The Dominion. MONDAY, MAY 2, 1910. RELIEF METHODS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 806, 2 May 1910, Page 6

The Dominion. MONDAY, MAY 2, 1910. RELIEF METHODS.

The remarks made on Friday night last by the Rev. A. M. Johnson, vicar ol : St. Mark's, regarding, the administration of tbe funds raised last winter for the relief of the unemployed call for some comment. However • justifiable Mr. Johnson's complaints may be, his suggested remedy is certainly open to criticism. If the money so generously given to help those out of employment is not used to the best advantage it is the plain duty of any citizen knowing the facts to make an emphatic protest at the time in order that any just cause of dissatisfaction may _ be' removed ; but the remedy is certainly not to be found in the setting up of a number of separate and independent "parish relief boards" as suggested. If there is one thing about which those who have made a special study of the difficult problems connected with the administration of charity are agreed upon it is the need of co-ordination and co-operation. That co-ordiha-effort is considered to bo essential is amply borne out by tho report in recent English papers of the formation of the Social Welfare Association for London, which has just been launched with the hearty approval of the Lord Mayor, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, De. Scott ' Lidgett (Nonconformist), the Chief Rabbi, the Lord Chief Justice, tho Chairman of the London County Council, and othor people who have given special attention to tho administration of poor relief. At the meeting at which tho Association was formed the Archbishop of Canterbury said they had been trying for _ many years to do something which would prevent the waste which went on from overlap-, ping both in money and men, and what was worse than waste, , the positive mischief that not seldom, arose from three or four agencies dealing with practically the same cases. Coordination was the key-note of the meeting. The Lord Chief Justice thought that the formation of the Association would lead to a combination of effort and prevent duplication of agencies, and the' Roman Catholic Archbishop expressed tho hope that all personal jealousies and suspicions between the various societies would disappear. Mr. Herbert Samuel, M.P., laid stress upon the good effects of voluntary effort in the administration of charity. Ho stated that while much of the heavier work of social reform should be done by the State, much of tho finer work could only be done by voluntary organisations, and it would be an evil thing if the community were over, to lose that splendid spirit of devotion and sacrifice which, could only be evoked by a voluntary charitable organisation. It is'to be hoped that during tho coming winter there will be no need .for the inauguration in Wellington of special funds for the relief of the unemployed; but if ever such measures should be again necessary it is most * desirable that the work should be carried out by one central body, instead of being divided •up between a multitude of independent agencies in the form of parish relief boards and other sectional societies.

In concluding hie address at St. Mark's parish meeting, Mr. Johnson stated: "I cannot help thinking that we must look after our own poor, and thus unite them to our Ohui'ch." Here again we- fear that Mr. Johnson is on dangerous ground, and . the very fact that ■ho is so much in earnest makes it all the more necessary to point out the weakness of his proposal, while cordially recognising the splendid work he and his fellow-jworkers have unostentatiously done among the'poor and unfortunate. The idea .of attracting the working classes to church by providing those in need with bodily comforts is both mistaken and futile. The views, for instance, of the Anglican Bishop of Birmingham (Dr. Gore) on this point are diametrically opposed to those expressed by MR. Johnson. Dr. Gore writes:

The Church must sot itself deliberately and of set purpose, as far as possible, to get rid of the administration of poor relief.' We must deliberately set ourselves to dissociate the administration of relief from the ministry of tho Word and Sacraments, and to associate it with tho State, the municipality, and voluntary organisation of citizens on a purely secular basis. Our first and most necessary step to regaining our rightful place in tho regard of Labour is to takß tho administration of relief-money almost altogether out of the hands of our clergy and Church workers, and to let it be so administered, and by suoh hands, as that none may think they can either merit or lose it by attendance or failure to attend at the services of the Church.

The Bishop goes on to state that it is almost impossible to exaggerate the alienating effcct on the best type of independent labour of the very system of administering alms which othors besido Mr. Johnson appear to advocate, and Dr. Gore declares that it :is time it ceased to be a plausible taunt that a man or woman goes to church for what can be got. Tho Bishop of Birmingham is not only one of the greatest intellectual forces in the Anglican Church, but is also a very earnest and, advanced social reformer, and his advice iB therefore entitled to very careful consideration. Certain institutions such, as orphanages, rescue homes, and the like seem to thrive best in a rcligioiis atmosphere, and these can with advantage be carried on by the Churches, and societies of Church women can also do mucli good by assisting hard-worked mothers by making garments for their children, and in other ways; but_ as regards the general administration of poor relief most thoughtful people will agree with Dr. Gore when he says such work should be done on ■ a -Surety secular basis. '