THE MANUFACTURE OF PAUPERS. Pro Till EDITOR OF TIM “SPEO1ATOR:1
SIR,—The following letter received from a working man to whom I had given a copy of "The Manufacture of Paupers," and whom I had invited to comment thereon, will, I feel sure, interest your readers. I can guarantee the absolute bona fides of the writer. I give this guarantee because the clearness and ability of the style might incline people to believe that the letter was not what it professes to be. I have not "doctored" or "improved" the letter in any way.—I am, Sir, &c.,
ANTI-SOCIALIST.
" DEAR Snt,—The first thing I have to do is to thank you for your kindness in sending me the book, 'The Manufacture of Paupers.' Had you not, however, invited me to write you, I should scarcely have presumed to do so, and even now, my main feeling is one of utmost diffidence. My correspondence has hitherto been confined to occasional letters to personal friends, and I have never before attempted anything in the nature of this letter. If, therefore, it should contain more solecisms than the majority of letters which you are called upon to read, you will, I feel sure, be prepared to make allowances, especially when I say that my education was of the most meagre kind, and that at the ago of eleven I began working and have not so much as attended a night- school since. During that period my working hours have scarcely ever been less than twelve out of every twenty-four, so that even if I had any inclination for self-improvement there has not been much time. Through the kindness of a friend it has been my privilege for some years past to read the Spectator, and when the articles relating to paupers appeared. I was much interested, and my views underwent a decided change. Like many other working people, I had never thought much about the subject, and when any one wrote or spoke against the extravagance associated with the administration of the Poor Laws, I immediately concluded, with the cocksureness peculiar to ignorance, that such writers and speakers were friends of the rich, and consequently enemies of the poor. I think differently now.
With reference to the subjects discussed in the book, most of the ground, so far as argument is concerned, has, I suppose, been covered; it only remains, therefore, for me to emphasise one or two points. The chief objection to the measure for feeding school- children is that the sanctity of home life would be invaded, and our children would be less ours than they are now. I believe I am speaking not only for myself, but for many others, when I say we do not want the State to feed our children ; we would much rather feed them ourselves. For very many of us this involves a struggle, and the constant practice of self-denial, but surely neither we nor our children are any the worse for that ! The fact that our children are altogether dependent upon us is an extra incentive to effort, and we are, as a consequence, better workmen and better citizens in every way. If the responsibility attendant upon the maintaining of children were removed, slack- ness in every direction would be the inevitable result. Having had to provide for a family has been many a man's salvation ; and surely it is nothing less than a man's duty to make provision for those he is the means of bringing into the world; every man worthy of the name is, I am convinced, prepared to do it. Personally I should regard any person or power who came between me and my children as an enemy both to them and me. I wish my children to be my own, not partly mine and partly the State's, and I certainly regard the measure under discussion as being inimical to the best interests of those whom it is designed to benefit.
The most serious part of the charge against the old-age pensions proposals is, of course, that it tends to destroy a man's indepen- dence; and when that has gone there is comparatively little left. If a man be looking forward to the time when he will be main- tained at the expense of somebody else, he has lost his self-respect, and is something less than a man. Should the movement be successful, and old-age pensions become an established fact, there cannot but be a general lowering of the standard of manliness. Nothing, I think, better fits a man for leading a useful life than a sense of personal responsibility, and if that be removed de- moralisation certainly and quickly follows. If only the working classes could be persuaded to do their own thinking, instead of listening to the clap-trap of irresponsible politicians, or even politicians who are not irresponsible, there would, I am sure, be a change for the better all round. But so long as men are content to accept a ready-made political creed because it is easier than honestly thinking out one, the loud- mouthed clamouring for measures like old-age pensions will continue. How any such scheme can be other than injurious, even to those who hope to profit by it, I cannot see. The most important point, however, is the effect, from a moral standpoint, which would certainly be produced. We want something which would assist bad men to become good, and good men to become better, and obviously old-age pensions would not do that. It is matter of common observation and experience that even under existing conditions those who receive most from the State are precisely those who deserve it least; and if provision on a larger scale be made, would not the situation in this respect become very much worse ? Surely it is the duty of the State to do all it can to encourage thrift and industry, but the scheme upon which the Premier and Mr. Asquith have apparently set their imprimatur is better calculated to put a premium upon subterfuge and dis- honesty. It is much to be hoped that the book may be very widely circulated, and that the better sense of the nation may prevail to the final undoing of the measures against which it so ably protests.—Again thanking you for your kindness, I am, yours
Previous page
