and that even forty shillings will not provide means for holidays-for travel or for study. There will be children whose starved bodies will never make strong men and women; and there will be men and women who live anxious and care-worn lives, who cannot enjoy the beauties and wonders of the world in which they have been placed.

There are ghastly facts behind modern unrest, which are hardly represented by tales of destitute children and the sight of ragged humanity congregated around the free-shelters. The needs are obvious, and they are very complex. The man whose ragged dress and haggard face cries out for food, has within him a mind and a soul fed on the crumbs which fall from the thoughts of the times, and he is a member of society from which he resents exclusion. Relief of a human being's need must take all these facts into account. It must not give him food, at the expense of lowering his self-respect; it must not provide him with pleasure at the expense of degrading his capacity for enjoying his higher calling as a man, and it must not be kind at the expense of making independence impossible. The man who is stirred by the knowledge of his neighbor's needs must take a deal of trouble.

The only safe outlet for the charitable instinct is, it may be said, that which is made by thinking and study. The charity which is thoughtless is charity out of date. It is always hard to be up to date, because to be so involves fresh thinking, and it is so much easier to say what has been said by previous generations and to imitate the deeds of the dead benefactors. They who would really serve their neighbor's needs by a gift must bring the latest knowledge of human nature to bear on the applicant's character, and treat it in relation to the structure of society as that structure is now understood.

They must be students of personality and of the State. They must consider the individual who is in need or the charitable body which makes an appeal, as carefully as a physician considers his case; they must get the facts for a right diagnosis, and bring to the cure all the resources of civilization. The great benefactors of old days were those who thought out their actions-as, for instance, when Lady Burdett-Coutts met the need of work by building amid the squalor of East London a market beautiful enough to be a temple, or as Lord Shaftesbury when he inaugurated ragged schoolsbut new ages demand new actions, and the spiritual children of the great dead are not they who act as they acted, but those who give thought as they gave thought.

The charity which does not flow in channels made by thought is the charity which is mischievous. People comfort themselves and encourage their indolence by saying they would rather give wrongly in ten cases than miss one good case. The comfort is deceptive. The gift which does not help, hinders, and it is the gifts of the thoughtless which open the pitfalls into which the innocent fall and threaten the stability of society. Such gifts are temptations to idleness, and widen the breach between rich and poor. When people of good will, in pursuit of a good object, do good deeds which are followed by cries of distress and by curses there is a tragedy.

Charity up to date, whether it be from person to person or through some society or fund, must be such as is approved by the same close thinking as business men give to their business, or politicians to their policy. The best form of giving must always, I think, be that from person to person. Would that it were more used-would that those whose feelings are stirred by the sight of many sick folk were content to

try and heal one! There are always individuals in need at our own doorneighbors, workpeople, relatives, servants; there is always among those we know someone whose home could be made brighter, or whose sickness could be lightened; there are tired people who could be sent on holiday, boys or girls who could be better educated. Gifts which pass from person to person are something more than ordinary gifts. "The gift without the giver is bare," and when the giver's thought makes itself felt, the gift is enriched. The best form of charity, therefore, is personal, and if for some reason this be impossible, then the next best is that which strengthens the hands of persons who are themselves in touch with neighbors in need, such as are the almoners of the Society for the Relief of Distress, the members of the Charity Organization Committees, or the residents in Settlements.

The personal gift, inspired by good will and directed by painstaking thought, is the best form of charity, but people who have learnt what organizations and associations can do will not be content unless those means also are applied to the relief of their neighbors. The consequence is the existence of numberless societies for numberless objects. "Which of them may be said to represent charity up to date?" The answer I submit is, "Those which approve themselves to thoughtful examination."

mischief. As one familiar with the working of many charities, I would ȧppeal for more thoughtfulness on the part of all subscribers. People must think for themselves and judge for themselves; but perhaps, out of a long experience, I may suggest a few guiding principles.

If I

I. Charities should aim at encouraging growth rather than at giving relief. They should be inspired by hope rather than by pity. They should be a means of education, a means of enabling the recipient to increase in bodily, mental, or spiritual strength. spend twenty shillings on giving a dinner or a night's lodging to twenty vagrants, I have done nothing to make them stronger workers or better citi zens, I have only kept poverty alive; but if I spend the same sum in sending one person to a convalescent hospital, he will be at any rate a stronger man, and if, during his stay at the hospital his mind is interested in some subject-in something not himself-he will probably be a happier man. Societies which devote a large income to providing food and clothing do not in the long run reduce the number of those in want, while Societies which promote the clearing of unhealthy areas, the increase of open space about town dwellings, greater accessibility to books and pictures, gradually raise people above the need of gifts of food and clothing. Hospitals which do much in restoring strength to the sick would do more if they used their reputation and authority to teach people how to avoid sickness, and to make a public opinion which would prevent many diseases and accidents. The distinguished philanthropist who used to say she would rather give a poor man a watch than a coat was, I believe, wiser than another philanthropist who condemned a poor woman for spending her money on buying a picture for her room. It is more important to raise self-respect

and develop taste than just to meet physical needs.

Charities intruding themselves upon the intimacies of domestic life have by their patronage often dwarfed the best sort of growth. Warnings against patronizing the poor are frequent, but many charities are by their very existence "patronizing,” and many others, by sending people to collect votes, by requiring expressions of their gratitude, and by the attitude of their agents, do push upon the poor reminders of their obligations. They belong to a past age, and have no place in the present age, where they foster only a cringing or rebellious attitude. It has been well said that "a new spirit is necessary in dealing with the poor, a spirit of humility and willingness to learn, rather than generosity and anxiety to teach." This is only another form of saying that charities must be educational, because no one can educate who is not humble. Our schools, perhaps, will have further results when the teachers cease to call themselves "masters!"

II. Charities should, I think, look to, if not aim at, their own extinction. Their existence, it must be remembered, is due to some defect in the State organization or in the habits of the people. Schools, for instance, were established by the gifts of good 'will to meet the ignorance from which people suffered, and when the State itself established schools the gifts have been continued for the sake of methods and experiments to meet further needs which the State has not yet seen its way to meet. Charities, in this case, have looked, or do look, to their own extinction when the State, guided by their example, may take up their work. They have been pioneers, original, daring by experiment to lead the way to undiscovered good. Relief societies have, in like manner, shown how the State may help the poor by means

which respect their character, by putting work within their reach, by emigrating those fit for colonial life, by giving orphan children more of the conditions of a family home. There are others which have looked, or still look, to their extinction, not in State action, but in co-operation with other societies with which they now compete. Competition may be the strength of commerce, but co-operation is certainly the strength of charity, and wise are those charities which are content to sink themselves in common action and die that they may rise again in another body. The Charity Organization Societies in some of the great cities have in this way lost themselves, to live again in Social Welfare Councils and Civic Leagues. There are, finally, other charities which, by their own action, tend to make themselves unnecessary. The Children's Country Holiday Fund, for instance, by giving country holidays to town children, and by making the parents contribute to the expense, develop at once a new desire for the peace and beauty of the country and a new capacity for satisfying this desire. When parents realize the necessity of such holiday and know how it can be secured, this Fund will cease to have a reason for existence.

Charities are many which fulfil this condition, but charities also are many which do not fulfil it. They seem to wish to establish themselves in permanence, and go on in rivalry with the State and with one another. There is waste of money, which might be used in pioneer work, in doing what is equally well done by others; there is competition which excites greed and imposition, and there is overlapping. Very little thought is wanted to discover many such charities which now receive large incomes from the public.

A wise observer has said: "A charity ought every twenty-five years to head

a revolution against itself." Only by some such means can it be brought into adjustment with the new needs of a new time, only by some such means will it clear off excrescences and renew its youth. But, failing such power of self-reform, it is worthy of consideration whether every twenty-five years each charity should not be compelled to justify its existence before some State Commission.

III. Charities should keep in line with State activities. The Stateeither by national or by municipal organization-has taken over many of the duties which meet the needs of the people. Ignorance, poverty, disease, and dulness have all been met, and the means by which they are being met are constantly developed. The Church, it may be said, has so far converted the State, and a cheerful payer of rates may perhaps deserve the same Divine commendation as the cheerful giver. But State organizations, however well considered and well administered, will always want the human touch. They will not, like the charities, be fitful because dependent on subscribers and committees, but they will not, like charities, temper their actions to individual peculiarities and feelings. Charities, therefore, I think, do well when they keep in line with State activities. They may, for instance, working in cooperation with the Guardians, undertake the care of the families when the bread-winner is in the infirmary, or superintend the management of industrial colonies to which the unemployed may be sent, or provide enfeebled old people with pensions until the age when they are eligible for the State pension. They may, in connection with the School and Education authorities, support the Care committees who look after the interest of children in elementary schools, or, like Mrs. Humphry Ward's society, give guidance in play during the children's leisure hours.

They may also, in conjunction with the Sanitary Authorities, work for the increase of health and the wiser use of playgrounds and means of recreation. Men and women of good will may, I believe, find boundless opportunities if they will serve on municipal bodies or on the committees appointed by such bodies to complement their work.

It may, indeed, be a further indictment against charities that much of the good will which might have improved and humanized State action has by them been diverted. If, for instance, the passion of good will which now finds an outlet in providing free shelters and dinners for the starving, or orphanages for destitute children had gone to improve casual wards and barrack schools, many evils would have been prevented. At any rate, it may be said that charities working alongside of the State organizations would become stronger, and State organizations inspired by the charities would become more humane. It costs more, doubtless, to work in co-operation with others and to subject self-will to the common will as a member of a Board of Guardians than to be an important member of a charitable committee, but in charity it is cost which counts.

Charity-to sum up my conclusionrepresents a very important factor in the making of the England of to-morrow. The outbreak of giving, of which there has been ample evidence this Christmas, may represent increased good will and a more vivid realization of responsibility for those afflicted in mind, body, or estate, or it may represent the impatience of light-hearted people anxious to relieve themselves and get on to their pleasures. Society is out of joint because the wealth of the rich and the poverty of the poor have been brought into so great light. It seems intolerable that when wealth has to invent new ways of expenditure there should be families where the

earnings are insufficient for necessary food, where the children cannot enjoy the gaiety of their youth, where the boys and girls pass out through unskilled trades to pick up casual labor and casual doles. The needs are many, but the point I wish to urge is that charity which intends to help may hinder. No gift is without result, and some of the gifts are responsible for the suffering, carelessness, and bitterness of our times.

The Contemporary Review.

Charity up-to-date is that which gives thought as well as money and service. The cost is greater, and many who will even deny themselves a pleasure so as to give a generous cheque cannot exercise the greater denial of giving their thought. "There is no glory," said Napoleon, "where there is no danger"; and we may add, there is no charity where there is no thought, and thought is very costly.

Samuel A. Barnett.

CHAPTER I. MISCHANCE.

In the autumn of 1725 the gossips of Buxton and in their turn the consummate quidnuncs of London society made a nine-days' cackle over a disgrace which had befallen a lady of the highly connected family of the Chances; wherein what she lost in reputation Beau Vane gained, with his almost impromptu transmutation by his wit's alchemy of Miss Chance into mischance. That "miss" had still a flavor about it of the infantine, the pert, the familiar, the contemptuous, the common; therefore to persons with the Georgian fine sense of the moral difference between sin and discovery the public curtailment of the full honorable title of "mistress" was a measure of the lady's descent.

Of course there were and are Chances in almost every county in England, but Fortuna Chance, the Miss or Mistress Chance in question, was of the Roman Catholic Chances of the Peak country whose ladies always patched their faces on the Tory side. That elder branch I mean, which has for its sonorous motto "Victrix vel Vindex Fortuna"; the younger and perhaps now better regarded advances the trivial flippancy of "Cross or Pile," equivalent in

modern currency to "Heads or Tails." The other, the gentlemanly ingredient in the scandal, was a young fellow of the even greater tribe of Nobodies of Nowhere, a very pretty young fellow too, but of low family, small fortune and Whiggish politics. An act of mere immorality might easily have been condoned by miss's kinsfolk, but so gross a misalliance, whether legalized or irregular, was universally condemned as against all form. The lover was compelled to a desperate duel with Fortuna's brother George, in which he both gave and received serious wounds; nevertheless his inconspicuous name of Bond would inevitably have been soon forgotten but for his subsequent remarkable success in his profession of the law. It would appear that blood-letting had cured him of his inclination towards a life of pleasure and the vanity of embroidered coats or pink-colored top-knots, for on his recovery he devoted himself to the more serious frivolities of ambition, went the western circuit assiduously, wrote a book on the law of implied contracts, got into parliament, and became memorable later on as the youngest judge who ever resigned his seat on the English bench.

While he shone she suffered eclipse,