The Star. SATURDAY, JUNE 18, 1921. CHURCH ORPHANAGES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16456, 18 June 1921, Page 8

The Star. SATURDAY, JUNE 18, 1921. CHURCH ORPHANAGES.

The declaration of Dr Gibl>, one of the leaders of the Presbyterian Church in New Zealand, that the Churches would vigorously resist tho pi’oposed interference with church orphanages, will probably make the Government pause before proceeding with legislation on the subject. The Churches havo long engaged in the charitable work of protecting and maintaining children who have become orphans, or whoso parents have either neglected or been unable to discharge their natural obligations. That they are performing valuable service is fully recognised by tho community. There are many of these institutions in Christchurch, and th© children wlio are sheltered there aro in the care of guardians whose hearts are in their work, and who have fitted themselves by study and training to take tlie place of parents who have passed to the other side. The existence and maintenance of these orphanages i 9 one of the most practical evidences of the Christian work of the Churches, and it is not a work which should be lightly interfered with. The proposals of the Government have not yet boon definitely announced, but it is claimed that if they are given effect to the Church organisations may be forced to close their doors, while their usefulness will certainly be greatly impaired. We understand that the Government proposes that it should automatically take charge of orphaned or destitute children, making them wards of the State. Tlie State will proceed to make arrangements for their future maintenance, the principal method being to place them in private homes and pay for their upkeep. The Church orphanages will he so far recognised that if a parent expresses a desire to place his children in their care his wishes will be respected, but failing such a specific indication the core of the children will revert to the State. Tho proposals of the Government would be reasonable enough if there did not already exist many institutions which are doing very elficiently, and at small cost to the Government, the work which it proposes that the State should undertake. Tho Government does pay subsidies to some of the orphanages, and in those cases it has the right to send children into the institutions. On tho other hand, the Churches have orphana.ges for which they will not accept subsidies, preferring to pay all the expenses themselves, and exercise unfettered the right of granting or refusing admission in tho cases which come under their notice. Tlie Government is apparently impressed with the principle that the ideal home for the orphaned or destitute child is the private home. It is a principle which is excellent in theory but is somewhat lacking when put into practice. If every child which had lost its natural protector b could be put into a suitable private home, where it would receive the treatment and training of a member of the family the problem of tlie orphans would be solved. Unfortunately, the lesson of experience shows that the boarding out system is far from being an unqualified success. Tlie private homes which are the most suitable for the training of children are not generally tlie homes which receive them. AVe have no doubt that many children are placed in private homes where their lives Rre lived under happy conditions, and where their foster parents take a pride in them. But there is another side of the picture, which is found in the homes where the boarding allowance is of far more importance than the child- Instances have occurred in which people boarding children hare applied to charitable organisations for financial assistance. The boarding-out scheme is largely a gamble, and it inevitably receive® occasional shocks, in spite of the system of inspection which is an adjunct of it. The Government, we think, would be well advised to hesitate before interfering with tlie voluntary oharitable institutions conducted by the Churches. These institutions should be open to the fullest inspection, whether they are subsidised by the State or not, and we doubt whether any Church would raise the slightest opposition. They are bound to resent any attempt to curtail their activities, which are intimately concerned with the moral as well as the physical welfare of their charge®.