THE LAND DEBATE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13305, 11 October 1906, Page 4

THE LAND DEBATE.

♦ The division which ushered in .the Land Debate exposed the weakness of the Ministerial position, showing plainly that had all members voted according to their convictions on the opposing tenures of freehold and leasehold the issue would have been exceedingly doubtful. A majority of seven in a full House—for the Government defeated the attempt to secure more time for discussion only by 40 to 33—cannot be considered satisfactory when the huge majority with which it met Parliament is borne in mind. Even if the voting had been confined to the European members, whose constituents alone are affected by the Bill, the Government would have been perilously near defeat. If this means anything at all it means that the pressure of public opinion is telling upon representatives, and that it is the duty of Sir Joseph Ward to allow the measure to stand over until next session, in order that the feeling of the country may be consulted. He claims that the country is with the Bill; if so, adjournment cannot harm it. While if, as we are confident, the country is against the Bill, adjournment would avoid a very regrettable act of legislation. It is unquestionable that the Bill .is not clearly understood anywhere, not even by those in authority, yet we are told that it will be pushed through this session. Sir Joseph Ward says that the questions" at issue are. those of endowment and limitation. ' The real question at issue is freehold versus leasehold, for by what we must regard as a device of the Leasehold Party, all remaining Crown Land is to be withdrawn from the optional system and to be opened only upon short-term lease. lb quotes the United States as having endowment lands, and might also quote Canada J I ' '"'■•'-:.■ . : * ''..' i '' ''.-■■'"' •'••'. ' r '"■"■-" , '''-■■ i

—but howl In America certain casional blocks in the survey of counties and, townships arc reserved for local educational purposes. There is no instance "of great districts being so reserved for general purposes. The Government would be"the last to offer the Crown Lands of, the North as local endowments, for any, purpose whatever, and can only hope to enforce the short-term lease upon them by influencing other parts of the colony with the promise that this will reduce their taxation. It is the old story: that the North must bear all the burdens of State, must see its agriculture depressed by an unsatisfactory tenure, and its districts impoverished by an absentee landlordism, in the. vague and mistaken expectation that this will benefit the South. The other proposals .by which freehold is asserted—by its enemies—t'o be advantaged, are too shallow to bear analysis. They are true gifts of the Greeks. We have no objection to the reasonable limitation of land-holding, nor do we think that the colony will be found against it. But granted that condition, we are certain that the almost unanimous feeling of the agricultural population is for freehold, and there arc indications that the towns are beginning to agree with the farmers. Under the circumstances, for the Government to force through a Bill, which under specious pretexts aims a blow at the freehold and commences a crusade in favour of the short-term lease, which the 999-year tenants will soon learn the meaning of, is quite inexcusable. '