The Marlborough Express. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1906. THE NEED FOR DELAY.

Marlborough Express, Volume XXXIX, Issue 221, 4 October 1906, Page 2

The Marlborough Express. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1906. THE NEED FOR DELAY.

The straight-out advocates of the new land policy are urging that there is no need why the Bill introduced by Mr McNab should be postponed for consideration. The reason they give is that the land question has been before the country so prominently of late that everybody who thinks, or is likely to think, on the subject has made up his-mind regarding it. This argument is neither ingenuous nor logical. It begs the question. It is quite true that the general question of the land policy has been much in the public mind, but it Was not presented in the shape it has now taken until the Land Bill came before the Hdtise. The issue heretofore has been simply freehold versus leasehold, and the.point around; which controversy raged was whether or not the holder of a Crown lease should have the option of converting; it'into a freehold. The new Bill not only brusquely assumes that that disputehas been adjusted, but introduces at least two principles that are entirely new. It proposes to convert the lease-in-perpetuity into a lease of another and less agreeable species, and ties up all the remaining; waste lands of he Colony in such a manner as to determine for the future the exact area of land that may pass under the operation of the freehold tenure. The design; to limit- ; the size of individual holdings is not new, but the compulsory subdivision of the large estates within a £iyen period is not only noyel; but, in The opinion of many people whose opinions deserve respect, calculated .to depreciate very seriously the value of the Colony's lands. We do not perceive in the Bill the evils that so niany people* prof ess to see, but we recognise that in a matter of this kind the -majority : of those interested should decide, and we -cannot. see how the views of the.majority are to be ascertained if the measure is forced on Parliament and carried by the mere strength of party loyalty. To dp this would certainly not- be fair to many Members; who are palpably divided;between what they owe to the Government, . which represents the idea of Liberalism, and to their constituents— in some cases their consciences. The Farmers' Union has been doing its best to give expression to the voice of one distinct school of opinion, namely, the freeholders; but it o has not been uniformly successful. It has not in every instance, adopted'the wisest methods, and there are reasoAs'why1 the value of its resolutions' and 'other" pii'felic1 pronouncements should be discounted! '""-

In the North for instance, it is claimed that the Bill is the work of Southerners; '"'ho are directly hostile to Auckland: The "New Zealand Herald, which is tor the occasion the unofficial-organ of the Farmers' Union, Igoes so far as to say that if the bulk ioi the urisofdpand unused lands of the Colony were in the South Island, "such ia Bill would have never' beeri framed. 'In the South Island t the tactics are ! naturally of another kind, and the objective here^ is frankly the right of the existing leaseholder to acquire', if he so wishes, the freehold! of his sectionUpon this point the Government might fairly challenge colonial opinion, but not, as-we have said, without giving the' country a fuller opportunityof disclosing its sentiments than it is now proposed to give. Those who believe in the retention and expansion of the permanent leasehold system claim that under it ive shall secure sounder finance and more certain provision for such departments as education, hospitals, and old-age pensions; but, as against this, it-is reasoned that, after all, the amount of the income derived ,from Crown Lands must, In the last analysis, depend upon the current value of the land, and that land that would yield a rental would also supply revenue by taxation. The difficulties that beset the question are many. Even so thoroughgoing a supporter of the Bill as the Lyttelton Times, which can see no. excuse for asking for time, expresses a hope that the farmers all over the country will take a special interest in the measure and discuss it in all its bearings. " They might," adds our contemporary, "consider whether it would not be wise to give holders of leases-in-perpetuity the right it is proposed to give holders of renewable leases, to make payments in reduction of the capital value of their holdings, and so reduce their rents and free themselves from restrictions." Now, the mere fact that such a suggestion should come from such a quarter is a powerful argument in favour of delay. The suggestion implies that the holders of leases-in-perpetuity might be allowed to become virtual freeholders, because if they were allowed to pay up 90 per cent, of the value,of their sections the interest on the balance could be secured for ever by a simple investment in the public funds, and the land would be free for a thousand ypars. But it would be more ; it would be free from taxation. The proposition gives the whole Government scheme away, and forms, as we have said, a powerful argument for permitting the whole question to be exhaustively canvassed by the constituencies before the final vote is taken. The meeting-of Marlborough farmers next Saturday will, we hope, give its support to the request that we have endeavoured to formulate, that the country should have a full and fair opportunity for declaring its opinion respecting the provisions of the Bill.