The press. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1893.

Press, Volume L, Issue 8600, 29 September 1893, Page 4

The press. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1893.

THE EVICTION GOVERNMENT. We have been told that the rejection of the Land for Settlements Dill by the Legislative Council will " consolidate the Liberal party at the general elections." We sincerely hope it will. Nothing would give us greater pleasure than to see the party of Coercion compelled to face the electors on the issue raised in Mr. McKenzie's Bill as introduced into the House of Representatives. For the Bill, as it left the hands of Minieters, must be regarded j as embodying the matured views of the Cabinet on the questiou. It is tiue that when they found themselves face to face with opposition iv their own party they expressed their willingness to modify it. But they are entitled to no credit for that or for the changes which were made before it left the House. Tiiey. must stand by their Bill as it was introduced, and it will be the duty of all lovers of freedom to enlighten the electors as to the aims of the Eviction Government now in power. Using, then, the Bill as introduced by Mr MoKenzie as our guide, let us endeavour briefly to explain the nature of the power the Minister of Lands asked the House to give him in the matter of taking land from the present owners. The Bill is brief, aiid goes directly to the point. It places every 1 and owner, small aud great, absolutely at the mercy of the Government of the day, without reservation of any kind. The Minister would, simply have to 'make up his mind that a piece of land was needed for settlement. lb might be ten acres, one hundred acres, one thousand acres that he had set his covetous eye upon. All that he had to, do was to inform the owner that he wanted the laud for settlement. If the owner refused to sell at the price named, the next information he might have was a notice in the Gazette that the laud had been acquired by the Government, and that its value would be settled in the usual way. The farm might be one upon which the owner had lavished a large sum in improvements. He may have built a pleasant home upon it, planted and cultivated the land to the fullest extent, relying upon the security of his. tifcio granted to him by. the Crown. Under the Bill, as introduced, a property of this sort would be as liable to be taken as that of a large holder. It would depend entirely upon ' the .will of the Minister, He would be the sole judge, and no one else would be able to resist. The "eyes" of the small holdings as well as the " eyes " of large estates might be " picked " and the owners practically ruined. A Minister, without principle, might use his power to plunder his political opponents, and he would he safe as long as he had. a subservienl majority at his back. No man's house would be safe from the ruthless hands of the Ministerial evicter. Every farm in the colony, large and small, is, under the Bill, placed at the mercy of the Minister for Lands, He has but to issue his edict and any man might find his home gone, wrested from him to be handed over perhaps to a would be settler of the " right colour." Under such a measure as this the security of settlers would be absolutely gone. All incentive to improvement would disappear. To have placed powei such as this in the hands of any Minister would have been to make the settlers of New Zealand the slaves ol a worse than Kussian despot. It will be pleaded, perhaps, that no Minister would have ventured to have used the power sought to be given in this manner, and that Ministers agreed to insert some safeguards. Thw, we say, is no answer. The Land for Settlement Bill must be accepted as an expression of the views of the Government who undertook the responsibility of introducing it- And it indicates, what we have all along maintained, that the Ministry of Coercion will never ba satisfied till they have wrested from the people every acre of land in the colony. The Bill, as drafted, shows that they are resolved to nationalise the land the moment the electors are weak enough to give them the power. It also shows that they are quite prepared to secure their ends by means which are " utterly wrong," by methods which Sir Robert SrouT had to describe "as very cruel and oppressive," as "monstrous," as worse than an "Irish" or Highland «• eviction." Now. there are 91,000 freeholders in the colony out of a total adult male population of some 167 000. We ask these freeholders to realise what the Ministerial Bill really means. It reads them a lesson which they will do well to take thoroughly to heart. Ministers have been, foiled of their object for the

time being. They met- with unexpected opposition, in the Lower House from their own aide, and promptly expressed their willingness to admit amendments. But the Bill tells its own Btory. It shows to the colony in all its naked deformity what the real policy of this Eviction Ministry is. They think it perfectly right, expedient and just, that the home of every man in New Zealand | i should be placed at the tender meroy |of a despotic Ministry. They see j nothing 'unjust, nothing unfair, in Parliament giving them powers for which King James scarcely ventured to ask. James thought he had a Divine right to govern at his own sweet will, and his subjects sent him into exile at the great Revolution. The New Zealand Ministry" of Coercion think, too, that they should be entrusted with absolute power over the property of their subjects. The 91,000 freeholders of this colony may have something to say to these nineteenth century aspirants to absolute rule, and may also send them at tho approaching elections to their impotent nonentity in private life.