CHARITABLE DISPENSATION.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 251, 24 January 1889, Page 2

CHARITABLE DISPENSATION.

Wb have been furnished by the Government printer with a return of the cost of administering the Hospital and Charitable Institutions Act during the last three years. The return is not as explicit as it might be, and the work of comparing the figures is a very tedious one. However, the statement reveals the fact that we are spending in New Zealand, at the present time, in this direction more t han the colony can afford, and in proportion to the population the amount spent appears to be very large. This statement brings before us the fact that while, during the five months ending March 31, 1836, the total amount spent was £30,493, or at the rate of about £73,000 per annum. The amount for the following year was £142,331, nearly double that of the previous year, and for the year ending March 31, 1888, it had still further increased to £160,036, and it does not seem unlikely, that the current year will see a still larger expenditure. In 1887 the Government subsidies totalled £76,666, and the local bodies contributed £44,635, while in 1838, though the total expenditure was much greater the Government subsidies were £70,180, while the local bodies' contributions increased to £53,900; and it is not unpleasing to note that voluntary contributions increased from £10,966 in 1887 to £12,604 in 1888. The cost per head on population increased at the rate of 2s 3d per annum during the first five months cf this Act’s existence to 5s 7d in 1888, which increase gives rise to many doubts as to the benefits of the present system of Charitable dispensation Coming to opr pwn distriet we find that while in 1887 the amount derived from local bodies was £ll6 it increased in 1888 to £3BO, rather more than double the amount, Voluntary contributions, be it noted, during the came period fell from £393 in 1887 to £lB6 in 1888, and this falling off accounts for the drain upon the resources of the local bodies. There has been a slight increase of Government subsidy for that period, while fees from Hospital patients have also increased, and the cost per head on population has risen from 4s lOd to 6s 9d. The noticeable falling off of voluntary contributions is a rather regrettable sign, whether it is owing to the hard times, or the growing disinclination of tha people to put their hands into their pockets for charitable purposes, or that they have not been appealed to by the hospital authorities) we gre unable to say. It would uem that in thia district, at any rate judging from the latest returns, fjr «ri gradually coming te the thus when a

poor rate will have to be levied, or at any rate the local bodies will have to increase their rates to meet the demand made on their resources by the Charitable Aid Boards. One thing about the statement which does not seem satisfactory is that the Government subsidy apparently has not been made on a fixed basis, as provided by the Hospital and Charitable Institutions Act of 1886. The Act clearly specifies that the subsidies shall be paid at the rate of 10s in the £ lor bequests, 24s in the £ for voluntary contribu tions and 20s in the £ for contributions from local bodies. Under this provision this district appears to have been fairly enough treated, but others do not seem to have fared so well, while on the other hand some have been exceptionally liberally endowed. Thus Hawke’s Bay and Hawke’s Bay United have not received nearly what they ought to, Wairau has received over £lOO less than it ought, while Ashburton is £2OO short in her subsidy. On the other hand the Thames Board, which was entitled to £432, received £1,079, and the Thames United appears to have been dealt with in a similar manner, having received £l,llB when the actual amount it was entitled to was £493. Taranaki affords another example of a favored district, for with £2,118 from local bodies and £lB9 voluntarily contributed, entitling it to £2,345, it received £4,4s6—nearly twice as much. Wellington, however, affords the worst example of all, for with £893 received from local bodies and £225 .voluntarily contributed, it received £3,584, more than three times the amount it should have received.