THE UNIONISTS AND SOCIAL REFORM.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR:1 Sir,—La your interesting article in the Spectator of January 26th, on this subject, you say that "it is most unfair to speak as if Mr. Chamberlain wished to embark upon an enormous general scheme of old-age pensions." Why unfair P Mr. Chamberlain has told us that he is not disposed to place any limit on their development. He considers national education an analogous case. " The country began its system of national education with a grant of £20,000 a year, and it is now grant. ing £9,000,000 a year " (speech in House of Commons on Colonel Palmer's Bill, Times, April 5th, 1894). That being so, surely those who cannot accept "the broad principle of State action" in the matter are justified in their efforts to prevent the embarkation.
As a matter of fact, is there any real analogy between Old- Age Pensions and National Education ? The latter was made free because it was compulsory; but you cannot compel a person to live to sixty-five! I must also join issue with you when you say that it is "impossible, or at any rate most diffi- cult, for a working man to make provision for old age. If the young working man does not think it worth his while to make a weekly payment of 21d. to his Friendly Society, neces- sary to secure a pension of 5s. a week after sixty-five, he will scarcely be attracted by the somewhat smaller payment under Mr. Chamberlain's scheme ; and for those who (as the Regis- trar-General of Friendly Societies tells us) " are too poor to pay even the reduced premiums, or too thriftless to feel the reduction an inducement," nothing short of Mr. Charles Booth's universal scheme will be of any use.
One word more. The Friendly Societies are now trying to combine sick, funeral, and old-age benefits together. Will not Mr. Chamberlain's scheme for State interference with the latter branch of insurance (if it be accepted) prevent this most desirable consummation?
Finally, as a strong Unionist, and as one who has worked hard for the cause in this county, may I be allowed to express my regret that the Unionist party should give old-age pensions a place on its platform, especially in view of the fact that the
Report of the Royal Commission on the Aged Poor has not yet been published.—I am, Sir, &c., W. CHANCE,
Hon. Sec. Surrey Liberal Unionist Association.
Wharfendcn, Frimley, Surrey, January 28th.
Previous page
