The Sun.
London, England, 1868-10-15 00:00:00

1~2

PRICE.... 4d.
STAMPED sd.

MANAGEMENT OF RELIGIOUS AND CHA
_BITABLE SOCIE7

(FROM A CORRESPONDENT.)

THE attack which has been made in the columns
of the Times on the management of our religious
and charitable societies was, in many instances, much
needed. There can be no doubt that many of these
bodies turn to very poor purpose the funds which are
entrusted to their dispensation. In the case of some
the misrule is notorious ; whilst many incur heavier
expenses of management, and pay away a larger pro-
portion of their funds to secretaries and other salaried
officers than the necessities of their wort: could
justify. The case of the society which requires some
£3,000 for every Israelite it converts, and rarely
obviates the speedy backsliding of its proselytes,
even on these handsome terms,
.may be of the
extreme kind. But a similar complaint, only in a
less degree, might justly be lodged against many
benevolent organisations. It is beyond doubt that
much of the money given for charitable and
religious purposes is wasted. But, though these
societies
.ought to be open to inquiry, and though in
some cases exposure may do much good, the cause of
reform will not be aided by premature or unfounded
attacks. To wrongly charge a society with waste, is
not only unjust to those who conduct it, but is
very likely to render the public indifferent in cases
of real mismanagement. An instance of
this species of rash accusation is furnished
by the discussion now going on with
respect to the affairs of the Religious Tract Society.
This association receives voluntary subscriptions, and
dispenses them in the form of gratuitous religious
publications, besides carrying on a publishing
trade for the sale of the same and other works
at reduced prices. The correspondent who
has led the raid upon benevolent funds'
mismanagement made a charge against the Tract
Society which would have been startling indeed
had it been true. He said that whilst the society
gratuitously distributes to the extent of £13,467, its
expenses amount to £14,806, exclusive of the cost of
the publications which the society disposes of as a
publishing firm. The Times supported its corre-
spondent by an indignant article calling for imme-
diate explanation. But it turned out that the
£14,800 included all the outgoings of the
society's trade, the salaries of its officers, and
the charges involved, not merely in the bene-
volent portion of its operations, but also in
the publishing trade.
_lnstead of the £14,800
being an expenditure upon the dispensing of £13,467,
it represented the whole cost of administering an
income of £114,000. This percentage seems by no
means excessive. The attack, however, was not aban-
doned. It was asked what proportion of thecharitable
fundwas spent in managing that fund, exclusive of the
publishing. This, it is evident, was very different
from the first charge, which assumed that £14,800,
was the sum spent in conducting the benevolent work
of the society. The committee answered that all the
salaries of their officers were paid out of the profits
made in the publishing, that the free contributions
were not charged with any portion of those salaries,
and, in fact, that the whole sum given for benevolent
purposes was distributed. The figures given prove
that the money contributed by the public would
not more than cover the grants,and cost of books,which
are included in the society's charitable distributions.
To this answer is returned the plea that the accounts
of the society are so arranged that it is impossible to
estimate the profits on the sales ; the benevolent and
publishing departments are therefore mixed up together
Here the society is in some measure in the wrong. Its
accounts are not all that could be desired, and there
is no statement of the year's profits. Further, the
committee seems to resent inquiry into their publish-
ing business, considering that the public can be
concerned only in the use of the benevolent
funds—a theory which, as the society was
founded by charity, and is still aided by it,
is clearly wrong. At the same time the profits are to
some extent applied to the reduction of the price of
books, so that the charitable and trade departments
are unavoidably mixed. If the society does not give
away, it sells at a lower rate, which is much the
same thing. But the discussion raised on
these matters is not the original point
of dispute ; the Tract Society was charged with
extravagance, and the accusation has broken down.
Whatever complaint may be urged against the
accounts, is a very different affair from tasking the
society with spending £1.4,800 in the management
of £13,467. The writer who has, not unjustly,
thought it well to examine the conducting of
charitable bodies, has in this instance injured a good
cause by a rash procedure.