The Press. FRIDAY, JULY 29, 1864. THE ORPHAN ASYLUM.

Press, Volume V, Issue 545, 29 July 1864, Page 2

The Press. FRIDAY, JULY 29, 1864. THE ORPHAN ASYLUM.

TnotiaH no public notice has been taken of the subject, excepting Mr. CotternTs letter which we published a few days ago, report! have been industriously circulated that the statements which we made on the subject of this charity some time since, were either greatly exaggerated or totally contrary to fact : we! have onlj to say that we hold the editor of any journal to be guilty of a very grave crime who could make such statements without having made himself intimately acquainted with the facts of the case. "We gave the fullest test of our sincerity by not spreading vague reports and letting the matter rest, but by calling on the Government to make a public enquiry, which, considering that they stand in the position of guardians to those children who are supported in the Charity at the public expense, we still hold that they were bound to do. At all events, had such an enquiry been held, and had it been shown that our statements were false or exaggerated, we could not but expect such an amount of public reprobation as would probably have resulted in a eerious injury to the journal making the charge. We would remind our readers, that, except with that discreditable class of journalists who live by the publication of slander, of which we are thankful that no specimen has yet appeared in this community, no newspaper can take upon itaelf the task of exposing such abuses as those to which we referred, without very considerable risk, a risk far greater in a small community, where there is always a tendency to regard public criticism as if it were an attack upon private individuals. In the present instance so little did wo know who were the responsible persons in the control of the Orphan Asylum, that we have been much astonished at hearing names mentioned whom neither we, nor we believe, the public had any idea were concerned in that establishment. It has also been §aid that the abuses to which we referred were already in the process of correction, and that it wae unnecessary to have published facts which, as they were being remedied, had better have been concealed. Our reply is, that the neglect in the present instance was being remedied to a certain extent, mainly by the removal of the matron; but that the faulty constitution of the charity was, and is still, retained ; so that there was no security that similar abuses might not again creep in. Wβ may add that when these evils came to our knowledge we held, and still hold, that our first, indeed our only duty, was to the children. Orphans are the care of all; and so far as the press can speak the voice of the public on their behalf, it is bound to do so. At the same time we are far from wishing to cast any alur upon those by whom this most valuable charity was founded, and has been managed. They made a grievous mistake in selecting a person as matron wholly unfit for the office, and we are satisfied none have been more distressed than themselves at the error which shouli have produced such sad neglect. At the same time we cannot allow it to be supposed that there was the slightest exaggeration on our parts as to the extent to which the evil had gone. The Orphan Asylum is under the control of a committee of management appointed by the Synod. The building is on Church land, and the institution is a Church of England institution. We are far from saying that the Church is to be charged with any bigotry or narrow-mindedness in maintaining such an institution in its own body. An Orphan Asylum is in its nature a home ; it is not like a school, which only teaches, and may engage in but one part of what, in its larger seme, is called education. It is of the nature rather of a private family, in which the religious education of the children is an imperative duty; and we cannot be surprised if in such an institution which partakes largely of the nature of a private household, the Church which has founded it should choose to retain its management within its own control, Nor, so far as we are aware, would the other Christian bodies in this place, who certainly have exhibited the greatest liberality of feeling in Church matters, object to such a view. But admitting that view, we think the whole constitution of the Charity faulty. At present the committee of management are, for all practical purposes, a secret and irresponsible body. There has been, so far as we know, no meeting of the subscribers, no report, no audit of accounts, none of those ordinary steps which are taken in England to secure the proper management of such institutions. There has been hitherto, apart from the committee of management, a select number of ladies who have occasionally visited the institution, and who have been appointed by the committee to uo so. In the course of the present week the Bishop, who has taken the matter up very warmly, has, as we are informed, called a meeting of twenty-four ladies, and a plan has been arranged for distributing the task of! vifitirc amongst the whole ; including in the number «ojie of the principal members of the Wesleyan and Presbyterian bodies. The committee, however, is unchanged : and the duties of these ladies is simply to visit the Asylum and report. The step taken by j the Bishop is a most excellent one so'far at it joes, j and vrill win the support and confidence of all classes of Christians. But still we do not consider the composition of the managing committee satisfactory. The ueu&l and best form of government of such a charity is, first, to vest the estate in the hands of trustees by means of a deed declaring the objects of the charity,

and its mode of management. It would be only right that such deed should state that the institution belongs to the Church of England, and that the matron should be of that denomination. Secondly, the management should be vested in a committee elected annually by the subscribers to the institution at a public meeting, at which the report and accounts •hould be formerly received. Nor would it be at all inconsistent with the episcopal character of the institution that members of other religious bodies, who choose to subscribe to it, should hare the privilege of voting for, and if one of them should be elected, of eitting on the managing committee. The Church character of the institution would be sufficiently secured, by the trust deed, "Wβ believe, we are correct in stating, that in some of the great charities in England, which have been established and are mainly supported by dissenters, members of the Church of England both vote and sit on the committees. In every such charity there should be a Visitor, who should be the court of appeal and arbiter in all disputes. The Bishop is the proper person to occupy that position, and we should imagine the affairs of the diocese would occupy too much of his Lordship's time to permit him to devote any further attention to the Charity than a Visitor's duties would entail. We do not entertain the least doubt but that under such a system, the utmost harmony would prevail in the management.' The real truth is that we must more and more recognise the fact, that the relative position of churchmen and dissenters in these colonies are such, that many of the hereditary causes of quarrel have no existence. Tithes, church rates, Bishops in the House of Lords, and other points which have maintained feelings which rankled in the hearts of dissenters, not to speak of old traditions of the persecutions of past times, which it is so hard to forget—tho absence of these old points of difference allow of the various sects of Christians thinking more calmly over the real religious differences which exist; and men cannot help recognising the fact there are multitudes of churchmen who hold identically the same religious doctrines as dissenters, and who yet are members of the church. If this be so, why on such a subject as that of clothing and feeding a number of poor orphans, why should we create difficulties of form, when none exist in reality. Let us not be supposed to say that there is no distinction between the theology of the Church and that of the dissenting bodies. No doubt there is a visible difference in the tone and character of the teaching, as well as in some few more important points of- doctrine. But they are not differences which come in question on this matter. Let us be only Christians whenever we can ; Churchmen and Wesleyans, only when we have our special differences forced on us. There is no doubt that the Asylum, being now established by the Church, and being built on land held in trust for the Church of England, is legally compelled to be externally connected with that establishment. But so far as Wesleyans and Presbyteriane are willing to join in the work, and I have no objection to the matroncy being confined to the Church, what is violated, or whatprac- - tical good gained, by excluding them from a share in the management ? For our own part we shall never forget that many of the subscriptions to our cathedral came from members of other denominations. Is it wise to reject the hand thus held out? We are quite confident that if a constitution such as that we have sketched out were adopted, and the public called on to come forward and support the Orphan Asylum, there would be no lack of funds to put it on a first-rate footing, and make it an honor and a blessing to the province. We may add that the first step in sucli an institution is to place the salary of the matron on such a footing as to secure the services of a competent person. At present, it is utterly insufficient. Visitors may be useful as a check; but the real management in all these institutions lies in the matron, and in her alone. All the visiting in the world will not make an inefficient matron efficient ; and ell interference with a really efficient matron only decreaees her efficiency. When once it is found that a really trustworthy woman ie at her post, and that she is working, not for hire, but for the love of "these littio ones," too much can hardly be left in her hands.