The New Zealand Times. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1913. SOCIAL REFORM

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8345, 4 February 1913, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1913. SOCIAL REFORM

It was stated in our telegraphic news the other day that Dr Emily H. Siedoberg, returning to Dunedin from a visit to Britain, said the Government there “ appeared to take little interest in the poorer people, most of the social work being undertaken by private people and semi-private societies.” This seems to us a very sweeping generalisation, and as there can bo little doubt that it comes from a sympathetic observer a few reflections are suggested. The activities of a Government on behalf of the poorer classes of the community axe, in the first place, impossible of comparison with those of private philanthropy, either in their operation or results. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer do not go about personally “slumming,” for example. They have not the time, even though they might possess the temperament. They are concerned just as much, however, we feel bound to believe, in the welfare of the unfortunate sections of the people, though their work is directed to dealing with problems in a large and general way. Has not the present Government given the poor the inestimable blessing of free pensions in old age? Has it not placed upon the statutebook a truly monumental scheme of social providence, of provision for the sick, insurance against unemployment? The Government has, indeed, done much mere than this. With its fidelity to all the honoured traditions of Liberalism, it has fought a gallant fight against the hereditary enemies of tho common people, and has in this way laid a foundation without which no great and lasting structure of social reform could be erected. The forcing of tho 1909 Budget down tho throats of tho Tory peers, insisting upon and emphasising the inherent rights of tho House of Commons in tho domain ■ of finance, and clearing the way for a new era of more equitable and scientific taxation, is perhaps the greatest and the most difficult service that any group of statesmen has over rendered the nation. The new scheme of taxation has yet to be evolved, it is true, but it will come, and the vituperation of tho Conservative leaders and press shows that they realise this fact. Time is required to make the necessary investiga-' tions, to ascertain tho values of landed estates, providing Parliament with accurate knowledge, without which it cannot proceed along tho path of dosired legislation. Another important piece of spade work is the Census of Production Act. This was passed in 1906, hut the first census taken under it—tho first | compulsory collection of statistics of the United Kingdom’s industrial life—was finished but a few weeks ago, though it commenced in 1907. Can we not see in these enactments and labours preparations for a programme of social reform of which what has been accomplished is but a beginning? Dr Siedoberg has justification for some impatience, a feeling aroused in all good minds and hearts at the awful contrasts in Britain of riches and poverty, enjoyment and misery, arrogant affluence and hopeless, degrading penury. But tho contention that tho Government is practically unmoved at the sight of these conditions, and is content to leave tho work of succouring poverty-stricken people to unofficial chanty, can hardly be advanced without injustice. It is really questionable whether .the operations of private philanthropists and agencies do not contain some element of economic injury, hard as it may appear to make such a suggestion. Nobody would desire to discourage development of the finest human attribute, but at the same time it is possible that the indiscriminate, or haphazard, application of charity to what are undoubtedly national evils may tend towards delaying the greater work of discovering and removing causes. There is reason to doubt whether the late General Booth, after his long life and noble service in the cause of tho London poor, really left the world’s metropolis better than he found it. so far as the material condition of the class ho strove for is concerned. Certainly an immense amount of suffering was alleviated by General Booth’s magnificent labours, yet it is to .be feared that the sum of htftnan poverty, or at all events the .bitterness of it, increased faster than all the charitable efforts to check it. We hope these remarks will not be misunderstood. We would be the last to depreciate the manifold beauties of charity. But wo believe tho great masses of the British people stand far more in need of justice than of charity, and that

they can only be permanently assisted by 'means of legislative enterprise of far-reaching character. On all sides there is demand for social reform. Only the other day the Bishop of London reproached the Church for its inactivity in this sphere of practical Christianity and described the Labour movement as really a religious one. Even the Conservatives at Home find the clamour for drastic improvements in the conditions of the masses quite irresistible, though their proposals seem to sterilise any hope, since they crystallise into a contemplated raid upon the people’s food. Is it too much to claim that the last few years of progressive Liberalism have stimulated public thought and inspired popular imagination ? May wo not honestly give Mr Asquith, Mr Lloyd George and their colleagues a generous measure of credit for fostering, if not creating, this newer and more vigorous agitation ? Private • benevolence and semi-official agencies havo undoubtedly achieved great and notable accomplishments, which it would bo folly and ingratitude to belittle. There will always remain scope for such work —much more than it can cope with, unfortunately. .But underlying all the misery and injustice which have so far mocked at modern civilisation are root evils altogether beyond the reach of the individual philanthropist or the best organised unofficial institutions. In the solution of grave economic problems lies the only proi|>ect of permanent relief. We do not car© to bo too optimistic in view of the magnitude of errors to .bo corrected, difficulties to be overcome, prejudices to conquer. Nevertheless, we are prepared to claim for British Liberalism that it is the lever which has forced practically every great reform in the past to a successful issue, and that it is now making heroic efforts to construct a new and better sociology.