THE PRESS. MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1891.

Press, Volume XLVIII, Issue 8045, 14 December 1891, Page 4

THE PRESS. MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1891.

Mb. Bauancb addressed a public meeting at Patea the other day, and in the course of bis speech he made the following statement;—"lt had been stated," he said, "that the " Government intended abolishing the " freehold tenure in New Zealand. " This was untrue. The Land Bill " of next session would contain three " cardinal principles, viz.:—lst, land " cold for cash; 2nd, land sold on " deferred payment; 3rd, land let on " perpetual lease." The question which naturally arises on reading the above passage ia this— Who stated that the Government intended abolishing the freehold tenure ia New Zealand 1 From the injured tone ia which the above announcement was made one might naturally conclude that some political opponent of Mr, Ballanob's had been attempting to injure his Government by putting forward unfounded charges calculated to destroy what confidence still remained in the present ailministration. Mr. Ballancb had jusb concluded the task of demolishing a dummy, which he had himself set up fer the purpose of knocking it down. Having explained that there was no truth in that particular charge, he next proceeded to deal with the question of the freehold tenure in the words we have juat quoted. But was it a political opponent that made that statement? tSo far from that being the case it is Mr. Ballancb himself who is responsible for it. Speaking before a Dunedin audience a few weeks ago, he told his hearers that the Land Bill that the Government would "next give to the " Legislative Council would be a Laud " Bill containing only the perpetual " lease, and the Government should be " so supported by the people of the " colony that the Legislative Council " itself would be awed into passing v the Bill." Which of those two statements is correct 1 Is it Mr. Ballance before a town constituency who is to be believed, or Mr. Ballanob when playing for the agricultural vote? The two statements are quite at variance with each other, and cannot both be true. We admit that after making the above announcement at Fatea Mr. Ballanob proceeded to remark that the Government would be quite justified in saying that not another acre of land should be sold, but that it should be dealt with only under the perpetual lease tenure. But we are not at present concerned about what Ministers would be justified or not justified in saying. The public want to know what Ministers really mean. At present the electors have an unpleasant conviction that Ministers have no fixed convictions on any question whatever j that they are blindly fishing for a policy, aud that they are perfectly reckless in their attempts to find out what public opinion is. They say one thing before a town audience and another before a rural one, and they, nevertheless, expect the people of Hew Zealand to trust them and believe that they have definite views and aims as to the welfare aud prosperity of the colony. It may be said, perhaps, that since the Dunedin speech was delivered the Premier has definitely ohanged his mind, or may have forgotten what he said on that occasion. But he could scarcely say that he had forgotten his Wellington speech only five days previously, in which he declared that he was " a thorough believer in the " nationalisation of the remainder of •' the Crown land, ,, , and that "if " they were wise they would "say that none should be sold " outright after this." There can be no mistake as to the meaning of these words. Yet five days later we have the same gentleman complaining that it had been said of the Government that they intended to abolish the freehold tenure, when such was far from their intention.

When the late ao-called Liberal Government come in office ib used to be said of them that they spent the recess stumping the oountry in opposition, to each other. One member of that Ministry propounded one policy from an Auckland platform and another member of the same Ministry almost immediately proceeded in Dunedin, Invercargill, or elsewhere, to answer his colleague's speech. One appealed to the electors in pleading tones to give the country another chance by allowing the Government to borrow at the rate of £2,000,000 a year. Another answered him by proving that every million borrowed meant £40,000 a year additional taxation. These speeches, it was understood, were intended to feel the pulse of the country. Ministers were in search of a policy, and when all the talking was over they met and agreed upon one, which was supposed to be acceptable to the majority of the electors. The plan was not a conspicuous success. It created a growing amount of distrust In the sincerity and straightforwardness of the Government, which led shortly afterwards to their downfall. The present) socalled " liberal" Government would appear to have improved upon the methods of the recent "Liberal" Ministry. Instead of authorising oue member of the Cabinet to preach one set of opinions and another quite the opposite, the same Ministers vary their utterances according to locality and circumstances. If a Minister speaks in Dunedin or Wellington he talks about forcing a perpetual lease Bill upon the Legislative Council under threats of extinction if they refuse to pass it. If he speaks before a country audience he is virtuously indig-1 nant because the Governmeao have fe««n charged with attempting *to j

abolish the freehold tenure. The sutement, L boldly cays, "is untrue." How lone will this new method of *?LX to play fact and loose with the public last? Ministers must give the publio of New Zealand credit for a veryemftU amoont of intelligence if they think that they will "be deceived by auoh transparent devices