The Evening Star MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1907.

Evening Star, Issue 12061, 4 March 1907, Page 4

The Evening Star MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1907.

We to agreo with the Wellington ‘Post’ that it is about The Lacd time some other members of (Jnestlon. the Cabinet gave Mr M'is’ab a helping hand in his propagandist work respecting tho reform of tho land laws. Tho suggestion cannot bo regarded as advice from tho enemy : for tho ‘ Post,’ despite its genera! anti-Ministerial-ism, has consistently and oven strenuously advocated tiro cause of land reform, and of its sincerity in this respect, we do not entertain the slightest doubt. Our contemporary was tho first to expose tho “ monstrous” character of Mr Abissey’s proposal to allow tho freehold to Crown tenants at tiro original value, and it is more than likely that these outspoken strictures (which are known to have given offence to a section of the Opposition party) arc partly responsible for tbo establishment of a fresh Conservative newspaper at Wellington. Be this as it may. wo hold that the counsel given by tho ‘ Post ’ on Tuesday should bo followed without delay. The pith of the matter is contained in the following sentence at the close of an examination of what may be termed tho regrettable incident of Mr Carroll’s speech at Wairoa; Wo may, however, point out to the Government that if they would put a little more heart into the fight and push it with convincing vigor, instead of leaving Mr M‘Nab to do the whole work single-handed, the ambiguities of a lazy Minister would not be so liable to bo construed in a sense derogatory to their courage and their self-respect. By tho way, wo should like to bo able to pro tee t against the epithet which our con-" temporary applies to an able and personally popular Minister, but we cannot conscientiously do so. The exact words used by Mr Carroll at Wairoa will probably remain a matter of doubt, but it is only too clear that they wore lacking in tlie enthusiasm of conviction and of purpose which should characterise the utterances of every Liberal Minister in relation to the subject of land law reform. If Mr Al‘Nab tan spare tbo time, he should tiy to inoculate his too easy-going colleague with something of his own carnestnces and intelligent appreciation of tho chief question of the hour. Obviously, however, Mr M’Nab has no time to spare—a reflection which brings ns back to our original proposition. Other Ministers should take a hand in the work—the exceedingly urgent work—of educating tho country and refuting tho persistent and unscTupukras misrepresentations of tho reactionary party. Sir Joseph Ward’s necessary absence puts tho Government at a serious disadvantage, especially in respect to platform work; but the effect of this drawback might be greatly lessened if all the other members of the Cabinet would only display a reasonable - amount of energy and interest. If the Acting Prime Minister is not well enough to take the platform, ho should let this fact bo clearly known, and should induce some of Ins colleagues (tho Attorney-General, for instance) to give some material assistance to tho Minister of Lands. On the other hand, if Air HallJcncs is physically capable of engaging in platform work, we take leave to say that iv'is lag!} time ho was getting a move on. A great deal of explanatory work requires to be done—and done in an exceptionally insistent way—if Ministers are to have the driving power of resolute public opinion, beliind them, so to speak, when tho Laid Bill comes before Parliament next session. Misconception and prejudice are prevalent to a very serious extent, and the antireformers spare no pains in tho task of spreading them further, while Air Af'Xab has to fight the battle of right and reason practically single-handed. True, he ‘is fighting it in a high style of excellence, but tiro country is too big to he covered by one man, however willing and active, and Ids colleagues may fairly be expected to render some assistance. As matters are, there is even a suspicion in eosne quarters that the 1 Government as a whole are not very much lin earnest about the Land Question. Wc I do not share this misgiving, but Alinistcrs con easily remove it by (as the ‘Post’ | tuys) putting a little more heart into tho : fight and pushing it with convincing vigor, i instead, of leaving Air APXab to struggle by 1 himself.

: Thk victory of tho Moderates at the ■ London County Council clecl.ondon tions will not come as a ■ County Connell surprise to those who have Elections. followed the somewhat violent and passionately proclaimed policies of the rival parties. The . Progresadv-es have had control of the municipal administration of the County of London since tho establishment of the Council in 1889, and they have had to bear all the odium that has followed—either directly or indirectly—as a result of their policy. That the Progressives have done excellent work no dispassionate critic will deny, and that they have been made tho scapegoats of eins that should bo debited to borough councils and held responsible for blunders they have not committed is also capable of proof. The London ratepayer, in the mass, has “not troubled himself to find out whether tho local authorities of, s^y,-Pop-lar and Battersea or the London County Council arc answerable for tho cruelly high rates that ho has been called upon to pay; all he knows and cares is that he has to pay them. Henoo, it was little use to tell such a parson that the 12s, or 8s 4d, in tho & that he was called upon to pav in Poplar and Battersea was not tho fanlt—if fault it wore—of the London County Council, but of tho local authority. What the dweller in these and other district!; has had drummed into his oars is that the Progressive party have had control of tho London County Council for seventeen years, and that they are the party who have added to the gross liabilities of the ratepayers through entering upon costly and extravagantly-conducted schemas of municipal management and the ownership of public necessities. “ YoUr “debt in seven years has risen from forty “ millions sterling to one hundred and “ three millions; your average rate levied “all over London is 7s 6d in tho £.” Certainly, no more telling or simpler warcry can be conceived than, this; and when jie Progressive candidate attempted “y

present his analysis of debt and expenditure and: rates, and to show how much belonged to the county and how much to the borough, the ratepayer, not unnaturally, cried : “ Plague 'o’ both your houses.” The householder has turned and tended —as is the way with democracies—the party that ha 3 given him what he had long asked for. Let it be remembered, to the credit of the Progressive majority on the London County Council, that they are not responsible for an increase of the nfuncipal debt from forty, millions and o-half to one hundred and three millions and a-half in six years; that to thus baldly state the position is distinctly unfair, and that they are not the source or cause of the increased rates. The net certified debt of the County Council on March 31, 1906, was forty-five millions and a-quarter, and this sum included twenty-nine millions taken over from the old Metropolitan Board of Works and London Sbhool Board; the balance of the one hundred and three millions and a-half is charged to authorities who arc distinct from the Council. For instance, thirty-seven millions and a-half belongs to the Water - Board, the interest on which is paid out of water rates, and was transferred by the last Conservative Government to a Moderate Water Board. It is in no sense a fresh borrowing. Similarly with rates. Indignant Progressives point to the fact that in 1901-02 the total county rate was 2s 5J,d, and in 1906-07 3s, over 2d of which is for the higher education rate. Excluding this special rale, the county rate has advanced 2d only in five years. Plain, reliable, and demonstrative statements such as the above have had next to no weight on public opinion during the past six months. The ratepayers had made up their minds that if there were not extravagance, waste, Kind corruption, there were certainly high rates, and from this premise they reasoned that as the Progressive party wore, and always had been, in newer, they alone were the taskmasters ■ —ergo, wo shall vote against them. This they have done both in the borough and council elections, with, from their standpoint, considerable success. How the victories will ultimately turn but is not so easy to predict. Viewed largely, the elections may bo said to have been fought on the question of municipal ownership, with disastrous results to its more advanced advocates. The Moderates, however, are not pledged to a complete reversal of the Progressive policy in this particular. They announce their policy as follows;—“ Limitation of municipal “ trading to such undertakings as are “ necessary to the whole community, and ‘ ‘ which cannot be effectively carried out “by private enterprise.” This is a comparatively elastic proposition, and may be interpreted to mean anything, or nothing, but it probably marks the full strength of the ratepayers’ protest against being saddled with fresh liabilities. The Progressives, per contra, maintain that much of the work they have accomplished is reproductive, that it will become more so in the course of time, that they have rescued valuable franchises from the grip of private monopoly, and that they have stood for the interests of the whole body of the ratepayers as against the profit of the few. The question can hardly rest whore it now is. Out of the Moderate victory may come that newer and greater central administration which will embraoo the absorption of many of tho duties at present carried out by local bodies. That is the desire of ardent reformers.