The plot, involving a woman who had lived with a man as his wife without ever having married, and who had dedicated her life to charity afterwards, was a volatile social subject. Shame was an important element in Victorian drama, and Gilbert's play was criticised for its liberal ending, where unchastity is not treated with characteristic shame. "Charity" questioned the convention that rules of premarital chastity, framed for women in the Victorian era, did not apply to men. It also argued that education and a middle-class upbringing set standards that the less fortunate ought not be judged by—that is, the importance of environment in determining morality. Audiences weren't ready to have core societal values, like the sexual double standard, questioned so directly, and "Charity" was denounced as immoral. The "Era", in its review, echoed the consensus of both critics and audiences that the play would have had greater success had Gilbert's ending not "evinced a... scornful disregard of certain conventional laws in writing for the stage," meaning that while "sinners" could be pitied, they were expected to come to a bad end (ostracism or death) in Victorian theatre. In addition, Buckstone insisted upon the addition of comedy, so elements of farce were added and the role of Fitz-Partington was built up for him. Professor Jane Stedman believes this may have contributed to the play's failure.