132 SECTIONAL ADDRESSES. 



which ' Births beyond the sanctioned number would receive no recogni- 

 tion ' ('Free Thought,' p. 444). Nor would objection v. be valid 

 against Professor W. McDougall's proposal to differentiate in favour of 

 the T>etter breeds ' (' National Decay '). 



21, par. 11. The origin and features O'f the Australian plans for the 

 endowment of children are described in the Economic Journal, 1921, 

 by Professor Heaton. (See also Miss Eleanor Eathbone's description 

 of the South Australian scheme in that Journal, 1922.) Justice 

 Higgins's classical decision in 1907 had defined as a ' fair and reason- 

 able ' minimum or ' living ' wage one which provided for ' the normal 

 needs of the average employee regarded as a human being living in a 

 civilised community ' ; these needs including the support of a wife and 

 three children. In 1920 it was found (by the Eoyal Commission on 

 the Cost of Living), partly by taking account of the rise in prices, 

 partly through the use of statistics not available to Justice Higgins in 

 1907, that to cany out his ideal of a living wage there would be required 

 a much higher figure than he had fixed, no less than 51. 16s. weekly 

 for the average adult male worker. Now, as pointed out by the 

 Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Piddington, there being in Australia 

 (in round numbers) a million workers, the resources of the country 

 would not be sufficient to furnish an average wage of this amount. 

 But he added that so high a wage would not be required in order to 

 make provision for children. Say there were 900,000 dependant 

 children in all, and that 12s. a week was an adequate provision for each 

 child. By giving the average workman enough to support three children 

 provision would be made for supporting three million children — above 

 two million ' phantom children ' in addition to the actual numbers. 

 Accordingly he proposes to fix 4L as the basic wage sufficient to sup- 

 port man and wife v/ithout children, and to make provision for the 

 children by a tax of so much per employee, payable by the employer. 



Suppose now (as in the text above) that the children's fund is raised 

 by (associations of) the workers themselves. The Australian statistics 

 enable us to form an idea of the quota which would be required from 

 each member. On Mr. Piddington 's reckoning it was thought reason- 

 able that, while a million times 41. per week accrued to the workers, 

 900,000 X 12s. should be provided for the children. Supposing, then, 

 that the whole of the provision came directly out of the workers' hands 

 (4L remaining for the use of man and wife), this would mean that on 

 an average the worker contributed to the children's fund 10.8s. out of 

 a wage of 90.8s., that is, about 11 per cent. The proportion might be 

 applied to actual earnings, as distinguished from a legal minimum, in 

 other countries (with correction if necessary for a difference in the pro- 

 portion of young children to adult men). The provision for children 

 would not be so generous as that demanded by the Endowment Com- 

 mittee. But it would avoid some of the objections to their scheme. 



