[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECT/T0/1:"1 SIE,—Your attitude towards
the Insurance Bill is extremely puzzling. For months past you have advocated an insurance scheme on contributory lines. You have always severely criticized the Government because they framed their schemes of old-age pensions on lines that were not contributory. You must be fully aware that it means a good deal of courage on the part of a Government nowadays to ask for weekly contributions towards a great social benefit. They are certain to be attacked—as they are now being attacked— by the Socialists. But they can scarcely have expected that the Socialists would be assisted by the individualists ! Is that a course which is safe even for the individualists theniselves ? Is it not likely that if you should succeed in defeating this scheme that result will act as a warning against any Govern- ment attempting to deal with this question on contributory lines F—I am, Sir, &c., HasoLD SPENDER. 47 Campden House Court, Gloucester Walk, W.
[We are not against but for a sound and reasonable scheme of compulsory thrift—i.e., contributory insurance—but we are determined to do all we can to resist a badly planned and therefore inefficient and unjust measure being forced through Parliament with indecent haste. The Bill, if proper time be given for its consideration, may possibly be made workable and just, but this cannot be done at the fag-end of the Session in the intervals of a great constitutional crisis.—En. Spec- tator.]
Previous page
