Untitled

Evening Star, Issue 14626, 24 July 1911, Page 6

" Wb are a poor lot," exclaimed a veteran minister, in tones ~f A Poor disenchantment, when Day's Work. tho Dunedin Presbytery closed (as we devoutly trust) its scries of futile, unhelpful discussions on the subject of patriotic service. It was a sad confession, and though we should not think of using a. term of such unequivocal disparagement—wo would not presume it must be owned that the Presbytery, at its latest session, accomplished a poor day's work. It expressed approval of tho proposal to arm the New Zealand University with the powor of conferring theological degrees, and went perilously near to expressing disapr/roval of the law relating to military training. Was not this a dainty dish to set before, the public ! " This Presbytery docs not deem "it expedient to express any approval of

" the Government's scheme of military " training." By the way, the defence sjstem is not a scheme oE the Government; it is a deliberate enactment of Parliament, not passed silently, secretly, and surreptitiously— i\oo " forced" upon a country which " knew practically nothing about it," as tho Rev. Mr Don, with amazing assurance, declared on Thursday. Little objection was raised at the time, though the debates in Parliament were neither hurried nor inadequately reported. There was general acquiescence until the system took actual form and the pinch began to be felt by "conscientious objectors" and otherpecu--1 iar people. We should have thought that the Presbytery would have fought shy of any motion which the Rev. A. Cameron might propose in relation to this subject. Just at this time, when some people who ought to know better are encouraging callous youths with an itch for notoriety to repudiate their legal obligations and patriotic responsibilities, the Presbytery might have done really useful service by passing and circulating the Rev. Mr Whyte's resolution —or, for that matter, even tho Rev. Mr Chishoim's rather weak variant—but no' Tiie majority had been impressed by Mr Cameron's extraordinary parody of the question at issue, and now we shall have the law-breakers quoting the Dunedin Presbytery and the utterances of a reverend exvolunteer and drill instructor in support of their unpatriotic perversity. It is a pity that Mr G. M. Thomson's speech was not delivered just before instead of just after the Presbytery meeting. Tho member for Dunedin North is a devoted Presbyterian Lio well as a devoted patriot, and his serious reminder as to the nature of the situation—so different from Mr Cameron's puerile levity—might perhaps have served to recall the ancient Presbyterian principle of civic service, and might have turned the scale. With the minority at the Presbytery wo nnfoignedly sympathise. TitKiLE aro points both of similarity and dissimilarity beLand Tenure in tween the, Land New South Wales. Question in New South Wales and in New Zealand. In each it is tho supreme question. It is also a struggle between the advocate*; of freehold tenure on the one hand and of leasehold on the other, and in each camp there is much uncertainty, trimming, and waiting to see which way the cat is likely to jump by that section which has no very definite principles. But in New Zealand there is not. to our knowledge, any responsible politician who seriously proposes to abrogate by legislative enactment the rights which were legally conferred upon settlers at the time they took up and went on the land. Mr Massey, it is true, would give to the leaseholder something that lie never possessed, and to which he is not entitled either in law or equity. But so far no one has incurred the odium, and what would entail the reprobation, of the community by # pub]icly announcing that if in power he would, by Act of Parliament, despoil bona, fide settlers of the very conditions and privileges which, in all probability, originally induced many of them to purchase, and which the then law of the land gave them. Yet it is retrospective legislation of this nature that j Mr Neilsen. the New South Wales Min- j ister of Lands, at the instigation of the Caucus, openly avows his intention of securing. Among the most conspicuous of the many ambitious and grandiose schemes with which tha State Labor Government have "tickled the ears, of the groundlings" is that concerning their land legislation. Mr Neilsen quite early announced that j there would not only be no further aliena- j tion of land and a strict adherence to the leasing system, but ho went on to say that the M'Gowen Ministry intended to repeal all legislation under which people had taken up land with the right,_ under certain conditions, to convert it into freehold. For retrospective legislation of this drastic kind there can be no justification save in abuses of the most serious character. No State can afford to play ducks and drakes in this manner with the stability of Us own legislation. If it once became an article of party politics that contracts lawfully entered into under one Administration were liable to be upset by its immediate successor, public confidence at home and abroad would be destroyed, to the detriment of the State as a whole. This, however, is what Mr Neilsen and the Government of New South Wales propose to do. The previous Ministry (Mr Wade's) succeeded in passing what is termed a Conversion Act, " providing that occupants under homestead selection, or settlement lease tenure, should have the right to convert their leases into freehold on certain terms," and it is this Act that Mr Neilsen proposes to repeal, and to make his repealing measure retrospective into the bargain. The general feeling, even when regarded solely' from the standpoint of party, is that the Labor Government have made a serious mistake. The country members of the Labor party tell a different story from that of their city colleagues. After visiting and meeting their constituents during the recess, they returned with changed feelings as to the wisdom of forcing through the repeal of the Conversion Act. It is apparent that Mr Neilsen is not now in a verv great hurry to push his intended legislation. When asked some two weeks ago bv Mr Wade when the House might look for it, the Minister somewhat angrily answered : , I have told you a dozen times the order in which I will introduce my land legislation. The order will be : The Declaratory Bill, the. Consolidation Bill, a general amending Bill, and then the repeal of the Conversion Act. I have stated that 40 or 50 times, and I hope I'll not be worried any further about it. Meanwhile, the situation politically had

become strongly anti-Ministerial. There, were secret meetings, followed by the usual crop of rumors and denials, the net outcome of which was a semi-official declaration stating that tho country members had agreed to bury the hatchet pending the return of Mi- M'Gowen. Mr Wade, however, we are now advised, proposes to take his own course, irrespective of any Government patchings up He has given notice of motion, the terms of which, traversing as they do the main intentions of tho Government in relation to the repeal of the Conversion Act, will almost compel the members who approve them, but who so far have voted with the Government, either to vote for the motion or to stultify themselves in the oyes of their constituents. The truth of the matter would seem to be that the Labor Government of New South Wales have assumed and proposed too much. They havo not a large or a safe majority in the House, and barely a majority in the country. Excluding Mr D. Storey's body of " Independents," the M'Gowen Ministry have a majority of one, and no Government can carry out what the New South Wales Government promise to do with so precariously insignificant a following. Clearly, tho policy of any Ministry under such conditions should be, not to attempt "to stagger humanity" by the vastness and revolutionary scope of tbeir legislation, but to walk circumspectly, and to conciliate rather than antagonise the moTO stable elements of the community. Mr M'Gowen had no "mandate" to do most of the things he and his colleagues are just now attempting.