On Selecting The Best Charity.

ON SELECTING THE BEST CHARITY .

W . E have seen a paper , which is , Ave believe , put forAvard by one of our " Charity Eeform " associations , as they like to call themselves , under this heading , and Avhich , as it is full of fallacies and mischievous mistakes , according to our vieAA ' , Ave think Avell to reproduce and comment upon to-day . There is no more important question than that which is contained in this proposition , at the same time there is none more difficult .

J . " The selection of the Charities most deserving of support Ai'ould not be so difficult or so invidious a task if it did not involve a careful previous general inquiry , and a comparison of all the Charities and their objects , ancl modes of action and management , for the purpose of making the selection a just one ; in fact , such an inquiry aud comparison as Darwin tells us that Nature makes Avhen she is engaged in tho " elimination of inefficient competitors in the struggle for life . " This is necessarily a painful operation ,

yet Nature performs it Avith the utmost rigour . Can Ave be more kind AA'hen Ave are trying to tell the very truth about the Charities , and to point out which of them arc the most deserving of support 1 " Such is the modest exordium , Avhich , if it be truly intended , is likely also to be very useful . But let us proceed . II . " The more the Charities have recently been examined intothe more

unsatisfac-, tory has been the result , and the less are they shoAvn to have adapted themselves to the changing circumstances of the times . Indeed , most of them having been established many years ago , they have taken no account of the vast changes made by legislation , and by the altered conditions and modes in AA'hich the Poor LaAv has come to be administered . They are all built still upon the same old ivooden lines . No IAVO of

them co-operate for any purpose , even for that of informing each other Avhether they arc relieving the same applicants . " In our opinion this is far too hasty and far too sweeping a charge , and is in no ways justified by the facts of the case . III . " TAA ' classes of charities have lately been reported on by Special Committees of the most skilled persons connected Avith them , and of noblemen and gentlemen

acquainted Avith the subject , together with members of the Charity Organisation Society . These are the Charities for the Blind and those dealing Avith Imbeciles . Of the Blind Charities dealing AA'ith the education of the young , and the training of adults , it may bo safely said that the state of disorganisation could hardly have been more complete , nor the effects more disastrous . It AA'as proved that out of 3 , 000 blind in the metropolis , industrial training Avas only available for about 50 and the number of adults AVIIO had

, been trained , and for AA'I IOIH employment Avas provided , Avas 150 ; yet the number capable of being trained Avas 1 , 000 , " and the sums raised by 26 Blind Charities for children and adults Avas £ 1 : 2 , 936 , As to the principal charities for blind children , they could not , Avith the exception of the Normal College , be more inefficient . Educated at an annual cost of , £ 40 , and remaining for . several years at the schools , not above 2 per cent , of them are afterwards ' , able to earn a livelihood . "

We do not profess to understand the " drift" of these remarks , Avhich may be supposed to have a meaning . IV . " The Charities for Imbeciles , receiving £ 54 , 460 , Avere found to be excellently managed , but quite inadequate for the numbers requiring admission , excepting for London pauper cases , Avho are all taken b y the Metropolitan Asylums Board and dealt with in an admirable manner . Outside the metropolis there are only three or four for all England besides , and the consequence is that cases from all parts of England compete with the loAA'er middle and artisan classes for admission to the London Charities , aud the few who succeed have to run the gauntlet of the voting system . The Deaf and