Psalms 144:14

That there be no complaining in our streets.

English pauperism

English pauperism is a peculiar product of this island. You see nothing like it anywhere else. Those who have heard me speak on this topic know what an essential difference I draw between pauperism and poverty. Poverty is a relative term. Man may be poor, and yet may be healthy and very happy, and may not need your sympathy. But pauperism describes the conditions of those unhappy fellow-citizens of ours in such wretched circumstances that it is absolutely impossible for them to maintain themselves and their families in health and decency. Now, this kind of extreme poverty or pauperism is quite different from anything that you witness anywhere else. As a distinguished minister of my own church, Dr. Rigg, said a quarter of a century, ago, in a book which he published on the subject of Education, English pauperism is “a national institution, a legacy from mediaeval times and dregs of an outworn feudalism.” In other words, the peculiar pauperism which exists in this country arises from the fact that the people have been divorced from the soil. (H. P. Hughes, M. A.)

Remedy for pauperism

Many who have no sympathy with abstract committees would be delighted to help particular cases. If any such committee were able to put affluent men and women into direct relations with some starving families, it would be a great gain every way. This suggestion is not novel. It was made five years ago by a gentleman at the second conference we ever held. Suppose we could get every household represented here to look after one destitute household. Instead of giving their charity here and there, suppose I could introduce you to one family--husband, wife, and children--all in great need of work. You could in various ways assist with practical sympathy and advice as well as with money. I do not know how many families there are likely to be out of work. Suppose 20,000 or 30,000 are in this condition, and suppose I could get 20,000 or 30,000 men and women to undertake to be a real friend to one family each, it would not be a great strain upon their purse or time, and it would be an untold blessing. Oh, that we could do something to bring together into direct personal contact the unprivileged and the privileged! Their separation is the root of the want of social sympathy between them. But let me say that many of those who seem to be the most remote from the poor are deeply touched by their condition, and are extremely anxious to help them. And I think the way suggested by Mr. Arnold White is one of the most effectual. Further, it will be found that if we could only prevent the pauperism occasioned by intemperance, there would scarcely be any pauperism left. (H. P. Hughes, M. A.)