The Globe. MONDAY, JULY 30, 1877.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 965, 30 July 1877, Page 2

The Globe. MONDAY, JULY 30, 1877.

The method proposed by the Government of dealing with the very important question of charitable institutions appears to have met with considerable opposition in the House. Indeed it could hardly have been otherwise. It is proposed to contribute out of the revenue of the State only iu proportion to private subscriptions raised, and to vest the management iu these subscribers. In the first place the proposal, only to aid in proportion to the amount of subscriptions, is most unfair, and will act most inequitably. The result will be that in one province we shall have institutions well supported and in another quite the reverse. There will be no continuity of action, because tbe managers will not know bow much revenue they will have to deal with, and will therefore he unable to to cope with any emergency which may arise. There may be iu particular localities, from various causes, a severe depression in trade and consequent distress. Depending, as they will have to do on voluntary contributions alone, bow are tbe institutions going to meet this demand upon their resources ? The State cannot divest itself of the responsibility which is cast upon it, to relieve the distress of the unfortunate. Take a case of a district where no contributions, or at the best an amount totally inadequate to meet the distress existing, is raised. The Government subsidy is then in this case to he entirely withheld or only paid in proportion to what is actually raised. Again, the burden of support of such institutions will be unequally divided. Upon the benevolently disposed it will press hardly indeed, whilst those who are indifferent or selfish will get off scot free. Supported from the consolidated revenue all have indirectly to bear a share, and this is the fairest and most equitable method. As to the management also, we entirely disagree with the Government proposals. If this Bill becomes law, we shall have a repetition of the squabbles which have been so common in the management of the Melbourne Hospital. One set of managers will reverse the policy and regulations of those preceding them, and the result cannot but he disastrous. Let the Government take the matter in hand as a (State concern, the cost of which has to he defrayed by the public. It is all very well to talk about wishing to dip our hands into the public purse, hut where is the difference, iu the end, between the scheme now proposed and that in force? The public have to pay in each case, only in the latter one the charge is general, and not confined to a few, and the work is far better done, We trust, therefore, that the Bill will be thrown out, and that the government will devise some other way of dealing with the subject, so that the cost will be borne equally by all, and the management of the institutions placed upon a sound and secure basis.