The Press. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1893. A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION.

Press, Volume L, Issue 8676, 28 December 1893, Page 4

The Press. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1893. A PATRIOTIC OPPOSITION.

The other day our contemporary expressed a hope that the day would come when those holding similar views to ourselves would give " active as- " sistance to schemes for providing ".cheap land in Canterbury for sons of " Canterbury settlers." In reply, we invited the Lyttelton Times to show us in-what way this could honestly be done. We stated, with a full knowledge of the facts, that any quantity of land could be obtained by the Government in Canterbury ac the property tax valuation. If land, at that valuation, is not "cheap," then presumably our contemporary has some other method of providing this " cheap land/ and we invited the Lyttelton Times to state what that method was.

In yesterday's issue we got what, presumably, is intended as a reply to our question—which was no reply at all. It was contained in these words:— " A clear issue was placed before the " electors only a month ago, and they " declared by an overwhelming " majority that the Government; and " its policy are entitled to the confi- " dence of the country. A patriotic " Opposition would bow to the popular " verdict, and try to make the " best of what it might really "believe to be a bad job."- Are we to understand, from the above passage, that tbe verdict of the country was in favour of "cheap land" in Canterbury —for the question we were discussing with our contemporary was that problem and nothing else. We do not deny for a moment that the Government obtained a large majority at the general eleotion; but we deeite the Lyttelton Times to tell us if that victory meano, as seems to be implied in yesterday's article, the adoption of a policy of obtaining " cheap land " in Canterbury ? And if so, how is such a policy to be honestly given effect to 1 The real point at issue is, what is "cheap land " ? Is land at the present market value—the property tax valuation—"cheap land "? If so, there is no need to talk about schemes for providing it. The land is here, and there are plenty of owners willing to sell. But if the price fixed by the Government valuers for taxation purposes is not '•cheap" we wanb to know what the LytteltonTim.es meane by the term. Instead, however, of telling us, we are simply advised by the Government organ to "bow to the popular verdict," and try to make the best of what we may really believe to be a "bad job." Now until our contemporary does give us the necessary information on the poinb, we can only arrive at one of two conclusions. If land in Canterbury at the property tax value is not " cbeap " the Government can only obtain " cheap land " in Canterbury by confiscation, or by acquiring ib at its present market value and selling ib to fcresh settlers at a loss to the State.

If we are invited to " make the " best" of a "bad job" of this kind, then we say frankly that we are not prepared to do so. The duty of a " patriotic Opposition," in such circumstances, is to us plain. They may regret that, even in appearance, a majority of the people should have given their sanction to what amounts to the taking by the State of the property of individuals. But a " patriotic " Opposition" will refuse to believw that, rightly informed, the people would sanction euch a policy for one instant. A "patriotic Opposition" would take for granted that, when the electors once came to understand that they had been induoed to support a Government prepared to inflict such a wrong upon the nation, they would repudiate such a policy. They would therefore regard it as their great) duty to plaoe the case fairly and honestly before the public, and to continue to do so on every available opportunity until the truth bad sunk into the popular mind. It is no part of the function of an Opposition, the moment it is in a minority, to quietly submit without a struggle. To do so would be to acknowledge that it did not believe in its own principles. Now unless our contemporary shows that we are mistaken in our conclusions, we are forced to assume chat to provide "cheap land ,, in Canterbury means either the " confiscation" of the property of the present owners, or the purchase of the land at its present value and the selling of ib at a loss ,by the State. To neither of these proposals can we give our support. If this is the deoiaion of the., majority ab the late election—which we dp not believe— then we think it"is the duty of "a patriotic Opposition " to earnestly set about the task of cod verting the present minority into a majority. If the alternatives stated above truly represented public opinion—and again we repeat that we do not think either is the matured opinion of the country — we would still adhere to our present course, even J were there not more than four hundred that had refused to bow the knee to Baal. But large as the Ministerial majority at the late election was there yet remains a powerful minority —both in numbers and intelligence— I who voted against the Government candidates. A comparatively slight change in public opinion would at any time place Mr Seddon and his followers in a minority at the polls. Therefore, a "patriotic Op- " position/ convinced of toe justice of the cause it represents, need not even be dispirited. For our own part we have every confidence in the future. If the present Government really intend to confiscate the lands of the present owners in Canterbury in order to provide ."cheap laud "for fresh settlers, we cannot, we again repeat, give our assistance to any such schemes. On the contrary it will be our duly to protest, in the most vigorous language at our command, against a policy which is founded on injustice and must) end in disaster. And this course it is the imperative duty of every member of a "patriotic Opposition" to follow. .