"A MENACE TO SOCIETY."

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 10786, 13 October 1900, Page 5

"A MENACE TO SOCIETY."

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sir,—l think the women of New Zealand should thank,"An Ex-Nurse" for Her lefct«r; ■. she has got to the real root of the trouble. 16 is these nurses who know more of k**^ 6 questions, how they affect women. A doctor is with tire mother at the critical period, but it is the nurse who is there from beginning to end, who se*s what a woman really has to put up with on tness occasions, and knows how unfit a woman is, after such a strain on her strength, to start another child in 4 few montus. Then, a woman will tell a nurse what she will not teU a doctor, therefore, they get information that enables them to look at this question from the mother s point of view. Women, as she says, should not be called upon-to become mothers oftener than once in three years; if they are, it is a detriment to both themselves and their cllUdren, and turns homes into a place oi torment instead of a place of pteasure. Then, if their husbands will not observe continence during these periods, there is nothing for the woman but preventive measure. This is forced upon her, unless die. intends to be a slave to children and child correspondent, "Vital Religion," sees no distinction between destroying eerms that have the potentiality of life, and the same when this potentiality of life has bee* exercised, he thinks both are equally murder. What about keeping these m tbe body. and doing nothing at all to develop them? , Murder, too, I should say, according to his argument. His" conscience is too tender. • ■ , Now, a word for the priests, who have been giving us advice on this subject lately. They have never had families, and their talk"is only theory, and their rules not workable Of course they can write well, because their ideas are not ruthlessly scattered every few minutes by having to drop their pens and attend to numerous children, as I had this morning. One little fellow is on my back this present minute, trying to guide the pen for mc, while another, a. year younger, is on the floor, tearing up my husband's books. They have pulled down on the floor everything they can reach, and are having ~a * high time, besides breaking some cups for mc, so, if my letter is a little disjointed, please excuse.—Yours, etc., A TIRED MOTHER.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS

gj r> —"Quern Dens vult perdere prius dementat" seems applicable to the Protestant Churches at the present moment. The heads of the Protestant denominations have been having a series of meetings lately. At one they laid down the law as to what we are to drink. At another, how we are to spend our money, and at a third they have regulated the number of our families. * Please, sir, get them to hold » fourth, to regulate their sex. Seriously, sir, the antics of these gentlemen would be amusing if they were not pitiful. Can they be in their sober senses if they seriously think, that in these days they can claim the right to settle these matters. No wonder we hear constant complaints nowadays of the Protestant Churches' loss of influence, while that, of the Roman Catholic Churcn is steadily increasing.—Yours, etc., HARD CASE.

TO THE EDITOR OF, THE TRESS,

Sir, —With reference to the Ministers' Conference, and the recommendations forwarded to the Government, may I be permitted to write a few lines. Firstly, is it not wicked for a man to allow his Tvife to go on 'having children -when theire is not the least chance of being able to affprd to pay someone to help her loot after them until they are big enough to hefcp themselves, as well as not being able either to feed, clothe, or educate them properly? Are there not many children now waio are not washed for diays together, for the simple reason that the mother has not time to leek aftEr them and do ordinary housew«irk as well, and very likely all going barefooted, because the father cannot afferd to buy boots?

Secondly, what chance lias a mother of going to cihuroh on a Sunday when *he has a family of, say, six to look after, and the eldest one only seven perhaps. A man that.would 3€t 'his.wife go on year after year having children when he knows -what suffering, it entails, and anxiety to tooth at the same time, is, I consider, a wretch. If well-to-do people like to have big.families, by all means, I say, let them, isut;.aj]ow.everyone to use their own discretion, and judge for themselves 'Wthat is best in midh matters. —Yours, etc., - KOTHERHAM. October Bth, 1900.

.'.' TO THE EDITOR OF THE PBES3.

Sir,—As you appear to be in a frightful fright lest you should be the only man left,M send you the following hints (which you'will observe contain more finance than moral parts in their ingredients), in the hope that, if acted upon they will h?lp to allay your fears : —

1. Married men to be paid more than single. 2. No one cau employ more than a certain per tent, of single to iiiarried men. 3. Government to pay a married man 7s 6d a week for every child up to fourteen years old. '-. 4. Tax on bachelors. 5. No bachelor allowed to earn more.than a. certain amount. 6. Tax on independent families where no member works for the support of the rest. A;. 'jlibtle simple arrangement like the above'would do more- to attain.the ol'ji-;:t than to try and tteach the present jiontratiori. the ethics of. morals. Jtbrals, nVe language, are always changing. — Yos:t,ete.,' ■;■ 45s A, WEGX.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE TRfcSS,

Sir, I—lf1—If society is-menaced by the shrinking birth-rate, society might stimulate the birth-rate by offering some inducement to parents. For instance, for every living child exceeding, say, four in number, the State, might pay a given sum per week for its keep until it is fourteen years of age. If society is to be benefited by an increase of the birthrate, let soctfcty bear the burden. Possibly the bachelors might be made to pay a special tax.—Yours, etc., PRACTICAL.