THE LAND BILL BEFORE THE COUNCIL.

Evening Star, Issue 8615, 8 September 1891, Page 4

THE LAND BILL BEFORE THE COUNCIL.

(From Gob Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, September S. Judging by debate io the Legislative Council, the main features of the Land Bill are certain to be very considerably emasculated before the measure emerges from that Chamber. With the exception of the Colonial Secretary, who was in charge of the Bill, and Mr Shrimski, not a single voice was rai-ed in favor of either “ the one-man-one-ruu ” principle or of the proposal to abolish the right of acquiring a run. In the case of the perpetual lease, speaker after speaker denounced the tendency to land rationalisation, and the penal clauses of the Bill also came in for some rough handling. Continuing the debate on the second rcauS*ir Georoe Whitmore condemned the Bill pretty freely, and characterised the penal clauses as most despotic. Another most objectionable clause was that which prevented married women from taking up land. The theory of hud nationalisation was a most undesirable one, and emanated from a crack-brained \ aukce. _ The II; 11. 11. PIIARAZTN objected to the enormous power given under the Bill to the Minister of Lands fer the time he having the tight of det'-rmiuiug what class of land a selector should t ike up. He also objected to the proposal to restrict the extent of land any person could h"id up to tl.ooo acres—that was to say, a number of most experienced people in the colony, with a considerable amount of capital, were debarred from using their experience and capital in the uuj usitiou of further lands and improving the same for the benefit of the country as well as themselves. It was a singular thing to find the nationalisation -.riaeinle and the small holdings principle embodied in the one measure. He could only attribute this to extraordinary shortsightedness, which seemed tlfe colony at the present day ; as if the life of the country was less than the Lie of the individual. He could not conceive a more mischievous proposal than was containedAn the Bill; that was, to force an unwilling people to the principle of land nationalisation, and at the same time to say that the people should acquire laud iu small blocks ‘mlv- The Bill was full of fads and follies. It was the duty of the Council to restore the right of purchase of perpetual lease ef freeholds. There had been no mandate from the

. ountry to alter this sjsinn iu any way, Gn the contrary, it seemed that the country almost unanimously desired freeholds, Even if the people accepted the bribe of 4 percent, iuatean of 5 per cent, they would rely on their political power to obtain the right of Durchauo at some future time. Speak as •me who had studied land nationalisation trom every point of view, he had cune to the conclusion that tho whole thing was one of the greatest fallacies possible. When catalog through America lie found that while Hoary George was almost looked on as an ,id in lb-gland, he was regarded as a “'crank '’ in America. The Council should do its duty, and roe that the rights of the oeople were and see also that no l.'iisjhierous'legislation of this kind was •c. red. Monstrous penalties were provided jgaiust a nun who took up land for his children, or possibly for other persons, and if the Bill were agreed to as introduced half the population o: tha country might find i.hsniselvei in gaol. He (cue Hon. Mr Fhara/.yu) expressed his regret that the Government, having come into office on she shouldc-a of the unions, had adopted their proposals, limy seemed deternvutd aot only to tyiamise over the people ~ud to interfere with them in every oossible way, but to put a conn lotah.e number of innocent people into gaol. As a consolidating measure the Bill had good points, but with the objectionable features he had indicated it would bo hotter tout it .mould be lest altogether thau that it should become law. The \Vas : c Lands Committee should do their duty fearlessly, and, in the first place, restore the right tf toe people to retain their freehold; and, :□ the seeccd place, should get Hd of 'Au punishment proposed for wiiat was really a purely art-tidal ndenee.

The Hon. Mr Shrimski denied that the aniens had anything whatever to do with the Land Bill, the object of which was to facilitate settlement aud to prevent the land

uoiug monopolist’d by a few >l- ;ivulua*s. The last speaker was particu’arly severe on ffce clause?, bat he (Mr Skibiiiki) n’lly wished these penal clauses ! ad bsea in existence some time ago, and then very .(holy t-ome large land owmrs would be in prison, where they richly deserved to be, A ■,oor man was sent to prison for stealing bread co meet the pressing wants of bis family, but those gentlemen who moved in h'gh social aircies and made false declarations regarding the land were allowed to escape sent free, lie had known very wealthy men in this country to sign declaration?, knowing them to be false, for the purpose of acquiring more laud then they ought properly to hold ; •and if the penalty clauses now provided had been in existence a few years ago Mr T. Brydone, the representative of one of the largest land institutions in the colony, would not now do iu Lagland, for ho laid, befV*; a select committee of ii.e other i.duiitted that be had been guilty of obtaining mod for the bcneiil of his company by a false declaration. This Bill was prompted by no union, but ’ey tho demands of the rteoplo for changes in the land admiuistracion of the colony. Bummyism was now rampant in the North Island, and men moving in high society could evade the law •with impunity, lie warned the Council that if this Bill did not now pass there ■would be a reaction throughout the country which would make them pass it before long. Tae lion. If, J. Mif.utfi objected, on the second reading of a land Bill, to any hon, gentleman discussing the mode iu which persons had transgressed the law. Although he did not want to see tho law evaded, or large estates created and held for speculative nurposes, he feared that the present Bill so bristled with penalties as to make it unworkable altogether. Speaking as a bona fide New Zealand colonist, ho expressed his opinion that if tho Bill iu its present form went to Eegland it would be thought there that this must be a curious country, for under it people were liable to bo put in prison for two years for simply applying forupitoc of land. Clause 82 (prohibiting marrbd women from obtaining laud) was particularly obnoxious, especially as regarded a widow, who might wish to invest prudently for her sons. Clat.es 108 ought to be amended ao that a person might hold 2,000 acres, including /J4O acres of firat-cla-s laud. Clause 131 professed to make the choice of systems optional, but tho following clause left the determination absolutely iu the hands of tho Minister of Lands of the day. The •withholding of the grant till improvements were made would actually throw a man into tho hands of the money lender, though the aim of the Bill was to protect him from the money lender, if the Council had given its voice with no uncertain sound during the time that he had been in it—some twenty-six or twenty-seven years—on any subject, it had been in regard to tho desire for freeholds. But the people in the towns —clever lawyer?, agitators, and readers of 3?nry George’s works—might object to the freehold ; but tho bone and sinew of tho country “ dearly loves his little bit of freehold,” and, t.dded the hon. gentleman with .emphasis, “ho will have it.” Neither tho rabbits nor the fcea would disappear for some time to come, and recognising this, he deprecated the proposal to introduce the“one-man-one-run system, ” He disliked monopoly quite as much as the present Government, but he unhesitatingly affirmed that a large quantity of pastoral land could not possibly be held in small areas in Otago. As one who wanted to see the country well settled and its production increased as much as possible, he strongly objected to many of the provisions iu the Bill. The Hon, C. C. Bovves said that a dangerous provision iu the Bill was the power given to the Government of the day to legislate in the direction of making our laws. Owing to the number of regulations that might be made in the matter of special settlements, tho Minister was certainly omnipotent, in that he could say whether he would grant an application or not for associations. The question of acquiring a freehold was the most important thing in the Bill. It was the instinct of an Englishman to

have a bit of land to live on. If men were to be patriotically fond of a country they must have a stake in that country. There were no more intensely patriotic men on the face of the globe than Frenchmen and Americans. Why ? Because they were freeholders. He felt confident that the Waste Lands Committee would give the measure every consideration. The Hon. W. D. Stewart said that the controlling and dominating power was the Minister of Lands for the time being. He should have preferred seeing elective land boards, as hitherto the boards had bean utilised by the Government for the time being for political purposes. Many appointments had been made to these Boards of those who were highly objectionable parsons. Personally, he had long advocated small freeholds, but he should now have preferred seeing the choice of tenure being given entirely to the purchaser, and not left, as was done* in the Bill, to the pleasure of the Minister. The Bill, if carried out in its present form, would simply be ruinous to the country. “One man one run” seemed to be little else than a cry. It was a a case of “ one man ono everything.’ If companies were compelled to accept one run, the number of competitors would be lessened, and harm would result, One company down South, which had five or six ruua, paid by way of wages L 40,000 a year. Bat if restricted to holding one run, tuey must go into liquidation. If legislation were made in advance of the time it would bo inoperative. He doubted whether juries could be found to convict a man for having acquired a few acres in excess of the amount allowed by Act. The Waste Lauds Committee should carefully guard the Bill, and sec that it was not inimical to the public interests. The Hon. J. B, Aokland, speaking as the o .vner of two runs, supposed he ought to be called a social pest. —{Laughter.) In bad years he hud lost thousands of sheep, and, if the law remains as proposed, a person holding his (Mr Ackland’s) back rim would stand an uncommonly good chance of being ruined. Back runs could not possibly bu worked separately. The Hon. G. M’Lean said that dummyism was provided against in the Bill, and that had his entire sympathy ; but, whilst conserving every interest in that way, he must see that the people are not deterred from taking up laud. While his sympathy went a good deal with the Government, he was afraid that they were too ardent reformers. Those who had been engaged to come here and take up land under the laws of the country ought to have every consideration. Holding these views, he deprecated the attempt to compel those already holding freeholds to reside on their lands, lie also objected to the abolition of the freehold altogether. Then as to the “ one-man-one run’' principle: however desirable it might be, it was quite impossible in Otago, at all events, as there was a largo amount of hill country, necessitating a quantity of low country to work it properly. One of the runs in Otago, which ho had looked on as possibly the best run in New Zealand, was now being worked, and it took, the manager all his time to make enough from it to kill tha rabbits. The Bill, with a few exceptions, might ba accepted ; but ho did not think that the abolition of freeholds in favor of perpetual leases should be permitted.

The Hon. Dr Pollen had regarded the nationalisation of the laud policy as no longer within the range of practical politics, and as relegated to young men’s debating societies. PheVe was another cry he had heard lately with very great dismay, and that was the policy ot li New Zealand for the New Zealanders.” If this Bill were based on that policy it was a most calamitous one, of widen he hoped we had heard the first and tho last of. The present Agent-General had »mo years ago warned tiie colony that no man seemed to know what our land laws would ou the morrow be That warning had been entirely disregarded. Every successive Minister of Lands seemed to have a cr.-z-a with ngard to our land lawc. Two things v ere required to promote the settlement of the country—viz., rational and ja.Unions land laws, and peop'e to settle on ihc lam!. Wo had had hind laws ad nausnan. but no people. The policy of each successive Government for years past had been not to promote immigration of a desirable kind, but to discredit and discourage those who endeavored to settle the country | aud that

was likely to ho tho policy oi the Government! in the future so long us they were controlled by trades unions and those who did not understand what they were talking about. Instead of increasing our papulation, our artisans wore going away. The hon. gentleman advocated, from the narrow tiocal print of view, the introduction of a number ot desimule colonists. If we bad only people to go oa to tire land, by importing them, tire Bill would not ba objectionable, but it was calculated to prevent people from coming here. No amendment tho Council could make in the Bill would have the effect of colonising the country. The Bill was also adversely criticised 1 y the Hons, Messrs Baruic at, Fulton, and Dr Grace.

Tne Colonial Secketarv, in replying, said that there was no more experienced man in lands than the present Minister of Lands. The Bill was a cardinal feature of the policy of the Government, and any undue iuteiferenco of the Council, seeing that the clauses of the Bill had been carried by such a Was majority in “ another place,” would not bring tho Council into that favor which it had a right to expect. The second reading of the Bill was then agreed to on the voices, and it was referred to the Waste Lands Committee. INCIDENTS or THE DEBATE, “ Tho gentleman who framed this Bill knows nothiug whatever about tho North Island,” said Dr Grace. He (thespeakei) did not know a siogle man who had practised dummyism in the North Island. Anyone who practised dummyism on bush laud there, he wished him joy. “When 1 read this Bill I was perfectly amazed," said the lion, Dr Grace ; “when 1 had load it a second time I was unconscious of wiiat it all meant; and when I read it a third time I had deep sympathy for the Minister of Lands, who I perceived to be an honest enthusiast, yet does not know anything about it. It is absolutely valueless.”

“ The people throughout New Zealand are getting accustomed to make false declarations without any hesitancy or consideration of the moral turpitude of the offence,” declared the Hon. Mr Fulton, “and the success of these false returns and the stringent provision which made a dummy a felon prevented the juries from convicting in cases of dummyism.” “It will be an evil day for tho colony if the abolition of the freehold tenure becomes law,’’ says the Hon. Mrßarnicoat, for it will stop the most valuable of our settlers from taking up land,” “ Tho principal settlement is going on in tho North Island, and settlement in the North Island depends on the construction of roads and bridges.” So says the Hon. Dr Grace, who thinks that our land laws should be of the simplest and briefest description. “Tho earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof, and it should not be monopolised by a few,” remarked the Hon. Mr Shrimski yesterday afternoon while speaking in favor of a confiscatory policy.

“ English people will not come so far across the sea to this colony when they can get land ou such easy terms in North America and Canada, and when they would ba hampered here with all the trammels which such Bills as these put upon them,” said Mr Fulton.

Mr Bowen, objecting to the omnipotent power given to the Minister of Lands in connection with the special settlement associations, said that “thepeople wouldnothave the right to apply for land according to the conditions of the law, bat would have to go with their bats in band, with bated breath, whispering humbleness.” According to the Hon. Mr Fulton, the cry for settling people in the country generally comes from the people in the towns, who want to get rid of the surplus labor. These townspeople cry out loudest, and they know very little about it. Thus the Hon. Dr Grace: “ The only people taking up land at the present time are young men growing up, and the restrictions imposed in this Bill are quite unnecessary. The great difficulty in our circumstances is to get people to take up land at all, as they have to stand out of their capital for so long, and are dependent on the weather, a good barn, and many other risks,

and besides have to expend so much on labor. There are a great many men absolutely ruined over the land, and yet the Government frame a complex Land Bill to restrict people from bolding land and doing this, that, and the other.”