Untitled

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2773, 31 March 1910, Page 4

CHILDREN NOT WANTED. Once in a while instances occur which fling into hold relief the weakness of existing social.-systems. Such is .provided in the telegram of the Sydney correspondent of the London “Times," ■who has cited instances 'of married immigrants being denied employment because of their being encumbered with children. The writer concluded:— Until New South Wales farmers and squatters mend their ways it is cruelty to send immigrants with young children t-o Australia, or married couples not past child-bearing.

This is a terrible indictment to lay against a country which needs millions of additional population, yet it cannot he authoritatively denied. Quite naturally the London press has taken up the matter, and has given the Commonwealth all sorts of friendly advice •in the matter. 'The root of the trouble, however, is deep-seated, and rests in the habits and traditions of England itself, which have been transplanted into her colonies. It is not merely the children of laborers that are not wanted in Australia. Judged by results, one would imagine that children are not wanted under any circumstances. The birth-rate constantly decreases, and infanticide lias reached quite alarming dimensions. Some of these difficulties can scarcely be dealt with State action. Thus it is quite certain that the •birth-rate is kept down very largely on account of the ease-loving proclivities of modern parents, who refuse to undertake the responsibilities which Nature intended they should and which national patriotism demands. On the other hand, it must not bo forgotten, that in many cases parents decline to encumber themselves with families because they honestly fear to incur the responsibility for their support. When ■one remembers the bitter struggle for ■existence which is the lot of millions of workers in Britain, Germany, and ether parts cf Europe, this argument has a terrible and brutal cignificancc, To

a lesser extent the same cause is opera-

tive in the towns of Australia, and nothing but an improvement of general social conditions will remedy it. Then we come to the prevalence of child murder. Each of these'cases represents a commercial loss to the State and a fearful tragedy to the mother that no pen can describe.

Modern humanitarianism is beginning to realise that there is neither Christianity, morality, nor commercial sense in a social system which drives a mother to kill or desert the child she has borne in pain and infamy, but the new leaven works slowly in Englishspeaking countries. In France matters are viewed differently, and a nation which needs population looks upon each child as a valuable national asset. Paris alone has 66,000 foundlings that the French nation fathers and mothers, without a taste or touch of pauperism, 86,000 boys and girls who for various reasons cannot be kept by their own mothers and fathers. Four thousand every year is the average. Any mother can leave her child there, and she will be asked no questions. She cannot, however, remove it from the institution so easily. When once Paris has taken any little children to its breast it behaves almost like a foolish mother in not letting them go. Parents can claim them, cf course, but before they are allowed to take them they have to prove very satisfactorily indeed that they have good homes to offer, and that the children will be put into a good way of earning a decent living and leading a moral life. How this system works in the case of the children may be gathered from the fact ’that out of the 66,000 girls and boys so carefully tended and. trained by the public authorities in Pans, only 200 have been sent to a reformatory. How striking a contrast this is to British methods is indicated by comparison •with the London Foundling Hospital, for it has been aptly said that it is easier for a camel to pass through a needle’s eye than for a baby to come inside its door. Here are some of the rules of this conservative institution : Children can only be received into the hospital upon personal application of the mothers. The children of married women and widows cannot be received into the hospital. Petitioners must set forth the true slate of the mother’s case; if any deception is used the petition will be rejected and the child will not be received into the hospital. Nr, application can be received previous to the birth nor after the child is twelve months old.

No child can be admitted unless the Committee is satisfied, after due inquiry, of the previous good character and present necessity of the mother. and that the father of the child has deserted it and the mother: and also that the reception of the child will, in all probability be the means of replacing the mother in the course of virtue and the way of an honest livelihood. Persons who desire to present petitions to the Committee may obtain all particulars by applying to the secretary at the hospital, but they must not apply to any governor or any other officer or servant belonging to the hospital on the subject on any pretence whatever. Petitioners' must not bring their children until told to do so. If this represents the national attitude of Englandtowards children, then it is surely hypocrisy for the “Daily Mail” to chide the Commonwealth' upon its failure to- appreciate the value of infants, particularly in view of the fact that the birth-rate of Britain is steadily diminishing, and s considerably below that of her great rival, Germany. In such matters the Engshould adopt towards unmarried mothers presents a most difficult problem, 'but there is no doubt that Paris is teaching the world a lesson in the rational treatment of children born out of wedlock or under unfortunate circumstances.