The failure of philanthropy? 1880–1914
in The reputation of philanthropy since 1750
Abstract only
Log-in for full text

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

manchesterhive requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals - to see content that you/your institution should have access to, please log in through your library system or with your personal username and password.

If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/extracts and download selected front and end matter. 

Institutions can purchase access to individual titles; please contact for pricing options.


If you have an access token for this content, you can redeem this via the link below:

Redeem token

In the late nineteenth century there began to be an increasing sense that philanthropy had failed. In part this was because of the emergence of a rival, altruism; declaring a religion of humanity, altruism claimed that, shorn of Christianity, it represented a purer form of love of humanity than philanthropy. The bigger challenge, however, came from those within the philanthropic world who did not disguise their feeling that what they called ‘the machinery of philanthropy’ was often doing as much harm as good. Toynbee Hall became the centre of a ‘new philanthropy’ in which the call was not for money but for yourselves. Socialists were wary even of this and called for an increasing role for the state, something that began to be achieved in the Liberal reforms of the early twentieth century. Another possibility that was aired was that millionaire philanthropists could help solve social problems. They were in fact rare on the ground. Bernard Shaw offered them some barbed advice.



All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 10 10 10
Full Text Views 0 0 0
PDF Downloads 0 0 0