[4] Emperor Napoleon III thought the contents so shocking (a woman giving a beggar money to prevent her being locked up with her children by the police, which was the fate of vagrants without income) that he asked Count de Nieuwerkerke to have it removed.

[1] Stevens attached much importance to the tradition of Flemish and Dutch (genre) painting, and held a great admiration for the technical precision and illusionistic representation, the unparalleled reproduction of fabrics, and the symbolism of the early Netherlandish painters.

This earned him comparisons with some highly respected old masters (such as Gerard Ter Borch), a fairly common practice in the second half of the nineteenth century, linked to the rise of national schools.

Even though Stevens lived the major part of his life in Paris, the French critics still considered him a Flemish (Belgian), indebted to the rich artistic heritage of the Low Countries.

[8] Stevens approaches the theme of poverty from a political rather than a social angle, choosing to depict not only individual generosity (represented by the wealthy woman attempting to intervene with the soldiers), but also State repression.

The State, personified here by the soldiers (one of whom appears to reject the charitable gesture of the wealthy lady), does not protect but rather seems to consider the homeless mother and her young children (the weakest and most fragile in society) as harmful, dangerous, even criminal.

[2] The choice of the wintry season, the gloomy light, the dark shades of the clothes and uniforms, the absence of a horizon (blocked by the dark grey wall in the background which fills the entire width of the painting), the simplicity of the characters (the cold and unwavering soldiers, the mother resigned, the lame worker with his crutch, the tearful child, and the wealthy woman attempting an act of generosity) all contribute to making this scene spontaneously moving.