THE LAND BILL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVI, Issue 14498, 9 October 1907, Page 6

THE LAND BILL.

Thu preliminary skirmishes which took place in the House of Representatives yesterday over the tenure question did net throw a great deal of light on the general engagement which must be fought before the Land Bill emerges from Committee. Mr Mills’s proposal to retain the lease-in-perpetuity, and Mr Alison’s to dispose of all Crown lands under the occupation with righv of purchase system, did not touch the root of the question, and they were rejected without revealing the true strength of either party. Of course, the members of the Opposition voted against the Government, probably y'ithout much regard to the merits of the proposals, but a majority of tho Liberal “freeholders” refused to assist in creating any diversion from the main issue. Perhaps the division on Mr Lang’s amendment more closely indicated tho strength of the two parties, but obviously the excuse for demanding the right to acquire the freehold in connection with the renewable lease is not so great as with the d,ease-in-perpetuity. Tho most interesting contribution to the discussion was Mr Tanner’s confirmation of the statement We have so often' made in regard to Sir John M’Kenzie’s attitude towards the lease-in-perpetuity. Air Fisher, with the airy confidence of tho young man who has been less than three years in politics, had declared that Sir John had deliberately adopted the lease as part of hie laud policy without any pressure from either his friends or his opponents. “Tho lease,” he said, “was not given as a compromise at the point of tho bayonet.” The member for ..von knew better than this, and after a silence of fifteen years he told the House how Sir John had written to him explaining that he had accepted the compromise rather than imperil tho whole Bill. “ But it will only last until after the nexf election,” was the Minister's assurance. The next election, however, did not find the House ready for its-extinction, and before another -chree years had passed by it had become too popular to be lightly cast aside. Other members made excursions into history during the discussion, hut they were not ah so careful about their facts as Mr Tanner was about his. Mr T. Mackenzie, for instance, quoted the tlen urea advocated by Mr Rolleston, as ei ® gycat land reformer had favoured

nothing but the freehold. As a matter of fact, the perpetual lease which Mr Rolleston created hy his Land Act of 1882 bore a remarkable resemblance to the renewable lease which Mr M’Nab is now seeking to substitute for the lease-in-perpetuitj. . It is true that the lessee was permitted to convert his holding into a freehold at any time within eleven, years of the commencement of the lease, but if he did not exercise this right within that period it expired altogether, and he became simply a ‘'perpetual” tenant with a readjustment of his rent every twenty-one years. In those days no one imagined that land values wore going to increase as they have done during the past ten or fifteen years, and the concession of the right to acquire the freehold during the early part of the tenancy seemed to present no danger to the community. That Mr Rolleston took a different view of the concession later on in life, when the evils of aggregation had been exposed, is shown by the fact that he walked across the floor of the House to vote against Mr George Hutchison’s proposal to give the holders of leases in perpetuity the right to acquire the freehold, We quite agree with the member for Waikouaiti that Mr Rolleston was a very high authority on the land question, hut when his opinions are quoted we want to see them quoted correctly. Mr Massey’s jeers about the Fair Rent Bill lost all their point years ago, when it was shown that the main purpose of Sir John M’Kenzie’s proposal was to’ relieve tenants who had entered into contracts they could not fulfil; but if the object of their repetition yesterday was to impress upon the House the importance of keeping faith, with the Crown tenants, we can cheerfully bear with the iteration. Honest men on either side of politics will insist upon this as the first condition of any land reform. The danger just now seems to be that in their concern for the interests of Crown tenants certain politicians may lose sight of the interests of the rest of the community. When the motion of which Mr Massey has given notice has been decided, w© shall know how far they represent the voting strength of the House.