[TO THit EDITOR OP MIR "SPECTATOR."]
am not one who rushes blindly into print, but the sweeping assertion by the editor that "all bachelors should pay Super Tax whatever their incomes " is more than I, and surely more than the majority of your readers, can stomach. Consider for a moment those who make an offer and are refused; these, I suppose, are to be exempted on production of suitable evidence, or must they, in the goodness of their hearts, persevere a royal seven times ere release P I say nothing of the noble men who, for reasons such as governed Newman and Lamb, scorn to live luxurious days. On what principle—and the Spectator is among the very few papers that have a mind and use it—on what principle this persecu- tion of the bachelor P It would almost look like spite, the spite of those who " With one sad friend, perhaps a jealous foe,
The dreariest and the longest journey go."
It may be argued by the pious, comfortable married man that no decent fellow meets with a refusal. , He is at liberty to believe what he likes, even to the extent of regarding us as &norm, and if be is illogical enough he can go further and base his argument for taxing our loneliness on this "incapa- bility of salvation."—I am, Sir, &c., COELEBS.
[We never dreamt of fining bachelors for not "getting married." Our proposal was based on the obvious fact that a man with no wife and children to support is able to pay a higher rate of taxation than a man who is a husband and a father. A B, a bachelor with £3,000 a year, is a far richer man than 0 D, a family man with £5,000 a year. —ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
