FREE DINNER DEMORALISATION.

Auckland Star, Volume XX, Issue 290, 6 December 1889, Page 4

FREE DINNER DEMORALISATION.

(To the Editor.)

Sip.,—Allow me to repudiate any desire to attack the Kindergarten or any other system of education. My remarks were in reference to the inevitable demoralisation arising from doing for others what thoy should do for themselves—to wit, providing free dinners. It passes my comprehension how the fulfilment of parental obligations is encouraged by others taking on themselves tho performance of them. I do nob for a moment question the zeal and warm-heartedness of the ladies, to whom is involved so much, no doubb, loving labour. Bub, however " many hours of self sacrifice are required on bheir part," ib is quibe possible bheir ideas of benevolence, may bo mistaken ones—bhab bhey are aiding to produce offects beyond the present moments which they would be tho last bo desire. I hope the ladies concerned will forgive me for reminding bhem of the drawbacks sometimes said to accompany good intentions, and thab had we as many charibable organisations as somo cibies boast of, the adherents of each one would maintain that they were " opponents of indiscriminate charity;" and further, with every one of them there would be the tondenoy, quite unintentional, to exaggerate both the necessity for their existence and the good they accomplished. The question involves a great deal more than the immediate and proximate results. The time has come when methods, charitable and otherwise, are not to be limited bo mere palliative ones, which so often tend to perpetuate an evil than to aid in the removal of it. Will your correspondent toll us how the course adopted of receiving and caring for the children of mothers who would gladly perform that duty themselves will ever help bo romove tho hindrances to the mothers doing so? The truer benevolence will come in in bhe efforts to remove the causes thab render charitable aid necessary. Immoral and unjust social conditions, which resulb in "many women, through no fault of their own, finding ib impossible bo look after the wants of their little ones as they would gladly do," are surely fche things to be assailed—while nob leaving undone all we wisely can do to mitigate such results. I say wisely, for in the wisdom of our methods lies bheir permanenb utility, and any that involve the relieving of parents of duties heaven-appointed intend to sap the very foundation of social life, and especially of the sacred obligations of motherhood. The lasb thing your correspondent would like to be responsible for encouraging, bub stripped of all the glamour thrown around tho subject by what seems to mo vitiated ideas of what tho Lord would have us to do, we think there is a dagger always present when we make it possible for men to oat tho bread for which they have not laboured, and their children, in bheir early childhood, hnbituabed bo look for sustenance to others than their parents. Ib needs no imagination to see around us before long a much larger class of people wanting in self reliance—an ever-increasing burden upon the shonldcrs of the taxpaying community. Tho closing sentence of " T...A. W.K.s " letter reveals bhe real danger of misbaken ideas of Christian duby. While wo see whab has ever been the oubcomo in every church and in all counbries of encouraging people to look to others to have "their natural wants supplied," without earning them, when we are asked to go and do likewise, we hope we shall nob be deemed irreverent if we reply—nob if we know it.—Yours, etc., J.B.