South Canterbury Times. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 1880.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2213, 21 April 1880, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 1880.

We are not at all surprised to find that the highly favored portion of the womanhood of New Zealand is beginning to look to its dignity, and to seriously consider whether it is either expedient or becoming that feminine adornments and accomplishments should he periodically utilised for begging purposes. The proceedings of the highly gifted and selfdenying members of the fair sex who arc usually regarded as fair game by the committees of destitute institutions, arc so frequently provocative of angry comment that we arc astonished the sex has endured insult so long. Although the purity of the motives of the lady petitioners who arc ever ready to answer the call of benevolence is unquestionable, the comments that are passed upon their conduct by the Bohemians and spoiled Egyptians of the community arc usually far fromjcomplimentary. This is sad. It is a poor requital for a labor of love—for deeds of benevolence. It is a harsh verification of the old proverb “ More blessed is be that giveth than she that rcceiveth.” Long suffering as are the gentle creatures, whose simpers, smiles, angelic features, musical voices, and fine raimant have from time immemorial been devoted to the service of impecunious humanity, there is such a thing as an excess of contumely that will break the martyr-spirit and give birth to rebellion.

An example of this comes from Dunedin. The ladies there, who have hitherto consented to become animated subscription lists in aid of the benevolent Institute, are said to be resolved to stand upon their dignity. They have been designated by ill-natnrcd people, “ professional beggars,” and the insult is one that they cannot forget nor forgive. However kindly disposed they may feel towards the home of old age, indigence and infirmity, the sacrifice, exacted from them is too unreasonable. From the remarks made at a recent meeting of the Benevolent Committee it would seem that the lay sisters of charity are out on strike.

This may seem bad fur the needy and deserving- institution that invites the agency the of ladies, but on the whole it is a healthy sign of the times. It looks, to our vision like the beginning of wisdom —a desire on the part of the fashionable sisterhood to win the esteem rather than incur the contempt and commiseration of those pitiful “lords ” by whom they have hitherto been regarded as birds of prey. If public charities arepnblic necessities tlieyoughtto be supported in alegitimatc way, without involving an unsuffcrabic degradation on the part of naturally modest and unobtrusive loveliness. It is monstrous that in an age when woman’s rights are in the ascendant, married ladies with large families who ought to be models of everything that is refined or becoming, should be required to take up their cross and descend from angels unawares to beggars in disguise. Wc arc sure it was never designed by providence that the highest form of beauty should assume the mask of a peripatetic offertory. Charitj' that can only he extracted by the smell of musk and lavender, and an appeal from kid gloves or rustling satins, is surely a selfish hypocritical article, not worth having. Wc are confident that the husbands and oft bereaved families of the resolute ladies who have determined that not even for the sake of a Benevolent Institution in want will they condescend to enact the part of carnivorous peacocks or variegated gaberlunzies any longer, will commend their good sense. We arc equally confident that the drapers, grocers, and other tradesmen whose profits have hitherto been seriously reduced I)}’ a most disreputable species of coercion on the part of certain of their lady customers will offer up a fervent prayer that their resolution may never be broken.