v^ 
 
 THE 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY PROVIDENCE 
 
 COMIENSATION. 
 
 WITH\ HISTORICAL REFERENCES, 
 
 BY 
 
 EDWARD PEARSON, 
 
 PRICE TWOPENCE. 
 
 LONDON : SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, & CO. 
 
 MANCHESTER: A. IRELAND & CO. 
 
 UNITED KINGDOM ALLIANCE, 44, JOHN DALTON STREET.
 
 THE PARLIAMENTARY PROVIDENCE OF 
 COMPENSATION. 
 
 WITH HISTOEICAL REFERENCES. 
 
 TN these days, when, to use Mr. Disraeli's words, written eight 
 -*- years ago, "every trade is harassed, every profession worried, 
 and every institution menaced," which (as we will add) is not 
 founded on the principles of justice between man and man — when, 
 in fact, no inveterate abuse is spared solely on the score of its 
 inveteracy ; those who are unable to appreciate the fact that the 
 poiuer to do an injurious act does not confer the right to do it, — 
 even though no law expressly forbids it, — view with uneasy 
 feelings the onward march within the nation of those sentiments 
 of justice towards the oppressed, which menace every institution, 
 proved by experience to be a source of any abuse or injustice. 
 
 When public opinion reaches to such a height, that almost all 
 who are pecuniarily interested in the perpetuation of the present 
 state of things are compelled to see that some change is imminent, 
 one most certain cry is raised by them and their friends, at first in 
 the hope of staying the ons weeping movement of public condem- 
 nation, and when that hope fails, the same cry is urged with the 
 earnestness of despair : '' If you take from us our rights [they 
 ought to say ' our power'], we must be compensated." 
 
 This cry was raised ninety years ago, when the African Slave 
 Trade to the West Indies, with the horrors of the Middle Passage, 
 was assailed, and ultimately abolished. 
 
 It was raised again when, in 1823, Canning's Eesolutions for 
 the Amelioration of the Condition of West Indian Slaves passed 
 the House of Commons : " If you take from us our right (1) to 
 work our slaves to death, you must compensate us." 
 
 It was raised again, in 1833, when Colonial Slavery was 
 abolished ; and to-day Irish landlords, no longer allowed to rack-
 
 rent their tenants, and then by eviction to secure the fruit of their 
 toil, join in the cry : " Our rights (!) are taken away, we must be 
 compensated." 
 
 So again the Licensed Victuallers, observing the fast-rising 
 wave of public opinion surging against the ramparts of "The 
 Trade," have begun to cry " Compensation." 
 
 The purpose of this pamphlet is not to discuss the justice or 
 injustice of granting compensation to any of these claimants, 
 whether in the past, present, or future ; but inasmuch as the 
 vote of Twenty Millions sterling in 1.833 to the various Colonies 
 is THE ONE PRECEDENT on which all these claimants rely, it is 
 our purpose to investigate the circumstances of that Grant, with 
 the view of ascertaining how far the precedent is applicable to the 
 claims now beginning to be preferred. 
 
 Did Parliament compensate the West Indian planters ? If so, 
 why? 
 
 There are those who hold that the contemplated loan of fifteen 
 millions sterling, which developed into a gift of twenty millions 
 sterling, was not strictly compensation, but was given to the 
 planters pro misericordid, in compassion for the ruin brought upon 
 the Islands. 
 
 What are the facts ? 
 
 The teaching of the French philosophers of one hundred years 
 ago had not been confined in its ramifications to the nation among 
 whom, and the soil upon which, it found its birthplace. 
 
 First of all, it bore fruit among the transatlantic North 
 American Provinces of his Majesty King George III. It reacted 
 with terrific energy in its native home. Thence it echoed back 
 to the Island possessions of the French Republic across the At- 
 lantic wave. 
 
 The deductions of the black population of San Domingo 
 (Hayti) were far too logical for their old masters in " La Belle 
 France." But again the teachings of the philosophers triumphed : 
 the negro established his republic, and, through dire scenes of 
 slaughter, the Haytian became free. 
 
 All this tumult, all this ebullition of force and passion, could 
 not be without their effect on the negro mind in the other West 
 Indian colonies. 
 
 Constant anxiety, restless fear, perturbed the minds of planters 
 
 -crt
 
 abroad and British Governments at home. The idea of having to 
 send out British soldiers to put down a servile insurrection was 
 too monstrous for any British Ministry to contemplate with calm- 
 ness. How could an English army be sent to Jamaica to rivet 
 on the black man, fetters which our English judges were declaring 
 to be contrary to English law ? 
 
 Add to this the persistency of the Abolitionist orators in 
 and out of Parliament, and can we wonder that the Colonial 
 Legislatures came to feel that they were sitting on the edge of a 
 volcano ? Not surprising that in some islands discipline could 
 hardly be enforced for fear of an outbreak ; the slave's value was 
 becoming nominal, sugar-culture ceased to pay, and financial col- 
 lapse appeared imminent. 
 
 Vainly for twenty years had the Imperial Legislature passed 
 Acts for ameliorating the condition of the slaves, and urged their 
 adoption on the Colonial Legislatures ; the latter either dared not 
 adopt them, lest the very act should be like carrying a lighted 
 match into a powder magazine, or were too supine, or too haughty 
 to learn the lesson which onlookers were better able to discern. 
 
 At this crisis a wholly distinct agitation had led to the Reform 
 Act of 1832. A new Parliament is gathered under its provisions. 
 Many new members are returned pledged to vote for the abolition 
 of slavery in the West Indian Islands. Rotten boroughs and 
 pocket boroughs have been disfranchised. West India proprietors, 
 who had been able to hold their own in the unreformed Parlia- 
 ment, find themselves few and far between in the newly-filled 
 ranks of the Reformed Parliament. 
 
 Such was the political situation at home. Meanwhile, what 
 was the financial condition of the planters ? An inquiry into this 
 question reveals to us that the cry for compensation was no new 
 thing. Not only, as we have already observed, was the cry raised 
 in the closing years of the last century, but in more recent times 
 it had become chronic. Did a tornado desolate the islands, a plea, 
 and a successful plea, for Parliamentary compensation was made. 
 Did the Parliament pass resolutions requesting the Colonial Legis- 
 lature to provide for amelioration of the condition of the slave, at 
 once came back the cry. What compensation for the consequent 
 loss to the planter through diminished control over his slaves? 
 Worse still, Parliament was unable to approach the question with
 
 a clear conscience. Although in 1833 — the year of the Emanci- 
 pation Act — no less than eighteen years had elapsed since the 
 close of the great European struggle, still the war taxes on Colonial 
 produce were levied in the ports of this country. 
 
 Year by year had the representatives of the West Indian 
 interest laid before Parliament and the Ministries the sore disad- 
 vantage under which the Islands laboured, with these war taxes 
 pressing on their industries. All in vain. Minister after Minister 
 had declared the impossibility of surrendering these imposts ; 
 although the redoubtable Joseph Hume had enlisted himself on 
 the side of the planters, still nothing was done. Ministers were 
 satisfied that coffee and sugar were luxuries beyond the reach or 
 wants of the masses of this country, and could see no prospect 
 that a reduction in the tariff could possibly so increase the imports 
 as that the revenue should not suffer. 
 
 The consequence of all this was as we have already implied. 
 Up to the very last session of the unreformed Parliament, 
 Ministers and Parliament alike had an uneasy sense that the 
 commercial prosperity of the Islands had been sacrificed to the 
 financial necessities of the mother country, and it was morally 
 impossible for any Ministry to contemplate the aiming another 
 blow, in the form of slave emancipation, at the planters' interests, 
 without a full conviction that compensation must be a concomi- 
 tant of such emancipation. 
 
 But what of the English nation all this time? The great 
 question of Parliamentary Reform had been all-absorbing. The 
 slavery abolitionists had been but as "a voice crying in the 
 wilderness:" they had their faithful followers, but the nation was 
 otherwise occupied. 
 
 Finally, the blow came from an unexpected quarter. While 
 the eyes of politicians and emancipationists alike had been fixed 
 on the West, it was from the Eastern hemisphere that the doom of 
 the system came. The horrible cruelties of Mauritius proprietors 
 made every ear tingle, London audiences were roused, the "Agency 
 Committee" leapt into existence, and in a few weeks the country 
 was aflame from end to end. 
 
 The time was ripe, Reform was accomplished, and the ears of 
 the country were open to the woes of the African. The un- 
 reformed House of Commons came to an end ; the new House
 
 came in pledged to Abolition. The majority of members thus 
 pledged were known to be largely amenable to the wishes of 
 their constituents on the general points of the Abolition question. 
 
 Mr. Buxton early announced his intention of moving a resolu- 
 tion on the question. His motion was only staved off by a 
 promise on the part of Ministers to deal with the subject forth- 
 with. The day fixed was 23rd April, 1833, subsequently changed 
 to 14th May, 1833. 
 
 The doctrine of the Abolitionists throughout the country had 
 been that slavery was a crime before God, and consequently 
 that its abolition must be immediate and unconditional. This 
 doctrine disowned compensation ; it reprobated it as an indirect 
 participation in the crime. Be the doctrine true or false, it was 
 through its propagation unflinchingly that an anti-slavery House 
 of Commons had been returned.* 
 
 But Government avowed compensation to be the basis of their 
 forthcoming scheme. Who shall give way ? We have just 
 described the character of the teaching of the Abolitionists, who 
 had returned the anti-slavery House of Commons; but was this 
 the attitude of the old Anti-Slavery Society ? 
 
 In 1831 that society published an elaborate disquisition on 
 the subject of "Compensation," from which we subjoin the 
 following extract. 
 
 (From the Anti-Slavery Monthly Reporter, 1831 ; vol. iv. pp. 89-92.) 
 
 Now it is perfectly true that we have never hesitated to admit that the 
 owners of slaves, in the case of their slaves being emancipated by an Act of 
 the British Parliament, have a right to prefer, and, if they can, to establish 
 a claim to compensation ; and that if they succeed in establishing such a 
 claim, Parliament is bound to indemnify them. 
 
 But we have never admitted, nor indeed do we believe, that it will be in 
 their power to establish such a claim, at least to any material extent. Still 
 they have a right to do so if they can 
 
 A similar indulgence, but similarly restricted, seems fairly due to every 
 class of claimants who may think themselves aggrieved by any measure of 
 national policy ; and we know of no reason which ought to exclude the owners 
 of slaves from a fair and equitable consideration of their claim to indemnity 
 from the consequences of an act of emancipation, if such an act should be 
 
 ^Sir George Stephen's Letters to Harriet Beecher Stowe, Anti-Slavery Recollections, 
 Letter XIII. page 190.
 
 8 
 
 passed by the imperial legislature. What the result of such an application 
 would be is a perfectly different question, and must depend on the peculiar 
 circumstances of the case. 
 
 Thus it was in the instance of the Slave Trade. The proposal to abolish 
 it was met by petitions from the West Indians at home and abroad, to the 
 full as strong either as that lately presented by the Marquis of Chandos, or 
 that which now lies for signatures at the Jamaica Coffee House, claiming 
 indemnity to a very large amount. Seventy millions sterling was the lowest 
 sum at which in 1792 the planters rated the injury about to be inflicted on 
 them, and they insisted on having the indemnity secured before one step was 
 taken towards abolishing the slave trade. But what was the language 
 at that time held towards the claimants by His Majesty's Government. 
 On the 3rd of April, 1792, when the resolution was first adopted of 
 abolishing the slave trade, Mr. Pitt, in reply to the clamourers of that 
 day for indemnity, observed that he was very far from meaning to ex- 
 clude the question of indemnification, on the supposition of possible 
 disadvantage affecting the West Indians through the abolition of the slave 
 trade. "But when gentlemen," he added, " set up a claim of compensation 
 merely on general allegations, which is all I have yet heard, I can only answer, 
 let them produce their case, and if, upon any reasonable grounds, it shall claim 
 consideration, it will then be the time for Parliament to decide upon it." 
 
 Again in 1807, when a Bill for abolishing the slave trade had already 
 passed the House of Lords, and was actually brought into the House of 
 Commons by Earl Grey, then Lord Howick, the West Indians came forward 
 as now to claim compensation. Utter ruin to all their interests, the total 
 loss of their income and their property, they said, would be the inevitable 
 consequences of the measure. Not only would there be insurrection and 
 massacre throughout the whole of our slave colonies (the very language now 
 employed to frighten the public out of their wits), but indemnity would be 
 required to the extent of at least one hundred millions.* They requested to 
 be heard by counsel, and counsel were heard at the bar of the House of 
 Commons, as they had also been at the House of Lords, in support of their 
 extravagant claims ; and their cause was ably pleaded by Mr. Dallas, the 
 late Chief Justice, Mr. Alexander, the late Chief Baron of the Exchequer, 
 and Mr. Scarlett, the late Attorney-General, now Sir James Scarlett. But 
 what on that occasion was the language of Viscount Howick ? It was to this 
 effect : He did not deny that the apprehended loss which this measure might 
 eventually cause might become a fair question of future consideration. Let 
 those who may conceive themselves entitled to demand compensation submit 
 their case to the House, and if that case should be established, the House 
 would never be backward in listening to the claims of justice. He stated 
 this as a general principle. The West Indians, however, were not 
 satisfied with this assurance, and Mr. Manning, in giving notice that 
 he should proceed to move for a Committee to consider of the com- 
 
 * See debates in Parliament in 1791 and 1792, and in 1806 and 1807.
 
 pensation to be granted, in the event of the Bill passing, to those whose 
 interests would be affected by it, begged to know from Lord Howick, whether 
 His Majesty's ministers were authorised to assent to such a proceeding. 
 Lord Howick's reply was, that it was contrary to the practice of Parliament 
 to declare heforehajid what might be the amount of compensation to be 
 granted for possible losses by any general measures of political regulation or 
 national policy which Parliament might adopt, and that therefore he was not 
 authorised to consent to such a Committee. The Bill accordingly passed 
 without any express provision being made, beyond this general verbal assur- 
 ance, for compensating the eventual sufferers. The doors of Parliament, 
 however, were left completely open to their representations. And what has 
 been the result ? To this hour, after a lapse of twenty-four years, not only 
 has not a single claim for compensation been established by any one of those 
 then noisy claimants ; but not one has even been preferred 
 
 Let it not be supposed, however, that we mean to retract anything we 
 have said as to the right of the owners of slaves to prefer, and if they can, to 
 establish their claim to compensation. We admit that right, as we have 
 always done, in the most explicit manner. But still we say with Mr. Pitt and 
 with Earl Grey that the time for indemnity is not yet come, and that it can 
 only be given when injury shall be proved to have been sustained. 
 
 In the case of the abolition of the slave trade, that measure of 
 national policy which the planters alleged would ruin them, and for which 
 they demanded compensation, has proved, by their own admission, an advan- 
 tage instead of an injury. They have not only incurred no loss, but they have 
 been gainers, by the measure. Now surely to have awarded, on the mere 
 allegation of a set of claimants, compensation beforehand in such a case would 
 have been a somewhat preposterous proceeding. The general assurance that 
 if loss were actually incurred by the operation of the measure it would be 
 fairly and equitably considered, and liberally indemnified, was all that could be 
 reasonably demanded; and it was therefore all which, in the wisdom of 
 Government and Parliament, it was thought necessary at that time to 
 concede 
 
 Both the cases are cases of national crime [sin] of a very deep dye, and 
 which ought in justice to be put down at whatever cost. The allegations of 
 danger and loss, too, are of the same nature, &c. 
 
 From the foregoing we see that, while that development of the 
 Anti-Slavery Society, which assumed the name of the " Agency 
 Committee," and roused the entire nation, steadfastly repudiated 
 the idea of compensation, the old society had always treated it as 
 a matter open to discussion, yet persistently regarding it as a 
 question to be dealt with subsequent to legislation on the main 
 question of Emancipation, in accordance with the principles laid 
 down by Mr. Pitt in 1792, and by Lord Howick in 1807. 
 
 It does not fall within our scope in this paper to recount in
 
 10 
 
 detail the process by which the more active abolitionists were 
 brought, in 1833, to give way before the purpose of the Govern- 
 ment. Let it suffice to say that the one reason for their so doing 
 was the unwillingness to prolong for even a year or two fat the 
 end of which time they were confident unconditional abolition 
 would be within their reach), the agony of the situation both in 
 the Mauritius and the West India Islands. 
 
 It seems desirable here to somewhat enlarge on the statement 
 already made that compensation to West Indian planters was no 
 new cry in the House of Commons. 
 
 As already stated, every proposal of legislation that could be 
 at all construed as prospectively and possibly diminishing the 
 amount of labour that a planter could, by the extremest stretch 
 of his autocratic rule, get out of his slaves, was at once met by a 
 demand for compensation for such supposed future loss. 
 
 A clear appreciation of this fact will enable the student to un- 
 derstand how it happened that, when compensation began to be 
 claimed in the House of Commons in connection with emanci- 
 pation, it was not claimed, as is commonly supposed, as the price 
 of the slaves, as though they were a property in the hands of the 
 planter which the Government proposed to take from him. No ; 
 however fully such an idea may have been latent in the minds 
 of the representatives of the West Indian interest in the House, 
 the claim was always, in the first instance, urged on the basis of 
 compensation for increased difficulties of production consequent 
 on the partial (if increasing) withdrawal of forced labour from 
 the planters. 
 
 Consequently, we find that when on 14th May, 1833, Mr. Secre- 
 tary Stanley — who had succeeded Lord Howick as Secretary for the 
 Colonies — moved the Abolition Resolutions, he stated that : — 
 
 His Majesty's Ministers proposed to advance to the West India Body a 
 loan to the amount of ten years' purchase of this annual profit (viz., net profit 
 of sugar cultivation, £1,200,000 a-year ; rum and coffee, £250,000 or 
 £300,000 a-year ; total, £1,500,000) j or, in other words, a loan of £15,000,000. 
 
 Thus it will be seen, not only was the original proposal a loan 
 (albeit a loan which the next sentence but (me explained might be 
 converted into a gift), but a loan with a view to a compensation 
 not calculated on the value of the slave, but on the value of the 
 profit on the slave-grown productions of the Islands.
 
 11 
 
 This aspect of the question was, throughout, the one kept 
 steadfastly before the House of Commons. Mr. Secretary Stanley, 
 on the resumption of the debate on 10th June, 1833, stated : — 
 
 He was well aware that there were many gentlemen who would be wilhng 
 enough to pay the present proprietors of West India property such an amount 
 of compensation as would cover the loss which they should ultimately be 
 able to prove resulted from this measure. He confessed it was a matter of 
 extreme difficulty to ascertain what the amount of that compensation ought 
 to be, A strong necessity was imposed on that House to look at this question 
 of money compensation from a liberal and comprehensive point of view. 
 
 A week earlier, Lord Sandon (at that time late Under-Secretary 
 of State for the Colonies) had read to the House the Kesolutions 
 which had been adopted that morning by a number of members of 
 Parliament who had met at his house, and stated that the acting 
 committee of the West Indian proprietors had assented to them. 
 
 These resolutions demanded £20,000,000 for compensation, 
 and a loan of £10,000,000 to enable the planters to get free from 
 mortgages, &c., on their estates. 
 
 Mr. William Ewart Gladstone, following Lord Sandon, " trusted 
 the House would make a point to adopt the principle of com- 
 pensation ;" and Sir Robert Peel admitted " the just claim of the 
 planters to compensation on fair and equitable te^ms." 
 
 Four days previously Sir Richard Vyvyan spoke of the indirect 
 representation in that House which the planters had enjoyed 
 previous to the Reform Act, and pointed out that it had practically 
 ceased now. He also read to the House the demand of the 
 Jamaica Legislative Assembly for full compensation. 
 
 It is needless to multiply quotations. Suffice it to say that the 
 student of the Parliamentary history of that time may clearly 
 discern that while most careful to avoid any reference to the War 
 of Independence, the Ministry of the day made the proposals 
 which they did — with the recollection of the revolt of the North 
 American Colonies clearly present to their minds — with a con- 
 sciousness that they would be running extreme risks if their 
 opponents should take up the cry that they were legislating 
 adversely to the interests of " the now unrepresented colonies." 
 
 Ministers were evidently extremely anxious to get the Colonial 
 Legislatures to unite with the Parliament at home in any legisla- 
 tion that might be decided upon. The resolutions adopted at
 
 12 
 
 Lord Sandon's house offered a basis for compromise. The grant 
 of £20,000,000 for compensation, was the bribe to secure the 
 co-operation of the Colonial Legislatures; and on the 10th June, 
 Mr. Secretary Stanley was able to inform the House that 
 
 He had been assured by a deputation from the acting committee of 
 West Indian proprietors (whose importance it was impossible to rate too 
 highly), that if Parliament would consent to vote £20,000,000 to the pro- 
 prietors as compensation for the loss of their property, that great Interest 
 would give its full concurrence to the Government plan, and would use any 
 influence it might possess over the Colonial Legislatures, in order to induce 
 them to co-operate in the extinction of slavery. 
 
 Such, then, were the main features of the Parliamentary 
 history of the time, and of the circumstances under which com- 
 pensation was given to the West Indian (and Mauritius) 
 proprietors. 
 
 We recite briefly the two important points : — 
 
 1. Compensation was morally due for the levying of war 
 
 taxes from these Colonies in time of peace. 
 
 2. Compensation was really given as a bribe to the Colonial 
 
 Legislatures, so as to prevent the raising of the cry 
 that England was legislating adversely for her unre- 
 presented Colonies. 
 
 Many points of incidental interest crop up as we pass along. 
 Among others we may note that Mr. Gladstone's maiden speech in 
 Parliament was (according to Hansard) upon the question of the 
 Abolition of Slavery, and was delivered on the 17th May, 1883. 
 Its object was to justify the treatment of slaves on his father's 
 estate, and while admitting that the cultivation of sugar there 
 was of a more severe character than of cotton or of coffee, pointed 
 out that the same might be said of working in lead mines in this 
 country. Sir George Stephen also records that on the Committee 
 on the subject of the Apprenticeship of Emancipated Slaves, which 
 sat in 1837, Mr. Gladstone " employed all his ingenuity to bewilder 
 Sir John Jeremie, one of the witnesses on behalf of the advocates 
 of absolute emancipation, but in vain. Jeremie had been edu- 
 cated as an advocate for the French bar," and Sir George Stephen 
 " was persuaded that Mr. Gladstone himself would admit that in 
 the conflict of argument Jeremie had not the worst of it." 
 
 {
 
 13 
 
 Having now given a fairly detailed description of the nature 
 of this great precedent of " Compensation," we may touch with 
 lighter hand the question of compensation as dealt with in the 
 Army Regulation Act of 1871, not only as having occurred within 
 the memory of most of our readers, but also as having scarcely 
 attained the dignity of a precedent — at least in comparison with 
 the Act of 1833. 
 
 As a matter of fact the principle of voting compensation 
 to the officers for the Over -regulation Prices which they were 
 expecting to receive for the sale of their commissions, was not 
 discussed in Parliament at all. 
 
 Mr. Cardvvell, on moving the Army Estimates in Committee 
 on 16th February, 1871 — on which occasion he practically sub- 
 mitted the Government Army Regulation Bill to the House of 
 Commons — distinctly implied that his sole reason for proposing 
 to compensate the officers for these expectations (which were, he 
 admitted, contrary to the law) was that having in the previous 
 year proposed to do away with the ranks of cornet and ensign in 
 the army, his scheme had met with an imiversal rejection in the 
 House because he had omitted to provide for the case of Over- 
 regulation Prices. On no stronger ground than this does he 
 justify the Government proposals to take an extra three millions 
 from the pockets of the taxpayers to give compensation to Army 
 Officers. 
 
 Mr. Muntz and Mr. Rylands appear to have been alone in 
 challenging this course, and even they had not the courage to 
 propose that the law in respect to Over -regulation Prices should 
 be enforced. In replying to them, however, Mr. G. O. Trevelyan, 
 who though not in the Government seems to have spoken semi- 
 officially on this subject, stated that — • 
 
 The Government felt that the pecuniary interests involved in the purchase 
 system were too delicate in their nature to commit to the hazard of a long 
 agitation. Ministers had hit exactly the right time : before this the aristo- 
 cratic element was too strong, the nation would have had to pay too much. 
 The popular element was now getting so strong that this was the last chance 
 of not having to give too little. Public meetings understand broad and 
 simple principles, but they are not places where you can refine or distinguish, 
 and the compensation for the abolition of purchase is of all problems the 
 most absti-use and complicated. 
 
 All this seems to be but a wrapping-up in fine words of the
 
 14 
 
 true key to the position. Government did not want to risk an 
 appeal to the nation, and probably would not have been justified 
 in putting the nation to the expense of a general election on a 
 question that only involved a matter of two-and-a-half to three 
 millions sterling. They did not care to wait till a popular 
 agitation sprung up; they could not abolish purchase in that 
 House of Commons without this extra compensation, and therefore 
 the nation must pay it. 
 
 In closing the debate on the 17th March, all that Mr. Glad- 
 stone deigned to say on the compensation question was : 
 
 We are in conflict with a system which, strange and anomalous as it is, is 
 in the first place very powerfully represented in this House ; it is a system 
 of so old a date, and has fitted itself into all habits and arrangements, and 
 undoubtedly to propose to officers of the army the abolition of purchase is not 
 a mere financial or pecuniary change, but a fresh starting point for a new 
 career. 
 
 We have said enough to show that the insertion of com- 
 pensation for Over-regulation payments in this Government 
 measure was never argued as a question of principle. It was 
 simply adopted because the interested class was so strong in the 
 House of Commons ; and, therefore, in considering the Parlia- 
 msntary practice of giving compensation, it is vain to cite the 
 Act abolishing purchase in the army as an Act throwing any light 
 as to principle guiding such action. 
 
 Turning from the Past to the Future, we find the claim to 
 compensation to-day emanating from the Licensed Victuallers, and 
 from their friends the ''Practical" statesmen, and the Would-be 
 philosophers. 
 
 The claim while different in form is virtually identical in its 
 foundation with those we have already considered, viz., to the effect 
 that when the State from motives of policy, in view of the 
 national weal, legislates in such a way as to give ground for 
 anticipating injury to the pecuniary expectations of a class — that 
 class has a right to have compensation decreed as an accom- 
 paniment of any legislation that may be decided upon. 
 
 To such claimants on the national purse, it matters nothing 
 whether their expectations were founded on past experience of 
 official winking at a breach of the law, as in the case of the Army 
 Officers, or whether, as in the case of the Licensed Victuallers, they
 
 15 
 
 are measured by the experience of past profits which have 
 been possible in their full measure only through breach of law 
 for which they have not been prosecuted,* the claim is still the 
 same : — 
 
 " We have not kept the law — we do not expect to do so ; yet 
 we claim to be compensated to the full of the anticipated profit 
 that under breach of law we expect to make."*f* 
 
 We believe the above does in no degree misrepresent nor 
 exaggerate the real attitude of the Army Colonels and of the 
 Licensed Victuallers in their claim for compensation. 
 
 It will be observed that this argument is entirely outside of the 
 scope of the discussion whether Licensed Victuallers have a legal 
 claim or no. 
 
 The tenor of their licences, which have to be renewed every 
 year, seems to have satisfied most of our "practical" statesmen 
 that the suggestion of a legal claim is quite inadmissible ; but it 
 is urged there is a moral claim, and the nature of the niorality 
 which the claim involves we indicate above. 
 
 The nature of the claim made by the slave-owners was not 
 materially different. " It is true," said they, " that the holding in 
 possession of human beings as chattels has been declared by the 
 judges contrary to English law ; but it has long been tolerated in 
 the West Indian Islands, and the Home legislature has passed 
 Acts of Parliament practically recognising this state of things 
 [It is noteworthy that Mr. Pitt denied this statement] ; therefore 
 you cannot now withdraw recognition of it without compensating 
 us for the injury we shall receive." 
 
 As we have seen, the claim of the West Indian proprietors on 
 the suppression of the slave trade was similar in its nature, the 
 only difference being, that in that case they claimed compensation 
 for diminished facilities in cultivating their estates consequent on 
 the stoppage of transatlantic supplies of negroes ; while in the 
 more recent case the compensation was claimed for diminished 
 
 * The licensed victuallers receive permission to sell liquors, with the emphatic 
 provision that drunkenness is not to be permitted ; yet in the year 1874, in Liverpool, 
 although 23,303 cases of drunkenness were reported by the police, only three publicans 
 were convicted for permitting drunkenness. This is well known to be but a fair 
 sample of what is going on continually throughout the country. 
 
 t As this pamphlet does not discuss the justice of the claim made, we do not 
 enter into the question whether, if they had kept the law, they would be entitled to 
 compensation.
 
 16 
 
 facilities consequent on the absolute withdrawal of the privilege 
 of using forced labour on the islands. 
 
 Now, without discussing whether there was or was not a moral 
 claim in either of the above cases, our view, and it is one on which 
 we would strenuously insist, is that the true statesman's attitude 
 in regard to such claims was that expressed by Mr. Pitt in the 
 following terms : — 
 
 (From Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England.) 
 2 April, 1792. Mr. Wilberforce's motion — " That it is the opinion of 
 this committee that the trade carried on by British subjects for the 
 purpose of procuring slaves from Africa be abolished." 
 Mr. Pitt : I do not mean absolutely to exclude the question of indemni- 
 fication, on the supposition of possible disadvantages affecting the West Indies 
 through the abolition of the slave trade ; but when gentlemen set up a claim 
 of compensation merely on those general allegations, which are all that I 
 have yet heard from them, I can only answer, let them produce their case in 
 a distinct and specific form ; and if upon any practicable or reasonable 
 grounds it shall claim consideration, it will then be time enough for Parlia- 
 ment to decide upon it Every trade act shows undoubtedly that 
 
 the Legislature is used to pay a tender regard to all classes of the community. 
 But if for the sake of moral duty, of national honour, or even of great 
 political advantage, it is thought right by authority of Parliament to alter 
 any long-established system. Parliament is competent to do it. The Legis- 
 lature will undoubtedly be careful to subject individuals to as little incon- 
 venience as possible, and if any peculiar hardship should arise, that can be 
 distinctly stated and fairly pleaded, there will ever, I am sure, be a liberal 
 feeling towards them in the Legislature of this country, which is the guardian 
 of all who live under its protection. On the present occasion the most 
 powerful considerations call upon us to abolish the slave trade ; and if we 
 refuse to attend to them on the alleged ground of pledged faith and contract, 
 we shall depart as widely from the practice of Parliament as from the path 
 of moral duty. If, indeed, there is any case of hardship which comes within the 
 proper cognizance of Parliament, and calls for the exercise of its liberality — well ! 
 But such a case must be reserved for calm consideration, as a matter distinct 
 from the present question I shall vote, sir, against the adjourn- 
 ment, and I shall also oppose to the utmost every proposition which in any 
 way may tend either to prevent or even to postpone for an hour the total 
 abolition of the slave trade. 
 
 In accordance with this declaration, Mr. Pitt on 15th March, 
 1796, voted in favour of the Bill (on its being reported to the 
 House) for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, although it was a 
 complaint of its opponents that no clause for indemnification of 
 the planters had been inserted.
 
 17 
 
 Contrast with this, the speech of Sir Robert Peel on 13th 
 July, 1830, on Mr. Brougham's motion ; — 
 
 That this House do resolve at the earliest practicable period of the next 
 session to take into its serious consideration the state of the slaves in the 
 Colonies of Great Britain, in order to the mitigation and final abolition of 
 their slavery, and more especially in order to the amendment of the adminis- 
 tration of justice within the same. 
 
 Sir R. Peel feared they could never confer much advantage on the slave 
 by forced legislation. [How this reminds us of our recent friend, "You cannot 
 make men sober by Act of Parliament."] He did not object to the motion as 
 pledging the Parliament to a particular course, for they had a right to con- 
 sider Parliament as a continuous body, though now on the eve of dissolution, 
 they had done so in 1806 when that resolution [on the Slave Trade] was passed, 
 which a future Parliament had recognised and carried into effect ; but he 
 thought that, except in very extraordinary and j)ressing cases, pledges ought 
 not to be given, for if they were not redeemed they must operate to depreciate 
 the character of Parliament. The resolution professed to contemplate the 
 tinal aboUtion of slavery — a proposition to which he was unwilling to pledge 
 himself without knowing in what manner it was to be brought about. 
 
 That was one of his objections to the motion. Another was that it said 
 nothing about compensation. Arguing with the slave as to the right by which 
 we held him, he must confess that he had no reply ; but arguing with the 
 West India proprietor as to the effect which the abolition of slavery must 
 have upon his property, he would contend that the pro^jrietors had as strong a 
 claim to compensation as the possessor of any other description of property 
 that could be mentioned. If it was the resolve of that House to remove the 
 blot which he would frankly admit still rested on the national character in 
 this respect, still he felt it ought to be accompanied by another measure, 
 which would show that the Legislature had not in its zeal for hiunanity 
 forgotten the interests of those individual proprietors which might probably 
 be affected, if not materially injured, by its determination to effect a great 
 change in our colonial policy. '•' 
 
 This speech by Sir Robert Peel is marvellously parallel with a 
 
 * Contrast with this attitude of Sir Kobert Peel the weighty utterance of Mr. 
 Zachary Macaulay on 28th November, 1827 : — 
 
 '"The general principle of compensation is a practice perfectly well understood. 
 The particular application of that principle belongs not to Government or to Parlia- 
 ment, but is the proper province of the jury or of the appraisers called to examine and 
 decide fairly on all the peculiarities of each special case." 
 
 Sir George Murray in 1831 said : " He was indisposed to entertain the claim for 
 compensation, not only as being a proposition which was calculated chiefly for the 
 purpose of delay, but as being in his view wholly uncalled for ; the gradual change 
 which he contemplated of the slave into a free labourer, affording, as he conceived, no 
 ground for such a claim." 
 
 This gradual change we are aware, through the opposition of the planters, could 
 not be carried out, and immediate emancipation became a necessity — but the 
 advocates of the " Local Option " policy with regard to drink-selling may well claim 
 Sir George Murray's judgment on their side, as they only look for a gradual abolition 
 of drink-selling throughout the land.
 
 18 
 
 speech nearly fifty years later by his great disciple Mr. Gladstone, 
 on the 19 th March, 1880, on which occasion he presented 
 to his audience almost exactly the same reasons for refusing to 
 vote for Sir W. Lawson's "Local Option" resolution, as his 
 great master had given utterance to for declining to support 
 Mr. Brougham's motion for the Abolition of Slavery in British 
 Colonies. 
 
 Addressing a great public meeting at Dalkeith, on Friday, 
 March 19 th, Mr. Gladstone said : — 
 
 When I was here in November, I said a word upon a very prac- 
 tical, and, in a social point of view, important subject — the subject of 
 local option. A gentleman who is a freeholder in the county has written 
 to me expressing in terms of great surprise and courtesy his regret that I 
 did not vote for the resolution of Sir Wilfrid Lawson. Gentlemen, what I 
 said to you in November was that to the principle of local option I took no 
 preliminary objection, but that I must consider many matters in regard to 
 its application, among which would be strict justice to the interests which 
 possibly the exercise of local option might injuriously affect. Now I cannot 
 support the resolution of Sir Wilfrid Lawson, however much I respect his 
 high patriotic motives and his high moral purpose, and however much I 
 admire his ability and character, for these two reasons. One of them is that 
 it contained no recognition of the fair and equitable title of those interests to 
 be heard and allowed an opportunity of making their case for an equitable 
 compensation, if new principles were introduced into our legislation which 
 
 might bear injuriously upon their interests But, gentlemen, 
 
 there was another reason why I am wishful to explain to you, because it 
 affects my own conduct. I have not been in the habit of voting for what are 
 called abstract resolutions in the House of Commons until I am prepared 
 with a plan to give them effect. I do not blame those who do so. These 
 abstract resolutions are, I am aware, among the means of maturing and 
 forming public opinion ; but no person in my situation, who has served in so 
 many Governments, who has passed twenty years of his life as a responsible 
 servant of the Crown, who has even had the honour of filling the office of 
 First Minister of this great country during a period exceeding five years ; 
 when a man so situated votes for an abstract resolution, those who feel an 
 interest in the subject are entitled to say to him, " In what way will you now 
 proceed to give effect to that abstract resolution ? " Therefore, gentlemen, 
 until I am prepared to explain, and on reaching such a point I can make 
 myself responsible for the proposal and support of that plan, I decline to 
 raise false expectation by committing myself to an abstract resolution. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone, in the debate in the House of Commons on the 
 5th March, 1880, on the " Local Option'' resolution, was even
 
 19 
 
 more explicit than in the above speech as to his views on the 
 question of compensation to licensed victuallers. He said — 
 
 I am bound to mention another point on which, though it does not 
 embrace the whole case, I have some feeling. My hon. friend the member 
 for Carlisle has said he is perfectly ready to entertain the question of com- 
 pensation to licensed victuallers in the event of the introduction of the prin- 
 ciple of local option. But I doubt very much whether the full exposition of 
 his views which my hon. friend gave on the subject of compensation, when 
 taken as a whole, would be very reassuring in the minds of hon. members. 
 I think we ought to go as far as this. I am not prepared to say whether 
 there is a case for compensation or whether there is not a case for compensa- 
 tion, because that must depend upon particulars that are not now before us. 
 But I am prepared to say we ought not to let our prejudices against this 
 trade and our sense of the enormous mischiefs which are associated with its 
 working make us deviate one hair's breadth from the principle on which 
 Parliament has acted in analogous cases, viz., that where a vested interest 
 has been allowed to grow up the question of compensation must be enter- 
 tained. I am prepared to say neither less nor more than this, that the 
 licensed victualler should have the same fair consideration given to his 
 case under cover of that principle, as has been given in other cases 
 in which Parliament has awarded compensation on interfering with vested 
 interests. When the sanction of Parliament has been given to the prosecution 
 of a trade, we should not allow our political prejudices to interfere with the 
 rectitude of our judgment, nor allow our feelings, however just, with respect 
 to the liquor traffic to award a less measure of justice or indulgence to licensed 
 victuallers than to anybody else. But I am bound to say that if we pass a 
 resolution of this kind, which should be taken as a sort of gharter, laying 
 down the line of our future conduct, I think there should be some allusion to 
 that subject in the terms of the resolution. When Parliament enacted negro 
 emancipation it was preceded by a preliminary resolution, in which the 
 principle of compensation was recognised. My hon. friend said we must wait 
 for the claim to be raised. Parliament does not act on that principle. When 
 facts prevented the possibility of such a claim being made, the principle was 
 recognised in the original proceedings of Parliament. Under these difficulties 
 I am not prepared to support the resolution, while I shall not, on the other 
 hand, place myself in the position of giving a constructive sanction to the 
 present law. 
 
 Again, in the debate of 18th June, 1880, Mr. Gladstone spoke 
 as follows : — 
 
 I should have been better satisfied with the matter of the resolution if 
 my hon. friend had included in it some reference to the principle of equitable 
 compensation. I don't want my hon. friend to commit himself upon that point, 
 but I want a recognition of the principle that we are not to deny to publicans 
 as a class the benefit of equal treatment, because we think their trade is at so 
 many points in contact with, and even sometimes productive of great public
 
 20 
 
 danger. Considering the legislative right they have acquired, they ought not 
 to be placed at a disadvantage on account of the impression we may enter- 
 tain, in many cases too justly, in relation to the mischiefs connected with 
 the present licensing system and the consumption of strong liquors as it is 
 now carried on. 
 
 All these speeches show perfect unity betvireen Mr. Gladstone's 
 views as to compensation and those expressed by Sir Robert Peel 
 fifty years earlier. We have already seen that Mr. Gladstone's 
 statement — in reply to Sir W. Lawson's argument that we " must 
 wait for the claim to be raised " — " that Parliament does not act 
 on that principle," is in fact broader than the actual case allows. 
 Since the first Reform Bill, Parliament, it is true, has " not acted 
 on that principle," but in 1792 and 1807 we have seen that not 
 only did Parliament act on the principle, but that such statesmen 
 as Mr. Pitt and Lord Ho wick (better known as Earl Grey) refused 
 to entertain the claim to compensation, precedent to legislation, 
 and insisted that (as Sir W. Lawson urged) it was the part of 
 Parliament to wait till the claim arose. Lord Ho wick went even 
 further, and stated " that it was contrary (!) to the practice of 
 Parliament to declare beforehand what might be the amount of 
 Compensation to be granted for possible losses by any general 
 measures of political regulation, or national policy which Parlia- 
 ment might adopt." 
 
 When to the high authority of these statesmen we can add 
 the carefully considered judgment of a Zachary Macaulay and the 
 declaration of Sir George Murray, we feel that we are abundantly 
 justified in preferring the judgment of these statesmen of renown 
 even to that of the greatest of living statesmen. Moreover, in 
 this connection we are justified in recalling, that in 1833 Mr. 
 Gladstone's was the first voice (at all above the rank of mediocrity) 
 to express the hope that the House of Commons "would adopt the 
 principle of compensation." This seems to imply that in those days 
 the principle was not such a matter of course as Mr. Gladstone 
 in 1880 declares it to be. We, at least, claim freedom to go back 
 to a time when Mr. Gladstone's influence had not been exerted 
 in this direction, and rest on a principle which was upheld by the 
 two great party leaders of eighty years ago, Mr. Pitt and Earl 
 Grey. Mr. Gladstone has so long been the master mind of the 
 great Liberal party that it is not till we go back thus to the events of 
 half a century ago that we clearly recall the Tory (or rather Peelite)
 
 21 
 
 influences which have moulded much of his judgment. On many 
 points, no doubt, he has emancipated himself from the effects of 
 that early education, but the question must arise — Has he, on this 
 question, broken with the past ? In view of his recent utterances 
 we are compelled to doubt it, and no wonder that a philosopher- 
 patriot like F. W. Newman should deem it needful under such 
 circumstances to warn his countrymen in such words as these: — 
 
 No publican ever receives a licence to sell intoxicating drink for any 
 previous services which he has done, nor for any personal virtue, but because 
 it is presumed that the public interest needs him. He never receives a 
 licence to last more than twelve months, and Mr. E. N. Buxton tells us that 
 the licence confers a great additional pecuniary value on the house. This the 
 publican, or the brewer behind him, receives gratuitously. What epithet but 
 impudent justly describes the conduct of a man who declares that because a 
 privilege is gratuitously granted him for twelve months, therefore he has a 
 right to it for a perpetuity ? and that if it is not renewed he has a just claim 
 to compensation ? The difficulty of reasoning against such pretensions is 
 precisely the same as we encounter when an audacious man proclaims that 
 manstealing is legitimate. One knows not from what first principles to argue 
 against men of this class. 
 
 Empty, baseless, monstrous as is this claim of compensation, we cannot 
 shut our eyes to the extreme danger that such men as Mr. Gladstone and 
 Mr. Bright may suddenly spring upon us a most iniquitous measure of pre- 
 tended reform which practically sustains the vicious system. " Monstrous " 
 is not too strong an epithet for this claim in the mouths of men whose trade 
 is a nuisance to every neighbourhood. It is absolutely clear* that if compen- 
 sation is to be asked at all, it is to be asked from the brewers and distillers 
 who have fattened on the public misery, for the owners of houses whose rent 
 the drinkshops have depressed ; we cannot ask it for the families who have 
 been made destitute, simply because the problem is too indefinite. How are 
 we to account for the phenomenon, at first sight inexplicable, that minds such 
 as those of these two statesmen are upholding so iniquitous a proposal as the 
 claim of compensation to the men who ought rather to compensate others ? 
 The only plausible explanation is probably the true one. Ministers who 
 have to legislate, may legislate on administrative details fairly enough ; but 
 to allow to them the lead in questions which involve justice is a fatal mistake 
 into which our constitution has drifted. They cannot afibrd to study pure 
 justice. They may wish for it in the abstract, and talk fine about it. But 
 when it comes to the point of action they are sure to calculate how many 
 interests they will ofiend. Therefore we may suddenly find an elaborate 
 scheme of compensation provided for us. 
 
 And again : — 
 
 " Now, in comparing and contrasting the Slave Trade and Slavery with 
 the Drink Traffic, it is instructive to see that the baneful system in each case
 
 22 
 
 arose out of Executive unfaithfulness, disobeying and overriding Parliamentary 
 Statute, and that the pernicious claim is in each case advanced that the 
 Executive malversation imposes on the Legislature the moral duty of legalizing 
 that malversation, and buying hack, at enormous cost, the right of pronoun- 
 cing its nullity. I think it very needful to insist that a chronic malversation 
 of the magistrates has taken place in not seriously studying, at every Brewster 
 Sessions, how best to prevent drunkenness, and in not appointing to licences 
 every year, with wholly fresh judgment, allowing nothing to weigh against 
 the paramount object, Pubhc Morality. (Of course this remark does not apply 
 where the law has taken power out of the magistrate's hands in the matter of 
 off licences.) 
 
 While, then, strenuously insisting that the question of com- 
 pensation ought not to be allowed for a moment to delay Parlia- 
 mentary legislation, giving that power to the people to " restrain" 
 the licensing authorities from " the issue or renewal of licences," 
 which the nation, through Parliament, has twice demanded — we 
 must repeat in regard to this question, the already -quoted judg- 
 ment of the Abolitionist Macaulay. We admit that sellers of 
 intoxicating liquors, in the event of the enactment of legislation 
 leading to a suppression of their business, have a right to prefer, 
 and, if they can, to establish, a claim to compensation ; and that 
 if they succeed in proving the justice of such a claim. Parliament is 
 bound to indemnify them. But we have never admitted, nor indeed 
 do we believe, that it will be in their power to establish such a claim. 
 Still they have a right to do so if they can. What the result of 
 the application would be, is a perfectly different question, con- 
 cerning which it will be time to form a judgment when they 
 produce their case. 
 
 In conclusion, let us consider in what respect the idea that 
 legislation in regard to the liquor traffic on the basis of the "Local 
 Option" resolution, (as understood by the United Kingdom Alliance, 
 and interpreted by Sir Wilfrid Lawson,) must be accompanied by 
 legislative provision for compensation — does or does not find a jus- 
 tification in the history of Parliamentary procedure on the negro 
 question. 
 
 1. The West Indian proprietor was not represented in the 
 reformed Parliament, but the publican is represented in the 
 present House of Commons. 
 
 Compensation was voted in 1833 to induce Colonial Legis-
 
 28 
 
 latures in which the West Indian proprietors were represented to 
 conform their legislation to that of the Imperial Parliament. 
 
 The publicans being represented in our Parliament, there is no 
 parallel in their case, in this respect, with the planters' case in 
 1833. 
 
 2. The West Indian planters had a moral claim on the Imperial 
 Parliament for compensation in view of the accumulating im- 
 poverishment that the maintenance of war taxes in time of peace 
 had inflicted on them, such taxes having been exacted solely for 
 the sake of the revenue of the mother-country. 
 
 The publicans have no such moral claim on the Imperial 
 Parliament of to-day. 
 
 3. The West Indian planters found that the legislation of 1807, 
 prohibiting the Slave Trade, so far from impoverishing them, as 
 they predicted would be the case, to the amount of one hundred 
 millions, materially enhanced their prosperity. 
 
 To-day, temperance reformers maintain that the prohibition 
 of the liquor traffic by local popular veto under local option 
 legislation, will develop the prosperity of this nation by "leaps 
 and bounds" on such an unexampled scale (when annually from 
 one to two hundred millions of pounds sterling shall be cumula- 
 tively saved to the nation) that licensed victuallers, and other 
 sellers of intoxicating liquors, will find such an extraordinary 
 development of prosperity from such portions of their business as 
 do not consist of the sale of alcoholics as will far more than com- 
 pensate them for loss of profit on these articles ; while for the 
 comparatively* few who depend exclusively on the sale of alcoholics, 
 so many openings will present themselves that they will no more 
 think of presenting to Parliament a claim for compensation, than 
 did the West India planters after the abolition of the slave trade 
 had become a fait accompli. 
 
 4. As the policy of Mr. Pitt and Lord Howick was amply 
 justified by the result, we claim that Mr. Gladstone and Mr. 
 Bright would but do themselves justice to adopt the same policy. 
 
 5. As Sir George Murray claimed that in view of the gradual 
 emancipation which, in 1831, he contemplated, "there was no 
 ground for the demand for compensation," so in the gradual 
 
 * Out of 185,000 liquor-sellers, the licensed victuallers, the grocers, and nearly all 
 beerhouse-keepers have other sources of income than the profit on the sale of alcoholics.
 
 24 
 
 emancipation of the parishes of the United Kingdom from the 
 curse of the liquor traffic, we may claim that there is " no ground 
 for the demand for compensation," as drink-sellers will be only 
 gradually eliminated from parish after parish, and failing better 
 employment in their own parishes, they will find vacancies* in 
 abundance in other parishes, in which " local option " has not yet 
 been translated into '' local veto." 
 
 Finally, we may express the earnest desire that the present 
 Prime Minister may accept the judgment of his great predecessors 
 in the offices which he now holds — and while admitting that the 
 Legislature can but hold itself open to listen to properly-established 
 claims for compensation when the desired legislation is accom- 
 plished, — he should insist that no such question should be per- 
 mitted to "postpone for an hour" the "just and reasonable" 
 legislation which the House of Commons has demanded. 
 
 * Ten per cent of the holders of licences change every year, so that even at the 
 present time, while the traffic is not under the ban of law, vacancies are constantly 
 occurring. 
 
 A. Ireland & Co., Priuters, Pall Mall, Manchester.