Page:Life·of·Seddon•James·Drummond•1907.pdf/357

 Zealand. A careful study showed him that he was in an entirely different position from that in which other British statesmen stood when they were appalled with the mass of obstruction before them and were afraid to take one step forward.

He startled Parliament towards the end of the session of 1896 by introducing, without warning, an Old Age Pensions Bill. The country had taken very little interest in the matter; no one, apparently, had demanded it; and no member of the House seemed to know that the Premier’s thoughts were running in that direction. The Bill was crude. He had not worked out the details, and had no fixed opinion in regard to some of the minor provisions. What he had made up his mind to adhere to was that everybody should contribute to the scheme, and that it should be a State concern from beginning to end. He did not say that it was right that the wealthy should pay for the pensions of the poor; but he argued that those who had acquired wealth should not have pensions, as there would be no necessity for them to fall back upon a State institution for assistance. He proposed that every person over 65 years of age, whose income, other than from personal exertion, was less than £52 a year, should receive 10s. a week. He placed great faith in that 10s. a week. He believed that it would turn the course of many men’s lives, as it would give them something to look forward to, and would let them know that the State would not forsake them in their old age. It was to be some kind of a temperance reform, to save men from taking to drink in their despair, and it was to keep them out of the refuges and gaols. He roughly estimated the cost at £250,000 a year.

A general election was quite close when he introduced the Bill, and his opponents accused him of trying to catch the popular vote by holding out a benefit which he never intended to confer. The hasty manner in which the Bill was drawn up gave colour to this, and they said: “You are not in earnest; we shall hear no more of this after the general election.” To this and other criticisms he replied: “You will see.”

Very few members, however, were courageous enough to vote against the second reading of the Bill, which was carried