The Dominion. MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1907. HAMPERING NATIONAL PROGRESS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 28, 28 October 1907, Page 4

The Dominion. MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1907. HAMPERING NATIONAL PROGRESS.

Stim, another change has been made in the laud policy of the Government. That policy, we'were told last year, was the fruit of careful deliberation, and aimed at the enforcement of principles which the Government declared to be dearer to their statesmanship than the delights of office. 'The.storm of indignation provoked by the original Bill convinced the Government that there was something wrong, and the irrevocable turned out not to be so irrevocable after all. The master build-1 ers took back their plans _for reconstruction and fresh deliberation. With,! a shock of' disillusion they realised that the public had not', after all, degenerated into a willingness to accept unquestioningly the fine theories of the Cabinet room , . Even their followers in the House,' it ■ had become apparent, were ready to deny that there was anything papal in a Ministerial . bill. Since then the land policy; announced as the immutable creed of the first recorded Ministry of Principle, has been changed and modified whenever a. sufficiently strong opposition has presented itself from the party that keeps the Government in power, and the friends of land nationalisation have at, each change-paused in their fighting to isr sue increasingly pained appeals to the Government not to concede . anything further. We cannot pretend to say exactly how often some of the Ministerial journals s have said: " This, at last, is bed rock." It became impossible, long ago, for the Government to make a pretence of lofty indifference to the voice of partisan appeal. Indeed, they have openly confessed that their policy has been shaped by the hands of expediency and compromise. If there remained any doubts on the point, the amendments in the National Endowments Bill whiph the Premier announced on Friday niu.st have opened the eyes of even the blindest faith. We do not know whether the Government was surprised or not at,the sturdy, opposition which the Bill encountered on its second reading. Still, it was plain that Principles ~ had to suffer again. The Hon. T. Y. Duncan ptophesied ruin to the-Ministry, and promised his assistance towards effecting that , ruin, if the nationalisation proposals' were' not'modified. Mr. R. M'Kenzie was even more bellicose. .'As the Premier-put. it, he :stabbed the Government in the, back. And there were other Brutuses—Mr.' Seddon,. who wished West-land to be preserved from the iland nationaliser; Mr. Mills, who condemned the whole scheme; Mr. Graham, who could not understand why the Bill was introduced; and many 'another Ministerialist who objected to the application of the Bill* to his district. To' a Government which, whatever its faults,.is not notably stubborn in its devotion to principle when stubbornness means -lost supporters, there was only one course open—the placating of these rebels. Accordingly the Bill has been modified to give some appearance of relief to the South Island. ; Mr. Masky. holds ; that there are good grounds lor believing that, instead of limiting the endowment area to a definite figure, ithe may, in the future, mean a wider measure of land nationalisation than ever, but,,in the meantime, it is sufficient;tp note that the changes : are the 1 outcome of the Southern -members' protest; Many,' perhaps most,:. of the Government paf-ty, are prepared'to-vote for the, Bill if it does not affect their- constituencies. But, if land nationalisation and the leasehold 1 are'so beneficent, the leaseholders should: clamour to haveas much of themjas. possible in Uieir own districts 1 . Instead, they are clamouring to.escape themselves, and allow the other districts to have all the benefit. •. ; : ' ■'. ;.;; ;

We have shown thej'imppssibility of giving any serious' notice';to the claim that the ear-marking of £49,000 of revenue will secure the finances of two great departments that cost nearly £1,000,000 annually," "and that Will cost probably nearer £%', 00,0,000 in ten years. This "ear-marking" has thus merit,'but—and_ this is of far greater importance—-it ; is aotuplly lull of injurious possibilities on its negative side, inasmuch as the handicap which it will: place upon land settlernent will result ,ma heavy loss of national progress. The .member who objects to the large area which is af-, fected inMiis district!under the Bill is simply saying, in other words, that his district will suffer if the freehold option is removed. His objections, rest upon a denial of the national wisdom of limiting the opportunities for land .occupation. \ \ If ,the' leasehold is. the only .proper tenure, the'.Government should make,it the only possible tenure. -,We thai • the members who oppose unmitigated leasehold will _be faithful to their principles in , the division lobby. Holding views so hostile to the nationalising of the land- in their respective districts, they cannot consistently support.a Bill which was quite correctly described by Mr. Lang as a "Land Nationalisation and Leasehold Bill."