The Evening Star MONDAY, MARCH 14, 1910.

Evening Star, Issue 14315, 14 March 1910, Page 4

The Evening Star MONDAY, MARCH 14, 1910.

We aro glad to notice that the “Leasehold” members of the Legislature are showing signs of activity. The danger of a reactionary Laud law was narrowly averted last year, mainly owmg to tho protest of the politicians who mot in conference at Christchurch on Thursday.; and the of a resolute attitude on their part during the next three months might cause' the Government to refrain from introducing similar proposals in tho ensuing session. We arc heartily in agreement with tho resolutions passed at the Conference, which do not go beyond tho normal principles of Liberal Land policy; and in these circumstances it is rather disappointing to find tho ‘ Lyttelton Times’ preaching “compromise.” Our contemporary seems to forget that the compromise has already been effected; in other words, that compromise was the basis of tho legislation of 1907. In that year tho Government abandoned many of tho more radical proposals whiclx they had brought forward in 1906 (in spite of Mr APNab’s memorable promise that Ministers would “ stick to their guns”); and, for tho sake of a settlement, the advanced Liberals reluctantly acquiesced in the new policy. This was compromise, and perhaps it was warranted by political conditions; but a further so-called compromise, such as the ‘ Lyttelton Times ’- suggests, would simply mean a concession to tho reactionary party. Our Christchurch contemporary confesses to having “ a great deal of sympathy ” with the protests against the proposal to allow the conversion of leases-in-porpetuity and renewable leases into freeholds, but is disconcerted by the “facts” of tho situation, Tho electors have returned a Parliament containing a majority of Freeholders, and though we doubt •eery much if Parliament represents their deliberate new's on this question, we cannot disregard the significance of their votes. Sir J. G. Ward has never, pretended to go tho whole length” with the Leaseholders, and he is sacrificing no principle and ignoring no pledge in proposing his compromise. Tho wortfls we have emphasised furnish the right answer to the * Times’s ’ misgivings. Wo cannot admit cither that tho country gave a mandate for reactionary Land legislation at the last General Election, or that tho Ward Government did not sacrifice any principle or ignore any pledge when they brought forward their new “compromise ” of L'tyst sessjon. There was no necessity to reopen the Land Question during the present Parliament, and Sir Joseph Ward made a great mistake, in principle as well as in tactics, in paying heed to the counsels of his colleague the Minister Commerce. The truth of the matter was excellently put by tho Hon. J. T. Paul in the Legislative Council on December 13: I I say again that tho majority of tho people of tho country considered that the Land legislation of 1907 settled the Land Question at least for some time —possibly for tho life of the present Parliament. I feel that the country is exceedingly surprised that Land legislation has been brought down in this the first session of the new Parliament. I believe that the lessons of tho General Election have been misread—that they aro not necessarily a declaration for the Freehold; and it is a mistake to surmise that because a majority of Freeholders happen to be in another place they are there because of their views on’ the Land Question. Tho Land Question was only made the first issue in some electorates, not in all. An Hon. Member: In very few. Tho Hon. Air Paul ; I believe the honorable gentleman is right in saying that it was made a first issue in only very few. I know that it is in the interests of some people in this country to make the Freehold the first question, because they think it means the creation of dissension in the ranks of one party. There is no mistake that that is why tho Freehold is pushed as an issue; but if we who stand for tho interests of the people allow that to be done without protest wo are not without blame. If the Government persist in adhering to the Freehold proposals of, last year they must bo prepared for trouble in Parliament and also in the country. The party loyalty of Land Reformers is likely to bo strained to tho snapping point by the divergence between the policy of Dr Findlay’s speeches in the Legislative Council in 1907 and the policy of Air Thos. Mackenzie’s speech during the llangitikci campaign in 1909. If tho essential principles of Liberal Laud legislation—tho principles of Sir John APKenzio and Air Ballanco and Air Scddon—are to bo thrown to the winds, people may well begin to ask doubtfully what is tho difference between Liberalism and Conservatism in this country—between tho policy of Sir Joseph Ward and tho policy of Air Alassey; and tho putting of such a question would materially impair tho solidarity of tho Liberal cause. The furtherance of reactionary policy should be left to the reactionary party. .

The Land Question.