Introduction

In 1795, the English Unitarian George Dyer set out his vision of the relationship between philanthropy and justice (Dyer, 1795, pp35-6):

Dyer (1795) believed that ‘in proportion as a country abounds in poor, the state of society is bad’ (p47). He was a supporter of the newlyformed Philanthropic Society's plans to reform convicts’ children and ‘add citizens to society’. In the late 18th century, philanthropy as a word indicating a love of humankind and a desire to promote human wellbeing was radiating out from its French base, and Dyer's statement reflects this moment of hope. Old charity with its temples and its hospitals was neither adequate nor necessary. Instead philanthropists should focus on removing ‘the defects and excesses of governments’. In short, philanthropy was a political project: to be a reformer was to engage in politics. For people like Dyer the point of philanthropy was to deliver social justice.

This late-18th-century moment stands out in the history of charity and philanthropy. Before and after it social justice was rarely absent, but it was equally rarely an overriding concern. In part this was because charity and philanthropy faced criticisms which had the effect of deflecting their activities onto what seemed safer terrain than the promotion of social justice. This was particularly the case in the 19th century, when philanthropy was criticised for interfering with the workings of a free market. In setting out some of the criticisms made of philanthropy (or charity, as it is properly called before the late 18th century) I aim to show how and why a concern for social justice became marginalised.

Charity and poor relief

From the late 15th century charity was intimately bound up with poor relief and there were only a limited number of possible policies that could be utilised. At one extreme lay indiscriminate giving to the poor as you encountered them on the street, at the other the incarceration of beggars.