A DEFENCE OF PENNY DINNERS.

FEW days ago I received from a friend the very interesting March number of EASTWARD HO! and my attention was especially called to an article on “Dinners at Board Schools." It contains, I am bound to say, some very startling propositions, and, if the writer were able to substantiate one half of the charges he lays to the door of these poor "penny dinners," there is no one but would agree with. him in thinking that they ought to be discouraged in every possible way. After reading the article I called to see a neighbour of mine, a lady who is well and deservedly known for her far-reaching and discriminating charity, and whom I remembered to have heard speaking of these "penny dinners," which she had been instrumental in organising in this place. "Do you know," I said to her, "that you are doing a great deal of harm by these penny dinners of yours? That you are encouraging dishonety? That you are adopting the surest means for the subversion of the state? That you are breaking up the sacred ties of family love and family duty? That you are lowering the wages of the working-classes, and taking from them their best motives for work?"

The good lady looked at me, while I was speaking, with a considerable amount of astonishment, and when I had finished, she replied, "No, indeed, I know nothing of the kind." "Then read that," I said, producing the article from my pocket. Her comment, when she had read it, was short and comprehensive. "The man does not know what he is talking about!"

Tell me, then, I said, what these penny dinners really are. She did so, and after hearing her explanation of the object of these dinners and the system upon which they are organised, I am inclined to agree with her, that the writer of the article did not take the trouble to inform himself sufficiently on these points before making such a violent attack upon what is, without doubt, a most praiseworthy and intelligent scheme for helping those who are anxious and willing to help themselves. I think, too, the writer is to a certain extent selfconvicted in this respect; for, towards the end of his article, after abusing those who are organising these dinners, and the "weaklings" who assist them, in no measured terms, he admits that he does not know whether the cost is to be provided for privately or by the rates; though, as he states,

in unnecessarily strong language, this makes a considerable difference. Exactly! it makes all the difference; and it might have been thought worth his while to find out how the case really stood before writing upon the subject.

Now, let us look at some of the charges the writer makes, and see if they are at all borne out by the facts.

First-as to the home, than which nothing should be held more sacred, or inviolate. Does this kindly scheme for supplementing the means and relieving in a measure the burden of some of our hard and honest toilers tend in any way to weaken or demoralize those grand and natural principles ?

Is it not conceivable rather, that this welcome assistance may be the very means of preventing the breaking up of some homes, where the parents are at their wits end to know how to make their small earnings meet all the absolute requirements of the home; and that it just steps in and prevents many a poor man from giving way to despair, to know that there are those who will hold out the helping hand to him, and cheer him with encouragement and sympathy? For it is a pure assumption that the authors of these similar benevolent schemes are not influenced by the kindest and most Christ-like motives.

Then, as to the scheme being an encouragement to dishonesty, and that it deprives the poor of their best motive for work. Taking the character that the writer of the article himself gives to the poorer classes-of whom he would appear to constitute himself the champion, as against the rich, this is surely a very illogical charge that he brings against them. Why, if they are of the honest and independent spirit he represents, should they wish to be guilty of deception as to their real condition? This is to offer them a gratuitous insult. And the same may be said of the idea that they would relax in their own efforts to better themselves when they found others helping them.

Now as to the question of wages. No doubt it would be much better if these could be higher, or the purchasing power of money greater. This is very easy to say, and the writer says they ought to be; but this does not solve the difficulty. What if they cannot be? Let us look into the matter a little closely. Who are the employers of labour? The rich, the idle rich, who seem so particularly to raise the writer's spleen, are only the indirect employers of labour; and, though it may be open to censure on another score, their lovish expenditure, extravagance if you will, on which such is laid, is an actual factor in that indirect employment

our.

But the direct employers of labour-how stands

the case with them? Are they to be made to pay higher wages? It is a well-known fact that, at the present time, nearly every industry in the country is in a deplorable condition, and that it is all the master-manufacturers can do to keep their works going at all, except at an absolute loss. How are they to raise the scale of wages of their hands? Government work, says the writer. Government work does employ labour, but the ratepayers have to pay for it; and if special work is created to meet any special distress, the ratepayers will have to pay heavier rates. But the writer distinctly says he is opposed to the poor being supported out of the rates. Then again (one is perplexed in trying to follow the logic of the writer), he seems to take exception to the rate at which the dinners are priced, and argues that the children will be under-fed; and yet, a little further on, he compares it to feeding "as hens are fatted for the poulterer," or, "as aldermen for apoplexies." This is all sheer misrepresentation, as I am informed, besides being unintelligible. The scheme of these dinners is the application of a practical and sensible co-operative principle; and in these days, when so much charity is needed, the economy of charity-I use the word economy in its proper and best sense,,-the management of charity is most necessary to be observed. It stands to reason that the poor man, in contributing his penny for his child, would enable him to get much more value for it, as his share of a meal provided by a number of similar subscriptions, than it would procure him if spent upon him in the independent manner advocated by the writer of the article. When these subscriptions are supplemented by the subscriptions of those who guarantee to make up the cost of the dinners, and to make up for those who are too poor to contribute anything, the result is, that the boys get a sufficient meal, and everybody's money goes further, and thus its "purchasing power," to which I alluded before, is increased,surely, no undesirable thing.

But though I have been betrayed into some length in answering this article, I cannot conclude without noticing the spirit in which it is written. It is a spirit that I fear can only do harm. Professedly in the interest of the poor, it is a sort of "wolf in sheep's clothing": the clothing is, as usual, too scanty, and out from it there peeps here and there a portion of the ugly beast it would hide.

"The better distribution of wealth," says the writer-in other words, "rank Communism,"-is advocated, "class against class! How will you better the condition, or promote the happiness of the poor man by holding up before him such chimeras as these, utterly unattainable? But even if

some despot were able to bring about this' distribution of wealth,' by an abitrary exercise of power, and were to establish, even temporarily, an artificial state of equality, it could not continue; and even during its ephemeral reign it would cause the utter disruption of society, and the intensest misery to the very classes in whose name it is clamoured for by the demagogues, who are their worst friends. I once heard of a lady who stopped her carriage at a small village, and got down to buy some food, which she took back (insolently flung your demagogue would say) to a poor starving woman and children she had just passed on the road. They were about to seize it greedily and eat it, when it was snatched from them by a man who stood close by, watching, and who hurled it, with an oath, far away into the fields. Although the poor starvelings looked wistfully after it, they uttered never a word as he told them not to accept the cursed charity of those who had no more right to wealth than they themselves had. He was one of their leaders and advisers, God help them!"

I believe that many of the working-class are too sensible to entertain such false and unhealthy ideas as the would-be regenerators of society strive to encourage in them. I have been reading lately a very clever little brochure in this connection, entitled "Tim Teddington's Dream";* and I strongly recommend its perusal to all those who are interested, as all should be, in the promulgation of sound and loyal views to controvert the poisonous doctrines which, just now, seem to have been again unearthed-for they are no new ones. There must be rich and poor as long as the world shall endure; and neither class can be independent of the other. It is a divine decree, and man cannot annul it. Without entering into the question as to whether the rich might not make a better use of their wealth-better for themselves more especially, for it is a question after all that most affects themselves, it cannot be denied that many of them are liberal and generous patrons of art; and, thank God, the noble hospitals, and other charitable institutions, whether for healing, for supporting the destitute, or for education-the best channel for conveying charity to those who need it,-which are to be found in all our big towns, and which are world-renowned, bear witness that many of them are not behindhand in giving of their abundance freely and without stint. These are the causes to advocate and encourage, not only by contributions, but by personal help in such a way, for instance, as that glorious man who has just been called away, to our world's

*Home Words. Office, 7, Paternoster Square, E.C.

great loss, General Gordon did, when he devoted his vast energies and abilities to the cause of his poor boys at Gravesend, of whom he spoke so affectionately. And the interest and assistance given in furtherance of all such worthy objects by our Queen and her children are a proof that the cause of the sick and needy is not neglected by even the highest in this our land.

FRANK GILMAN.