BISHOP JULIUS AND THE CHARITABLE AID BOARD.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 12477, 12 April 1906, Page 3

BISHOP JULIUS AND THE CHARITABLE AID BOARD.

SOME PLAIN SPEAKING

At she meefting of the Charitable Aid Board yesterday eonio pretty plain speaking was indulged in with reference to tha remarks made by Biehcp Julius a: tfho deputation to tfao Premier on Tuesday re State children. Tha Chairn.an said the public had heard a good deal of late—perhaps till tliey were sick of bearing it—about the Board's management of their children. It, was, however, somewhat surprising to find men of high position making remarks -which were not in any way borne out by facto. Hβ was move than surprised to find that his Lordship Bishop Julius ppraking to the Premier at the deputation on tho question of the State children had said—"ln tho first place, the care of the children was left to the members of t'ne Charitable Aid Boards, •who were, elected mainly with a view to economy, and woro vory naturally tempted to practice tho worst possible economy by sparing tho money and fi'DOiiii'ns tha children." Now lie (tho •Chairman) said distinctly that Bishop Julius, in e-pjakins like that, did not kiK.av what ho was talking alx>ut. How a geralleman holding such n high position in the churtih csukl make such a statement passed hLs comprehension. ■Aβ a matter of fact, tho Board pa-id more for its boarded-our. chiidron than tho Government did. Was that not a proof tha- the Bishop did not know ■what he was talking altout? (Mr Harpor: "Ho pa.id &a himself.") Then they had Mrs Williamson saying with regard •to tho members of I'iio Hoard—"What ithcy went on the Board for passed her comprehension. Thoy had better give up tho whole, of th-cir time to sheep \and stock and ncnaciisa t'kan tako up .seats ou tho Boa id and do no good." Ho was not going to make a lengthy speech, but it wns necessary to put tho Board right with the public, as tho latter were only too ready to believe what they saw in tho paper. This was only fcho opinion of one man after all, and what was said greatly depended on who got tho car of the editor. Now, (he asked, what better testimony could they havo as to the way in. whidh their children were dealt than that of the schoolmasters who saw them every day for several hours. Ho had gone through tho reports submitted by the masters Cm tho children boarded out who were attending tlhe schools, and lie ehoiild lhave been proud—as )io felt sure other members of the Board would be also— to receive such reports as to his own children. They had fifty-five children: boarded out attending schools, and tTio reports of the madt-ers were in some cases excellent, but all uniformly good. Was tibat a bad record of tho work of the Board, who were told they knew nothing beyond aheeip? They had the unbiassed opinion of the schoolmasters, and he asked whether tluis did not prove fhat they had done their duty to tho children. He said i'oey had done their duty, despite the . statements of Bishop Julius and ftlrs Wißaamson, who knew notlbing of the matter. If they wanted information, let tnom. come to tho Board and they would get it. What did they hear at the enquiry from tho schoolmaster at WaUhamr" Why, that their children were as wellbehaved, weii-dreesed and tidy ac any there. They had not, perhaps, been brought up as ladies and gentlemen, but tho Board had done the beet they could for the children, and he felt very strongly when peoplo like Bishop Jtiiius and Mrs Williamson made statements that were contrary bo fact. 1 Mrs Wells said that tho boaixled-out I children were quite as good as the ordinary children, and they ehould, therefore, do the best they could witn them. Thoy were attacking a system i which was bad, and they appeared to Ibe lehmaels between two stools, as they were not satisfied cither with the btate or Board treatment of the chiidron. Bishop Julius knew what ho was speaking about. ("Question.") There was no ! doubt that the majority of tho people i who took children in their homes ioak j them for tho money. There were come j who took them for love, but these were 1 few. The chairman of the Southland Board said that the boarding-out system had been got rid of because it was I proved that the children were taken Ito eke out a living. They would continue to attack the system, and perhaps they would oarry their point some day. The Chairman said that the people who took up the position of Bishop Juliu* did not care what they ta.d so long as they carried their views. He (the chairman) had proved that tho Charitable Aid Board paid more than the Government. Tho editor of the "Lyttolton Times" had epoken of the Charitable Aid Board «s being next to useless to deal with children. Why did not the Premier then abolish the Boards? Hβ had brought them jmo existence to carry out the Act, and it they were incompetent, why were they not abolished? Hβ would like to ask how many homes whore Government children were boarded out had the Premier visited, and how many had Bishop Julius visited?

Mrs Black Kiid that though the Board spent a large sum of money with regard to the children, the ejvtein was a bad one. She desired to ccc the system dono away with. She thought that the money they expended could be far better ueed than it was now.

Mr Harpar said that an iferrcsponsaHe person, who happened to be Bishop of Christchurch, had to cay something, and *poke about what he knew nothing. No doubt he was sorry that day for what he had said. He (Mr Harper) quite agreed with the Premier that there should bo smaller districts, and that counties and boroughs should look after their own charitable aid. (Hear, hear.)

Mr Rndcliffe said he thought that the Board was not doing all they could in connection with tho children under their care. Aβ to tho conduct of the children at the schools, ho thought they were as well looked after and were as well-behaved as any other children. What he objected to wero the erroneous etatements made on the subject. Tho matter then dropped.