828 REroRT— 1892. 



astonished many of Lis admirers, and which, coming from any other quarter, would, 

 I venture to say, have been generally characterised, if not as Utopian, at least as 

 affording to our social and political intelligences, in their present imperfect state 

 of development, no food for serious discussion. It is nothing less, as is well known, 

 than a scheme for universal pensions, or general endowment of old age. With 

 his usual straightfor«'ardness Mr. Booth at the outset informs his readers ^ that, 

 as there are at present 733,000 women and 590,000 men, or about 1,323,000 per- 

 sons in all, above sLxty-iive years of age in England and Wales, a universal pension 

 list for those parts of the United Kingdom alone would amount, at 13/. each, to 

 17,000,000/. per annum. This sum is reduced by an anticipated contribution of 

 4,000,000/. from the local authorities in consideration of the reduction which 

 would be efl'ected in the rates, and the total amount to be provided by Imperial 

 taxation for carrying the scheme into etl'ect throughout the United Kingdom is 

 estimated at 16,000,000/. per annum. Mr. Booth anticipates that such a sum 

 could be raised without dithculty, by direct and indirect taxation, which latter 

 might include increased duties on sugar and drink, ' provided there be any desire 

 that the thing should be done.' I should fear that the means proposed would be 

 quite sufficient to counteract any such desire, and Mr. Booth is unquestionably 

 right in adding that ' if the project does not so far commend itself to the com- 

 munity as to make the necessary sacrifice welcome, no sensible statesman could 

 be expected to take it up.' 



But even if there should be any such widely expressed desire, let us see whether 

 the scheme shoidd commend itself in any degree to our matured ideas of self- 

 government or to our long experience of the working of the Poor Law and charit- 

 able and other agencies. It is proposed that every man and woman in the United 

 Kingdom should, after sixty-live, receive a pension — duke and dock -labourer, 

 countess and costermonger. Every person, whatever his or her position or ante- 

 cedents, whether good or bad, rich or poor, thrifty or reckless, is to be treated 

 in precisely the same way. No man, however wealthy or neglectful of his plainest 

 duties to society, however drunken or improvident, as soon as he has reached the 

 magic age, is to be debarred from the right to receive his pension. Is there any 

 merit, I would ask, in living to sixty-five? and cannot a man or woman who has 

 attained that age be almost as great a discredit to society as at any preceding 

 time of life ? Surely the mere fact of attaining a certain age should not obliterate 

 the equally certain fact, it may be, that a man's whole career has been a negation 

 of his duty as a citizen and even as a decent human beinir ! Nor can I pass over 

 as futile some of the many objections to the scheme which Mr. Booth mentions, 

 and with which he deals. Among these are, that the hard-working and thrifty 

 would pay for the idle and worthless, and that it is tmjust as well as impolitic 

 that the undeserving and those who have done nothing to help themselves should 

 benefit equally with the thrifty and deserving. Mr. IBooth contends (I quote his 

 own words) that as 'according to the present law every drunken, immoral, laz}", 

 ill-tempered old man or woman now existing has a right to demand the shelter of 

 the workhouse,' there can, therefore, be no harm in according to such people a 

 weekly allowance of five shillings, which is in eft'ect less than they would cost in 

 the workhouse. I think the difierence between the two cases is obvious. The 

 financial results of each arrangement, to the payer of rates and taxes, may be 

 nearly identical, but surely we ought to look further than this and see to it that 

 the deserving citizen is not confronted with the spectacle of his undeserving 

 brother living upon an allowance which he has done nothing to earn, in as perfect 

 freedom as himself, and with every advantage, so far as the law goes, which he 

 himself enjoys. I do not think this would be a very edifying state of things, nor 

 one likely to promote thrift. To this second point Mr. Booth only answers that 

 ' it is even more subtly dangerous to inquire into a man's character than into his 

 means, if the benefit to be received is to be kept free from all taint of pauperism.' 

 1 confess that it disturbs me little, as I conceive it would disturb our disreputable 

 friend still less, to add the taint of pauperism to the many worse taints with which 



' Pavpcrism — a Picture; and Endoitmcnt of Old Age — an Argument. London 

 (Macmillan & Co.), 1892, p. 64. 



