[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—In her reply Lady
Astor evades my points altogether. Her statement was that the Liquor (Popular Control) Bill had been attacked on account of the provision for an annual insurance premium of 21,000,000, which sum she has " corrected " to 12,000,000. The alteration does not meet my criticism. I repeat that the Bill contains no such pro- vision, and that the compensation levies, at present round about 1850,000 a year, would be increased, not to 11,000,000 or 12,000,000, but to a sum incomparably greater.
What can be the business man's opinion of a compulsory so-called " insurance " scheme which, though it involve! very much larger premiums than those hitherto paid, affords no guarantee that if death occurs within the first thirteen years the insurer will receive the benefit of the policy ; while if he is fortunate (or unfortunate) enough to survive that period, he is bound, as long as he lives, to continue the annual premium notwithstanding the fact that the policy definitely provides that on his demise he will receive no benefit ?
Lady Astor tries to disparage criticisms which she has challenged but failed to counter by calling me a Die-Hard. Whatever may be the nature of my end, my present position in this matter is that of a plain man trying to deal with figures and facts contained in a Bill of singular complexity, the provisions of which have evidently not been mastered by the lady herself.—I am, Sir, &c., F. P. WHITBREAD. 5 Upper Belgrave Street.
Previous page
