BRITAIN'S WEALTH.

Taranaki Daily News, 20 November 1915, Page 6

BRITAIN'S WEALTH.

To tlm Editor. Sir,—A few days ago you drew prominent attention to the alioi'e through the statement made by the editor of the Statiat and no doubt that recognised authority had full conveniences, etc., for arriving at the conclusions on which his calculations were based. At all events, the paper is looked upon as "the" journal for reliable statistics, so much so that a similar summary as to Britain's wealth in 1900 met with considerable criticism as showing "the other side." There are two sides to all questions. Now, the critic of the lflOli summary claims that if statistics s,how how Britain's wealth is accrued and to whom it goes, statistics showing Britain's poverty are equally reliable, and any person who takes the trouble to think over this matter cannot but come to the conclusion that there is something wrong somewhere, that there is immediate need for reconsideration of our economies, and that it behoves a young country like New Zealand to see that it will benefit by the experience of older countries and I hat the conditions affecting the mass of the people do not get too big a hold here. However, taking the 1006 summary of Britain's wealth the Statist showed that the total nnnual income of the United Kingdom was estimated at seventeen hundred and fifty millions ( £1,730,000,000), and at the present time is reckoned at something over two thousand millions, a fairly big increase in nine years. Now, of this seventeen hundred and fifty millions it is shown that 250,000 men and their families (1,250,000 persons) receive six hundred millions, more than one-third of the total income. Then statistics show that 750,000 men and their families (3,750,000 persons) receive two hundred and fifty millions, one-seventh of the total income, so that these two classes, representing 5,000,000 persons of all ages, receive eight hundred and fifty millions, nearly lmlf of the national income. Of course, criticism showing these facts drew forth several prominent politicians, and Mr. Balfour said: "Individual energy can only be called forth by a system based upon the fact that what a man earns he possesses." Mr. R. B. Suthers, the critic, replies by the question if it were a fair division to give half the huge sum to five million people and the other half to thirty-nine millions, and also if the five million people "earned" that half? Proceeding with the criticism, it was shown that 700,000 people die yearly in the .United Kingdom, that only 80,000 leave property worth taxing, that 600,000 die leaving but a few pounds or a few bits of furniture, that in 1906-7 all the property left at death was left by 21,000 persona out of the 700,000, and that these 21,000 people left £250,000,000 out of £299,000,000, that 4,172 people left £218,000,000 out of £209,000,000 and the question was asked if those who possessed those riches "earned them?" It is then shown that out of the £1.750,000,000 one-third (or £650,000,000) is paid in rent and interest; that only about one million people receive incomes of £l6O and over; that the United Kingdom pays £39,000,000 in tax under .the Poor Law; that 12,000,000 are always on the verge of starvation; that 20,000,000 are "very poor;" that only 30,000 persons actually earn £IOOO a year and over; that 39,000,000 people are "poor," that the 1,000,000 who pay income tax receive nearly half the national income; -that the average wages of the better Of working class are only about £4B a year; that in London alone there are 1,000,000 persons whose family incotne does not exceed a guinea per week; that the wages of agricultural laborers average 10s to 17s a week; that the proportion of deaths in workhouses, hospitals and asylums is rising; that in London one in three dies in the workhouse, hospital or asylum; that 2,500,000 persons seek relief under the Poor Law yearly; that £15,000,000 is paid for the maintenance of paupers, and tlia.t another £10,000,000 is spent by charitable societies every year; that one-tenth of the rent and interest paid to those who do not earn it amounts to £65,000,000 per year; that in London alone 120,000 children go to school hungry; that half the children of working men die before the age of five years, and that the average age of working men is twenty year* less than that of the rich; that there are always aOft.'OOO to 1,000,000 unemployed; that 1.000,000 married women have to work in factories and workshops because their labor is cheap and notwithstanding the fact that employment of women destroys home life and prevents the proper bringing up of children. Now, sir, it's a fair thing to show both sides of a question, and the above facts, compared with the summary of the old country's wealth, will surely cause people to ask, "How is it?" It will come as a knock to those who read as thoy run to know that in a country whose income Is so huge that conditions as pointed out (and by statistics, don't forget) are so unjust, and they will surely agree that there is need for alteration. One can surely see the cause of strikes and other labor troubles when the spread of education makes plain to the masses that they exist only—it cannot be called anything else. That we in New Zealand will get hold of this matter by the rpots and plant a better and more equitable basis for a young nation to build on is surely something to hope for, and the late Richard Seddon evidently recognised something was wrong, and was evidently posted with behind-the-scene information. His statement on board ship at Southampton to an interviewer seems to indicate that he could see the cause and the remedy: "All I am going to say is, 'Wake up, England!' I ai|i going back to the brightest spot on God's earth, and, God willing, and with the help of uiv people there, I'll lay the foundation that will prevent for all times any likelihood of it ever getting into such a state as this country is! 1 ' That much was done towards the end indicated must be recognised, but forward movement practically ceased by the death of the right lion, gent., and there is absolute need for our promkient men and the Press to thoroughly ventilate this matter in the interest of the future. The war must surely cause a reconstruction of our economic foundation, and though past generations have loft a heritage such as exists at present, surely the advanpe in education will moan something better than breeding men to be slaughtered like wild animals', or tlia.t for all time people must toil and scrape up payments for munition factories and such like. It there is to be no betterment through the sacrifices of our manhood of (,o-day (if education 14 not going to improve matters), then \yc, may as well carry into effect the "Eat drink, and be merry, etc.," principle; we may as well burn our Bibles and turn our churches into drill halls, and put tho money spent in schooling the young Into powder and big gun factories. If the leading nation in ivealth, in (supposed) justice and humane laws, can within itaejf be so hopelessly unjust jg

shown by statistical records, then we have reached the acme of hypocricy, in which the few are riding the mass just as it suits them. Talk about Anarchists, Socialists, and so on, is there any wonder? Young New Zealand, bestir yourselves, it is you who will pay and who will suffer; old New Zealand, will you willingly leave to your children the prospect of what we have going on today simply because you live for "self" alone, and then you would get offended if you were told that you were not ft Christian. —I am, etc., JOE B. SIMPSON. Durham Road, November 18.