it? If it is not remunerative, who is to bear the loss of useless work, of work of less value when performed than its primary cost? The State or the ratepayers, will probably be the answer; with the obvious assumption that the State or local bodies can bear any strain or expense. To inquire whence the State acquires its funds, and whether in a condition of decaying prosperity those funds may be regarded as of unlimited expansion, would no doubt be considered by the theorists to whom I refer, as suggested by middle-class cupidity and meanness.

Now, the modest demand only is "the construction of wholesome, cheerful homes for the people by the municipalities and county boards;" "feeding children gratuitously in all board-schools, in order to check the physical deterioration only too noticeable among the infants of the rising generation." "The undertaking of useful works for which there was admitted need in the various districts; such as embankments, roads, etc.: the establishment of light relief works and factory-work for women-all this to be arranged by the local bodies and the State in conjunction, the wages being determined by a board of assessors, and the profits, if any, divided equitably among the people employed." Further, it is of the highest importance that "the people employed'

should not over-work themselves; and this is to be prevented by law-" an eight-hours' day, limited by law, in all Government employment." And then the conclusion with great serenity is drawn, "that these measures would benefit the workers, if carried out, very clear." *

is

About the benefit to the workers from this scheme there will certainly be, in some minds, grave doubt as to its being very clear. But that point may be left for future discussion. The singular characteristic to be noticed in these reformers, is their extreme modesty and timidity in "asking for more of what they consider already as their own. If "wholesome, cheerful homes for the people," and the feeding of children in board schools are to be provided gratuitously by the public, one cannot see the logic or common sense in refusing to provide boots, stockings, corduroys, indeed, all that a working-man may require, either as necessaries or luxuries. Really, it is not worth while higgling about details when the principle is admitted; and it would be better to say at once that it is the duty of all the wellto-do people to support all the indigent "gratuitously," and so end the matter.

Letter in the Times, November 17, 1886, signed, “H. M, Hyndman."

There is no immediate reason to fear that the thoroughly shrewd and reflective English artisan of the better class has been seduced by the sophistries of the officious friends who assume to plead his cause. He is pretty well acquainted with the real facts of the case; and though quite willing, and very rightly, in a rising market, to support a wellplanned strike, he looks with coldness on Utopians who are equally ignorant of capital, labour, or hard work. But the intelligent and skilled artisan is an aristocrat among the great mass of workers, whether unemployed or not. He, hardly less than the capitalist, is threatened by the multitude of the unskilled labourers surging around him; and even by the scarcely lesser multitude of highly-skilled loafers, who have become convinced that it is more profitable to bawl out that they "have got no work to do," than to attempt to find work and do it.

For the moment there appears to be no hope of staunching a morbid, or rather, a maudlin sentimentality for genuine benevolence is out of the question -which insists upon the immediate relief of hunger, however produced. The evil results which must follow such a policy if persevered in, have been often pointed out; especially by Mr. Herbert Spencer in his articles, "The Man versus the State." "The

deserving poor," Mr. Spencer remarks, "are among those who are burdened to pay the costs of caring for the undeserving poor. As under the old Poor Law, the diligent and provident labourer had to pay that the good-for-nothings might not suffer, until frequently under this extra burden he broke down. and himself took refuge in the workhouse-as at present it is admitted, that the total rates levied in large towns for all public purposes have now reached such a height that they cannot be exceeded without inflicting great hardship on the small shopkeepers and artisans who already find it difficult enough to keep themselves free from the pauper taint; so in all cases the policy is one which intensifies the pains of those most deserving of pity, that the pains of those least deserving of pity may be mitigated."* In other words, every effort is now made by a misdirected public sentiment to check the beneficent effect of natural selection, which promotes the survival of the hardy, the strong, and the capable, but, on the contrary, to shield the production of the "unfit," the weak, the stupid, and the worthless.

At this point we reach a full view of the great problem of population. The profound thinker and benevolent man who first propounded it. has received * "Man versus the State," pp. 71, 72

the usual reward of sages and prophets, for seeing further and feeling more deeply than their contemporaries. Malthus and Malthusianism have long been by-words of scorn and reproach; and, oddly enough, two parties, usually most hostile to each other, have united in this one object of casting obloquy on him. Christian priests of all denominations, anxious to repress sexual irregularities, have counselled and promoted early marriages from purely religious motives. On the other hand, Democratic Socialists, in their war against Capital and its owners, have maintained that it was only owing to the selfish greed of the rich that the poor could not multiply to the limit of their physical capacity. Between the two, Christians and Socialists, Malthusianism has been met with an hostility which has few parallels in modern controversy. And even to this day one must consent to be a social pariah, to stand forth as its supporter.

At last the evils of over-population are becoming too obvious to be gainsaid. Mr. Bradlaugh, with a courage which will no doubt be acknowledged after his death and when the fight is won, has borne the penalty of appearing as a champion of commonsense and human well-being. Not only over-population generally, but the disproportionate increase of the "unfit" and unworthy, is attracting attention.