TOPICS OF THE DAY.
MR. GLADSTONE AND COMPENSATION.
" ISHOULD have been better pleased with the matter of the resolution if my hon. friend [Sir Wilfrid Lawson] had included in it some reference to the principle of equitable compensation. I want nothing more than this,—a frank recognition of the principle that we are not to deny to publicans as a class perfectly equal treatment because we think that their trade is at so many points in contact with and even sometimes productive of great public mischief. Considering the legislative title they have acquired, and the recognition of their position in the pro- ceedings of this House for a long series of years, they ought not to be placed at a disadvantage on account of the particular impression we may entertain, in many cases but too justly, in relation to the mischiefs connected with the present licensing system and the consumption of strong liquors Parliament has for many years been busy in building up a monopoly, and we shall have to deal with the question of the property in public-houses." These words, used by Mr. Gladstone in a debate on Sir Wilfrid Lawson's motion in favour of Local Option made on June 18th, 1880, seem to us to state in the fullest and most reasonable manner possible the principles upon which compensation ought to be awarded to the publican, if local bodies are to receive the power to extinguish his business at will. Mr. Gladstone struck at the very root of the ques- tion when he declared himself in favour of "equal treat- ment" for the owners of public-houses. The publican must receive exactly the same treatment which Parliament would. accord to any other trader whom it dispossessed by legislative enactment of the right to trade. In other words, the sale of intoxicating liquors must not be treated as if it were in its nature an immoral business. Now, if we concede this principle, it is obvious that the publicans must deserve compensation in some shape or other. Suppose a powerful party existed in the Kingdom banded together to put down the plying of omnibuses, because they considered such work entailed cruelty to horses. If Parliament were giving local bodies the right to stop the running of omnibuses in the public streets, would they not be acting rightly in insisting that in case of the prohibition of omnibus traffic, compensation should be paid to the owners of the vehicles and horses ? So, too, if there were any risk of a vegetarian County Council forbidding the sale of meat, or of an anti-tobacconist Municipality abolishing the trade in cigars, all reasonable people would expect Parliament, if it °allowed such action, to provide for compensation to the butchers and tobacconists. We ought, in fact, if we adopt the principle laid down so clearly by Mr. Gladstone in 1880, to regard the publicans exactly as if they were carrying on a trade not open to the abuses which are undoubtedly incidental to the sale of intoxicating liquors, and to estimate the amount of com- pensation which they will be entitled to from the sudden extinguishment of their business, exactly as we should estimate it in the case of tobacconists, butchers, or chemists. While thus recognising to the fullest degree the publican's equitable right to compensation, we think, however, that Parliament, when settling the principle upon which such compensation should be given, ought to keep in view the fact that they are not infringing any actual legal right in the public-house owner, and that, therefore, it is not necessary to adopt a rigid line of action. Where a man's house or land is taken, the compensation must not depend upon how much he gave for his land, but merely upon what he could get for it if the State did not interfere with him,—for his right to his property is here absolute. If, however, the right of carrying on a particular kind of business is all that is infringed, we need only look to the actual out-of-pocket loss of the person affected. In one case, the State must purchase at the market price, regard- less of all external considerations ; in the other, it need merely indemnify from actual pecuniary damage. We have said so much as to Mr. Gladstone's views in 1880, because they seem to us to afford a perfectly fair and reasonable basis upon which to award compensation. Let us now compare them with his views in 1888, as we find them expressed in his address to his visitors at Hawarden last Saturday. Instead of recognising "the principle of equitable compensation," Mr. Gladstone is now—unless his words are to be interpreted in some way different from that in which they have been read by friends and foes alike—entirely against compensation of any sort or kind, and he is prepared to denounce the Liberal Unionists for supporting the Government in their licensing schemes, apparently because he considers such pro- posals as intrinsically opposed to Liberalism. Instead of demanding that there shall be "a frank recogni- tion" of the publican's right "to perfectly equal treat- ment," he now demands that there shall be an equally frank denial of any such right. Whereas in 1880 Mr_ Gladstone declared that we must "deal with the question of the property in public-houses," he now finds "quite intolerable" "the principle of converting a licence into an estate," i.e., recognising "the property in public-houses." We do not, however, specially desire to show that Mr- Gladstone's opinions have undergone a most extraordinary change on the whole question, for the change is as nothing, for suddenness and importance when compared with that on Home-rule, and therefore cannot really surprise us. What we want to do is to state the two views thus expressed by him at different times, and to ask our readers to judge which of them is the wisest and most statesmanlike.
Mr. Chamberlain, in his speech to the deputation of Birmingham licensed victuallers on Tuesday, defended the compromise arrived at in the Government Bill as worthy of acceptance by both sides. In declaring as he did that it ought to be welcomed by the Temperance party as a very liberal concession to their claims, we believe him to have ample justification. The measure goes further in the direction desired by the Temperance party than any that has ever before been presented to Parliament, and, they should surely think twice before they risk the loss of such substantial gains as those involved in the recognition of the principle of Local Option and the right of closing all public-houses on Sundays. Thinking, then, as we do, that the best interests of the Temperance party will be injured if the scheme is simply rejected or abandoned, we cannot help urging again, as we urged last week, that some middle course should be found between the Government proposal and the simple negation of its opponents. If a reasonable scheme for compensating the publicans, while at the same time preventing such compensation from becoming too great an obstacle in the way of getting rid of licences, could be found, we cannot help feeling sure that the Government would adopt it. For instance, if the Tem- perance party are anxious that the existing licences shall not be made inextinguishable for all time, except by the grant of compensation, why do they not propose to fisi a term of years in which compensation shall be paid, or to give the existing licences absolute fixity of tenure, sa long as there is no abuse, for a short number of years,—the grant of such fixity to be regarded as compensation ? Perhaps some proposals in the nature of a compromise- will be made by the total abstainers at the last moment. If they are not, it will be difficult not to think the Temper- ance party more anxious to turn out the present Ministry and to restore Mr. Gladstone to office, than to further their own special aim.
Previous page
