The New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) MONDAY, JULY 33, 1878.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5403, 22 July 1878, Page 2

The New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) MONDAY, JULY 33, 1878.

Wb have watched, with considerable amazement the flounderings of the Government in the attempt to get rid of the distribution of charitable aid. It was evident from the beginning that their proceedings were not guided by any intelligible principle, but that at any hazard • they desired to rid themselves of trouble and responsibility. Bribes were freely offered to Municipal and County Councils in the shape of double subsidies ; but the hook under the bait was too transparent for even the most simple fishes. While the whole question of subsidies was in the balance, while inspired organs of the Government were showing how the present grants to local* bodies could not be continued, our ingenuous Government was promising that the.subsidy should not be touched, and that over and above these subsidies the Government would give pound for’ pound contributed by local bodies for charitable purposes. In fact, they would subsidise funds contributed from Government, subsidies ; so far from reducing present grants they would double them. Wo warned the local bodies at the time that the Government were promising impossibilities, and that in the face of such reckless offers,, it was necessary to look carefully, not only at the gifts tendered, but also at the intentions of the givers with respect to exislihg arrangements. . The warning was scarcely needed. The want of principle at the bottoiri of the Government proposals was too obvious to deceive any except those who desired to bedeceived; but it principle wore wan ting, there appeared at least to be a cunning design to got rid of Government responsibility with a view to getting rid ultimately of Government expenditure. Poor as the original device was, it was clumsily executed, and the result has been a most* laughable failure. As a specimen of hopeaimless drifting,-the correspondence of the Colonial Secretary with the authorities at Christchurch is.the most amusing. The correspondence commenced with an apparently anxious desire on the part of the Government to heap gifts on the local councils. But they remembered the old nursery, song (1 Will* you come into my parlormaid the spider to,the fly, ” and they would not go in. After a little wheedling, the Colonial Secretary tried a - little threatening, and declared that ho would turn all thepooranddeslitutelooseonthem on the 30th June. After, that date Government assistance would cease,and those who had been- dependent on it for subsistence might starve it the local bodies did not choose to do as they were ordered. • At .the same time'the Colonial Secretary explained that the Government did not propose to give less, but. rather more, charitable aid throughout the colony; after , the 30th June., The local bodies requested the Government not. to make unnecessary changes until there was opportunity for legislation in the ; direction recommended at a general conference of County Chairmen and Mayors, for they held it to be advisable that two or more local bodies within a convenient area, should join in the administration of charitable aid, hospitals,and’ similar institutions within the district. It was obvious that the town, for instance,could not undertake to support the poor and unfortunate of one or two But the Government, although they approved the plans proposed by the conference, would not wait. They must got rid of the charitable aid-administration at once. The Selwyn County Council, and the Christchurch City Council declined to take ovei responsibility on the loose terms proposed, without legislation and without guarantee for the future. The Mayor of Christchurch then offered on his own behalf to act temporarily on a Board, to be appointed by the Government, to administer charitable : aid, provided Government found the money ; and thereupon the Colonial Secretary accepted his services, and created a. Board composed of the Mayors of the two adjoining boroughs of Christchurch and Sydenham together with Messrs. John Evansßeown and Montgomery, and offered them a monthly allowance equal to the average monthly expenditure of last, year. The new Board represented that more than the expenditure of last year might be wanted, and declined to be limited as to .amount,— they claimed to use, their, discretion. After a lapse of a few days the "Government *?icquiesced, and so for , the present a totally irresponsible Board is to spend what it likes on charitable aid. The story is altogether a curious one. First the Government wants. the local bodies to take over the responsibility of managing and providing for charitable institutions, without any legislation, on a promise to maintain existing subsidies, and to pay further £l. for every £ contributed tor charitable purposes. Then they accept the idea of unions of local bodies,'and" suggest that they should act without any legal status or machinery. Then, they offer the local bodies an amount equal to last year’s expenditure temporarily,, until they see their way to determining what contributions they yill give ; but finding the .local bodies determined not to bo saddled with a burden,, the weight of which nobody knows, they fall back on the nominated Board, and, end by giving to this irresponsible body unlimited discretion as to expenditure. If this is not ■ drifting, wo do not know what is. ]VVhy hot have lot existing arrangements go on till parliament had an opportunity, of considering ..tho nnitfcor !

In what degree is the position of Government bottered'or the taxpayer; protected by substituting an irresponsible nominee Board for a Government official? The mode of constituting the Boar,d is highly characteristic of the Government. The .Mayors of Christchurch ■ and 1 Sydenham .are intelligible nominations, and represent local bodies. If the chairmen of other local bodies had been asked to join these gentlemen, that also would have been an intelligible course. But in the name of all precedent that is not purely Yankee, why should the only two Canterbury members of the Assembly who have supported the present Government be introduced to make up the Board ? Is it.pretended that Mr. Brown and Mr. Montgomery specially represent Canterbury because they arosupposodtohaveconfideuce in Sir George. Grey’s “ good “intentions,” or is this an outcome of the now principle of Government introduced by the present Ministers, who associate more or less the members of the Assembly who support them with. the Executive I We certainly have no reason to think that Mr. Brown and Mr. Montgomery command the special confidence of the people of Canterbury ; and wo are at a loss to know on what constitutional principle they are to have," oven temporarily, the irresponsible and uncontrolled expenditure of public funds. Mr. John Evans Brown and Mr. Montgomery are estimable gentlemen, but circumstances might arise, owing to an election or otherwise, which would place them in a very awkward position as controllers of the public purse. That they are not paid for their services, and that they only hold office temporarily, does not improve matters. These conditions only tend to lessen their very shadowy responsibility. To’ give the absolute control of. public funds to irresponsible members of their own party in the House of Representatives may appear quite right to a Government which deliberately subsidises newspapers owned either by themselves . or their friends, out ' of the public jfunds ; but it is one of the sighs that “ our great political revival ” is not based on constitutional principles.