The Press. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 1891.

Press, Volume XLVIII, Issue 7880, 3 June 1891, Page 4

The Press. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 1891.

The speech of the Minister of Lands on Monday evening to a large extent dealt with personal questions. He replied at considerable length to the attack made ou him by Mr. Spencb at Invercargill, and sought to make out that Mr. Spence's treatment was necessitated by that official's maladministration. The public have now the two statements before them, but before arriving at any final conclusion respecting the question it will be well to wait till Mr. Spbncb, or someone on his behalf, replies to Mr. McKbnzib's accusations.

The speech is of chief interest to the publio in-so-far as it endeavors to throw some light on the larger political questions of the day. Mr. McKenzie repeated the worn-out arguments in support of the Ministerial aotion with respect to a second session. They required time, he tells us, to become acquainted with the position of the colony and to inquire into the ramifications of tho Government in all its parts. They could uot, ho added, have asked the Upper House to adjourn as it was quite possible that it would have taken no notice of their request. In reply, it is only necessary to point out that the House could have adjourned for a month or sir weeks, as easily as for a. fortnight. It was not a question of time at all, but one of pay. A prorogation meant two sessions and two payments to members in ouo year; whereas an adjournment meant one, and tho former was accordingly adopted. The minority were quito prepared to grant Ministers any reasonable time hi which to mature their plaus, but they protested, in the interests of economy, against the scandalous waste of publio money which the holding of two sessions involved. As to the Upper House difficulty there is absolutely nothing in it. Ministers knew perfectly well that it is the praotice of the Imperial Parliament to adjourn, and there, is never any difficulty with the House of Lords, and there, would have been none with tbe New Zealand Legislative Council. Next as regards tho policy of the Government, as sketched out by Mr. McKenzie, we find that he gives great prominence to a policy of "no borrowing." In this respect he is only reiterating the settled conviction of the people as a whole. It is now generally agreed that borrowing must stop. It is Morth noticing, however, that the utterances of the members of the Government on the subject are a. little difficult to understand. Only the other day Mr. Seddon told a public audience that " what was wanted at " the present time, as far as the money " waa available, was a vigorous public " works policy." It is true that he stated in the same speech that the Government did not intend to borrow, only to use the windfall which had fallen into their hands—the released sinking funds. To use these funds on public works is, as we have conclusively proved, to add to our indebtedness; in other words, to borrow. Mr. McKenzie evidently has an uncomfortable feeling that this is only too true. The Government, he tells us, had " come to " the conclusion that the time had " nearly arrived when instead of bor- " rowiug the country should begin to " think about reducing its indebted- " ness, and he hoped the time was not « far distant when they wonld be able "to submit proposals which would "enable them to do so." This of course, is all very well. But why not begin now 1 Ministers have an opportunity of showing their sincerity iv the cause of economy aud prudence by using the released sinking funds for their legitimate purpose. The sinking funds were set aside to meet tbe loans when they matured. A subsequent Act allows of these funds being paid intp the public works account and the maturing loans being renewed/ But why should these, funds not be set aside for the original object ? Iv our opinion the time has not only "nearly" but has actually arrived when the country should set about the task of reducing its indebtedness. The only manner in which this can be done is by adopting the course which we have advocated, namely, agreeing not to renew our maturing loans, but to pay them off with the funds in hand for that pdrpose. Mr. Seddon in the speech from which .we have quoted, says that the Government are not going to take this advice. They have resolved to spend every penny of the money. When that, however, has been squandered, and the pressing demands of several districts partly satisfied, the time, in tho opinion of Mr. McKenzie, will have "nearly arrived when we should "begin to" "think about reducing" our indebtedness.

On the subject of taxation Mr. McKenzie was prudently reticent. He could not, he said, give details, but the scheme would be one for equalising the burden of taxation. Other people have not been so careful, and the consequence is that a general impression prevails that the scheme will be of a most dangerous kind, and one calculated greatly to intensify the existing

depression. Bat We have for the present said enoufffc on this subject in former articles, and, therefore, pass on to another plank in the Ministerial platform. Oa the subject of land settlement he said that during the coming session he would submit proposals which Vould secure bond fid* settlement, Oa certain conditions he is prepared to allow of the freehold to he acquired. He will continue the deferred payment principle also on certain conditions, and he will provide perpetual leases for those who desire them. This means, we presume, that the right of future purchase is not to be allowed to the perpetual leaseholder. If anyone wants land in fee simple he must either purchase it for cash or on deferred payments. This ia what Mr. McKenzie considers encouraging settlement. * The Minister must surely be aware that the perpetual lease system, bo called, is popular chiefly because it provides an easy meaus of acquiring a bit of land by a poor man. He has only to pay a small rental on its value for a number of years with tho knowledge that when he has made certain improvements he can make it his own. This right. is, however, to be denied him. He must continue a tenant of the Crown for ever. It is reserved for the man with meaus alone to acquire a footing in the country—the cash purchaser or the deferred payment selector. Why the Government should so obstinatoly refuse to give the selector perfect freedom of tenure is to us a mystery. |We are convinced that in thus ridiug their perpetual lease hobby they are placing a serious obstacle iv the way of the real progress of the country.