CHRISTIAN PHILANTHROPY IN AUCK LAND.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 8, Issue 454, 27 December 1866, Page 1

CHRISTIAN PHILANTHROPY IN AUCK LAND.

[Hawke’s Bay Tunes, 6th December.] A dees sure 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 soma 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 the Auckland City Mission certain articles of clothing, valued at five shillings, the said boys 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 runaway, 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, hat ia 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-justificatioa, and various individuals who were able to disclose some terrible facts in connection with the discipline enforced at the institution, which had come under their own notice, an enquiry was undertaken by the Committee of the institution 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 bad 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 habitW 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 who “ liked being there” and “would not rather go away," in his own case, as often as twice a week. But perhaps the worst features of the case are those connected with the treatment of a poor little fellow nick-named Fatty, concerning which the following declaration was made by a person named Mr Rickets: — I, Thomas Rickets, do hereby vouch for tha accuracy of the following statements, having seen them myself;— 1. I saw a little boy named Fatty with a pair of handcuffs to his legs, creeping down the stain This circumstance occurred some three or four weeks 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 circus tanoe. 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. 1 saw the poor little boy Fatty’s back, which was all cut in weals. I don’t know who did it. I hereby declare the above statements to be correct, and can swear to them if necessary. Thomas Rickets. As a specimen of the contradictory evidence brought before the committee, we quote the following:— Mrs Rickets, who was present, was asked by one of 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 be 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 months ago. She heard him crying out after be was hauled upslain ; and next morning when the boys were throwing the water over him, and he was stripped,

glie saw tSie 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 fire in Symmonds-street the same boy was brought down about eleven o’clock, when it was raining, end was treated in the same manner. Although it was dark, she knew the hoy from his cries, and she heard Mr Cunningham’s voice. Mr Cunningham ; The whole of Mrs Eiekets’s statement is false. - A young man here stood up, and said that he had lived near the Mission, and could corroborate what Mrs [Rickets, had stated, as ho 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 then examined. He said that he came to the Mission on Saturday, find was put in the box on Saturday night and 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 but and beat them with a cane. He gave them about a dozen blows. He put them in after the caning. His father brought him (the witness) a piece of bread and butter one day, and Mr Cunningham did not give him any dinner that day. They did not get as much food as they liked. They did not ask for more, because Mr Cunningham would not give it. _ Mr Mathews, formerly of the Mission, questioned tho boy closely, and addressed the meeting in favor of Mr Cunningham. Mr Mathews, however, admitted that he was present when the hoys were flogged and put in the box, and that it was- on Saturday, thus confirming the statement made by the boys, and which has been positively and repeatedly denied at both meetings, and in print, by Mr Cunningham. A person in the meeting asked how this statement agreed with that of Mr Cunningham, who said that the boys had never been put in the box or flogged till,the Monday? The'boy said ho had been put in the box five nights. He could not lie straight out, but ho “ crumpled up." The boy Mason was then examined, and his evidence substantially corroborated that of Douglass. , Our. readers will not, perhaps, be surprised to learn that the committee, being in a measure accessary, to the doings of their manager, and to a certain extent responsible, for the conduct of the institution, should not be able To sec anything very bad iu 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 was adopted than in ordinary 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. "Wo 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 atones 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. Having 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 (here was ample ground for requiring a strict investigation. Such investigation has been arade, as fav as it' is possible for the committee to* make it, and the result is eminently unsatisfactory. Hie most painful featui’a about 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 air owing to a treacherous memory; but 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* his son was locked in the cage both day and night; the son himself declares that he was not in during the day. The evidence of Mrs Rickets, respecting the half-idiot boy cal ed “Fatty” confirmed by a young man, is flatly denied by Mr Cunningham, and is übt_confirmed by the lads who were present, and took part in or witnessed the affair. Then, worst of all, Mr Cunningham most positively siSrms 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 Rclicc 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 I know); I have heard every word of evidence that bps been produced-; 1 have patiently and wcarieqlv striven tp- see the truth, r have, for jßfipj fcvW, turned it sU over, again pud 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 C. 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 but one opinion, via., on the treatment of the boy “Ratty," and on the locking-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 X was not present, through illhealth. 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 tho 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 amongat the number—would have preferred the investigation being conducted by persons better authorised, and, therefore, more likely to draw from obscurity the real facts.