Sec. 1.  “Moral” View of the Causes of Poverty.—­Our diagnosis of “sweating” has regarded poverty as an industrial disease, and we have therefore concerned ourselves with the examination of industrial remedies, factory legislation, Trade Unionism, and restrictions of the supply of unskilled labour.  It may seem that in doing this we have ignored certain important moral factors in the problem, which, in the opinion of many, are all important.  Until quite recently the vast majority of those philanthropic persons who interested themselves in the miserable conditions of the poor, paid very slight attention to the economic aspect of poverty, and never dreamed of the application of economic remedies.  It is not unnatural that religions and moral teachers engaged in active detailed work among the poor should be so strongly impressed by the moral symptoms of the disease as to mistake them for the prime causes.  “It is a fact apparent to every thoughtful man that the larger portion of the misery that constitutes our Social Question arises from idleness, gluttony, drink, waste, indulgence, profligacy, betting, and dissipation.”  These words of Mr. Arnold White express the common view of those philanthropists who do not understand what is meant by “the industrial system,” and of the bulk of the comfortable classes when they are confronted with the evils of poverty as disclosed in “the sweating system.”  Intemperance, unthrift, idleness, and inefficiency are indeed common vices of the poor.  If therefore we could teach the poor to be temperate, thrifty, industrious, and efficient, would not the problem of poverty be solved?  Is not a moral remedy instead of an economic remedy the one to be desired?  The question at issue here is a vital one to all who earnestly desire to secure a better life for the poor.  This “moral view” has much to recommend it at first sight.  In the first place, it is a “moral” view, and as morality is admittedly the truest and most real end of man, it would seem that a moral cure must be more radical and efficient than any merely industrial cure.  Again, these “vices” of the poor, drink, dirt, gambling, prostitution, &c., are very definite and concrete maladies attaching to large numbers of individual cases, and visibly responsible for the misery and degradation of the vicious and their families.  Last, not least, this aspect of poverty, by representing the condition of the poor to be chiefly “their own fault,” lightens the sense of responsibility for the “well to do.”  It is decidedly the more comfortable view, for it at once flatters the pride of the rich by representing poverty as an evidence of incompetency, salves his conscience when pricked by the contrast of the misery around him, and assists him to secure his material interests by adopting an attitude of stern repression towards large industrial or political agitations in the interests of labour, on the ground that “these are wrong ways of tackling the question.”

Sec. 2.  “Unemployment” and the Vices of the Poor.—­The question is this, Can the poor be moralized, and will that cure Poverty?  To discuss this question with the fullness it deserves is here impossible, but the following considerations will furnish some data for an answer—­