Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5657, 17 May 1879, Page 2

In another column will be found a letter taken from the “ Sydney Morning “ Herald,” written by Mrs. Jefferis, the wife of a distinguished Congregational Minister, describing a mode in which she proposes to deal with the difficult subject of: the maintenance of destitute children. The letter is so full, and

so clear in its reasoning, that it might be safely left without comment, in the assurance that it will interest and have influence on all who care for its subject. But the subject itself is of such importance that wo feel it is our duty to call attention to it, especially in view of the fact that Wellington is the only important town in this colony in which no effort has been made to meet a social want, that must and will force itself upon the consideration of the public through the mere increase of population, and the consequent growth of that class for whom some provision will inevitably have to be made. Dunedin, Auckland, and Christchurch—we believe in that order—have formed institutions for tho destitute children of the provincial districts of Otago, Auckland, and Canterbury, and both their buildings and the good work which is being done in them, are just sources of pride to those who have formed and fostered them. If, therefore, we venture to

think that a “ more excellent way’’ can be found than that which they have adopted, it is with no desire to detract from the merit that is due to those who have so nobly taken precedence in this good work, but simply to make suggestions that may bo usefully kent in mind when systematic effort in this direction shall be attempted here. In looking at this subject it must be carefully remembered that there is a tripartite division to be made among “destitute children,” something similar to that which was suggested by King Edwakd YI. when he founded the hospitals which were respectively designated “Christ’s,” “St. Bartholomew’s,” and “Bridewell.” There are “ orphans,” and these naturally first appeal to our sympathies, cast as they are upon the world by direct visitations of Providence, and it may be in their earliest years. Then there are those who are styled by our Legislature “ neglected “children,” who though not deprived by death of their natural guardians are oftentimes in a condition of equal, if not greater need, having parents whose example and influence is degrading and corrupting. Besides these there are criminal children, who form a class that, for obvious reasons, must be kept entirely apart from the others. Whatever mode may be taken for the nurture of orphans and the care of the neglected “criminal “children” are therefore to be regarded as excluded from our present consideration. Mrs. Jeffebis well shows that there are two modes, one or other of which is now usually adopted, while she proposes a third, which, as we understand her, has only been tried as yet in Germany, but has there produced most satisfactory results, under the care of its founder, Immanuel Wichebn. The system of forming “ institutions,” into which orphans and neglected children may be gathered, is that which is adopted by the three cities we have named in this colony, but the distinction between the two classes of children is not very carefully preserved, nor do we see any good reason why it should bo. ’ The little that has been done in Wellington, which is for orphans exclusively, has been done on the “ board- “ ing-out” system, but with a modification which brings it some what nearer to the m ode proposed by Mrs. Jeffebis. That lady appears to understand that in the “ boarding out” system scarcely more than one child is taken charge of by the same person ; whereas here—it must be admitted rather through circumstances than intention—two or three children are boarded in the same family. While the feeling of the Wellington Benevolent Society, we believe, is strongly in favor of boarding out the children instead of gathering them into institutions, wo think that the “ family” system is a great improvement upon even that mode. That institutions have a tendency to increase the class they are intended to relieve has been as painfully shown in New Zealand as it can have been in New South Wales or elsewhere, and this of itself is a decided objection, but still the great argument in favor of tho “ boarding out,” and more emphatically of the “ family” system, is that upon which Mrs Jeffebis lays so much stress —that the children are trained as nearly is possible in the natural way, that is to say in families surrounded by the “ sweet “ charities” of homo. This is indeed a reproduction of tho main argument urged by Mr. Stowe for the Glasgow schools, where boys and girls are,taught together, as is the case in the “ mixed schools” of this town and colony, Mr. Stowe pointed out that the finest blending of the better parts of the male and female character was produced where young people had the advantage of “ a brother “ and sister home,” and in a still greater degree this would hold good in the “families” that might be formed of the now neglected and orphan children, while at the same time the cost to the community would bo less in tho “ family” than in the “institution.” lb must be repeated that, in any case, criminal children must be dealt with wholly apart from others, for while it is most desirable that they should be reclaimed, they must not be allowed to contaminate, or even to cast a shade upon, those children whose need of assistance alone gives them a claim upon the public.