THE WAR AND LUXURIES.
[To THE EDITOR or TER " SPICCTATOR."]
SIR,—Pardon me for protesting against the suggestion con. tamed in the end of your article on "The War Loan" in Last week's Spectator (which so often fails to convince on account of its magisterial language) calling people " silly " who advocate continuance of expenditure on luxuries. Take, for example, a silversmith's factory, where the great portion of the male hands are men over the age of recruiting, and where employment is found for even more women than men. Do you honestly suggest that people should without question cut off all buying of silversmiths' wares (for they are absolute luxuries), and so throw out of employment hundreds of deserving people over the recruiting age ? No one will question your right to advise people to live quietly and be moderate in their expenditure, giving freely where able, but to call people "silly" is apt to irritate some of your readers who have perhaps as good opportunities as you, if not better than you, of judging the situation from some standpoints.
Money given by way of subscription is generally given because its loss will not be felt, or sometimes because it is an easy way to salve the conscience without giving trouble to the giver; and, again, in some instances because it gives the donor pleasure to have his name advertised as a benefactor, with. out the giver knowing exactly what good it is to do. But in times like these blindly to advocate the cutting off of buying all luxuries entails a hardship on many deserving hands who have not the glamour of war cast around them, and are obliged to suffer in silence. Neither will they'll.
helped by such suggestions as are contained in the part of your article referred to.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Holmwood, Ecclesall, Sheffield. WALTER P. DELK.
Previous page
