DEMORALISING DOLES.

DILEMMA FOR MINISTERS OVER MONEY

THE demoralising effect of doles is admitted by every competent authority. Fatal to the State which bestows them, they are no less harmful to the character of those who receive them. This is not the experience of one century only, but of all; the truth of the generalisation is not affected by nationality or colour. And yet this commonplace of the historian is too often neglected or ignored by the politician when he finds himself placed in the dilemma which coni routs the country to-day. What are Ministers to do? They know that if they dip their hand into the Treasury for the sake of giving doles to millions they will demoralise the recipients and impoverish the State; but on the other hand, how can they allow people to starve who are out of work through no fault of their own. The choice is a foregone conclusion in a democratic country where the Government is keenly sensitive to public opinion and popular clamour, and where the Minister who seeks to limit the amount of the dole to what is sufficient for subsistence only is at once denounced as a niggardly and heartless being, callous to the distresses of the poor. At present, as everyone is aware, relief is being given to the unemployed on a far more generous scale than elsewhere in the whole world, and yet almost the only voices which are heard in respect of that relief are those raised in denunciation of its so-called miserable inadequacy. There are no thanks.

CALL FOR INCREASE

The shrillest cry is for a large and immediate increase. Parliament was assured by the spokesmen of the Labour party that the apprehensions of demoralisation were overdone, and that not more than a very small proportion of the people would sponge on the taxpayer’s bounty. We regret that such is not the experience of those best qualified to judge. From many sides one hears of cases of deliberate shirking. It is even claimed that every man has the right ins to judge whether he will work or not, and still, if he chooses to remain idle, to take the dole. Let us give a few examples in illustration. It is said that recruiting for the Army is at a very low ebb. The figures have fallen ned from 1,100 to 600 a week, and the explanation is to be found in the dole. In the old days recruiting was most brisk when trade was worst, and it used to be said that Sergeant Hunger was the best recruiting sergeant of them all. Whether that was a creditable state of things or not need not be argued. The soldier’s pay in those days was grossly inadequate; he was taught nothing which fitted him for his civilian life to follow. But to-day his conditions and pay are wonder fully improved; his opportunities for learning a trade or craft are as full as can be desired; and his prospects, if he wants to make the Army his career, are excellent. What justification, therefore, is there for making doles to strapping young men when the Army is short of recruits!

At Glasgow the other day it was found that in one building, where three families were living, one of the men was at work on the railway and earning 48s a week. The two other heads of families were out of work, but their unemployment pay and other allowances for their wives and children brought them in 42s a week each. The result was that the man who was at work talked of throwing up his job, on the ground that he would be only six shillings a week worse off if he did nothing. A new phrase, indeed, has been coined in connection with any offer of casual employment, “It won’t pay me to get out of bed for that.” Unfortunately this represents the truth, for what temptation is there to accept one or two days’ work if by so doing a man disqualifies himself for his dole? Nor is it men only who have fallen easy victims to these degenerating influences. Many women have succumbed with the same facility. The distracted housewife may apply, in vain to all the agencies for such domestic help as she requires.

Consequently, the dole is pauperising that large section of the community which is only too ready to sink without effort into lazy subsistence on the money which falls into its lap in return for the effort of fetching it. This is sheer injustice to the taxpayer, but it is still more to the detriment of the industrious workman on whose shoulders a large share of the burden really falls. Distress there certainly is in many deserving homes and there has been a grievous loss of accumulated savings, among workingclass families; but it should not be forgotten that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated that his Budget estimates both for Customs and Excise were being fully realised, and that both were doing “wonderfully well.” That can only mean that there is no falling off in the amounts spent by the masses upon their alcohol and their tobacco as well as upon their tea and sugar, which, considering the state of trade, is a most surprising circumstance.