War Compensation
| Date | 01 January 1927 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1927.tb02283.x |
| Published date | 01 January 1927 |
| Author | D. Du Bois Davidson |
War
Compensation
By
D.
Du
BOIS
DAVIDSON
[Read before the Institute
of
Public
Adminisfration,
16fA
December,
19261
HE
history of compensation during the
War
resembles that
of
T
most other war activities in being a series of improvisations.
Sir Leslie Scott’s researches may be held to have established that there
was a long practice of making compensation as
a
matter of right for
all forms of requisition by the Crown-except the press-gang. As regards
land, though primarily in the case of permanent acquisition, this practice
was embodied in the Defence Act of
1842,
during the period of codification
which succeeded the first Reform Bill. Horses and vehicles, an essential
of the older kind of war, were appropriately dealt with by the Army Act,
and it is tempting to regard this last as a lineal descendant
of
the
mgareia
of the Persian Empire, which has nierely in assessing compensation
snbstituted for the rough justice of the provincial governor that of the
County Court Judge. These precedents were, however, neglected by the
Advisers of the Crown in
1914.
They may have been regarded as
inadequate for the infinite complexity
of
modern war
;
on the other hand,
they may merely have been overlooked.
The Admiralty, indeed, had their Proclamation for the requisitioning
of
shipping cut and dried for issue on the 3rd August. Otherwise only
one aspect of the problem of compensation seems to have been specially
considered prior to the outbreak of war. This aspect, the question
of
taking accommodation for the housing of troops, was that which, though
not pecuniarily the most important, most intimately affected the life
of
the ordinary citizen. For that reason it subsequently became not only
the starting-point but the determining factor in the evolution
of
the
general system
of
compensation which was ultimately adopted. In
1909
the General Staff appear to have turned their attention
to
the point,
with the result that a new sub-section was inserted in the Army Act for
that year, by which the existing billeting powers were extended to
provide for the territorial forces in the event of their embodiment.
The possibility, however, of the numerous other forms of compensation,
which are necessitated by the exigencies
of
modern war, had not been
envisaged, and it will be found that the actual steps for the assessment
of such compensation were only taken haltingly and as each aspect of
the general problem forced itself
upon
the attention of the Government.
The immense expansion of the armed forces
of
the Crown, which
94
War
Compensation
resulted on the outbreak of war, speedily brought home to the authorities
the fact that the payments under the billeting system, though apparently
inconsiderable when applied to
a
small force, would become ruinous
when applied to the new armies. They were, therefore, partly superseded
in practice by negotiated rentals for the occupation of land
or
buildings,
but even upon this basis it became clear that the hasty bargains which
were thus driven for urgent accommodation would place
a
great burden
on the State. At the same time, the question of compensation for
damage caused by the exercise
of
the Defence of the Realm powers became
acute, owing largely to the action
of
the Government in demolishing
a
number of houses at Felixstowe in order to ensure
a
clear field of fire for
the local defences. The matter was discussed at length in the House
of Commons
on
the 10th March,
191
j,
during the Debate upon the Defence
of the Realm
(No.
2)
Bill. Proposals were put forward by the Govern-
ment for the constitution of
a
Committee
to
formulate principles for the
consideration of Parliament. In the course of the discussion, however,
a
suggestion was made by Mr.
H.
E.
Duke, K.C.,’ then member for
Exeter, in which he laid stress upon the principle of eminent domain,
and suggested that the burden of costly arbitration and litigation which
might arise from any statutory scheme of compensation could be obviated
by setting up a Commission
“
to ascertain what payments in
its
opinion
ought to be made
ex
gratia
by the Crown in relief of the burdens which
the war has thrown upoc the individual citizen.” This proposal com-
mended itself to the House of Commons and to the Government.
The Defence of the Realm Losses Commission was accordingly set up
by the Royal Warrant of the 31st March, 1915
:
“
To
inquire and determine, and to report what
sums
(in cases not otherwise
provided for) ought in reason and fairness
to
be paid out
of
public funds to applicants
who (not being subjects of an enemy State) are resident or carrying
on
business
in
the United Kingdom, in respect
of
direct and substantial
loss
incurred and damage
sustained by them by reason
of
interference with their property
or
business
in
the
United Kingdom through the exercise by the
Crown
of
its rights and duties in the
defence of the Realm.”
Mr. Duke was naturally the first Chairman
of
the Commission, and his
colleagues were Sir James Woodhouse,2 formerly
M.P.
for Huddersfield
and subsequently
a
member of the Railway and Canal Coinmission, and
Sir Matthew Walla~e,~ formerly President of the Scottish Chamber
of
Agriculture. The Commission were singularly fortunate in their composi-
tion. Mr. Duke was preeminently the
vir
gruvzs
of the English Bar and
as
such peculiarly qualified to inaugurate and obtain general acceptance
for
a
code of compensation
as
novel as its subject-matter. His colleagues,
Now
the Right Hon.
Lord
Memvale, President
of
the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty
Subsequently created
Lord
Terrington.
Sow
Sir
Matthcw \l’allace,
B‘art.
Division.
95
To continue reading
Request your trial