Man is to a very great extent the creature of circumstances, and is greatly influenced by external objects. That which we like we become like. The fine arts cultivate the æsthetic part of a man’s nature; painting, sculpture, and poetry develop a man’s imagination. One man by a constant contemplation of the beautiful acquires the habit of admiring the beautiful; another man by the constant association with dirt becomes dirty. Repeated acts of thought grow into action, and actions repeated grow into habits, and habits form the character of the man: hence the importance of a cleanly, comfortable, and healthy home. A family that lives in a dirty room, with nothing but dirty associations, must grow up dirty. Thoughts grow in us as grain in wood. The mental qualities of the poor are undeveloped, and especially the moral force of character which is requisite to raise them above their circumstances is hardly to be looked for. If the poor could be accommodated with healthy dwellings they might reasonably be expected to better their condition; but what man can wage a successful war against disease and poverty combined? Unhealthy dwellings not only keep them poor, but foster a reckless indifference as to how things go with them. This apathetic condition is the worst that can befall either the individual or society. Idleness, dirt, poverty, disease, and crime are intimate companions, though not inseparable. The logic of the indifferent poor amounts to this: that those who work must pay for those that don’t; and hence arises one of the great difficulties in dealing with and relieving the poor. There are many limited companies formed to carry out various commercial enterprises; but if a limited company could be formed to erect suitable dwellings for the poor, at such a rental as they now pay, it would confer an unspeakable benefit on the poor, benefit society generally, and pay the really patriotic shareholders an equitable percentage. This I merely throw out as a suggestion, but I am convinced if carried out, it would be one of the best means of effectually helping the poor to help themselves. I conceive that whatever tends to smooth the rugged surface of life, and to soften its harsher features, and to multiply the sources of human health and enjoyment, must be held worthy of notice; and in so far as it tends to improve the condition of the poor, and foster in them provident and careful habits, just so far ought it to receive our generous sympathy and support. That this may not be mistaken to be merely philanthropic statement, but that it is based upon a principle of true social economy, I quote the following from Smith’s Wealth of Nations: