never-ending string of them reaching down both sides of the street. Some
sang, or shouted, to attract notice; others stood mutely with appealing
eyes, wherever they thought there was a chance of getting anything. Many
received a dole, while others were told to call again. I could not but
be struck by the courteous manner of my host to them, even when asking
them to pass along.

On the opposite side of the road some food, or money, I forget which,
was being distributed to a hungry crowd by another hospitable merchant.
Evidently the supply was limited, and it was a case of first come first
served. The desperate struggle that was going on amongst that little
crowd of some fifty or sixty people was pitiful to behold.

Now the present system, while better than nothing, is fraught with many
serious objections, with which I am sure my Indian readers will agree.

1. The weakest must inevitably go to the wall. It is the strong
able-bodied lusty beggar who is bound to get the best of it in
struggles such as I have above described, although he is just the
one who could and ought to work and who least needs the charity. He
is able also to cover more ground than the weak and sickly. To the
latter the struggle for existence is necessarily very severe, and
while needing and deserving help the most they get the least.

2. This unsystematic haphazard mode of helping the poor is bound to
be attended with serious inequalities; while some get more than is
either good, or necessary, others get too little, and for the
majority even supposing that on two or three days of the week they
succeeded in getting a sufficiency, the chances are that on four or
five they would not get nearly enough. It would be interesting to