abundantly able to insure the regular payment of the same apart, altogether, from the income of our industrial homes."

As a result of this rapid growth along the three lines described, the movement everywhere forced itself upon public recognition. The publication of its weekly organ, the "War Cry," in many different languages and countries aided its growth. Other magazines of higher class and better quality were issued. At the same time, the public press investigated the organization, and for a long time criticised it harshly. In fact, during all this time, while so successful, the Army suffered much persecution. The crowds of people composed of those whom it was seeking to benefit, seemed often to be its worst enemies, and then, to make matters more difficult, the police, we are told, instead of furnishing protection, often, themselves, joined in the persecution. There were many instances, in this early period, where the enthusiastic reformers were ill treated and even fatally injured. There was, however, some reason for all this persecution. A movement so sudden and apparently so contrary to existing institutions, needed time for its real principle to become known. The external manifestation seemed to consist of nothing but defiant disregard of established religious custom and ceremonial. Thus, while the vital principle of love for humanity was working its way into individual lives and attracting them to the ranks of the organization, the world at large openly showed its antagonism. Gradually, however, the sense of public opposition and antagonism grew less. Gradually the knowledge that, behind the superficial emotionalism, were depths of disinterested sympathy for fellow men and women worked itself into the public mind. Attacks on Army groups on street corners became less frequent, and when they did occur, were suppressed by the police. The press ceased its bitter criticism.

It was about this time that renewed and increased attention was focused on the new movement by the publication in 1890 of General Booth's famous book, "In Darkest England, and the Way Out." In some ways the book served to mark a new epoch in the development of that part of practical sociology which concerns itself with the direct betterment of the lower class of society. The old method of dealing with the poor is ably described by Ruskin, when he says:

This was a point of view which in its relation to the degraded elements of society was an expression of sympathy rather than of harsh criticism and mistrust. Although it had been set forth by others previously, it had never before forced itself so strongly on the public. In addition, the daring statements and bold theories, given utterance in "Darkest England," served to surprise all schools of reform. The public consciousness had never before faced the problem in such a way. It was aroused, and began to ask questions. The book ran through edition after edition. It was printed in a cheap form and within a short time was circulated all over the civilized world.

In his "scheme" General Booth laid down seven fundamental principles, which he claimed were essential to success. They were as follows:

1. The first principle that must be bore in mind, as governing every scheme that may be put forward, is that it must change the man, when it is his character and conduct which constitute the reasons for his failure in the battle of life.

2. The remedy, to be effectual, must change the circumstances of the individual, when they are the cause of his wretched condition, and lie beyond his control.

3. Any remedy worthy of consideration must be on a scale commensurate with the evil with which it proposes to deal.

4. Not only must the scheme be large enough, but it must be permanent.

5. But while it must be permanent, it must be made practicable.

6. The indirect features of the scheme must not be such as to produce injury to the persons whom we seek to benefit.

7. While assisting one class of the community, it must not seriously interfere with the interests of another.[6]

General Booth's personal attitude, also, is well worth noting. In the preface of his book he makes the following statement:

And again, in view of some of the manifestations of the organization as we see it, the following is interesting, as coming from its founder. He says: "But one of the grimmest social problems of our time should be sternly faced, not with a view to the generation of profitless emotions, but with a view to its solution."[8]

Upon the publication of this book there arose a division of opinion in regard to the scheme which was set forth. On the one hand, numbers of noted philanthropists aided General Booth with money and moral support. On the other hand, there was opposition from a certain class of reformers, headed by that eminent scientist, Thomas Huxley. This opposition, however, did not so much attack the principles advocated, as the agency for their application, namely, the Salvation Army, itself, characterized in Huxley's words as "Autocratic socialism, masked by its theological exterior."[9]

From that time to the present many thoughtful men have continued this opposition to the Army as an agent of social service. Further on we shall consider the validity and strength of their arguments. At that time the press on all sides took up the controversy, and it was finally decided to appoint a committee of investigation to thoroughly examine the Army's methods and institutions and publish a report. This committee was composed of some of the leading business and public men of England, headed by Sir Wilfred Lawson. They examined the books of the Army and studied the system and methods of the movement. They reported that all was entirely satisfactory and not only so, but that the movement and work was worthy of commendation.[10]

The report of this Committee, together with a demonstration of the work already accomplished, served to silence the critics to some extent, and public favor began to turn toward the movement. Since that