NO CHILDREN NEED APPLY.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 823, 7 April 1910, Page 2

NO CHILDREN NEED APPLY.

[Contributed.]

Much discussion has been recently taking place, both at Home and in Australia, on the vexed question of “ no encumbrances.” This particular phase of life is as noticeable in New Zealand as elsewhere. The Australian and New Zealand squatters who own incalculable areas of laud are held to be the chiel enemies of children, but public bodies in New Zealand are quite as blameable in the matter. An advertisement by a hospital board is at present circulating, calling for the services of a man and his wife, “ without encumbrances.” This means that the successful applicants must not be “ burdened ” with children, who seem to be so unpopular in Australia and New Zealand. It further means that, supposing a couple disgrace themselves by having children while in the employ of the board that they will render themselves liable to dismissal. This body, therefore, deliberately sets itself to the task of prevention of birth—that is merely the plain English of it. The enormous importance of the subject of natural increase is recognised by the authorities all over the Empire and elsewhere. The birthrate for England and Wales during 1909 was the lowest on record, and the colonies share in the decimation. There are many causes working together towards the end. and these causes herald the decay of the nation, just as did the same causes herald the decay of the Roman Empire. It is unnecessary and ridiculous to preach to people or to blame them. Cycles of evolution and revolution are as sure and certain as death, the laws and intentions of nature are inevitable, and when she is attacked she retaliates in proportion. People who object to natural increases are, of course, themselves decadent. It is not their fault, but merely the inevitable process of nature. The greed of a squatter or a board, or a company who or which definitely forbids procreation is “ the writing on the wall.” It is pointed out by a great Conservative paper that taxation of land is the reason for the meanness of the land-holders in their ‘‘ no encumbrance ” schemes. Two people produce more than one, and half a dozen sturdy settlers on too acres each are a greater strength to the country than one nabob with 500,000 acres of sheep laud. But you can’t hammer it into the head of the greedy man that children are of more importance than sheep, and family men than prize Jerseys. Sheep don’t develop the country, and cattle can’t fight an enemy. In the far future the nations will regard the occasional child as its most precious possession, and the nations will not call a child “an encumbrance.”