Morning journal and courier., 1880-06-18
The Disadvantage of Wealth.
In the Bringing up of Children.


 tFrom the London Spectator.1
 We have no doubt whatever that, in this generation more especially, the well-to-do have much more difficulty in bringing up their children than the strugglers have For merly, this was not so much the case be- cause the necessity for strong discipline was so thoroughly acknowledged that it was main talned almost without an effort, and the habit of obedience was enforced by practically ir- reslstible authority. But the speciality of to- day IS to concede freedom in all directions and especially freedom to children and those who subordinate. Discipline in any strong form is, among large classes and over great tracts of the world, nearly dead. The bad effects of that change-we do not mean the change from severity to kindiness, but the change from studious government to con- parative inattention-is very great, but is partly concealed by the fact that poverty acts as disciplining atmosphere. It fixes condi- tions rigidly. The girl must learn to do her own dress making, or go untidy. The boy must go to work, or there will not be enough, and to that particular work, for only the rich have much choice of occupations. Economy is imperative for the money is not there and no training in lf-sacrifc acts daily, hourly, momently, like compulsory economy The will is compressed by the facts of life and becomes at once strong and pliable, like leath- CT. With the rich, that discipline is absent, and cannot be artifcially produced; and the JouhS i4oNO Oh1y SOAAoSlOuS III bAo athletes sense, from direct authority, which, said, it is the tendency of the age to relax. The result is not only that the pas sions, especially the passion of self-will grow too strong, though that is so clear to have become truism; but that among both good and bad certain bonelessness of character is apparent, certain indisposition to endure, or to form strong purposes as to the work of life, a certain want not so much of energy of decision and pertinacity. The children of the strugglers very often fail utterly, either from inherent defects of character or from insuperable obstacles of position; but more of them win than the children of the well of, and, taken body, they have stronger and finer characters. As their children grow up, the well-to-do find them more burdensome, more difficult to manage, more troublesome to ''settle, " than the poorer do; are more anxious for their future and more displeased with their defects of character and conduct, which, indeed, from the absence of the pres sure of circumstances, are much greater. With the very rich, anxiety about their chil- ren, crosses of different kinds inflicted by them, and their frequent total failures, make up, we believe, definite and separate source of pain and even with the well-off, greatly increase the burden of life, just at time when burdens most anxiously avoided. A man has not gained much in the struggle of life whose children are profigate, babyish, characterless, or given up to selfishness; and that is far more often the lot of the rich than of the poor, and constitutes at least one true ''pinch of wealth.