The Hawke's Bay Times, THURSDAY, 6th DECEMBER, 1866. CHRISTIAN PHILANTHROPY IN AUCKLAND.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 8, Issue 444, 6 December 1866, Page 2

The Hawke's Bay Times,

THURSDAY, 6th DECEMBER, 1866. CHRISTIAN PHILANTHROPY IN AUCKLAND.

PUBLISHED EVEEY MONDAY AND THCBSDAY. “NOLLIUS ADDICTUS JURA HE IN VERBA MAGISTRI.”

A pressure on our space has up to the present time prevented our bringing prominently before the notice of our readers an extraordinary example of the exercise of the virtues of Christian philanthropy and benevolence; —such at least it appears to be considered by the parties most directly interested in the affair; its actual character our readers will be best able to judge after perusing the brief outline of facts which we shall proceed to lay before them. It appears that there exists in Auckland an Institution designated the City Mission, under the .paternal care of Mr Benjamin Cunningham—the every way laudable objects of which appear to be the industrial, moral, and religious training of children who would otherwise be uncared for. Mr Cunningham, however, seems to have some very peculiar methods of carrying out these objects, and the nature of these methods have, through the Auckland press, been lately brought to light. Amongst the children “ trained ” at this institution are to be found some of that class known as “ Street Arabs,” and it seems to have been the practice of the magistrates at Auckland, on the conviction of any such children of any petty offence against society, to hand them over to the Auckland City Mission, in preference to a prison, believing that in so doing they were consulting the well being of such children ; but, it would appear, without first ascertaining whether or not the course of training they would receive there would be conducive to that end. On Wednesday the fourteenth of November last, two of such boys, of eight or nine years of age, were brought before the Police Court, charged by Mr Cunningham with stealing from tho Auckland City Mission certain articles of clothing, valued at five shillings, the said hoys being, as it appeared, two that had been given over to the care of Mr Cunningham on the occasion of a previous conviction of some offence, in preference to being sent to prison. The boys, it seems did not approve of Mr Cunningham’s method of training, and managed, in spite of considerable difficulty, to run away, carrying with them their, other clothes. They were convicted, and sentenced by Messrs Horne & Macfarlane, the sitting Magistrates, to three months’imprisonment, not, however, with Mr Cunningham this time, but in the Auckland jaiL The Southern Cross of the next morning indulged in some rather severe strictures on the heavy punishment inflicted on these children, and the conduct of the manager of the City Mission, in bringing about such a result by his prosecution of the little runaways ; and it remarked on the need of an investigation into the conduct of affairs at the City Mission with the view of ascertaining whether or not the poor little children were not altogether justified in escaping from its walls.

After a large amount of correspondence in the columns of the Southern Cross, between Mr. Cunningham in self-justification, and various individuals who were able to disclose some terrible facts in connection with the discipline enforcedat the institution, which had come under their own notice, an enquiry was undertaken by the Committee of the in stitution itself, At this .enquiry, we are sorry to say that the most prominent.feature developed was the disregard for veracity on the part of those who gave evidence, as shewn in contradictory statements, denials and after admissions, notwithstanding- which the facts which follow were proved beyond all doubt or cavil ’

That Mr Cunningham had a cage or cupboard constructed, divided into two compartments, for purposes of punishment in neither of which compartments a child could stand or lie down; but in which he placed the refractory, locked them up and kept them there night after night, sometimes three at a time, two children together in-one of the divisions and one in the other.

That he used leg-irons or hand cuffs fastened to the ankles of the boys, chaining them to each other,. and iron rings in the corners, to which they were fastened with chains.

That he was in the habit of beating them at times with a heavy walking-stick, from twelve to twenty blows at one time, for the most trivial offences, and as was naively admitted by a little fellow o who “liked being there” and “would ; not rather go away,” in bis own case, as often as twice a week. But perhaps the worst features of the casa are those connected with the treatment of a poor little fellow nick-named Fatty, concerning which the following declaration was made ly a person named Mr Rickets:—

I, Thomas Rickets, do hereby vouch for the accuracy of the following statements, bavins seenthem myself:— °

1. I saw a little boy named Fatty with a pair of handcuffs to his legs, creeping down the stairs This circumstance occurred some three or fourweeks ago, at about 8 a.m., in my sight. The stairs were fronting my door. 2. the same morning, and for five successive mornings, the boy came down the stairs in the same way, and each morning the boys in the Mission stripped the lad naked and poured buckets of water over him. I saw Mr Cunningham look at the lads whilst in the act of throwing the water upon the boy. Another man and two women also saw the circustance. The name of the man was William Morris, who was then staying at my house. 3. I saw two boys’ leg-cuffed about three weeks ago, with their legs crossed. They were obliged, whilst in this position, to go down and up-stairs in order to wash themselves. 4. I saw the poor little bov Fatty’s hack, which was all cut in weals. I don’t know who did it. I hereby declare the abo'-a statements to be correct, and can swear to them if necessary.

Thomas Rickets,

As a specimen of the contradictory evidence brought before the committee, wo; quote the following;—-

Mrs Rickets, who was present, was asked by one ot the audience to state what she knew. She said that she had seen the boy called Fatty run, and conceal himself under the house one day, and he was dragged from under by two boys whom Mr Cunningham brought. Mr Cunningham then, made him walk upstairs with irons on his feet. That was from one to two mouths ago. She heard him crying out after he was hailed upstairs ; and next morning when the boys werethrowing the water over him, and he was stripped* she saw the marks on his back. He was brought down every morning for a whole week, and souced with water by the boys, Mr Cunningham standing looking on every morning. On the night of the lire in Symmonds-street the same boy was down about eleven o’clock, when it was raining, and was treated in the same manner. Although it was dark, she knew the boy from his cries, and she heard Mr Cunningham’s voice. Mr Cunningham: The whole of Mrs Rickets’s* statement is false.

A young man hero stood up, and said that he had lived near the Mission, and could corroborate? what Mrs Rickets had stated, as he saw it with his own eyes. (The speaker then made a statement much to the same effect as Mrs Rickets, had ) He had seen a boy’s leg swelled twice the natural size with the irons.

The boy Douglass was thei examhm 1. H 0 said that he came to the Mission on Saturday, and was put in the box on Saturday night arid Sunday night, Mr Cunningham said there was somebody coming and locked them in. They poked their fingers through the hole, and Mr Cunningham took them out and beat them with a cane. Ho gave them about a dozen blows* Ho put them in ■ after the eaning. His father brought him (the witness) a piece of bread and. butter one day, and Mr Cunningham did not giye him any dinner that day. They did not get as much food as, they liked. They did notask for more, because Mr Cunningham would not give it.

Mr Mathews, formerly of the Mission, questioned tho boy closely, ar.d addressed the meet in trio faror of Mr Cunningham. Mr Mathews* however, admitted that he was present'when the boys were flogged and put in the box, and that it w s cn Saturda-, thus confirming the st tement maue by the toys, and which has betu positively ai d ro e t-dly denied at both meetings, and in print, by Mr Cunningham. A person in the meeting asked how this statement agreed with that of Mr Cunning!:am, who said that the boys had never been pm i u the box or flogged till the Monday ?

Ihe boy said he had been put in the bos fire nights. Re could not lie straight out, but ho “crumpled up.”

The boy Mason was then examined, and his " evidence 9 corroborated that of Douglass. , •

Our readers will not, perhaps, be surprised, to learn that the committee, being ia a measure accessary to the doipgs of their manager, and to a certain exu at. responsible,

for the conduct of the institution, should not be able to see anything very bad in the acts of their agent. True, they could not justify the use of the cage for the confinement of children, but they did not see what else he could do to ensure ■ their detention, They declined to express a decision regarding the irons, and thought that no more flogging wuo tiuQpicu ihjtu xu vxuiiiary' schools, and that the general charges brought against Mr Cunningham rested on very conflicting evidence, accepting his resignation with regret, passing a series of resolutions, as the Cross remarks, entirely at variance with the evidence adduced. We cannot do better than close this article with a letter of Mr Edger’s, who was the Chairman of the Committee, cordially endorsing the remarks of the Cross when it says that public attention should be directed at once to the provision made for the reformation of children charged with offences against society:—

Sir,—This is the last time I shall trouble you with any communication of mine on this unhappy affair. Haring expressed myself favorably respecting the conduct of the institution, I must now candidly admit that I can urge no justification of it, while at the same time several of the charges seem to me “ not proven.” In some cases, “ molehills have been magnified into mountains but I think, with the Cross, that there was ample ground for requiring a strict investigation. Such investigation has been made, as far as it is possible for the committee to make it, and the result is eminently unsatisfactory. The most painful feature about it—-inexpressibly so to my mind —is the apparent want of veracity throughout, baffling every effort to read the truth. I accuse no one of falsehood —it might be all owing to a treacherous memory; hut the fact is so, and must have its weight. On the question of the flogging, the statement of the two boys flogged— Douglass and Mason—contradicts the statement of Mr Douglass. Respecting the dinner, a plain matter of fact, young Mason contradicts young Douglass. The father Douglass declares tha f his son was locked in the cage both day and night j the son himself declares that he was not in during the day. The evidence of Mrs Rickets, respecting the half-idiot boy called “Fatty” confirmed by a young man, is flatlv denied by Mr Cunningham, and is not confirmed by the lads who were present, and took part in or witnessed the affair. Then, worst of jail, Mr Cunningham most positively affirms that the boys, Douglass and Mason, were net flogged until after they ran away from the Institution on Monday or Tuesday (and this Mr C still firmly maintained before the committee after the public meeting) ; while Mr Matthews as firmly declares that he was present, and saw the boys flogged on the previous Saturday—the first day they were brought to the Institution from the Police Court. He who can feel his way with any certainty through this tangled mass of contradictions is more fortunate than I am. I have read every word that has been written (as far as 1 know); I have heard every word of evidence that has been produced; 1 have patiently and weariedly striven to see the truth, have, for many hours, turned it all over, again and again, in my own mind, calmly and dispassionately: and the general conclusion I reach is this—that a friend of, Mr Cunningham’s would think that he could find some explanation, exculpatory at least; ■ that if a friend of the (reputed) ill-used boys would accuse Mr 0. of gross misrepresentation and Cruelty, an impartial spectator would feel himself most painfully and sorrowfully perplexed. In that last unpleasant position am I. On two points there will be bat one opinion, viz., on the treatment of the boy “Fatty,” and on the lockiug-up of boys in the cage for the night; and that opinion will be decisively unfavorable. As to the action of the committee I can only speak what I know. My connection with the Institution as vice-president is of about three months’ duration. During that time five committee meetings have been held. The first was of a general character. At the second I was not present, through illheallh. At the third, Mr Cunningham’s resignation, as manager, was read and considered. The fourth and fifth, including last evening’s, were wholly occupied in investigating these charges, of the existence of which I was ignorant until the first leading article in the Southern Cross. Through more than eight hours of examination, I am sure that the committee have done their utmost to produce evidence to elicit the truth. Some of them, I believe—myself amongst the number—would have preferred the investigation being conducted by persons better authorised, and, therefore, more likely to draw from obscurity the real fao s.