New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) TUESDAY, JULY 31, 1877.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5102, 31 July 1877, Page 2

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) TUESDAY, JULY 31, 1877.

It is a truism to say that the Charitable Institutions Bill, the debate on the second reading of which is now proceeding in the House of Representatives, is an important measure, and that whatever be the fate of the particular proposals now before the House, Parliament will have to make some provision for the maintenance and regulation of institutions which must necessarily exist in every part of the colony. It is right and proper that those who, through no fault of their own, have been unsuccessful in life should be assisted and succored, and it is equally impossible, in a Christian community, that those who have been brought into a condition of distress, even by their own folly, can be allowed to go uncared for and untended till they fall and die by the wayside. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that charitable institutions should have their place in our social fabric. But there must he differences of opinion on the question as to how these institutions are to be supported and managed, and the views expressed during the debate on Friday showed a very wide divergence indeed. The proposals of the Government are these—that hospitals, industrial and charitable institutions shall be under local management; that any number of persons not less than fifty, by subscribing £1 each, shall be entitled to be placed in possession of the management of the institution they have so subscribed to, and shall be paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the colony £1 for every £1 they collect locally. This is the gist of -the Bill. In the debate on Friday the question at issue seemed to narrow itself down to this—whether we are to have a system of poor laws in the colony, or whether the people are to be gradually educated into supporting the poor without assistance from the State funds. We regret to say that there were to be found in the Assembly gentlemen who are favorable to the former, and still more deeply regret that such men as Messrs. Rolleston and Stevens led off the cry for a poor law. To be sure they did not use the phrase poor law or poor rate, because, we presume, even to their ears it has a nasty ring, and painfully calls to mind a system which has done so much to debase and pauperise, and which at one time appeared as if it would effectually crush out the last spark of independence and self-respect from the poorer orders of society in Great Britain. They strained at the gnat, but swallowed the camel without a gulp. The only discoverable principle in a poor law is that it gives the poor the right to claim assistance from the rich; and that is exactly what Messrs. Rolleston and Stevens contend for. The former "entirely dissented from what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Reid) had said as to the necessity of guarding against the poor class looking upon charitable aid as a rightand Mr. Stevens gave utterance to the same sentiments in a little stronger language. Now, as Major Atkinson said, what is this but simple communism ? It differs only in degree from the proposal that there should be a redistribution of property occasionally; in fact, we don’t know but what a redistribution would be preferable. There need then be no poor at all—if any “ fell in the battle of life,” as Mr. Stbvbns puts it, they might content themselves with getting up leisurely, because they would soon be on equal terms with the others. Of course it would have the effect of offering a premium to the lazy and improvident; but what would be the effect of Mr. Rolleston’s system ? Would it not be to encourage pauperism, just as it has done in England? shall we be treading on tender ground if we say just as it has done in Canterbury ? What ia the spectacle offered by Mr. Rollbston’s own province ? —that the richest and most flourishing district of the colony —and it contains no over-populated cities and towns —has so encouraged pauperism that of £59,000 spent in charitable institutions and hospitals in the whole colony, Canterbury absorbs £29,000. Surely it would be little short of madness to extend the Canterbury system to the whole colony. We want to discourage pauperism to the minimum; but is that to be done by setting aside a large sum annually for division amongst persons who have only to be improvident in order to show a good claim to share it ? Such a system would increase the noble army of paupers to an enormous extent. But there is another objectionable phase to compulsory contributions to the support of the poor. It saps the very springs of private benevolence, and that ia not an unimportant consideration. Mr. Gkeg on this point says, speaking of the effects of a poor law: —“Ithas an irresistible tendency to vitiate the very essence and beauty of that Christian humanity whose functions it usurps, by degrading charity from a voluntary gift to a legal obligation. Charity is no longer a willing contribution from the affluent and able to the wants of the needy and infirm ; it is a socialistic mulcting of the rich or. independent for the benefit of the poor. ■ . . It poisons the veryfountain of Christian charity, by making it an indefeasible right on the one side, and an inescapeable tax on the other. The man who knows that the law

enables him to demand a portion of the income of his more fortunate or more industrious fellow-citizen, is not likely to be shy in the asking, or grateful in receiving, the niggard and reluctant-boon; and the man who has a' tenth of his income forcibly taken from him, to relieve a poverty which, from the mode of its bestowal, it helps to foster and create, will generally be both unable and unwilling to bestow another tenth in assisting those cases which deserve, and would otherwise have aroused, his ready and active sympathy.” In a colony like this there should be no" such excrescence as the pauper element ; there need be none, and will be none if our legislators are wise and gradually sever from the Government what is not a legitimate function of a Government —the support of charitable institutions. At first, perhaps, there will be a little difficulty, owing to the overgovernment of the past few years having led the people to look to the State to manage even their social affairs; but this will die out by degrees, and we may reasonably hope to see local charity sufficiently developed to support the wants of the deserving poor and sick, while local supervision will prevent the introduction into our midst of the dreaded pauper element. The Bill appears calculated to secure this end, and whatever may be the defects in the machinery—and we think the grievances of its opponents are more imaginary than real—its principle, as Mr. Ballance said, is too valuable to lose, and it is to be hoped a large majority will affirm the second reading.