he had nothing whatever to say.
There was no need for saying anything either to the other class of
people who would talk about a scheme, and having talked about it drop
the matter and think no more about it.

Another way in which General Booth's scheme might be received was that
of examining it, and if convinced against it of rejecting it. That, at
all events, was a perfectly manly course; a clear and decided method of
reception which there can be no mistaking. To those included in this
class, those who would regard the scheme as migratory or pernicious,
there was nothing to be said. But what about those who did not mean to
help in this or any other scheme, those who left others the burden of
the work, the opportunists who would want to step in when the breach had
been made? Here, no doubt, there would be such a class, but the last way
of receiving General Booth's scheme, and the way in which as he trusted
it would be received, was to support it by their influence, and to give
to it of their means. It was an immense and far-reaching scheme, which,
might bring help and hope to thousands of the helpless and hopeless,
made helpless and hopeless by the terrible conditions of society, but
for every one of whom Christ died.

To begin the scheme in earnest would require a sum of L100,000, but he
asked, "What was that to the wealth of England--to the wealth of
London?" It was a mere drop in the ocean compared to what was every year
spent on drink and wasted in extravagance. There were a hundred men in
England who might immortalise themselves by giving this sum, and yet not
have a luxury the less. He left the response to General Booth's appeal
with the public, but would it not, he asked, be a desperate shame for
England if any scheme giving so hopeful a promise of social amelioration
should fail without a trial, and like a broken promise, be lost in air?

But to this observation somebody might reply in the form of a queried
objection, "The scheme might fail." _Yes, it might fail; anything might
fail. But if to die amid disloyalty and hatred meant failure, then St.
Paul failed. If to die in the storm meant failure, then Luther and
Wesley and Whitfield failed; if to die at the stake by the flames meant
failure, did not martyrs fail; Finally, if to die on the cross, with the
priests and the soldiers spitting out hatred, meant failure, then Jesus
Christ failed._ Yes, the scheme might fail; but was all this failure?
Were there none