26 APRIL 1935, Page 19

PERSONAL LUXURY AND.. PUBLIC NEED

[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] SIR,—There arc three considerations not always taken into account by critics of expenditure on " luxuries " : (1) that many thousands of people are employed in making arid distributing them; (2) that a large proportion of their price goes into the public exchequer as indirect taxation, and (3) that out of this same public exchequer vastly more assistance is now given to poorer citizens than was the case 100 or even 50 years ago.

But for (1), even more of us would be " on the dole than is at present the case. Possibly we could employ the cigarette makers more usefully ; Nit until we are ready to do so, we may be thankful that they are saved from the cle- inoi:alization of idleness. But for (2), we should have to tax land, houses .and incomes more heaVil,V than we do. C'ertain increases in this direction would I think be a desirable reform.

But' for (3), the health, education, and pensioning of those unable to provide these services for themselves would remain the tasks of the charitable " instead of being shared by all who are able to undertake them. Nobly as that burden was shouldered by many of our forefathers, I cannot but rejoice in its more even distribution in our oWntinie. A reversion' to the older system is in fact impracticable.

The " charitable " may not unfairly submit that of their potential giving a large proportion is anticipated in the rates and taxes they contribute for public services. It seems unfortunate that " charity " should be reckoned so largely in terms of money. I should like to see all the services now provided by " charity " financed by the whole community in proportion to individual means, but administered by men and women who voluntarily and, if possible, gratuitously, undertook the work for the love of-humanity and of God. .

• But whilst the succour of the needy, aged, and sick, and the training of the young are being more and more recognized as a " moral obligation " of the whole community, a Christian as such has two further claims on his resources : the mainten- ance of the Ministry, and the spread of the Gospel. And here I must express my complete sympathy with Canon Lyttelton's plea for a limitation of expenditure On "

Even though much of that expenditure is doing work which would otherwise be left to " charity," a Christian will do well in cutting it down, so that these primary and essential services may not suffer. Suppose, indeed,- that through the starving of Christian Missions in the Far East the mind of China fell under the domination of Lenin. That would be a " fact " which Mr. Evans, along with the rest of us, would have to " face." That he would find it to his liking, I can scarcely