RELIEVING THE POOR.
London, 6th March 1856.
Sm—As the question of Poor-relief has lately been exciting some notice, perhaps you will permit one who has been practically involved in its diffi- culties to say a few words upon it.
The ordinary feeling in the minds of the rich probably is, that if they can screw themselves up to such a height of virtue as to contribute a donation, the difficulty of the matter is entirely overcome, and the rest will proceed delightfully, and a charitable feat have been accomplished. To that extent, no doubt, a good deal is done at the present day. If it is made known that there is temporary suffering anywhere, the chances are that a considerable sum of money will be contributed tolls relief. I do not in the least agree with the general opinion tharthis is an age of peculiarly unrestricted benevolence : on the contrary, ram inclined to think that there never was a time, among Christians, when the selfish proportion of expenditure was so large and the public or charitable so small. But that large sums are readily raised for the relief of the destitute, I am quite prepared to acknowledge. But now, follow this money. Let us take the poorer parts of London, for Which much sympathy has been excited. Perhaps the ten-pound note is sent to a Police Magistrate. Is there anything very satisfactory in drawing &MN of poor people to hang about a police court, wasting their time and growing hardened and shameless, the more respectable feeling that they are confounding themselves with the mere importunate beggar, for the chance of
a driblet of that money ? If I had the tea pounds to give, I should hesitate some time before I set it to do that work. But then there are the parochial clergy ; " send it to them." It is as one of them that I wish to offer a few remarks.
We find that even strangers have recourse to us, to a considerable extent. The slight threatenings of bread-riots loosed many purse-strings. I have had as much as 1801. placed in my hands, unconditionally, this winter, to distribute ; and I might have had more. The question we have to ask our- selves is, can we do this work so satisfactorily as the confiding public evi- dently expect ? Now Lord Stanley and others assure us that the voluntary principle is coming in triumphantly. When it does come many clergymen will be spared a great deal of trouble. While it is only coming, the bene- volent, and all manner of official persons, are acting on the belief that the parochial system is working efficiently. My business is to protest that it is not. Mauy parishes in London, under a single incumbent—I believe most of those in the poorer parts—contain populations of varying amount above 10,000, and even exceeding 30,000. Is it not a mockery, when you think of it, to suppose that a clergyman can carry out the old parochial theory with such a cure of souls ? His income, let me add, will probably be be- tween 2001. and 3004 a year. It may be said that he will be reinforced by district visitors and numberless societies. No doubt, a successful clergyman, by agitating the public and teasing societies sufficiently, may obtain a staff of Readers and Visitors. But all this will depend on the voluntary principle;
and when the successful clergyman leaves the parish, this staff will disap- pear like a gipsy camp. So that it will not do to assume this assisting body.
Well then, if the minister of a parish of 15,000 or 20,000 souls receives
money to distribute under a particular pressure, what will be the result ? I say, there is imminent danger of more harm than good being done by it.
It excites a crowd of greedy applicants ; the clergyman is overwhelmed by the difficulties of this special task, and is obliged to neglect his ordinary work. It would not be worth while complaining that he is exhausted with labour and anxiety ; I am only trying to test the effect produced. The poor naturally cling to the parochial theory, so far as it holds out any advantages to them ; every person in the parish thinks that of course the minister is bound to give due attention and consideration to his ease; and, equally of course, those who are neglected feel hurt.
This is only one aspect of the unhappiness created by setting a man down with a scanty pittance among tens of thousands and charging him with the
pastoral supervision of them. It is strange to me, being in such a position, that the country treats us so. We believe that our calling puts it in our power to be very useful to the country ; we acknowledge that you have a right to impose a hundred tasks upon us; only for the sake of the work to be done, let us not be so absurdly over-tasked.
I would say to the rich especially, don't send us these trumpery dona- tions, and flatter yourselves that your benevolence is unexampled. Do what will cost you ten times or fifty times the money and labour. See that the neglected parts of your great city are better organized and cared for. See that there is no court ill paved or undrained. See that every poor person has a spiritual friend to whom he has a right to go, and who will have time
to listen to him. See that the daughters of the poor, as well as yours: shall be able to go down their street without jostling Levee and prostitutes.
This will be relieving the poor in earnest. Get this done by Parliament, if you prefer it, and if you can; but there are other ways of helping the work forward. Only, if you expect clergymen to be of any use, as you appear to do, and if you know of no better way of consecrating your means to the service of God and your country, at least do not leave this undone.
Previous page
