The Press. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1892.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 8096, 12 February 1892, Page 4

The Press. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1892.

Ths success of yesterday's denionstralions cannot fail to be most gratifying to bis Excellency. They prove in an uumistakeablo manner that all classes of the commuuity sincerely regret the departure of Lord and Lady Onslow from New Zealand. They further show that during their short sojourn in the colony Lord and Lady Onslow have won, not only the respect, but the sincere esteem of all classes of the community. The demonstrations were not confined to one section of our population. The attendance at the luncheon was not only large but representative, whilst the gathering in the square testified to the earnestness which pervades the minds of the people as a whole to find a fitting opportunity of showing how heartily they have appreciated the Governor's endeavours to promote the welfare of the colony, and at the same time to strengthen the ties which bind U8 to the mother'country. Much lias been said and written on the subject of colonial disloyalty, but certainly, as far as New Zealand is concerned, there is no evidence of the existence of any such sentiment here. On this point it will be the pleasant duty of his Excellency to assure the English public that in no part of the Queen's dominions are the people more loyal to the Grown and prouder of the fact that they form part of the great British Empire than they are in New Zealand. It is no flattery to say that during hie Excellency's tenure of offioe he has never missed an opportunity of doing what lay in his power to strengthen that sautiruent. As befitted a farewell speech, his Excellency's remarks at yesterday's banquet dwelt largely on the question of the relations of the colonies to the Mother Couutry. He began with payiug a graceful tribute to the founder of Canterbury, John Uobbrt GoDLBr, whose name will long be assooiated with the early struggles and difficulties of the pioneers, to whose exertions we owe the present prosperity of this provincial district. This subject naturally led his Excellency into a disquisition on the various proposals which have been made for bringing into yet closer relations the component parts of the British Empire. His Excellency was indignant with those critics who on insufficient knowledge and with the most scanty acquaintance with colonial affairs and colonial opinions undertake to inform the British public with respect to the colonies. The result has been some inaccurate , writing and occasionally misrepresentation. We canuot help thinking, however, that in his anxiety to put forward the most favourable view with respect to New ■Zealand, Lord Onslow yesterday allowed himself to give utterance to expressions and sentiments which are liable to be misunderstood. It may be the case that the scare which now exists in England with respect to the policy of taxation and land legislation is duepartlytomisunderstanding. But this by no means accounts for the general feeling of distrust which prevails there. The value, therefore, to the colony of such explanations of its position and the general tendency ot its legislation as could be given in important ciroles in England by Lord Onslow cannot be over-estimated. It becomes, consequently, of the highest interest to know precisely the impression on these matters that he is likely to give. The words used by any public man who occupies the position he has held here and in England should necessarily be considered by us as being the result of mature reflection. What, then, are we to understand by the suggestion of Lord Onslow that the panic caused in England by the legislation of last session is due to exaggerated representations on the pare of landed proprietors in this country? Iβ it not rather the fact that the actual law of the Colony as embodied in the Land and Income Tax Assessment Act has terrified capitalists in London as the result of close investigation of its provisions? Business men do not form their views of security or profit upon the writings of timid or interested persons. They judge for themselves, taking facts and responsible statements as their groundwork. Now, the facts are that a violent attack has been made upon landed property as distinguished from any other kind of possession ; thac with that object not merely has the exemption for improvements been limited to £3000 bat a tax of a special kind has been placed ott a graduated ecale on landed property onlys that

a direct invitation has been given, in a practical shape, to the many to destroy the few, and that these things have been done in obedienoe to the dictates, nob of reason and prudence, but) of a majority, composed partly of Socialistic members returned at the last general election. These are the facts, and that they are euoh can' be readily seen by an examination of the pages of in which will be found the unvarying determination of the Government party to make a beginning with the practical application of the single-tax doctrine. If that ia not enough for Lord Onslow it is not diineult to understand that it is sufficient) for English capitalists and New Zealand farmers. But matters do not stop there. Let us now come to responsible utterances. Those of the Government supporters are in a sense to be regarded as made by mc a in a responsible position. These persons are the elected of tho people and have the power of giving practical effect to their views and doctrines. Especially is this the case when, as at present, the Government are not the leaders but the driven of their party. Anyone who will tako tho trouble to read cannot fail to be struck by the spirit of recklessness and total absence of moderation, which are the leading characteristics of tho speeches, both in and out of Parliament, of the Ministerial supporters. The case, however, dooa not end with them. Not merely the rank and file of the party have thus expressed themselves and thus acted, but the Ministers have lost no opportunity of declaring their acceptance of similar principles. In fact, they have gone to the utmost extreme in that direction. The Premier has repeatedly declared that the Government are favorable to " the nationalisation of the " land." Did not Mr. Ballance when addressing a public meeting in Auckland openly say that it the land tax was the first step towards land nationalisation " so much the better for the land tax?" The Minister of Lands also has annouuoed, not merely the view of his Government that Crown land should not be sold but leased only, but has actually gone the length of declaring that, in course of time, no Crown grant will exist in New Zealand ! Nor has the matter stopped with such declarations. The infamous provisions of the Land for Settlements Bill of last session (happily thrown out by the Legislative Uouucil) carried with it the priuciple of confiscation and oppression. We give to Lord Onslow every credit for the best inteutions, for loyalty to New Zealand and a kindly interest in her future, but we veuturo to say that the general teuour of his remarks shows that he nnder-estimates the danger of the position, and that, in his desire to minimise the anxiety which is justly felt in England, he forgets the violence of the Ministerial

party and the contiaual threats of his Ministers against capital, and having persuaded himself that the bark of the Socialists and adherents of the Single*tax is worse than their bite, he iguoroa the fact that were one-tenth of the bark to be represented by a bite, the prosperity of this country would be effectually ended. ■

It has been considerations such as we have just enumerated which have led people here to contemplate with grave anxiety the future prospects of the colony. That auch a feeliug very •widely prevails received striking confirmation at yesterday's bauquet. Although his Excellency waa cheered to the echo throughout the greater park of his speech, his remarks 011 our politic* were received with chilling silence. Aud. if the people of New Zealand are to a considerable extent alarmed a,* to the uncertainty of the future, it is not surprising that those at a distance interested iv tho colony are equally disturbed. In one sense, no doubt, his Excellency is perfectly correct iti taking a favourable viow of the intontions of the people of New Zealand, as we believe that tho present policy does not represent the deliberate opinion of the country, if ouly that opiaioa could be declared at a general election. ,