SOCIAL REFORM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 10033, 21 January 1896, Page 4

SOCIAL REFORM.

We print to-day three letters on the above subject, from Rev. Messrs. Williams and Collins and Mr. Edwin Cox, and we deem it necessary to make a brief reply to some of the statements. We are glad to see that those persons who have made themselves busy in opposing the inquiry set on foot by the Council into a subject vitally affecting the health and the morals of the community, feel the accusation that we have brought against them, that they have busied themselves about mere opposition and about nothing else. We intend: to maintain 'our ground in that respect, because wo think that there is something appalling in the attitude taken up by these people. ' Here there is an enormous evil before us, destroying the health of the community and the well-being of the race, an evil by which many girls are yearly led to destruction. I he attitude taken by those persons under the leadership of the urn- '• <P° I,ns , . iV,ld K ev. Mr. \\ lilies is that nothing must be done, that there must hot oven be inquiry as to whether anything "can be done. I hoy have' hot the shadow of a plan or proposal to make. , They simply sec themselves square against anybody who is religious : enough or philanthropic enough, or has a heart capable of feeling or Compassion, and waiUsto' liscertain, if those ' great and, undeniable : evils _ cannot bo ;lessened.' ' That is a position which We -should think is the one impossible position for . a Christian

man. Mr. .Williams says:—"ft" 1 simply not true-that such-opponent! are either indifferent or inactive wi(|, regard to the evils that "infest Auot | land. It is ratlrerlmrd that men and women'Who 1 among- the hardest worked ii>'evfeby kihd of reformatio agency in the "city-and neighbourhood should be held up to abusive censure day by'day a-s doing nothing, simply because they do not support a measure which tliey hold 'is' repugnant to every sense lof •decency and' justice." Let Us begin with the two persons wjio have iii this matter' been 'the most prominent from first to last— and Mrs. Aldis. If they li'ave'been "fim'clng t(ie hardest workers •in" every kind of reformstive agency," W liave' nev'er heard ol it, and we know pretty well who have been doing - anything fdr the bene, fit of the moral' "condition of Auckland. We know several clergymen w|| o hltve taken a' special interest in reformatory work, but the Itev. Mr. Williams and the Rev; Mr. Collins are i l0 t amongst them Mi 1 . Collins could only say, as a, claim for endeavouring to stop the inquiry instituted by the City Council, that Jie had taken part in tin agitation' against the C.D. Act in Birmingham. 'That is a purely Brummagem:reputation as a Social reformer. We cannot admit that even a lifetime devoted to mere opposition to other people doing anything entitles a man to rank as a'philanthropist. We do not hold up these oppositionists "to abusive censure day by' day " because they do not support any particular measure. But we do hold them up tc public"censure, ' because they oppose even inquiry'into il creafc evil, because they insist that nothing should bo done to mitigate that evil, or to bring about reform, and because they themselves have not attempted to-do anything in any direction. Mr. Williams speaks of "collecting and tabulating" certain evi dence. The City Council will no doubt receive the results of these labours although they are not quite"pertinent to the inquiry. 'But we are sure that il Mr. Williams and Mr. Collins can M anything about" the state of the citj when the Act was in operation, and the state that it is in now, and can give anj practical information which they liavi obtained iii the course of that hare work in the cause of social reformation which they claim to have done, the City Council will be delighted to hear them. But it seems to us that, in consideration of their utter'want of knowledge on the subject, their position ought to be that of silence. •' • 1