§ SIR W. LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)I wish, Sir, with the permission of the House, to make a personal explanation. The leader of the House in his speech last night gave the impression that on a certain occasion in this House I had been a supporter 1122 of compensation. I have referred to Hansard, and I would like to read to the House the words I used on March 13, 1877 (the occasion referred to by the right hon. Gentleman), with reference to the Gothenburg Resolution of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). I spoke as follows:—
My hon. Friend talks about compensation. His Resolution is very well drawn, and he says he would give fair compensation.' So would I. I do not want to do anything unfair. Let anybody show that he is entitled to compensation, and there is no one in the House who would be more ready to vote for it than I am. But I tell you what I think—this is merely my opinion. I think that where a man has made a bargain with the public, and has paid money for the power of selling drink up to the 10th of October, on which day his licence ends, it is quite fair that if you want him to give up before that date you should pay him something. But after that I would not give him one penny of compensation. people talk about compensation, but I should like to see any first-class lawyer stand up in this House and pledge his reputation to the statement that a publican has any right to compensation after his licence has run out. He would never be listened to again and his authority would be gone if he dared to say anything of the kind.
§ *MR. W. H. SMITHI should like to ask the hon. Baronet one question. Did he not vote for the Resolution I read to the House last night?
§ SIR W. LAWSONI am not charging the right hon. Gentleman with doing anything unfair. I certainly voted for the Resolution, but at the same time I made the statement I have read to the House.