THE SEIZURE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. [To THE EDITOR OF THE
" SPECTATOR."]
Sus—Since 1917 the property of companies and of private individuals has been seized by Government Departments for national use, and rent has been refused to the unfortunate owners. Does the nation really want this to be done, and does the nation think that confiscation of property, even if only for a few years, is honourable or in its best interests ? I will give two instances known to myself :— A.—A widow with a son in the Army owns two houses, th.s result of forty years' hard work on her late husband's part and her own, and her sole source of income. One of these was seized by a Government Department and returned to her last October, and the owner has received no rent since 1917 and nu compensation for the great damage done.
B.—A married lady owns two houses, seized in 1917 and still retained, and has also received no rent, though the houses could be readily let or sold.
This kind of confiscation may be legal, but does the nation approve of a law whieli may reduce any one suddenly to
liWe.assume that it is intended ultimately to pay compensa- tion. At least we hope so for the honour of the Government. But in such eases as our correspondent describes the delay is very cruel. The company owning De Keyser's Hotel brought a successful action, but pool. private persons cannot afford to light the Crown.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
