POLITICAL COMMENTS.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9520, 12 September 1896, Page 8

POLITICAL COMMENTS.

[pcblished by arrangement with trl National Association, Welmnotos;l SWALLOWING~TiIEIR PLEDGES. Everybody knew that tho finance of tfo present Ministry was a sham. The pretfina. that the Government was not bonowin* and could spend money upon public worb without borrowing, was simply a holW election cry. This has had to be admitted. The loans sanctioned and rained since 18S&J since the general election—ure tho faL lowing :— Advances to sett lei's ... ... £3,000 00ft Land for settlement ... ... 1*250(81 Roads and Native lands ~. 5000__I New Zealand Bank shares ... 500000 Public works 1.000.000 Loans to local bodies ... ... 257 AM Loans to local bodies (Juno '^ •luartor) 2000. bmking funds seized up to 31st March, 1896 ... ... 262,800 Total tt/79035 A non-borrowing Government, indeed. We have left out tho Banlc of Zealand guarantees. They amount t<_ £4,700,000! And we have also not included the Sinking Fund seized thk year, £70,300. Was there ever a mora hollow mockery than to have ever repeated the cry, " A non-borrowing Government." As we have said, however, no one M . qutiinted with our finance would have said that the colony was paying its way without loans. We did not expect, however thai the land policy that Mr M'Kenzie h«j trumpeted abroad as a policy that could not be improved, would also have been cast to the M-inds; yet so it is. In 1892 Mt M'Kenzie, in introducing his Land Bill advocated a new tenure—the lease in p«! petuity or the 999 year.' lease. £[, said :—

•« I am prepared to go the length of gioin a lease in perpetuity -.for all time to eowj. That, I think, ought to meet the objatient of those people who say that the.j think then ought not to be a revaluation. Under this there tvould be no revaluation. Every man who took up land under such a clause would have the land for himself und hi* family fa all time."—Hansard, vol. 76, pp, 522-, 523.

This was the distinct pledge given in tht Minister's speech, and so the law w«t framed. There was no power of re-v-lu*. tion. This session, however, the suae Minister has prepared what he calls a Fair Rent Bill. Under this Bill, as brough down, the Minister, at his sweet will, maj demand a revaluation of the land of every tenant who has held his lease in perpetuity for two years. And what is perhaps worse, he can go on revaluing the land eveiy year! There is no security of rent to a tenant. And this Bill affects not only leases in perpetuity, but all leases grouted by the Crown, coal mining leases, golilfieldl leases, village settlement leases, leases in the blocks opened under the land for settle ment system, the leasos nt Cheviot, tht pastoral leases, Sec , &c., Sec Some farmers thought they got good bargains on th* Higlibank estate. If this Bill becomes law their rents will have to be adjusted—which means raised—in two years I How will they like it? The paternal Liberal Government many of them support are about to bestow this favour on them. And their members— the Merediths, the Buddos, the McLuchlans, the Stewards, &c., &c, —will support the Minister. What he orders they will do. There was once a proposal of a Fair Rent Bill in 1888. There had been niuoh clamour* ing for reduction of rent, and it was proposed in 1888 to leave the adjustment of all rents on Crown lands to an independent tribunal. It did not interfere with private tenants, and it was, compared with thin Bill of the Hon. Mr M'Kenzie, limited in iti operation. Now one who posed, and who still poses, as a "Liberal" said about that Bill:—"I think the Bill goes too far. I ask members of the House whether, Bitting here as guardians and trustees of the* ?üblic estate, they are prepared to go urther than they would go if their own property were being administered. I tali any member of this House how far hi would .support this Bill if it were to U made applicable to his own property. . , . . . We are going to oreate under thil Bill a most cumbersome new local body, . which will have equal powers with tne Supreme Court and which will bo most expensive to work The evil feature about this Bill is the three yean* tenure of public property, which, of course*. - it must mean if carried as now before US. I ask any reasonable man in this Houwj . who knows anything about the improve* : ment of property, if he knows any indlvidua who would be mad enough to take up Crowi land and improve it on a three years' tenure. I do not know any man who would go on to Crown land under conditions which provide for the raising of his rent after he hu been on the land three years,"— Hantard, vol. 61, pp. 180-181. This is the speech, we have said, of one who posed and poses as a Liberal. Woul(i our readers believe that it is the speech of thi same Minister who has introduced the Fait'Rent Bill of 1896? In tho 1888 Bill thi tenant had to be in possession for three years before the rent could be altered, fa the Bill of 1896 he requires to be only two years. In the Bill of 1888 the rent could not lie raised every year but it can under the Bill of 1896. And yet tho same . Minister who denounced the Bill of 1088 hM introduced the Bill of 1896. What can U said of the conduct of such Ministers? Will there be a shred of the policy left that a few years ago they submitted to the colony ii, this practice of breaking their pledge* continues? The village settlors, tho bush settlers, thi Cheviot settlers, the Rakaia settlers, all thJW men took up land relying on their rent not being raised. Well, wo have the opportunity ■ of understandingwhat Liberalism means, eve» if they will have to j>ay more rent. But then they will be permitted to vote for ma* of the right colour. Should that not oom» pensate thera for tho breaking of that bargain, and for the violation of the pledge given to them when they took up their land ? True, many of them nifty hiV» .to pay a shilling or two more an aero, bat what signifies that in comparison witb the fact that Seddonians rule ? Have they not in Canterbury a band of men of the right colour representing them ? Have they not in the bush districts of Wellington and Taranaki Messrs Hogg, E. M. Smith, and Hail ? What more do they want ? An. extra shilling or two an acre ia puttf compared with the "Liberal" principle* they enjoy. They will, therefore, probably be found throwing their caps in the txt, shouting, "Great is the Minister of Landl, welcome our additional rent!"