TOPICS OF THE DAY.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XXXIX, Issue 21, 23 November 1907, Page 31

TOPICS OF THE DAY.

SOCIALISM AT THE CHURCH CONGRESS.

With the London papers devoting columns every day to bitter attacks on Socialism, it was only natural to find the subject occupying a prominent place in the discussions at the Church Congress now being held at Yarmouth. There was an interesting debate on “Christianity and Economic Problems,” with special reference to (1) modern social ideals, and (2) the labour movement. The debate revealed the embarrassing position in which the Church finds itself when face to face with the evils and the unjust inequalities of society as at present constituted in this country. It deprecates the pursuit of wealth as the chief aim of life, but cannot deny' that under the present system the man who has no money is deprived of practically' all that makes life worth living. Those clerics who are not in sympathy with the Socialist ideals, have to fall back on Ruskin’s doctrine of the responsibility attaching to the possession of riches. The remedy for existing evils, they say, is to awaken the conscience of the capitalist to a sense of his responsibility. But the Church has been preaching at the rich man and exhorting him to use his wealth as a. trust for a very long time, and apparently with very’ little effect. Most of the speakers at the Church Congress debate deplored the irresponsibility of capitalists and shareholders. But the Archdeacon of Ely voiced the attitude of the anti-socialist party in declaring that Socialism would mean ruin generally, and the loss of all that is best in civilisation, which has been built up during past centuries. The Archdeacon himself went further, and actually declared that Christianity had nothing whatever to do with modern social ideas. Christianity, he said, had a great deal to do with social regeneration, but had no use for social ideals “bred of earth.’.’ Whether this is the orthodox Christian view in England I cannot say, but there is reason to believe that it is widely held. Some of the Archdeacon's w;ere . answered by the Vicar of .J,ngwpr'th. purely. said he, they were all idealists, and recog-’ nised that life was not worth living without ideals. Without social ideals social progress would be impossible. A nearer . approach to the Socialist, standpoint was made by Mr IL W. Hill, a wellknown member of the House of Laymen. He said that the so-called Reformation had for one of its results the destruction of the idea of corporate life and the setting up in its place of individualism, under which the idea was to get rich without regard for one’s neighbour or the Commonwealth. It was surely permissible to sympathise with men who were trying to alter the system which produced the social conditions of Lancashire in the middle of the last century. On the other hand, experience of boards of guardians, the post office, and other Government institutions did not lead one to think that every social difficulty would be overconie when all means of production and distribution were nationalised or municipalised. It was by touching the individual heart and the individual con science that men could be best awakened to their social duties and responsibilities.

Mr Hill’s paper proved a fitting introduction to the appearance of a typical Christian . Socialist in Mr Frederick Kogers. What, he asked, was the foundation of that individualism which was the only alternative to Socialism? Ho found it in a sentence of Adam Smith's, which took hold of the imagination of the manufacturing world of the eighteenth century: “It is well that merchants should follow- their own ends without thought of the public-weal.” AH the selfish instincts of the manufacturer, all his narrow, base, an<l money-grabbing attributes, were to lie counted unto him for righteousness, and upon that principle our present industrial system had <»rown up. Now we were in the midst of the resultant evils, and the revolt against them was taking the form of Socialism. "Socialism,” he declared, “is the assertion of a larger, truer, more human, and more entirely Christian principle than is found in the old individualism.” ♦ ♦ ♦ FLEECING THE LONDONERLondon has long been groaning under an almost unslipport able burden of local

rates. Lucky are those of us living in the metropolitan area who find our precepts for Poor and General District rates work out at much under 8/ in the £ on the rateable value of our houses, which is five-sixths of the computed rental value. In many parishes the rates run up to the neighbourhood of 10/ in the pound, and in one or two instances they have risen as high as 12/. Blame for these heavy rates is usually laid upon the London County Council, but though undoubtedly the Council has been in some measure to blame for the increase, and may not always have obtained for the ratepayers good value for money, the real cause of our present heavy burden of local taxation is undoubtedly to be directly traced to the reckless expenditure, wanton waste, and dishonest practices which obtain in connection with local dealings with the monies raised for poor law and municipal purposes. The Local Government Board inquiry into the West Ham and Poplar scandals disclosed conditions of extravagance, corruption, laxity, and carelessness in the administration of poor law and municipal funds that were positively startling. Now the Board is inquiring into the administration of the Poor Law by the Mile End Board of Guardians, and we are getting more “revelations.’’ Baths worth at the outside £6 apiece have been paid for at £ll or £l2 each, drainage work that would have been “fat” for the contractor at £6O, has cost .£ 105, general painting and varnishing work worth, well done, £25 has been paid for at three times that rate though “scamped,” and the carting of what could not have been at the utmost more than 8 loads of rubbish has been charged and paid for as 37 loads. On one job the contractor sent in a bill for hanging 201 pieces of paper, and such was the cheek kept on him that it was not until the am ditor of the Local Government Board commenced to implire within that it was discovered that 92 pieces only had been used. Tne same inquisitor discovered that the contractor had charged for two men as working 8 hours fixing 6 tiles on a cottage, and for another energetic couple the time charged in the bill rendered to the guardians was 9 hours, in which time they had actually fixed 20 tiles. Another little job which should have been done in a few hours took, according to the contractor’s charges, 37 hours work by a bricklayer and his lab’ourer. In other instances the guardians were charged for five and six times as much material as could have been fairly used on jobs, work was grossly overmeasured, and approximately the charges for men’s time were in most cases investigated, double what they should have been. Contractors, indeed, seem to have done what they liked, how they liked, and to have charged whatever seemed good to them. How long this sort of game has been going on no one knows. The L.G.B. inquiry apparently only covers the past 18 months or two years, and in that time the Mile End ratepayers have been robbed of thousands in the aggregate. And Mile End is not the only parish that has suffered through the carelessness and negligence of its elected guardians and paid officials. As an instance of the sort of money wasting that goes on in many unions, it may be mentioned that not long ago a newlyappointed, ami “keen” young guardian discovered that though, on the average, there were between 70 and 80 ameOodied paupers in the workhouse doing nothing chielly, the officials of the annexed infirmary found it necessary to employ outside labour at 25/ a week to keep the grounds tidy. Another glaring instance of Poor Law extravagance came to light recently. The Hammersmith Workhouse was actually fitt<*<l up with electric appliances which were refused by the authorities for Buckingham Palace as being too costly. ♦ ♦ ♦ THE WRIGHT BROS? AEROPLANE. T o‘ war correspondent of the “Daily Telegraph” has been having a talk in P.uis with one of the famous Wright Br-dhri*. of ivroplanc celebrity, ami has come to the conclusion that they have solved the problem of aerial Hight. He says it is capable of abundant proof that the Wrights have for years been Buc(*v<'-f al exponents of “gliding” in the air. ami that latterly each in turn ha*driven a motor impelled aeroplane for miles in the air. wheeling and turning at will. The Wrights are des ribed as “quiet, reserved young gentlemen, who

absolutely strive to avoid publicity and ishun anything like notoriety, either for themselves or for their epoch-making invention.” They began work as cyclemakers, but became interested in aerial problems, and took to experimenting, first with kites and then with ” gliders.” They studied the Hight of various birds, from tiie buzzaid to the gull, and made many types of ‘ gliders,” some like bird’s wings of various shapes, and others like great box-kites. With great courage and skill they practised jumping off from heights on these gliders, and learned to balance and control them in the air. Gradually, and not without many minor mishaps, they evolved a type of glider with which they could obtain perfect control. 'They could make it turn to left ro right, could raise or lower it at will, and could depend on its absolute stability. Then they turned their attention to motor-engines, and after many experiments adapted one to suit their especial requirements. Every change that was made, either in the aeroplane or in the motor, was carried out with their own hands, so that their secret is still their own. The Wright aeroplane has a long, narrow framework, covered with a 30ft. web of cotton, a few feet above which a similar ship extends, botli being held equidistant in a light frame, stiffened by supports. The Wrights declare that learning to control one of their aeroplanes can be accomplished by any person, and it can be acquired quicker than the art of riding a bieycle. Indeed, Mr. Wilbur Wright assured the “ Telegraph” correspondent that a man eoulu ream to drive his aeroplane " saTbiy and. securely ” with less than half the effort that the novice puts forth in learning to ride a bicycle. Both of the Wrights have flown distances of over 24 miles witli their small machines, at a speed greater than that attained by any dirigible balloon. They can stop and start their engine in the air, alight safely with the propellers at rest, and in a word, control their machine. They have found it advisable not to patent their invention, nor to disclose its details, but they are prepared to sell it to a Government that will pay their price, and they undertake to prove all that is claimed for their aeroplane. And if all that is claimed for it is true, then surely it is only a matter of time before hundreds of duplicates are manufactured, and mankind at last shares with the birds the dominion of the air.