THE LAND BILL. CONTROVERSY CONTINUED.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 135, 4 December 1909, Page 9

THE LAND BILL. CONTROVERSY CONTINUED.

THE "PARTY PRINCIPLE." A FREEHOLDER'S VIEW. The debate on the report of the Lands Committee regarding the Land Tax j Laws Amendment Bill was continued yesterday afternoon. Mr. J. C. Thomson said he was one of those who thought the Land Bill should be set aside for consideration at j another session. If the Government intended to go on with it, then the House would have to come back after Christ-, mas, Mr. Russell : Which Christmas? Mr. Thomson added that he considered that there was no need to send the Land Bill proposals to the country for consideration. The question of the ! freehold and the right of the option had been before the people for many jears past. He contended that the leaseholders were only talking theory, and said the yorkers in the country districts were anxious to have the op- ! tional tenure. There was nothing els* that would satisfy the people in every part of the country." He had no objection to reasonable endowments. Mr. Russell : You would not mind shedding your city brothers' blood. Mr. Thomson that, so far as city lands were concerned, he admitted there were enormous rises in land values. That was natural where there was aggregation of population. But in the country the values were only increased by the industry and thrift of the farmers themselves. As to land for settlements, he remarked that they had borrowed five million pounds, and that since, the money was borrowed they had paid a similar amount in interest. The sinking fund should have been established from the beginning, and he had a very shrewd suspicion that the sinking fund was at present coming out of the consolidated fund. It would be a good thing if the State could get its money back, and go on with the acquisition of land for settlement. He also urged that the people of New Zealand had, by their votes of a year ago, decided that the freehold as a form of tenure should not be obliterated' from the Statute Book. THE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. Mr. A. W. Hogg said lie belonged to a class of lane l Jiationalisers who did not believe in interfering with any man's tenure, but he did believe in the State retaining intact the rights of the people. He prophesied that the Land Bill would not go through this session, nor next session, nor the session after that, and said that after the general ejections the number of 'easehold members would be greatly increased. There was a strange fusion between freehold members of the Government and the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition was like a shorn sheep ; he had been robbed of his political garments. Mr. Hogg said he ' did not believe in the freehold because it only fell into the hands cf the owners of big estates, the money-lender and the land grabber. The people who endea« voured to cope against the overwhelm- ] ing circumstances confronting them became little more than serfs. The leaseholders had plenty of courage, and were not afraid of a general election. He ! supposed the leaseholders could no longer be considered members of the Government party. They were either Independents or Radicals. ' They were going to fight against rampant landlordism. The Government had gone back a quarter of a century m one jump. They had turned a somersault — and a back somersault at that. Men like the late Wm. Rolleston would have scorned such a land policy. OPPORTUNISTS. Mr. R. A. Wright said that the Gov ernment rould no longer be called the head of the Liberal party. They were opportunists pure and simple. Air. Laurenson : To what party do yon belong ? Mr. Massey : To a party of Principle. Mr. Wright : 1 am glad to inform the member for Lyttelton that I am not associated with him in any party. The member for Wellington South added that he knew that the heart of the member in question was broken over the Government's attitude in regard to the land question, but he remained silent. The Government had boldly stolen the Leader of the Opposition's policy. What had the leaseholders in the Ministry to say on the question? The Hon. Geo. Fowlds, for instance, would be found to have said in Hansard that the railways should be run free of co«t, by taxing the land. The Hon. J. A. Millar had, nccordinc to the samp authority, eharac'eri?cd the nlea of the Farmers* Union for the freehold as thp act of political highwaymen. The debate wae thwi adjourned till Monday.