SIR ROBERT’S INCONSISTENCIES.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 746, 18 June 1886, Page 20

SIR ROBERT’S INCONSISTENCIES.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND MAIL. g IK At the recent meeting at the Athenieum I pointed out several inconsistencies in Sir Robert Stout s statements. It was inconsistent for him to say that the Government found charitable aid institutions so expensive and uncontrollable that some change ot management had to be arranged for ; but people must not look upon it as a matter of money, the chief object of the Act being to educate people to a higher moral status. It was inconsistent for him to say that the Act was an encouragemenfc of thrift, when it direc y teaches people that if they are unthrifty they shall be well cared for, and if they are thrifty their savings shall be confiscated for the use of those who have spent all their money on their own selfish appetites. Sir R. Stout, in reply to me ma P de the unstatesmanlike statement that money must come from the thrifty, as the unthrifty had none that could be taken. This statement is inconsistent, with

facts, because if people are unthrifty they must have something to be unthrifty on, and this something is the legitimate article to be taxed for charitable aid purposes, viz , the money people expend m luxuries. Aud then he said tlieie were perhaps “ weeds ” in the community who would not freely contribute to such a charitable institution as a hospital, I would like to hear the explanation why a hospital is more a charitable institution than a life insurance office, or less a natural outcome of civilisation than benefit societies ? Why should people be taught to look upon an institution which ou»ht to be the seat of medical skill, as a pauper institution? Would the institution be of no use if there were no poor in our midst? On the education question he is much more inconsistent. The Charitable Aid Act lias for one of its objects, according to Sir Robert, the inducement of individuality,” 'his pet hobby. The Education system has for it 3 chiefest object the crushing out of all distinction and individuality. This question could not be fairly argued out in one letter, ana l will for the present remain satisfied with pointing out Sir Robert’s inconsistency. In replying to Sir G. Grey recently he (the Premier) said he did not want all our schools to be the same, . mo^, in the same breath expressed himself afraid that if such-and-such were so-and-so the result would be that people would have a “ choice of schools. It has been urged that if private schools had a better chance parents would have too much opportunity of carrying out fads and hobbies in the training of their children. Now, Sir, I would like to know what individuality, as an abstract national quality, consists of ? It consists of those peculiarities of individuals which some people are pleased to call fads and hobbies. Sir Robert is very fond of tellinc people they should not allow their money to bo taken from them by a dry Act of Parliament ; it cuts both ways, and I do not want my children to be trained by a cast iron dry Act of Parliament.—l am, &c., ■ H. Bodiey.