioners have power where the objects for which a charity was founded are obsolete or the directions of the testator obscure to apply the income of the charity to other purposes as far as possible in accordance with the charitable intention of the founder. In the remodelling of charities for the general benefit of the poor some one or more of 13 objects are usually included, such as a medical charity, provident club, friendly society, assistance to nurses, etc. Homes for abandoned children were established during the 17th century both in France and in England, and grants from parliament sup ported the movement. The Foundling Hospital was established in 1739. As a rule these foundling homes were badly managed and the infant death rate was enormous. General reforms were made, especially through the instrumentality of Jonas Hanway, to check infant mortality, and metropolitan parishes were re quired to provide for their children outside of London. Peni tentiaries were established in 1758 and lock hospitals and lying-in hospitals in 1749-52. In Queen Anne's reign there was a new education movement, a charity school to teach poor children the alphabet and the principles of religion. This was followed by a Sunday school movement in 178o, and about the same time (1788) by the school of industry to employ children and teach them to be industrious. In 1844 the Ragged School Union was established and continued to do educational work until the Education Act of 1870. Industrial and reformatory schools were established to prevent crime and reform child criminals in The orphanage movement continued to grow and, sup ported by voluntary gifts, has greatly increased in size. After the Civil War the old hospital foundations of St. Bartholomew and St. Thomas became endowed charities, partly supported by voluntary contributions, and in the case of Christ's Hospital the voting system made its appearance.
Towards the end of the i8th century the dispensary movement was developed, culminating in the provident dispensary which made it possible for patients by means of small contributions in time of health to provide for sickness without having to make large payments. Hospital funds have also been established for making grants to various hospitals both in London and else where. The magnitude of this accumulating provision of chari table relief in connection with churches and voluntary societies cannot well be estimated, but undoubtedly it has reached a huge total. Dr. Munsterberg once said "there is no country in the world in which so large an amount is given in charity as in England and no country where less good is done with it." It is extremely difficult to estimate either the income or the expenditure of charitable societies in Great Britain, but an estimate has been made in connection with metropolitan charities, although these are often provincial as well and receive contribu tions from all parts of the country and even from abroad. It is estimated that for the year 1924-25 the turnover of the institu tions for which information is available was 114,965,307. The voluntary contributions amounted to £6,192,883. The receipts from interest on invested funds and rents of property were In addition a sum of £4,115,231 was due to payments by or for beneficiaries, an amount which must vary considerably from time to time. Legacies represented 11,387,166. The remain ing sum was due to trading and industrial operations and miscellaneous receipts. The expenditure on these institutions amounted to 111,538,717 upon maintenance, out of which 739 was the charge for management or about I o% upon the gross expenditure.
Charity Organization Society.—The feeling that many charitable efforts were wasted and did more harm than good led to the establishment in the early 19th century of anti-mendicity societies. In 1869 the movement for the organization of charity led to the formation of the Charity Organization Society, origi nally the Society for Organizing Charitable Relief and Suppressing Mendicity. The movement spread to America and the British Colonies, the first American Charitable Organization Society being formed in 1877. All these societies resolutely opposed indis criminate and casual alms-giving, and organized a relief system based on careful personal inquiry. The charity organization move ment, while it has never succeeded in winning the complete con fidence of the working classes, has nevertheless made it clear to most people that ill-considered philanthropy may do much more harm than good and that personal interest and sympathy may be the decisive factor in any attempt to help the individual or family in distress. Certainly the Charity Organization Society has never thought it right to accept the poor as a permanent class, and whatever view may be taken of its methods, the idea underlying its efforts has always been to avoid the creation of a dependent class and to raise the poor above the conditions of serfdom.
As a result of the continued interest taken in the administration of charity, the Association for Befriending Young Servants was formed as well as workhouse aid committees to prevent a re lapse into pauperism on the part of those who as children or young women receive relief from the poor law. For a time at least a restricted out-door relief policy was adopted and such a policy would still be the aim of organized charity, but for many reasons it has broken down, and it is impossible to assert that in times of serious unemployment restricted out-door relief can be maintained. The well known Elberfeld system (q.v.) on the Continent had a considerable influence upon thought both in England and America. It was a system of municipal relief administered by unpaid almoners, each dealing with a few cases, and seems to have been attended with great success wherever it has been carefully practised. Its success, however, depends upon the services of a sufficient number of unselfish almoners who have tact and ability and a desire to serve the best interest not only of the individual but of the community.
The work of the Charity Organization Society followed the lines laid down by the late C. S. Loch. The methods are briefly as follow : the central committee is composed of representatives of relief societies, religious agencies, endowed societies and repre sentatives of local authorities, such as poor law guardians ; full inquiry is made into each case and all the particulars are registered so as to prevent the possibility of overlapping; when help is given it is obtained so far as possible from relatives, employers and various charities. A system of training has been established for those who are engaged in this work, and Charity Organization Society workers when trained often become poor law guardians, secretaries of charitable societies and district visitors.
The investigations of Charles Booth, Seebohm Rowntree and others, the influence of men like Canon Barnett and Arnold Toynbee, and the university settlements generally, have some what changed the method of charity, which has now assumed the form of a new devotion to the duties of citizenship. Perhaps this was hardly possible until the scope of legislation had been more accurately determined and until statistics and investigation had made it clear how far charity itself failed to remove the causes of poverty. But the view of those who contend that so far as possible help should only be given after careful inquiry by organized charity is still widely held.
The Charity Organization Society is perhaps justified in con tending that the poor law relief tends to increase. The average number of persons in receipt of domiciliary relief returned as being ordinarily employed, with their dependents, was for the year 1926-27 I,217,083, or 313 per I0,000 of the population and for 1925-26 478,454 or 123 per io,000 of the population. This immense discrepancy was due of course to certain dominant features in 1926-27; viz., the increase of pauperism resulting from a general stoppage in the coal mining industry and from the general strike. Roughly speaking, we may say that 1,000,000 British people are as a rule in receipt of domiciliary relief other than medical relief, and of these nearly half would be insured persons and their dependents. The poor law is very much what the guardians chose to make it. It may become an influence definitely antagonistic to the proper development of family life, or even a method of pauperizing the working classes.
Certain boards of guardians have been removed from their position by the ministry of health, and in each case a commission of three guardians has been appointed to take the place of the board. The boards were accused of making illegal payments and of reckless extravagance. It is not necessary in this article to enter into details with regard to these boards of guardians, but apart altogether from the controversial question of the abolition of the poor law and the distribution of the duties of the guardians amongst other local authorities, it is obvious that some adminis trative changes are required. In large industrial districts in which there is a considerable amount of unemployment and poverty, there may be thousands of voters who are unwilling to vote for any guardians except such as promise to give them relief on the highest possible scale. This is an impossible state of affairs which will have to be remedied; otherwise no honourable person will come forward as a candidate for the board of guardians in places where they are subject to extreme pressure on the part of electors who are themselves to benefit as a result of the election by securing relief out of the rates. Even where the elector is not unemployed or in distress at the time of the election he may have in view the possibility of requiring assistance in the immediate future, and if he allows unworthy motives to influence his action he is in exactly the same position as the elector who requires immediate assistance and votes only for those candidates who are known to be generous with the rate-payers' money. In such cases, relief out of the rates be comes a public charity administered in a spirit which is demoraliz ing both to the giver and to the receiver. Some solution must be found of this difficult problem, otherwise the Ministry of Health will be compelled to deal with other boards of guardians as they have dealt with certain local authorities in the past. It would of course be impossible to disqualify the elector who has not received assistance but fears he may require it in the near future; but it seems just that votes should be withheld from those electors who are personally interested in the return of certain guardians because they are known to give relief with a lavish hand. The other alternative would be to appoint com missioners for the administration of relief who would serve much the same purpose as the commissioners appointed in certain American cities where corruption has been rampant. It has been argued that as each elector contributes to the rates he has the right to vote for any person he thinks fit ; but as a matter of fact the electors to whom reference has been made do not contribute to the rates even in the shape of rent, for the rent itself is defrayed out of the rates.
The attitude of the Charity Organization Society towards much social legislation is that while it aims at improving social condi tions, it weakens society itself. Charity, it is argued, has never objected to prison reform, industrial schools, child protection, housing and food reform. It has been a friendly ally in many reforms that affect industry very closely; e.g., in the introduc tion of the Factory Acts, but it has never aimed at recasting society itself on a new economic plan. The organizers of charity object that British legislation is gradually creating a new in dustrial society in which the wage is regulated and everyone subsidized. They argue that the State maintenance of school children, old age pensions, and State provision for the unemployed all lead to a final stage in which everyone will be supported by society or be dependent on it industrially. In their opinion this would exclude motives for energy and endeavour and would also exclude the ethical element from life. Organized charity believes that such quasi-socialistic action will sooner or later mean a fatal want of initiative in the class helped. From a wider point of view, it must be remembered that the mistakes made by the nation in the past have been largely due to ignorance. It is only recently that the possibility of more thorough remedies has been grasped and that social responsibility has been recog nized for evils which are avoidable. Statistics have shown not only the extent of social distress but the method of remedy in many cases, and social philosophy now teaches that poverty and disease are not always the result of misdemeanour on the part of the sufferer. There can be no doubt that a vast amount of suffering is due to general social causes; for such distress society is responsible and is bound to alleviate and remove it.
There is perhaps another reason for the gradual encroachment of the State on the province of charity ; whereas charity formerly confined itself to efforts for alleviation, to-day prevention is regarded as primary. Indeed, the whole theory of government has changed, for we no longer aim at merely holding the scales between the different classes of the community. The idea of government is to consider also how the value of life may be enhanced. We remember with gratitude that charity stepped in to help the poor when the poor seemed to have no other helper, but we must remember at the same time that such assist ance was often very inadequate. Whether we consider the lunatic asylums or the prisons or the many other fields of charitable labour that were at one time in the hands of the philanthropists, we must admit that at last it became necessary for the State to step in and to do for the poor of all grades what charity had been unable to do for them. And always a deep debt of gratitude remains to the many great philanthropists of this transition period, such as Wilberforce, Howard, Owen, Allen and Mrs. Fry.
The Charity Organization Society itself sees that the State is slowly encroaching upon the sphere of charity, but it is sight in its assertion that in this transition stage organization is necessary and that as a condition precedent to all organization there must be in each town or township some local centre of association for information and common help. This local centre is sometimes the Charity Organization Society itself, sometimes a guild of help, and in 4o or 5o towns a branch of the National Council of Social Service. The method is that of associated help combined with personal work, and is adopted, with innumer able varieties, in America, Germany and elsewhere. In the United States relief is now often given out of a common pool called the Community Chest and every endeavour is made to prevent overlapping.
Widows, Orphans and Old Age Pensions Act.—Recent legislation in Great Britain has shown how help that was formerly given by a committee is now rendered by the State through the medium of the local authority; in Jan. 1928 the Widows, Orphans and Old Age Pensions Act came into operation by which a large class of individuals formerly assisted by private charity was absorbed in the scheme of social insurance. This comprises insurance against old age as a supplement to the Old Age Pensions Act of 1890, insurance against sickness, unemployment insurance, help for widows and orphans under certain definite conditions, and other benefits. The original Old Age Pensions Act was non contributory and was therefore opposed by the Charity Organiza tion Society, but the subsequent Acts are rendered less dangerous in their view by the contributory principle.
Finally, we may attribute much recent British legislation to a change which has come over public opinion as a result of investigations into the causes and extent of poverty. Sociologists have shown us that, whatever may be our view of the remedies, the causes are not purely individual. Their studies have created a predisposition towards concerted social action. Charity was a pre-scientific attempt to do something which needed to be done, but which could only succeed in slightly ameliorating, and never in curing, the evil itself. The accumulated weight of social knowledge which has been acquired has changed our view of the function of charity. Statistical inquiry has discovered a much more intricate social interdependence than has been suspected. This interdependence is progressive. The more complex our society, the more interdependent we are, and the greater becomes the need for recognizing that society is something more than an aggregate of units. Statistics have helped enormously in the study of sociology because they bring together the facts calculated to illustrate the condition and prospects of society. The sociology of to-day gives us a new reading of human nature and a deeper conception of our social life. The State has intervened and has annexed a large part of what was formerly the sphere of charity, as in the cases of elementary education and the health of the child.
In Great Britain the State has also divided its responsibility for disease and sickness with the local authorities, friendly societies and approved societies. This is also noticeable in the case of hospitals; some are controlled by the municipality while others are supported by voluntary contributions. Sometimes the State co-operates, as with the Prisoners Aid Society, and oc casionally it attempts to co-ordinate and supervise, as with the inebriate homes, etc. Both the State and the local authority are active, but there is still plenty of room for voluntary service, not only in connection with education but in prisons and reforma tories, infirmaries and hospitals. With regard to the latter, it is interesting to note that the income of King Edward's Hospital Fund for the year 1926 was 1285,749 and that the total receipts of all the London voluntary hospitals in that year was £3,887,000. The income of the Hospital Saturday (General) Fund amounted in 1926 to 179,192. There are still a few cases in which charitable societies carry out work which would seem to be the responsibility of the State ; e.g., the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which has a royal charter and obtains from the public by subscriptions the necessary funds for maintaining its work.
All charitable work has now to take account of these new factors and this fresh view of social responsibility. It used to be assumed that our social and industrial system was satisfactory on the whole, and that it was the individual who was solely to blame. But men fail in life from all kinds of misfortunes over which they have no control, and in all such cases of injustice and hard ship the most important thing is to aim at a change of circum stances. Everyone admits that the standard of life has been raised from century to century, and that the working classes are infinitely better off than in the middle ages, but who would contend that this is due to the administration of charity? The improvement is due to economic causes and the growth of an educated public opinion. What remains to be done is something more than the effort of organized charity, valuable as it is in the relief of distress. Constructive philanthropy must unite with all the forces that make for social betterment, including the work of local authorities and of parliament. The philanthropist will always bear in mind that a considerable proportion of the people have inherited conditions which, although an improvement upon the environment of their forefathers, are nevertheless a severe handicap to social advancement. A world wide depression begin ning in 1929 strained the resources of private charity. In many countries, particularly the United .States and England, the state stepped in to assume much of the burden. (See also POOR LAW ;