THE BUDGET.
ITo THE EDITOR OP THE " SPECTATOR.''] SIR,—I admire the way in which you stick to your principles, and I admit that those principles are sound, but are you not a little bard on our Free-trade Chancellor of the Exchequer in last week's Spectator ? As a former M.P. for a good many years, I can testify to the (possibly deplorable) fact that all parties were committed to the principle of old-age pensions. If that be correct, can we blame the present Government for securing that which an eminent Unionist, Mr. Chamberlain, taught us to strive for ? My belief in our Free-trade system is so great that I hope we may stand the strain of a moderate old-age pension scheme without deviating from a Free-trade policy. All is not lost. If the old-age pension scheme had become —to use a phrase of another eminent Unionist—" inevitable," may we not hope that the blunder may be modified by a carefully considered reform of the Poor Law after Lord George Hamilton's Commission has reported ? For instance, although a person to be eligible for a pension must not be in receipt of Poor Law relief, yet in the course of a year or two many (and when the age-limit is lowered very many more) would in all probability have become chargeable to the parish. My point is, will there not be something saved to the State when such old people, instead of being maintained in expensive workhouses, will be enabled to live in fair comfort with their friends on the pension ?—I am, Sir, &c.,
FREE-TRADE UNIONIST.
[We do not despair of the ultimate victory of Free-trade, but we fear that the tremendous strain which old-age pensions will place on our fiscal system will give the Protectionists just the opportunity they need. Possibly we may just avoid the precipice; but even if we do, that will not excuse the driver from having run a risk so terrible. It is also possible that the coach will go over, and that we shall take many years in repairing it, and caring the broken limbs of the passengers.— ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
