ENDOWMENT FOR HOSPITALS AND CHARITABLE AID.

Press, Volume L, Issue 8541, 22 July 1893, Page 5

ENDOWMENT FOR HOSPITALS AND CHARITABLE AID.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS,

R- p\ 8e i e th * t last ni S llt m the <i ''« lb ato cir Robert Stout expressed a strong oi tinion that oue mUliou acres of land should Jiie set apart as a permanent endowment for * hospitals and charitable aid. In 1880 I carl ried a »ul through the Houso of Represent' atives to set apart the same acreage' for thei same purpose, its title beimr tho Hospitu, la and Charitable Aid Endowment BilL Tn'tionly amendments proposed were one by Sir J. «all—at that time Premier,—limitii ie the endowment to 200,000 acres, and auoti!iter by *r Murray, limiting it to pastoral land. *oth the amendments were lost, a* .id the «U passed on 22nd Juiy, the second n jading a»_ing been discussed on the Bth ant 1 15th tod carried ou the latter date. 11 he Bill waa thrown out by the Legislative C .'ouncil S.BO to 6. Whilst I had in draw, ng the «U a strong preference for makii ig the whole endowment inalienable, as .'Sir R.. Wout says it should be, the objectia >_ held w many quarters at the time to auy lo _kingj»P of the public lands made it uecest ary to «*ve the selling or leasing a matter of ad•auuatration. If sales were made, ho< i vever, we proceeds were to be held for tb ie purples of hospitals and charitable aid. The Pnuctple of the Bill was that a,, sub•tanttal share of the national estate might *VUly be devoted to objects of a ■Mure so entirely public. I do not ( rouble j jou with this letter with the obi set of I wa-trning any special credit for tho intro- ! ductiou of the Bill, but rather -j o call ""-rotion to the altered circumstance! under Wbich any proposal of the kind can i bow be _f it • t0 certaiQ other facts arising out ohii?! 3 re - Itct * ou of the Bill of 183 ). Mv ii IWT,'?1 W T,'? get V 1 * 3 thin S done wh * btlaua "" »v_»»able and abundant Sine . 1880 iwat changes have t_ken place, ns, for thXni m Canterbury the re.ei-vaft i.ns for i the Muliaud Railway Company. Er tensive SaS V?'?». hftVe ,* Uo takeu P'«*»i«»*i ifterent -__tL! a V loay uuder oue 8 V« **m or aud 11 lt _ 18 r c **rtaiu that the pi .oposed oi-eratioa Wl il be far less easy than, i ;_i 1880. ia?oi_ re - BUg^est ' thereto™, that if effect __o_M FT l ° b T ir Rob e*'t , B view, no time •Jould Be lost. It is interesting to read Bm n H nt V U f ed in 1880 »«**i.i»b the gr'ence and of the present v lews of "Sit At 8 M? d * fuactioas of Gove «- -theß'ni ._ Une We were t«'W that reliaf _} r? - d * _" rec ognitioi i of the wlr_2S th°_V P f ° P i e * We 1 Jrere aJso rould fi f f ° Ue eudenc y of the Bill S_r-e_!nn?°" _ Lt U "»«*«Mo that the •wue people who opposed the BUI supported

tho existing system milder which we have to pay poor rates. Havie -{{just paid one of these impositions I am convinced that the relief of destitution and can e» of the sick ia already fully "recognised " at i a right of tbe people, whilst its effect aa a : means of drying upprivate benevolence sect tis to mc to be complete.

I If my Bill had been carried the necessity I for rates to support he spitals and charitable j aid would not have oo mrred. It is worth remarkiia g that the argument on which the opponents of the measure seemed particularly to pride themselves was that the Bill was an ad mission that there is "an inherent right in the people to have work acd food foui* _ for them by the State." The most re tent public views on j that point would a*.-fpear to promise a ready acceptance of j.uch a Bill if introduced now.—l am, Ac. , I E- C. J. Stevens. ! Christchurch. 20th, I uly. i _J -. ______