ODD PAPERS

Southland Times, Issue 21073, 3 May 1930, Page 13

ODD PAPERS

CHARITY

(By

“Q.R.S.”)

“Goodness answers to the theological virtue charity, and admits no excess, but error. The desire of power in excess caused the angels to fall; the desire of knowledge in excess caused man to fall; but in charity there is-.no excess; neither can angel nor man come In danger by it.’’ —The Essays of Francis Bacon.

I must confess that as I had always believed Bacon’s viewpoint on the question of Charity was universally acknowledged as being admirable upon ethical, theoretical and practical considerations, I was somewhat surprised the other evening when an elderly and wealthy friend of mine indulged in a vehement denunciation of the virtue of charity. I had been extolling to him the raising of a certain sum of money to provide a home and maintenance for a widow, whose husband had died in impecunious circumstances, when he suddenly retaliated with an arresting argument against Charity* generally, invective after invective being heaped up in favour of his contention that charity, as it is known, is the most uncharitable thing conceivable. “Charity is one of the greatest curses of the age,” was his opening shot as he puffed vigorously* at his pipe. “It is un-moral; it is for the most part humbug and makebelieve; it panders to a detestable spirit and exercises a baneful influence. As far as I can see it induces in the giver a spirit of overbearing snobbishness, and in the recipient, piteous subserviency. Yes! it is as demeaning to the one as to the other,” did he emphasize thumping the arm of his chair. “As a system, from beginning to end, from A to Z, it is fraught with deception” my friend continued. “Deception, let me tell you, of the worst kind, because it is self-deception. The one who is the object of Charity believes that he has to be thankful for mercy and loving-kindness shown him, while the dispenser thinks he is a very* good fellow because of his largesse. Yet both are wrong; for nothing like any of the attributes usually credited to Charity enters into the matter. No such motives urge to Charity; they only serve to cover and hide what really makes us contribute to the vicious conception which is barring human progress.” I confess my friend's utterances surprised me not a little because I knew sufficient of him to feel sure he is neither a brute nor barbarian. In fact I had always regarded him as a kindly gentleman; hence I was determined to discover, if I could, the reason for his Scrooge-like attitude. Why should he promnegate views so devoid of humaneness and so filled with malice? Perhaps he had become disgruntled by some disagreement with some institution or charitable effort. And so, apart from desiring to satisfy my curiosity as to why anyone, with the misery and poverty around us, could hold such opinions, I thought I might wean him from them and induce him to endow some of his riches to the Cause of Charity* he so despised. To my added surprise, when, at my request, he elaborated and explained to me his strange social doctrine, he based himself, anyway to his own complete satisfaction, on precisely those considerations of humanity, of lending a hand to the weak, and of the duty to the poor, which I had made up my mind to advance with what earnestness I could.

“You are quite mistaken,” my friend began in his explanation, if not in defence, of his remarkable position vis-a-vis Charity, “if you suppose I have no sympathy for the poor or needy or that I am careless of their fate. On the contrary, I care very much indeed what befalls them, and I, as do others, desire to remove them from the environment of want, which is their fate. But I am convinced this cannot be done until Charity, as a system, is abolished. So long as it is maintained, poverty and helplessness, and worse than that, dependence instead of independence, will rule. If there is any object which deserves to be tackled by Charity it were infinitely better for all concerned that it should be undertaken by the State or (if you will) by the Municipality. Then all would contribute their share instead of only a few giving, and the poor would be under no obligation to anyone. They would accept help as of right from society. The suggested Special Taxation fund for the relief of the unemployed is an'admirable one. If adopted no one would speak of such aii arrangement as Charity. Of course not. It would be the recognition by the public at large of their duty, and that places the giver and the recipient on fair and mutually self-respect-ing terms. The man who pays his rates does not plume himself on his goodness or expect long adulatory notices of his benevolence when he dies. He does his rightful share in the general interests because, if he did not, he would be punished, as it is only fair he should be—just as fair as the man broken on the way, and in nine cases out of ten through no fault of his own, should take the means for preventing his starving, without crawling in thankfulness to any individual. “Charity is given over to abuse,” my friend went on. “One has only to read the newspapers to find covert revelations of the ways of Charity-mongers and of the Gambling indulged in under cover of the excuse that it is for Charity. Nor is Gambling—ruinous though it sometimes is —perhaps the worst that is done in the name of Charity and for which Charity is used as a screen. There are the Bazaars with their lure to women—'l got such a bargain, a mad price my dear and then besides it was for Charity!’—you know that goes on. But there is something else to be said about these Bazaars. On the excuse of Charity, those who organize them press traders in a way that comes near to blackmail to send them goods free, and they really think they have done so admirably if they succeed in getting large .supplies from that direction and in that manner. The poor tradesman has to bear the cost in fear often that he may lose- a good customer, and the customer gets the kudos as an energetic and valuable worker! That the tradesman is thus driven to the course of getting'back the value of' these contributions in overcharging or in giving other customers goods of an inferior quality, is another and further 'aspect. And how much of Charity, pray, do you suppose animates those who organize these bazaars and entertainments and so forth? Precious little, I fancy; although it is difficult, and perhaps impossible, to judge accurately people’s motives. Still, it is safe to say that if helping in these methods for aiding Charity did not mean social advancement, popularity and sometimes amusement or recreation and release from the ennui of an idle life or a life closely encompassed by the dull round of drab domestic or business duties, there would be precious few helpers in these ventures. Again I stress that all the nonsense of sham and make-believe of this’ sort of thing would not be if the State undertook to support such relief work for the poor as might be needed. At least we should get rid of the rivalry of Charityworkers —an appalling fact that ought not to be ignored.” The hospitals, I ventured to express the hope, did not come under my friend's very sweeping denunciation. But I was wrong. The mere mention of these institutions had the effect of a red rag to a bull. “Don’t talk to me please about Hospitals,” he exclaimed. “Why, if a man’s health fails or he meets with an accident, the State,

which in all probability through some defect of government was largely responsible, should not repair the damage, I cannot see. Don’t talk to me about the Hospitals as private Charity. Not until there is an end of voluntary—that, is Charitable—Hospitals, and not until the State takes charge of the doctors, will there be any satisfactory health conditions for Hie public.” Then I ventured to point out that, however much in severe logic there might be something to be said for my friend's notions, no one could contemplate without horror what would happen if the tap of Charity were suddenly turned off before the State or the Municipality did the work which, however inefficiently and with whatever faults and drawbacks, is done now by private effort. “Ah,” was the reply I received, “the old, old story! So long as no one will discontinue doing what is called Charity, the system will go on. I, for one, think I am doing the best possible service to the public by refusing to help it to continue!”

When my friend bade me good-night, I took my chair at the fireside and mused for some time over his point of view which, at least, was one worth considering. Because, if few of us find ourselves in entire agreement with it, we anyway may learn from it of some of the abuses of Charity which are prevalent. Learning thus, we might find means for avoiding the evil which often, it must be admitted, tends to becloud what should be the most brilliant sunshine reserved for human life.