" TOMMY'S " MOTHER.
The object of this interesting experiment in Separation Allowances is to keep the home going as it was before the soldier's enlistment, and at the same standard, neither better nor, within the maximum limit, worse off than before. There is no income limit or character test among those who apply. However prosperous a family maybe, if it has lost money through the enlistment of one of its members, it can claim up to that amount, although, of course, the family circumstances are of importance as a rule in arriving at a decision.
Mrs. Jones may be a notoriously bad character and her home be all that a home should not be, but if son George gave eighteen shillings and only cost twelve shillings, she is entitled to the odd six shillings none the less. We may consider carefully whether George was likely to give so large a sum to a mother who cared so little for his comfort, but if we finally decide that he did, she has her six shillings. Similarly, we find Mrs. Smith struggling to bring up a large family on an income which works out at an average of three shillings a head for food, but if son Jens did not, on account of family circumstances, contribute liberally at home, then neither can the Government, for the State takes up the burden laid down by the soldier at his country's call, not a heavier one, and it is not responsible for any poverty not caused by the demands of the Army. The rise alike in wages, particularly the wages of boys and young men, and in prices since 1914 has, of course, enor- mously increased the payments actually made by the sons in working-class homes. This complicates the position in regard to the dishonest. Every one who had experience of household budgets before the war knows that the payments of sons were widely different from those which are now unhesitatingly entered on Separation Allowance forms, but the Investigator has to con- sider whether home circumstances and the soldier's wages (verified whenever possible) account for this alleged payment. Conditions are changing rapidly, and there is added this constant element of fraud, which upsets the best-laid plans of the State, and which perhaps causes the Investigator to suspect the unusual story of the honest Mrs. Robinson because the palpable lie of the slippery Mrs. Smith is yet in her ears. As I once said to a woman who had grossly deceived me, and with whom I fear I was more angry than discreet, " It is the women who do this who make it hard for the honest ones to get their rights." The writer confesses that her several years of social experience, learned in no sentimental school. had not prepared her for the quality and quantity of the lies which are told over these variable Separation Allowances. Having long admired the working-man's wife, as all who know her must do, have discovered a loss pleasant trait in the skill and ease with which she lies on these subjects. " Natural," perhaps some one may say. Perhaps, but sadly disappointing from the point of view of good citizenship. Over and over again are our claimants contradicted out of their own mouths by a comparison of their Separation Allowance declarations with their previous statements to the Relieving Officer, to the Old Age Pensions Officer, to the District Visitors or Charitable Committee, Soldiers' and Sailori Families Association, or the Prince of Wales's Fund.
" George pays ten shillings for board and lodging," says Mrs. Brown to the Relieving Officer. " Eighteen shillings, Miss, and buys his own dinners," she says with equal glibness to the Investi- gator, who probably compromises on fourteen shillings as a likely sum. One old body who had told the Relieving Officer that her son was mentally defective and gave "sixpence now and then," claimed when he had enlisted that he had given ten shillings for part board (at a date when, in a very poor household, there could be a profit on that). She was much put out of countenance when asked for an explanation. " That is awkward," she said naively; " I never thought the parish would interfere ! " Our own ex- perience over the claims on different sons is most enlightening. The Investigator calls in April re son John, said to have given sixteen shillings. In putting down the family income she finds son Tom only giving ten shillings. " What a big difference, Mrs. Smith," she says doubtfully ; " wasn't there trouble with the boys, one giving so much more than the other ? Why should it all fall on John ? " " Well, Miss, Tom don't earn such a lot and he ain't got such a good heart—there's a difference in boys." In view of this undoubted fact, the Investigator probably puts John down at fourteen shillings and departs, having ascertained that the stingy Tom is exempt from military service. A few months pass, Tom loses his badge and is called to the Colours, and lo ! on his mother's declaration-form appears the statement that he gave his mother sixteen shillings, or even eighteen shillings, " such a good son was he." "Why, you told me he only gave you ten shil- lings." " Well, Miss, it must have been just after you called that he raised me," and she is probably dissatisfied when the larger figure is not made the basis of the assessment.
I once chanced to revisit in one day two families whom 1 had seen before about other sons, and I had then taken particulars of the contributions of the rest of the family—in one case the payment of the second soldier had doubled, while the next was claiming on a son who had simply been suppressed altogether on my first calling. The suppressed son who only comes to light when he enlists is a great difficulty. What is to be done with him ? Possibly the claim on his brother has been over-assessed ; certainly an incorrect report of the family was then made, and the Investigator feels doubtful whether such an elusive young man really was a per- manent member of the household. In one case the claim on such a son (previously suppressed) was disallowed, and the woman appealed against the decision. Reluctantly enough, I called on her again, and am bound to admit that she scored off me neatly. " Well, Miss, I don't see as I did anything so very bad, but I was sorry for you, it did look as if you had done your work so badly ! " The gleam in her eye made me sure she had been rehearsing this • speech for days, and would doubtless tell the story to her friends for many more, ae indeed did the Investigator, by whom such incidents were treasured as making up for much else in a difficult task. I ought to be careful, in speaking of these difficulties, to say that many of the mothers are entirely honest, and that most of my claimants showed me a courtesy, and sometimes a friendliness, that will always remain a pleasant memory of war work " along
Previous page
