NEW ZEALAND MAGAZINE.

Evening Star, Issue 4033, 29 January 1876, Page 5 (Supplement)

NEW ZEALAND MAGAZINE.

FOURTH NOTICE, it is not easy to understand what is Aimed at by Professor Macgregor in his essay on the “ Problem of Poverty in New Zealand," and the difficulty is increased by the incompleteness of the form in which it is presented to the reader. Whether, as the •ditorputa it. Want of space “made it necessary to put an end to the article in the middle,” or whether, as is suggested by -Captious critics, the Professor was /‘gravelled for lack of matter,” we do not pretend to decide; but we certainly find unable to lay any claim to be one of, ,those intelligent persons who, we are blandly assured, “ will have no difficulty in fathering together and following up the different threads of the argument.” For the “ threads ” are so skilfully concealed that we cannot discover them ; and “argument ” _ there,, is none at' all. If .the. writer t possesses any well - defined potion of, the solution of the problem which he has set himself to consider, he either it as too tremendous to be communicated to ths world, or he lacks the power of giving utterance to the mighty thoughts wherewith he is inspired. Starting • professedly with the object of considering the problem of .t >overty as it is presented to us in New Zealand,’ he very carefully says nothing at all upon the subject, but indulges instead in, a discursive rhapsody on the aspect of poverty in Europe, in which he tells us -tittle, that is new, ’but much that is doubtful. .There is a great deal of “the dark mdft. pi the, .social condition of the Old World,” but scarcely a passing reference to tine advantages for dealing with the social problem which we happily possess.” It is a very great pity that we are not even promised a solution in the next number of the magazine, whereby onr interest might have been sustained. The field is a large , one, and worthy of all attention, hpt ; the. subject is too vast to be tieali .with in the space pf one or a.dozen such articles, and accordingly we find that Professor Macgregor abandons the task at the, | very . threshold,' and, like Fear in Couiiis’ magnificent ode—- .~: { Back recoils, he knows not why, ‘ Ey’n at the sound himself has made.

, . Let us endeavor to obtain some glimmering idea of what he would fain be at. He commesncea with, misinterpreting and misapplying a, very plain axiom. “Thegreatest good of the greatest number ” is undoubtedly ” the end pf all right action,” and it does not seejh possible fop any person to misunderstand the . intent and application of the defining, however, the essayist contrives to puzzle himself very much over it, ■ and to arrive at the extraordinary conclusion that itmeans that each human being is to count foroneandnobodyformorethan one. “This,” he cries, “seems the only practical outcome of the Golden Rule of the Gospel, the Categorical imperative, of Kant, or the most recent exposition of Utilitarianism.” We make him a present of Kant and Utilitarianism, but we protest against the misappbctftion of the Golden Ride. To do unto others as we would that others should do unto us .implies the abnegation of self, and the sacrifice of our own desires whensoever and ‘wheresoever they interfere with the enjoyment and happiness of our neighbors. And tbe non-observance of this rule cannot be regarded as its practical outcome. Similarly the practice of self-isolation can never conduce to the greatest good of the greatest number, and therefore to say that it moans ihat each human being is only to count for one is an illogical absurdity., We are gravely assured in the next sentence that “ the existence of a few exceptionally rich and cultivated .men and. women, .together with a comparatively large and increasing number of well-to-do and moral citizens, cannot justify ns in ignoring that weltering mass of starving, diseased, and vicious wretches, tbe refuse and breakage seemingly inseparable from the process of civilisation.” We scarcely know whether to laugh or be angry at the multiplicity of erroneous assumptions thus massed together in one brief sentence. Cultivation is not at all times allied with , wealth even in tbe old country, and still less is it so in the Colonies ; and of a certainty well-to-do citizens are not always moral either there or here. We do not care just now to expatiate on the virtues of the “ poor but honest” people who are to he found everywhere, hut we must and do combat the implied doctrine that to he poor is to be vicious, and that moral respectability is conon and regulated by the amount of mhney in a man’s possession. And we refUso assent to the : proposition that “the weltering mass” is in any sense of the word '•ignored” by modern civilisation. On the contrary, the truest test of the degree of civilisation that has been attained by any country is to he sought in. the condition of those who are usually classed as “ the lower orders.” And surely we are not expected to believe that there is more destitution, disease, misery, and ignorance amongst the lower orders of Britain than exist in the same direction in less highly civilized counis enough to glance at the condition o£Mahomedan and heathen communities to satisfy ourselves that the hypothesis cet up is not correct. That starvation is the parent of crime, that vice is the precursor of disease, and that a debased population is evolved from such conditions axe truisms so common that one is astonished at.the Comical gravity with which the Professor propounds them as if they were something; new and previously imthonght-of and nnednsidered. Underlying his reveries, there .is the. half-admitted, half-withheld acknowledgment that religion, all that is comprised in the •phrase “ civilisation,” in its best and most accurate conception—are slowly but surely mitigating, the evils complained of,- and reducing the sum oPhuman wretchedness. In very truth he reminds us of Hamlet— The world is out of joint!—oh, cursed spite That ever I was horn to set it right. And his lamentations are as imitile and as little to the . purpose as were those of the Prince of Denmark. He tells us, indeed, that “ the Christian religion in the enthusiasm of its youth made no provision for equating the joys and sorrows of humanity, by weighing the superfluities of some against the absolute starvation of others. ” It seems to us that he has studied the teachings of the Divine Master to little purS»e if he entertains such a conclusion, oes he forget the narrative of the rich man who; inquiring what he should do to inherit eternal life,' was first admonished to keep the commandments, and declaring that these he had kept from his youth upwards, was told, a One thing thou lackest; go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast and give to the poor?” Here, in few words, is “the equation ” for which the Professor sighs. Speaking with all reverence, the great principle underlying Christianity, as distinct from other systems of religion, is based upon .this saying. It is a religion which, as taught by its Founder, is eminently communistic. Other minds subsequently overlaid the simple lessons so beautifully taught by the shores of Galilee, and upon the mountains surrounding Jerusalem, with a load of doctrine which very few can be?r ; hut the great work of the Master was the inculcation of love for ourfellowarid ~the desire to ameliorate their portion) topth physically aqcl mentally. That •qcihty , JiaA,< not, fully conformed . to His illustrate the ufifcerfection civilisation, :The “equation” is to

be found where men yet refuse to seek for it. We utterly deny, however, that this civilisation “has practically admitted that multitudes of human beings must be sacrificed in the process of civilising the rest, and that their existence is a divinelyappointed whetstone for the blunt susceptibilities of the benevolent.” Man is still in a stage of transition, far beyond his original grovelling condition, but yet infinitely farward, “working out the beast,” and so ther from his final stage; ever moving upfrom higher to higher fulfilling his destiny. And the process by which this is being carried on is termed civilisation. Professor Macgregor’s complaint, stripped of snperflous verbiage, is that man is not a perfect animal. We admit it. The millenium has not yet arrived; when it does dawn upon the universe everybody will be equally rich, cultivated, well-to-do, and moral; and vice, disease, and want will have been banished from theearth. There will then be no need of doctors, lawyers, or professors ; judges, gaolers, and policemen will be unknown, and laws and legislators will be unnecessary, for then every one will observe the Golden Rule, and the greatest good of the greatest number will have been achieved. But not for us and our generation are these filings. The great truth, which would seeem to have been overlooked in the ai’ticle under consideration, is the progressive nature of the human species. From the woad-stained Briton of Caesar’s time to the aristocratic attendant on the Court of Queen Victoria is a long stride. If so much has been accomplished in 2,000 years, what may not the accelerated progress of another 2,000 years bring forth? Compare the condition of the English hind in the days of the Tudors even with that of Mr Holloway’s constituents now, and how enormous seems the gulf between them. The forces now at work are wonderfully effective in elevating the lower classes intellectually and, by consequence, of improving their material condition. The cheap diffusion of knowledge by the aid of the Press and by schools, placed within the reach of all and sundry, are potent elements of progress. The primeval restriction has been removed, and the fruits of the True of Knowledge of Good and Evil are unreservedly offered to the whole world. And day by day, month bymonth, year by year, century by century the results become more evident and more encouraging to the laborers in the vineyard. That there are poor and rich, that some will continue to hold and some continue to lose, is a law which must ever exist until all men are cast in one mould. The extravagant will spend immoderately, 'the generous freely, the miserly with niggard thrift, ■ The coveter of other men’s goods ■wall seek to possess himself of them by force or fraud—the voices of evil men will defame the reputation of their neighbors; and the more-evenly balanced brains of better men will “keep their hands from picking and stealing, and their tongues from evil speaking.” Lazy men will as a rule be poor, and industrious men will as a rule be rich ; silly men will be unsuccessful, and clever men will achieve that success which to many minds is the truest indication of virtue and wisdom. And this is equally true of every country. There is nothing in the atmosphere, the soil, the geographical position, or the geological conformation of New Zealand to vary these conditions. Human nature is pretty much the same here as it is at Home, and our chief consolation is that by the spread of the ever-increasing tide of civilization we are gradually working out the grand problem of existence, developing a higher type of humanity, and so approaching that more perfect condition for which Professor Macgregor seeks in vain at the present day.