ESTABLISHED 1875. Manawatu Daily Times. The Oldest Manawatu Journal. Published Every Morning. TUESDAY. MAY 7. 1907.

Manawatu Times, Volume LXIV, Issue 105, 7 May 1907, Page 4

ESTABLISHED 1875. Manawatu Daily Times. The Oldest Manawatu Journal. Published Every Morning. TUESDAY. MAY 7. 1907.

In the course of an address at Wyndham Mr T. Mackenzie, gave a history of land legislation since the death of Sir John McKenzie. It will be remembered that when that politician evolved the 999 years' lease the "Liberals" joined in a chorus of jubilation that at last the question of land tenure had been settled for ever; while now they have been forced to admit that a very grave error was made when that legislation was passed. Coming to the time when the- Land Commission was set up at a cost of £10,000, Mr Mackenzie said the majority of that Commission recommended : " That any lease-in-perpetuity tenant under the Land Act, 1892, after the sixth year, might be allowed to convert to occupation - with - right - of - purchase tenure upon payment of the accumulated amount of 1 per cent., the difference of rental between the two tenures, with compound interest added ; and that all lessees under the occupation - with - right - of - purchase tenure be permitted, after ten years occupation and fulfilment of conditions, to pay off the capital value of their land in sums of £10, or multiple of £10." When, however, the Government received this mandate from the people, it declined to make a test question of the land policy, and the session closed without anything being done. The next act in the drama was the advent of Mr McNab, as Minister of Lands, with his declaration that he would' stand to his guns or go down with them. After that emphatic declaration Mr McNab withdrew his Bill for the session. Mr Mackenzie would not say that Mr McNab was wrong in that, but he thought he should have insisted on passing, as he had promised, the provision restricting operations in connection with large properties. That not having been done, Mr Mackenzie's opinion was that, by the time the House met the land available in connection with large estates would have very nearly reached a vanishing point. It did ! not look as if the Government were ; going to stand by the Minister's gunß lof 1906. Mr Mackenzie believed [ that if members were free to state | what they - .believed to be correct in | connection with land tenures, there was a vast majority in Parliament in favour of the optional principle. They ought to approach this ques- | tion absolutely free. They ought to thrash the matter out and do what was right. Parliament has not for years been free to do so, but has been controlled by the city theorist. They should meet this artificiallymanufactured public opinion and strongly set forth their belief in the maintenance of tenures, which had proved so successful in the past, not only in our own country, but in so many other lands.

Neither Mr Deakin nor Sir William Lyne takes kindly to the prompt rejection of their huckstering proposals by a British statesman who with his colleagues secured election by an enormous majority over those who were advocating a departure from freetrade principles and who were really anxious to take the first step towards the dismemberment of the Empire. Sir William ! Lyne appears to have blustered to a great extent when referring to Mr Asquifch's able deliverance. No doubt the colonial Premier was anxious to display to his socialistic following his fidelity to the false doctrines they favour, and he may therefore in some measure be excused, because place, pay, and power are dearly loved by professional politicians—and these colonies have yet to evolve statesmen of broad views and independent minds. But it is impossible to make excuses for either Sir William Lyne or others when th*y practically threaten the Motherland with reprisals if she will not adopt the erroneous and disrupting proposals of some of her colonies. Sir William had the hardihood to assert that the influence of the ties to the Motherland is weakening. Can this be one of the same men who were recently gushing with patriotism and urging the despatch of the young colonial warriors to assist in the struggle in South Africa 1 Is their patriotism spelt " preference," and does it depend on, a percentage at the Customs houses 1 I)id the eager-

npss of the young generation, born in these lands, to go to a foreign country to tight for the Empire and the flag, and their intrepid conduct on the field of battle, indicate that the ties to the Mother Country were weakened ? Did they not, indeed, shosv more real patriotism than their fathers who left it, worthy though these were and brave in undertaking the work of pioneers ? Sir William even used the effect of the policy of his party as an argument for more of its injurious work, and drew a pathetic picture of the number of foreign ships in Sydney harbour. He must surely have forgotten that for some time past his party has striven its utmost to injure British trade and handicap British navigation. It is to be regretted that, even if he had to be discourteous, Mr Asquith did not forcibly condemn the vapourings of these blatant politicians who have done so much to hamper the trade and commerce of Australia and prevent its natural development.

By this time, perhaps, the Colonial Premiers have learnt that there are really other countries than her colonies which are under the rule of Britain. The representative of India, for instance, has shown them that a land of teeming millions would be seriously injured if foreign nations made reprisals were Britain foolish enough to attempt to shut out their cheap supplies and willing services. Another fact of which the Premiers should take careful note is that, according to Mr Asquith, next to India and Ceylon, Germany is the best market abroad for the products of the United Kingdom, a fact which fully proves his statement that Britain stands in a better position in protected markets than do the nations themselves who are suffering under the protective system. Germany is one of the most highly protected countries in Europe—that is, she not only compels all her people to pay tribute to the manufacturing section for the enrichment of monopolists, but she even gives bonuses to manufacturers. Yet despite these things Freetrade Britain can successfully compete with her in her own markets. What our Premiers have been calling " protection " is not protection of the people—on the contrary it burdens all the people for the aggrandisement of the few or for the employment of some of the people at useless work, making articles at dearer price than that at which they could be bought from thosa so willing to give their services that high tariff walls are erected to prevent them doing it.

We are glad to learn, on the authority of the Acting-Premier, that the recent appointments to the Legislative Council were " very satisfactory." It "would have been more convincing had he allowed others to express this opinion of the manner in which his party have stuffed the Upper House with political nonentities, but that is only a detail. No doubt the appointments are "very satisfactory" to the persons who have been appointed, so that we must admit that the Minister's statement was true to that extent. But if a vote of the electors had been taken on the appointments we doubt whether a single one of those persons would have been put in a position where hp can echo the views of the governing party and do precisely as he is told by the Ministerial whips. But although they may be unknown to political fame, although constituencies may have rudely but emphatically rejected them, and though they may be utterly useless to the country, or even injurious to it through their political ignorance, they have no doubt given good service to the party, and may be relied upon to do more of the same kind. Otherwise they would not grace the Upper House with their presence. Ministers are certainly supplying strong reasons for the reform or abolition of the Legislative Council.