The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1881-06-11 00:00:00

SIR RICHARD CROSS AT ST. HELEN'S.

Addressing a meeting of his constituents at St.
Helen's on Tuesday night, Sir Richard A. Cross, M.P.,
condemned the policy of the Government in Ireland,
Afghanistan, and the Transvaal, and justified the
course which the Opposition had taken in Parliament.
In the course of his remarks on the Irish Land Bill,
Sir Richard said :—They say that the tenant by
the action of the Land Bill of 1870 got something
which he had not before, a sort of permanent
interest in the soil, which he can sell. I have
asked them over and over again, "What is it you
can sell ? " Nobody has ever been able to tell us.
We have asked where is it to come from? There
is only one place it can come from, and that is
the landlord's pocket. There are only two people
engaged in the land, the landlord on one side and
*he tenant on the other, and if you give the tenant the
power of selling something he has not now, the only
place it can possibly come from is out of the landlord's
pocket. (Hear, hear.) I do not think I agree with the
-11 Duke of Argyll that if you get that system it will not
Work well; but I put to you the plain question, if
You are really going to take, as undoubtedly you are,
inoney out of one man's pocket and put it into another's,
'aught you not to compensate him for doing so? That
is the whole question; therefore we say that this
bill is absolute confiscation. if you are bound to
take this course for the good of the State—we do not
think it will do much good—if you do it, then you are
bound to compensate the landlord for the loss he
eustains—(hear, hear)—enly do not let the tenant
think he is getting the whole advantage. I want to
point out that although it may assist the actual indi-
vidual tenant for the time it is an absolute and positive
Wrong to all future tenants. I cannot press that too
strongly. If an incoming tenant was to take a farm,
everybody knows he wants all the capital he can get for
the purpose of tilling his farm. As matters are now, he
!las only to settle with his landlord to pay a fair and
Just rent. I have no objection whatever to rents
being fair, and if you cannot make them so by agree-
pient, then let.it be done in some other way; but the
incoming tenant will have to pay the rent to the land-
lord, he will have to pay the outgoing tenant for
.laanures, improvements, and matters of that kind, but
oeyond that he will have to pay a premium, a good-
will for the right to go in, not to the landlord, but to
the tenant; and all this will be a dead loss to
Nu', and will hamper him during the whole time he
Is located in that farm. Therefore, the point I want
to press is this this Bill is not for the good of the
Permanent tenants of Ireland. If it was, I should be
glad to listen to it; but it is for the benefit of the
existing tenants, who only get it because the Govern-
Inent want to satisfy the clamour which has been
made throughout the length and breadth of Ireland.
(Hear, hear.) I do not think that is the way to
govern, that by giving up principle and departing
from sound economic principles you will settle any
agitation in the world. What you want is that the
authority of the Queen shall be vindicated, and that
law and order shall be upheld. (Cheers.)