somewhere, I thought, however; for it was not probable that the Hungarian Parliament would have passed the laws on which the system is founded, were it really so detrimental, as it seemed, to all sense of paternal responsibility. Still, as my mind was not at rest on the point, my first care, on arriving in Budapest, was to appeal to the most distinguished of the Children's Department officials for an explanation of the whys and wherefores of this handing over of children to the State. I told him of the boy I had seen at the Foundling Hospital, and enquired whether his department was actually prepared to take charge of all the children whose parents chose to deposit them there or elsewhere.

"Certainly," he replied, without a moment's hesitation, "we must take charge of them; on that point the law is explicit."

I ventured to suggest that this readiness on the part of the State to relieve parents of their duties might lead to gross abuses; that, in fact, parents well able to provide for their children might place them in the keeping of the State simply to save themselves trouble and expense.

"Against that we take precautions, of course," he answered. "Parents able to maintain their children are forced to maintain them, or to pay for their maintenance. Still, even if cases of the kind you suggest do occur from time to time, they are arguments for, not against, our system, surely. Supposing the father of that child you saw in Vienna had the means of providing for him, and left him at the Foundling Hospital merely because he did not wish to do so; would it not prove that he was heartless and worthless, and therefore quite unfit to bring him up properly? We here in Hungary consider our children as the most precious of our national assets, the one which, above all others, it behooves us to keep from harm. Every Hungarian child that is born is a potential addi

and

tion to our national wealth strength; to allow, therefore, a single child who would live if properly cared for to die because it is not, is to throw away what might be later a valuable possession. The first duty of the State, is, we hold, the preservation of the race; and to insure its preservation the chance must be secured to each of its members not only of living, but of developing, so far as in him or her lies, into a useful citizen. A State which, by leaving its children in the hands of parents who neglect them, illtreat them, or half starve them, fails to secure to them this chance, is guilty not only of cruelty but of treachery. It is conniving at the weakening of the nation, conniving at its moral, physical and intellectual debasement; for the children of to-day will be the nation in years to come, and will hold the fate of the country in their hands. Whatever we Hungarians may leave undone, this, at any rate, we are determined to do: we will take good care of our children let the cost be what it may. The Protection system was established for the express purpose of enabling us to take good care of them, and an excellent system it is."

This official is an enthusiastic patriot as well as a devoted lover of children; that he should talk in this strain is, therefore, perhaps not remarkable. What is remarkable, however, is that practically the whole Magyar nation talks as he does. Hard-hearted business men, merchants, bankers and lawyers approve just as warmly as poets, philanthropists and doctors, I found, of this experiment which the State is trying for its children's benefit. What is more remarkable still is that they, these business men, maintain that the experiment is economically sound, and will ultimately pay well even in the financial meaning of the term. According to them, in fact, the State, in spending its money on saving its babies' lives, is not only acting humanely, but is making a sound investment, one from which Hungary will derive a

In 1871 the Hungarian Parliament passed a law by which each town or commune in the kingdom was rendered responsible for its own poor. Municipalities and Communal Councils were charged with the duty of providing for the destitute; and that they might have the means wherewith to provide, they were allowed to appropriate for their poor funds the fines levied in the local courts. Probably the local authorities did not find these means sufficient to enable them to do their work well; possibly they resented being called upon to do it at all; be this as it may, they certainly did it badly. The result was disastrous, especially for foundlings and all their youthful kindred, among whom the death-rate, which had always been high, became still higher. The Government tried to arouse the local authorities to a sense of the duty they owed to the State in the matter; but the said authorities turned a deaf ear alike to admonitions and threats, holding that their first duty was to the ratepayers. In 1876 a law was passed to facilitate the boarding out of children; and in 1886 another law dealing indirectly with the same subject. It was all in vain, however; the old state of things continued, and babies that might have lived and thriven were allowed to die.

At length, as the number of deaths among children showed no signs of decreasing, the nation became alarmed; and in 1895 the Government announced their intention of organizing a special department of the Home Office to

watch over foundlings and see that local authorities did their duty to them. By 1898, however, they seem to have arrived at the conclusion that if the State wished its children to be properly provided for, it would have to provide for them itself. For, when the law which secures for the hospital fund 5 per cent. of the yield of all direct taxes was before Parliament, the Home Minister proposed that the cost of the maintenance of all deserted children under seven should be made a charge on that fund. He proposed, in fact, that the cost of the maintenance of these children should be removed from the local rates to the national taxes; and that the children themselves should be taken out of the keeping of the local authorities and placed under the care of the State. He went further, for he insisted that an extended meaning should be given to the words "deserted children," so as to include among them not only children whose parents actually have deserted them, but also children who have no parents, or whose parents neglect them, ill-treat them, or are unable or unwilling to support them, and who therefore have been pronounced deserted by the civil authorities. Orphans who cannot be placed in orphanages; children temporarily under the care of the authorities owing to the illness of their parents, or to their parents being in hospital, in prison, or in a lunatic asylum; and all children whose parents, or grandparents, cannot support them without depriving themselves of the necessaries of life, must rank with foundlings as deserted chil. dren, he declared.

The minister's proposals were greeted with enthusiasm and speedily became law. Already in 1898 the State assumed the guardianship of all its deserted boys and girls under seven years old, and undertook to provide for them. Then a difficulty arose: the Home Minister soon found himself with so many

children that he did not know what to do. As something had to be done at once, he decided to farm them out with two philanthropic associations, the Children's Refuge Society and the White Cross, the societies pledging themselves to take good care of them, the Government defraying the expense. Unfortunately, the White Cross, in its eagerness to fulfil its mission, waxed quite reckless in its expenditure; and M. Koloman Szell, who was at the time Minister President as well as Home Minister, was not the man to tolerate havoc-playing with the nation's money. He promptly made up his mind that for economy's sake the State must itself do what the societies were doing for it; and began devising ways and means. In February, 1901, he propounded a scheme under which the State was not merely to see that its children were properly taken care of, but was itself actually to take care of them, to house, feed, clothe and tend them. Parliament passed with acclamation his State Refuges Bill, and provided him with the money to defray the initial expenses of the experiment he proposed trying.

M. Szell then took a bold step. Νο sooner had the State Refuges Bill received the Royal assent, than he announced in Parliament that it was sheer folly to take care of children under seven, if when they were seven they were to be turned adrift; and that to hand them over to the local authorities at that age was to turn them adrift. So long as this was done, although the mortality among those under seven would decrease, among those over seven it would increase; and if children must die, better let them die as babies than later, he maintained. Besides, even if they lived, as the local authorities could not be trusted to bring them up properly, the chances were they would take to evil ways; and the State would have to spend money

on

building reformatories for them which it might have spent more profitably on keeping them from needing reformation. From the national standpoint it was no good at all saving the babies, he argued, unless the babies could be made to grow up into useful citizens. He wound up by proposing that the State should take into its own keeping all deserted children under fifteen, unless they were in orphanages or other institutions; and that it should continue to defray the cost of maintaining such of them as were under seven, while requiring the local authorities to defray the cost of maintaining such as were over that age. His Bill for the protection of deserted children over seven was passed at once, and the Szell experiment was started.

Under the Children's Protection system, now that it is in full working order, the State is the guardian-in-chief of all the children in Hungary, rich and poor alike. The kingdom is divided into eighteen districts, and in each district there is a State Children's Refuge, i.e., a refuge to which every child in the district who has no home has a legal right to go. Then in every district there is also at least one Guardianship Tribunal, or Children's Law Court, organized for the express purpose of safeguarding the interests of every child there by seeing that it is either under the care of a guardian who does his duty to it, or in the keeping of the State. This court must at once hold an enquiry if it receives notice from municipal or communal authorities, members of philanthropic societies, or other responsible persons that any one, no matter whether prince or beggar, is ill-treating or neglecting his children or wards; is not providing them with proper food, lodging and education; is setting them a bad example, or in any way exposing them to demoralizing influences. Then, if

the charges against him are proved, the court may either warn him that unless he changes his ways speedily he will be deprived of his rights as a father-or guardian-or it may deprive him of them at once by declaring the children deserted. In this case it appoints for them another guardian, who, unless the court sanctions some other arrangement, must hand them over to the representative of the State, i.e., the Refuge Director. The children may be lodged in the refuge temporarily while the enquiry is being held.

If a parent is found in the act of illtreating his offspring, it is taken from him at once and is sent by the authorities of the place where he lives to the nearest refuge. If the police pick up babies in the street they transport them to a refuge; just as they transport there the little waifs and strays they come across, the luckless mites who are left uncared for because their parents are ill, in prison, or perchance on journeys. All neglected, ill-treated or deserted children, in fact, are packed off at once when found to a refuge; and an account of the circumstances in each individual case is sent to the Guardianship Tribunal, so that the wrongs done may be righted, and the wrongdoers be punished.

The children who are sent to the State refuges because of the cruelty or negligence of their parents form but a small section, of course, of those who go there: the overwhelming majority are sent either because they have no parents or because their parents have nothing wherewith to feed them. Any man-or woman-who cannot support his children because he is unable to work, or can find no work to do, has the right to hand them over to the authorities of his town or commune to be sent to a refuge. And the authorities cannot refuse to take charge of them unless there is clear proof (the duty of producing it rests with them) that he

has misrepresented his circumstances, and has in reality the means of providing for them himself. In the case of illegitimate children, the State goes even further in its zeal to do its best for them than in the case of the legitimate; for not only does it take charge of them, but it also, for their sakes, takes charge of their mothers for a time. Local authorities are required. when the birth of an illegitimate child is registered, to make enquiries at once as to whether its mother has the means of providing for it; and if she has not. they must send her, together with her baby, to the nearest refuge. In the case of orphans, too, the State does not wait for them to be handed over to it, it seeks them out that it may take them into its keeping before evil can befall them. Whenever the death of a widower-or widow--is registered, the law requires local authorities to find out whether he has left children behind him unprovided for; and, if he has, to send them without delay to a refuge and inform the Tribunal that they have done

So.

This willingness on the part of the State to take charge of all comers, provided only they be young, seems, of course, from the financial standpoint, reckless in the extreme. In reality. however, it is by no means so reckless as it seems; for although the State does actually provide for such of its children as have no relatives, or only relatives who could not be trusted to bring them up properly, excepting in cases of necessity, it does not provide for them at its own expense. On the contrary, it takes very good care that the money it spends on them shall so far as possible be refunded to it. Responsible relatives, i.e., parents and grandparents, must either maintain those dependent on them or defray the cost of their maintenance, if they can do so without depriving themselves of the necessaries of life. On this point Hun

garian law is clear.

And if, being able to maintain them, they refuse to do so, or seek to evade doing so, they commit a crime for which they may be severely punished. The only case in which a child is actually supported at the cost of the community is when both the child itself and its responsible relatives are destitute.

The very day a foundling is placed in a refuge, the authorities begin a regular hunt for its mother, and also for its father, no matter whether it is legitimate or not; and if they find them, a careful examination is made into their circumstances with a view to forcing them to defray the cost of its maintenance. The same steps are taken in the case of every deserted child. When a father hands over his own child to the State, or allows its mother to hand it over, account is taken not only of his means at the time, but of his ability to add to them. So long as his child is in a refuge, he himself is under the surveillance of his local authorities, who are bound to report to the refuge director any change in his circumstances-if being out of work he finds work, or if his wages are raised-so that he may be forced to contribute to its support according to his increased means. When the State relieves worthless parents of the care of their children against their will, it does not relieve them of the expense the care entails. On the contrary, its officials say to them practically: "We cannot trust you to bring up your children properly, we will therefore bring them up for you; but, as this is work you yourself ought to do, you shall pay the cost-we will do the spending, in fact, but you must provide the funds." So far as money is concerned, therefore, a man is under no temptation to part with his child; for unless he is destitute, he loses rather than gains by so doing. For he must defray the full cost of VOL. XXXV. 1823

AGE. LIVING

its maintenance if he can; and if he cannot, he must contribute towards the cost of its maintenance every penny he has after providing himself with bare necessaries. And that cost is, of course, higher if the child is in the keeping of the State than if in his own keeping: for the State provides for its children liberally, whereas needy parents can put them on short

commons.

Besides, and this is an important point, children who are once in the keeping of the State remain there until it can be proved that to restore them to their families would be an advantage both to the community and themselves. A parent cannot deposit his son in a refuge one day and return for him a few days later; for. by depositing him there, he has forfeited his rights as a father. And until he has recovered these rights-and the only way he can recover them is by convincing the Guardianship Tribunal that he has the means, ability and will to do his duty as a father-he has no claim on the boy whatever, and cannot interfere with him in any way, although he must support him if he can. Even from selfish motives, therefore, a parent thinks twice before giving up his children; for, although they are a burden to him in their early days, they may be a valuable help when his own strength fails.

The administration of the Children's Protection Laws is vested in the refuge authorities, under the control of a Home Office department each refuge being the headquarters of the administration for the district in which it stands. The refuge director, who is always a doctor, is personally responsible to the Home/Minister for the wellbeing of the children in his own district; while the manager is responsible for the financial fand household affairs of the refuge. They, like the inspectrico, assistant doctors and other officials,