THE NEW MINISTRY AND THE LAND.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 399, 7 January 1909, Page 4

THE NEW MINISTRY AND THE LAND.

■ To tho 'agricultural community the reconstruction of the Ministry liaa been a subject of interest mainly for the light which, 'it might throw upon 'the prospects of fresh land legislation. 'One of , tho leading features of the general election was the rebuke which was administered to the Government - for its embarkation upon, a land policy that is jopposed to the true interests of tho agriculturist. The defeat of Me. M'Nab was not the only evidence : of ' the disfavour with which tho:Government's surrender to.the Radical forces in the House -has been viewed by tlio country. The; best credentials that a eandidatb for' a. rural electorate could show were found to' bo opposition to land ' nationalisation and to tho abolition -of th 6 freehold. That tho ( elections..mjido the land question a subject for revision lias been- recbgiuaod

even in quarters which had hopod . and believed that so far as general principles were concerned finality had been reached by the legislation of 1907, Much of. the discussion of the'political situation during the past six weeks has. been concerned with the problem of the Lands portfolio. Tho appointment ■of a convinced l freeholder, it was understood, would mean that the Government, if it did not intend voluntarily ' to revise tho legislation of 1907, was at any rate prepared to allow the anti-Socialistic verdict of the polls to govern its attitude; A convinced leaseholder or Socialist in Me, M Nab s place, on the other hand,' would mean that the Government was- determined to maintain and extend its antiagrarian policy in tho teeth of the country's verdict. Sir Joseph Ward has lacked the courage that an appointment of either sort would have required. He has adroitly avoided committing himself t° any definite policy by taking the portfolio of Lands himself. \

Nobody, wo think, would confidently estimate the Put me Minister's real views on tho land question. Most people who have followed the course of politics at all closely know that to Sir Joseph Ward the land question is one of no personal interest. His position on tho whole, question is exactly the position of, say, Mr. Oabboh, with regard to labour matters. • ?, v *, ows are views of Cabinet. Nor is there any reason why he should not be thus neutral. But the neutrality permissible to a Prime. Minister who. has handed over the Lands portfolio to a colleague, cannot be allowed in a Prime Minister who is his own Minister, for Lands. We. have great difficulty 'in believing that at this late hour in his Ministerial career Sir Joseph intends to . set himself seriously to work on tho land question. _ His inclinations do not lie in that direction his other cares require all his attention in any case. What must bo deduced'from his interesting decision 5 In the first place, clearly, that, he rer alises that the land question must ,be reopened. It is equally clear that the policy of nailing the flag to the mast is replaced by the policy of the "open mind" or the "open door." If the Government had intended to hold fast to the policy of tho Acts of 1907, Me. Hogg would assuredly have been given the Lands portfolio. it may bo asked, is" Mr. 1 Hogg then included in the'' Ministry,! No doubt by way of consolation to. that section of tho public which shares his views on land tenure. There is a vast difference, however, between , giving the ultra-Radicals representation in the Ministry and giving them, through their representative, a recognition of their right to guide the Government's land policy. When wo come to examihe the views of the five new, Ministers on the' land, question, we:find little comfort for the RadiMr. Hogg is, of course, a violenf Radical whore land .is concerned, but Messrs. Btodo and < Nqata, although they both favour the existing law, have never' struck anybody as strong men on the land or any other question. Me. T. Mackenzie -and Mx. R. M'Kenzie, on the other hand, are strongly arid definitely opposed to the anti-agrarian : : and Socialistic character, of the 1907 policy. The' former, in a speech on October 4, 1907, spoke vigorously against many of the vital proposals in the main' - Land Bill;-- Now that tho member, for' Taieri is a Minister; there is. special interest in the following passage'referring.-to the late Sir John M'KEk'ziE:. ' ,

~ ho said over and ovor ■ wa's that the right'ot 'option should exist, and it wasonly bMause cf a • certain school- 'of tnought behind him in the Ministry that heTi Ve i j.l i a ' iomenfc modified the 1 principle that the land should lie acquired by the cul-' tivators, _ And that the occupier, had- -the natural'right to make the land he tilled his' own.

As. for Mn. R. M'Kenzie,' he stated,!his views plainly enough on October 23, 1907,, in opposing the National Endow-, mont Bill, which he called simply "a bad Bill,':'. In a sharply hostile speech he asked: "Why was this Bill introduced? Who prompted it ? Has it ever Y been asked for by. the people of the colony ? Does it; carry the hall-mark of Liberal policy on its face? Is there earnest sincerity behind it?" In'this'vein he continued until he declared- that it yas ."a huge farce," intended to "hoodwink the uninitiated into ■ accepting the policy of the "New Liberar Party." : He said that he had for years advocated a limited and restricted, freehold, that he was not going to throw up his pledges, that too many members went "all ways" on .the land question: "One day they aro on ono side'of the land, question and tho next day on the other. It all depends on how they think the cat is going to jump." Moreover, be expressed the view ' that country members "will have to carry out pledges to the elcctprs," and, that "equivocation or prevarication will not pass as political honesty.": Nothing more definite than these 'words; can he .asked of anybody. Upon the whole,' we believe, that the new appointments and the distribution of portfolios■ mean that the. Government realises the strength of the public's hostility to anti-agra.rian laws, and is not inclined to stand in the way of a revision of the legislation of 1007. The friends of sound land legislation should press vigorously, therefore, to bring about revision as early as'pos-' sible.