The Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR P.M. Resurrexi. TUESDAY, JULY. 11, 1882.

Thames Star, Volume XIII, Issue 4220, 11 July 1882, Page 2

The Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR P.M. Resurrexi. TUESDAY, JULY. 11, 1882.

It has been the fate of some—possibly we might say most-r-of the great reforms and measures calculated to benefit humanity, and particularly those destined to ameliorate the condition of man* kind, to meet strenuous opposition at the beginning of their career. Being novel, they were disttasted. The average human minds, naturally conservative and prone to think what is is best, wouU not trouble themselves to examine the matter, and were led by those who are ever ready to throw ridicule on whatever tends to disturb our preconceived ideas or interfere with our prejudices. But the originators of the ideas, strong in their sense of duty, struggle bravely on, encountering defeat upon defeat, but con* tinually gaining „ strength through the prominence giren to their views, and eventually the crown of victory and the gratitude "of their fellow-men are their ample reward. We referred a few days back to a scheme of compulsory national insurance, promulgated some four years ago by the Bey. W. L. Blackley, which is a new departure, and as such has, 88 a matter of course, been the recipient of a considerable amount of sneering and scoffing. The Colonial Treasurer pro* poses to establish a system upon the same lines, and, as might be expected, before his plan is placed before the public there are those who hasten to laugh it out of Court. Unfortunately, there are folk who seem to think that the present- Ministry can do nothing right. As the Jews of old were won't to say. Can any good tLing come out of Samaria? these estimable enthusiasts declare the present Ministry are entirely incapable and corrupt; as the body is so are the limbs, and they should be plucked up root and branch and cast into the outer darkness. For Ministers to introduce a measure is sufficient ground for some to wish it consigned to perdition eternal without more ado; that in their eyes is enough to condemn it, though it were otherwise the acme of perfection. We are opposed to narrowing, the matter to a question of Ministry as against Ministry. That frame of min4 is induced by the system of government by party. If Sir George Grey were Premier, many would be found to oppose everything his party did. Their tone would be, " Oh, the old humbug, he will talk, but do nothing practical; in reality he is an autocrat, and has no sympathy with the people." As a matter of fact both he and his followers are dis-

liked intensely by a large section of the community, and everything they propose is naturally regarded by them as inimical to the commonweal. There was an exhibi I tion. of this party spirit a few days ago in a journal not ft hundred miles from the Thames, regarding national insurance. We give a quotation:—" In this colony we look upon a proposal of this character as a manifest absurdity. It is possible, bu? not probable, thafc the Treasurer may get Parliament to sanction this first result of his review reading, but all the enactments which our legislators may make to enforce its adoption will never cause the great bulk of the people to do anything save laugh at the idea—cai ry it out they never will." We in our innocence thought that what the country's representatives decided should be law j was always enforced, even although in the administration of some, such as the licensing ordinances, considerable laxity was displayed. When a matter is compulsory, people usually do " carry it out;" if they disapprove they "grin and bear it;" there is no help for them. Now, some statesmen of the highest eminence have spoken strongly in favor of national insurance. In the Nineteenth Century; July, 1820, the Rev W. L. Blaciley says.—" It is inconceivable, we were assured, that a statesman of the first class could be found to take the scheme in hand ; and yet, in the very first session after this confident assertion, the Earl of Carnarvon has introduced the subject by a most lucid and telling address in the House of Lords and instead of bsing received with utter scorn, and dismissed with contemptuous derision, his lordship's views have been endorsed by several peers well informed on questions of this sort; and, if disputed by some others, seem to have been disputed on grounds of objection which do not apply to the proposal actually made. . . His good intention was never impugned, and even those who regarded it at belt as a mere will>othe-wisp, were ready to acknowlege that its light was rather a pretty contrast to the darkness of our growing pauperism. But it was visionary, Utopian, extravagant, fanciful, contrary to the spirit of English legislation, to the dicta of political economy, to the freedom of the rare, to the logic of facts, to the possibilities of execution. . .

Now, I wish, io proof of the progress of the cause to note that not one word of all this was echoed in the House of Lords in answer to Lord Carnarvon. And the objection supposed to lie at the rcot of alt others, namely, the tyranny of compulsion (a tyranny so intolerable, we were told, as to be sufficient to create a revolution) has so completely fallen out of view that in the most august assembly in the nation there was not found one single | voice to name the vanished ghost, whoso apparition was dissolved once and for ever, las the bugbear to the study of tins question, by showing that the compulsion required for national independence was far lighter and far fairer than that now submitted to by all thrifty men for the production and encouragement of national pauperisation." So much for the Earl of Carnarvon. The Earl of Derby said at the great conference on Thrift, held at the Mansion House on March 12, 1880: "I remember that thirty years ago the idea of compulsory education would have seemed quite as impracticable as that of compulsory insurance. Amongst others who have given adherence to the scheme as possessing potentiality for great good are the-Bishop of Winchester, Earl Stanhope, Lord Cottesloe, and Lord Forbes. The object of the compulsory scheme is easy of comprehension, and it should be hailed by the community as a boon. It means enabling young folk under the age of 23 by paying so much a week to ensure against want in old age, or distress during sickness. Thus, when one were thinking of marrying he could do so with tbe comfortable assurance that provision had already been made for certain contingencies, and that matter would be no further drag upon him. The measure would have another advantage; it would compel the young and thriftless to make the same provision for their future, so that there would be do risk of their becoming a charge upon the com munity in time to come. But how is all this to be effected ? It has been calculated that the payment of a certain amount per week during, say three years in early life would, after making allowance for the average of deaths and sickness, by investment at compound interest, reach by accumulation to such a sum as to enable the national insurance office to contribute a certain amount during sickness, and when the insurer was unable to work. Every insurer would thus be completely independent; he would have a right to draw the money a? being an investment of his own, and not as the recipient of State charity. He would stand in just the same position as anyone who insures his life now does. The •employers would be responsible in many cases for deducting the amount from the wages of their employes, and the matter would simplify itself, for employers would protect themselves by not engaging any who did not produce an insurance card. We intend to. wake a few more references to the subject in a future issue.