COMPNSATION IN ENGLAND.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume IX, Issue 693, 18 June 1903, Page 22

COMPNSATION IN ENGLAND.

THE BILL IN COMMONS.

The principle of compensation for the confiscation of licenses was affirmed in the House of Commons on April 24 by a majority of two to one —266 to 133. The vote was on the second reading of Mr Butcher’s Bill to create a trade compensation fund for the non-renewal of licenses, and Mr Balfour, Mr Chamberlain, and Mr Walter Long emphatically urged the House to support the Bill for the sake of the principle it embodied. Mr Butcher opened the debate by explaining the details of his Bill. To destroy property without compensation was jp manty’ cases an action more worthy of a band of marauders than of a civilised State. ' .xu Compensation should be paid for the fair value of the house and the goodwill, and the nioney for this purpose should he provided out of contributions from the trade assisted by Exchequer grants from the direct taxation of liquor. The rejection of the Bill was moved by Mr Whittaker, who said that the Government themselves had admitted that there were too many publichouses, and they increased the temptations to drunkenness. There was no legal claim to compensation, and the licenseholder was reminded of the risk that he ran every year when he applied for renewal. Then up got that doughty knight of temperance, Sir Wilfrid Lawson, and everyone cheered to see the old warrior in his place again. “ As a new member ” he began, and the House shouted with laughter, for it was nearly half a century ago that Sir W. Lawson made his maiden speech—“ I have been down at Camborae defending the integrity and independences of British Magistrates, and my return is Cambourne s answer to the Prime Minister’s bullying of the liquor trade, he added, were putting a pistol at the head of the Government, with a demand for their life or the money of the country. Who wouldn’t like to save his skin by BO ? ie ' one else’s money ? ” asked Sir Wilfrid. A still livelier speech came from Dr. Hutchinson, the new Liberal member for Rye, who declared that he had been sent there pledged to vote for compensation, and begged someone, amid the laughter of the House, to tell him what to do for the Bill seemed to him as fantastic

an arrangement as trying to stop ehe tides. Dr. Hutchinson was more than once greeted with cries of “ Order ! ” for addressing the House as “ gentlemen.” He apologised, remarking, amid renewed laughter, that it was most difficult for a new member to remember that there was one thing he must never call members of the House, and that was “ gentlemen.” , Mr Walter Long opened fire by declaring that as the Bill affirmed the principle of compensation, the Government could not ask members not to support it. Immemorial custom, he declared, had given a right of property in a license, which should not be taken away without compensation. Mr Asquith replied that the Opposition refused to be tied to this Issue. The case of Sharpe v. Wakefield, he declared, had made it plain that the law gave the justices full discretion. He suggested that the survivors should give a solatium from the increased value of their licenses to those who were deprived of their holdings. But he denounced the Bill as it stood as limiting the discretion of the magistrates by the amount of compensation fund. Mr Balfour made great play of the word “ solatium.” “ The right hon. gentleman,” he said, “ is going to vote against the Bill because he dislikes the word solatium. He does not know on which side of the fence he is. Perhaps the hon. member for Camborne, be said, turning to Sir W. Lawson, “ is satisfied with the term solatium.” “ I won’t have anything to do with ‘ solatium,’ ” cried Sir Wilhfrid, and the House roared with delight. Mr Balfour concluded by once more giving his support to compensation. Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman said that the Opposition would vote against the Bill because it limited the discretion of the magistrates. The Prime Minister s speeches, he said, were a skit on the magistrates of the country. Then came Mr Chamberlain, crystallising the debate in a sentence. It is the practice on second reading,” he said, “to deal with the main principle of a Bill. Those who vote against it will vote against compensation, and those who advocate a solatium and do so, are neither fish, fowl, non good red herL ’Arid the second reading was thereupon carried by a majority of 133 just the number of those who voted against it.