The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, MARCH 17, 1893.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXIX, Issue 9988, 17 March 1893, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, MARCH 17, 1893.

In a recent issue we referred at some length to the fiscal policy of the present Government, and we now propose to devote a few words to another important feature of the Ministerial programme. The nonborrowing policy of the present Government was not adopted until twonty-five years of extravagance had saddled the Colony with the largest debt ever incurred by an equally small number of Colonists, In the same way the non-speculating policy in land was not attempted until nearly all the most accessible and easily cultivated land had been secured in large blocks by land speculators. But better late than never, in both cases, and whatever may be thought of tho wisdom of the methods now adopted to reserve the remainder of tho Crown lands for those who are prepared to settle on them, no one can doubt that the object earnestly and honestly sought by the Hon John M’Kenzie is one very intimately connected with the present and future welfare of the Colony. Of course it is easy to misrepresent Mr M’Kenzie’s aims, and to absurdly accuse him of wishing to unsettle existing freeholders. But everyone knows, and everyone who is honest readily admits his knowledge, that the Minister is striving to introduce a system under which poor men may become real settlers, with all their improvements secured to them, without the danger of being made either the willing tools or the unwilling dupes of money - lenders or land monopolists. Ho Colonists ever had a more bitter taste of what land monopoly can dp for a new country than wo have had in New Zealand. Some of the past land laws were undoubtedly well intended, and most of them were supported by very clever men, and by very respectable theories; but, so far as securing land for actual settlers as against land speculators is concerned, they have all entirely failed. Consequently our land cultivators at the present moment are not usually our land owners, and high interest on money has eaten out and driven to poverty too many of our most deserving settlers. Mr M’Kenzie has come to the conclusion, and he is supported by all the facts of our colonial experience, that the little remnant of our good land will only go to add field upon field to the already too large estates unless our bond fide but needy settlers are absolutely deprived of the power of handing over their fields and homes to the delusive snares of the money-lender, or of acting as the willing or the unwilling catspaws of the land miser. Almost all observant persons will admit that moderate-sized or even small freeholds, if unencumbered, are highly satisfactory in their results, both to the individual who is fortunate enough to hold them and to the community in which they are held. But the difficulty lies in the frequently proved fact that the ordinary poor man, in his first struggles to become a proprietor, is not wise enough to keep his freehold uneneumbered—not wise and self-deny-ing enough to live within his simple means when he has been endowed with the power of present indulgence and relaxation by listening to tbe charms of the money-lender, always ready to advance on his coveted freehold. The men, always too few in number, who can resist such a temptation are ouc successful settlers—-the ‘settlers we are so naturally proud of—and Mr M’Kenzie proposes to make such success more general by withholdI ing, for a safe period, the too fatal ! temptation of a mortgagable freehold. How necessary this precaution is, even in America, where the land was originally given away, has, within the last few days, and apparently without intention, been admitted by the very authorities who have had so much to say against ail Mr M’Kenzie’e proposals. We are asked by a Conservative newspaper, “ Is it not a fact that the bulk of the land in the United States has been sold at a dollar and a half per acre ? Is it not also a fact that, since 1862, under the provisions of the homestead law, 111,000,000 acres have passed into the hands of 690,000familiesfornothiug?” | Just so, but with exactly the same result that has followed on the absolute sale or gift of land here, as the very same authority shows us in another place. “ In every State of the American Union mortgages are,” we are told, “increasing with amazing rapidity, and fast as they are increasing they are not keeping pace with the necessities of the farmers.” But the Conservatives, both in Parliament and elsewhere, have shown far bettor judgment —have in fact kept cooler heads —in tho land policy than they have done in condemning the hated progressive tax. Without the slightest particle of love for Mr M’Kenzie, they can tolerate the operations of the Minister, for Lands better than they can tolerate tho operations of the Colonial Treasurer with his progressive tax and his exemption of farm improvements. In fact, tho four hundred and ten proprietors, whose names we find in a Government blue book as the proprietors of more than eight million acres of the very beat land in the Colony, can very well afford to fold their arms and look calmly on whilst Mr M’Kenzie tries his best to secure the small remnant of the Crown lands to those who will make a better use of it. The present leader of the Opposition, too, has, for many years past, admitted the necessity of withholding the freehold title, and', with all hie long official opportunities, he

one of the owners of more than fivs thousand acres of land. He even finds it difficult to join in the wellchosen cry of his party that “it is ft cruel thing to withhold the freehold; title from the toiling holders of the perpetual lease/’