OUR POOR.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXIII, Issue 3042, 26 April 1867, Page 4

OUR POOR.

To the Editor of the Daily Sottthmn Ciois. Sib, — I noticed in your paper of yesterday a letter from "A Roman Catholic Orphan," which appeared to me to be of an improper and disrespectful nature. The proper party to whom he ought to have applied in the first instanoe for an explanation was surely the Bishop himself or some of hi« clergy, who are at all times accessible to their flock. The fact is, the Bishop's treasury, like the Provincial treasury, contains but very little cash I presume at the present moment. He must make the most of his slender means. The whole subject of the management of our poor and destitute is one calling for careful study. For my own part I strongly object to the common fashion of the Btate taking in hand to provide for our poor. The support and management of poor, destitute, and sick persons is not the duty of the Civil Government of any country. This is a religious, not apolitical office. The Civil Govern* ment has plenty to do in fulfilling its own proper functions —to make and administer laws for the I protection of our lives, property, and liberty. It ought to leave the offices of religion and charity to private persons, to ministers of religion, and to others who may voluntarily undertake such duty. A congregation of Christians of any denomination is bound in conscience to provide for their destitute member?, as muoh as they are bound to provide for their clergy, I apprehend. It will not do-to plead inability. There is abundant proof to show that in most cases such plea is insincere or hypocritical. The knowledge that they can turn their poor over to the State, to be provided for out of the public treasury, is one chief means of extinguishing Christian charity in every congregation, or chilling it. if not quenching it outright. The history of the English poor lawi and their degrading influence on the Eaglish masses ought to prove a warning to us in this new country. Every educated Englishman knows when the present English system of providing for the poor by State agency began, and what created the necessity for it. There was a time when the necessities of the English poor, both physical and spiritual, were amply provided for by the voluntary bounty of pious and wealthy peisons. Then there was no necessity for the interference of the State in this pious work. But this oondition of things no longer exists. We all know how the patrimony of the English poor was violently seized upon by avaricious men under certain pretences. Hence arose that necessity for State charity in England, which has existed ever since, and which has been for three centuries, and is now, the fertile source of ill will between the poor and rich, and among the rich themselves even. Death from starvation is quite a common thing in England now. The horrors of a modern English almshouse too often exceed the horrors of the worst of prisons, yet we have many among us here in influential places who advocate the introduction amongst us of the principle of the Eng* lish poor law. — I have, &c, A Catholic Parent,