The Press. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1906. MR McNAB AT ONEHUNGA.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12663, 29 November 1906, Page 6

The Press. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1906. MR McNAB AT ONEHUNGA.

We are glad to see that Mr McNab has started on the task of explaining the Liuiel Bill. It is a measure which will staiiel a good deal of explanation, anel we are convinced that the more it is looked into, the more objectionable it will appear from every point of view except that of the land nationalises for whose especial gratification it seems to have been devisee!. And wo feel hound to compliment Mr McNab on the manner in which he has commenceel his task. He endeavours, of course, to make out ns gocel a case as ho can for his Bill, but his arguments are sfcrnightforwarel, anel he elocs not attempt to hoodwink the public with misrepresentations after the fashion of some of his Socialistic henchmen. The reasons he nelduces, however, for believing that the measure is likely to prove acceptable to the public strike ns as being ingenuous, but hardly convincing. He takes great comfort in the fact, for example, that the Auckland people, while objecting to the enelowment clauses, show no violent opposition to the £50,000 limitation of value, while ho is equally soothed anel consoleel by the discovery that tho Southern people, who object to the limitation, are reconciled to the provisions regarding cnelo.vmcnts. The truth is that in these matters, as in others, we are all reaely to shed the last drop of our brother's bleod, anel it is easy to accept any provision by which we ourselves aro not materially affected. In Auckland province there are practically no large estates over the £50,000 limit. There is consequently nobody affected by the compulsory restriction clause, and as the bulk of the country settlers are in a very small way, even the £10,000 limitation does not appear so serious as it does in the .South. On the other hand, there is a very keen desire for tho freehold, nnd the wouldbe settlers see nrounel them millions of ncres of Crown and native lands as yet undevelopeel—huge breeding-grounds for noxious weeds. Is it likely that they will listen with patience when they are told that these Crown lands are to he kept as endowments for tho school children, the olel age pensioners, and the paupers of the future, and that even as regards the native lands, the most they can .hope for is to be the tenant of some Maori landlorel in the sweet by-and-_>yo? A large proportion of these land . are of suoh a nature that it needs tho incentive of the fre?oho!d to induce a settler to take them up. Air McNah practically _d-mits this fact when he suggests that po_-_-hly the needs of these settlors will lie met if they are given a leasehold nnd nlloweel to sit for a certain numbe-r of years rent-free. We doubt if tho Auckland settlors will be f.tis-icel with any such attempt to ■brea,k them of their legitimate elesire for a freehold ef their own—a elesire inherent in the British race. There are only tiro methods in the Land Bill by whicii a man may acquire a freehold. If ho has a Crown loa.-oho_d for 999 years, ho mny surrender it, and take his chance of being able to buy it bad? on a freehold basis when it haa been put up to competition in the open market. Is it supposed that lease-in-perpetuity tenants take leave of their sober senses from the moment that they accept a leafo from the Government J" Li there any man living who would be such a fool, having a good section of land and a tenure for 999 years, as to play diu-.k. anel drakea ■with it in the fashion suggested in the Fowlds-McNab Bill? Of course there is not, and the clause oan only have been inserted as a mere Blind —a pretext to deluele unthinking people into imagining that it contains some sort of provision for converting a leasehold into a freehold. As for the landless man the only supply of fieeholels for tho future provided for him is the surplus store from the largo estates —the trimmings which nro to be sold when the owner is compelled to reduce his holding within the- £50.000 limit. In other words, while there are millions of acre* of Crown, ar.d native lanels un-

sold, tin_en»]oped, even nnsurTeycd, the prt*«»nt Gov-onimonfß idea <if providing freeholds for those who want them is hy pillaging those who possess them already, and who in many ca'cn have spent a lifetime of toil, patience, and thrift in hringins thor:'. under ctdtivntion. Is it any uondvr that the Auckhind people spurn Mich ".statiTKinanshl-p" as thii*. more, wlu-n. seeing there aro no large estates in their district, they have no prosjxyt of getting oven the ''enirnhs from the rich man's table"' which Air McNab proposes to dole out with such unctuous satisfaction? Tho Minister for Lands dwells with great emphasis on tho very favourable terms offered to those who already possess a lea«vin-porp-otuity in the shape of permission to pay off DO per cent, of the capital value, and freedom from covenants and inspection after 50 per cent. ha<» been repaid. We. admit tliat a very tempting m<f« of pottago lias bcon ofi<'iod to thef-e settlers if they will only sell what i.s not only their birthrijrht but the birthright of every New Zealander—tho right to tho freehold. The Bill has throughout been constructed with tlie view of getting tho co'ony irrevocably committed to the policy of a lease with rovcJuation, so tliat. all incrtflst* in hind values nwy Ko to tho Crown. We do not share the extravagant ideas of Mr McNab flfl to '.v>hat that increase is likely to l>e wlion he talks of Land now worth £.0.000 being "worth to-morrow £100.000, in the ; ' near future £100,000 and a not far "distant time millions of pounds.'' To talk of rural land in this way may oome well enough from tho lips of a Wellington land boomstor, but it is hardly what one would expect frorrj a sober Minister of the Crown. Never-t-lvclc6B, whatever the increase .nay be, wo hold that it properly Ik?longs- to t?isettler who lias tho oonrage to tako up the land in tlie first instance and the skill, the grit, and tho determination to subdue it from the wilderness and bring it into profitable ir-e. The Government wlio have been inoculated Cy Mr Fcuvld- with the Henry George microbe, are .aiming in this Uil'i at tho nationalisation of the land. Sir Joc*oph Ward, in tho interview whic we publish in anotlier column, of course protests vigorously against thin idc_, but he fails to explain away the fact that tho Government are bending all their efforts to create not freeholder., but tenants of the State, or cf a Maori landlord. He lays great strecse on the large estates already in existence, and their supposed evils, b;:t what ot tlie huge C6tate in tho hands of tho Maori's of the North Island? Why is it always the lands of Europeans, which are already being utilised, that aro selected by the Govornment for attack and em. division, and why aro tho native. laiicL allowed to run to waste. Again, while it is true that it is only the title of the large freehold estates which _s at present directly attacked by the IV wo havo shown that many of the 'Government party are in favour of reducing the limit and even of restricting the private possessions of those who hold no Land at all. Tho Land Bill js iutinctly anti-freehcKl in its principle and intention; and if the thin end or the wedge is onco allowed to he inserted, it will be comparatively easy to drive it home. Tho issue he fere iT country is quite simple. Tho people must now decide whether they wish an extension of tho freehold on the ono hand or .if they are in favour of its present restriction and gradual extinction. If the latter they will certainly support the Fowlda-McNab Land B7