[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,--- I have read Mr.
A. J. Ellison's letter in your issue of May 21st, and being one of the parties chiefly concerned— that is, being a " working man "—I shall be grateful if you will permit me space in which to reply.
Mr. Ellison says Even the lowest paid worker can afford to have five children." Assuming that this is not a joke, will Mr. Ellison tell us how it is done ? Will he take the wages of, say, a London engineer—I2 19s. per week (let him add, if he wishes, lls. to that for possible overtime, making it up to the princely sum of /3 10s.)- and then divide up that sum— leaving out all extras such as holidays,.-little treats for the children, provision for old age, &c., &e.—showing how he would house, feed, and clothe two adults and five children on seventy shillings ? If Mr. Ellison will cogitate in the fastnesses of the Oxford and Cambridge Club for awhile, I think that he will confess he has made a mistake.
To get, however, to bed-rock, Mr. Ellison and his supporters seem to infer that the worker owes a duty to the State, that duty being to breed. Let us consider how the State performs its duty to the worker. If I lose my work what does the State supply ? Not enough to buy prison fare. 'If I fall ill what do I get, apart from such provisions as I may make myself ? Not enough to keep body and soul together. If I die will the Widow and Orphan Pension Fund be enough to support life ?
No, Sir ! If the State wants children let it look after those it has. When the orphanages and children's hospitals are crying out for charity, I for one am not going to give to the State yoimg lives for it to waste.
Finally, one notices that those who clamour for the workers to increase and multiply are generally the employers of labour who delight in a plentiful supply and the consequent beating down of wages. We doubt their honesty of purpose.—I am,
Sir, &c., GEORGE BERNER.
Oakdale, Crescent Road, Shepperton.
Previous page
