A Mare's Nest.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 786, 25 March 1887, Page 29

A Mare's Nest.

{i'rom, the New Zealand Times, March XI.)

A professedly “inspired” contradiction of a rumour which in our last issue we mentioned as having reached us with respect to the Bill now being prepared by the Government for the resumption of private lands for the purpose of settlement on perpetual lease, was kindly volunteered by a local contemporary on Saturday evening. We are not in any way responsible for the rumour, but our contemporary’s pretended contradiction does not in reality touch at all what we mentioned. Our contemporary says : The Bill does not propose to deal with landowners “ mortgaged up to the eyes ’’ or to take over the land of such a landowner “ with his consent,” as stated by our contemporary. But, as it happens, we did not state anything of the sort. The rumour we mentioned was that the Bill would “ enable ” the Government to take over such land —a very different thing, and entirely borne out by the information offered in support of the so-called contradiction. For our contemporary goes on to aay : What the Bill does propose is that large estates may be occupied by Associations, who, without the consent of the owners, may acquire ascertain area of the land at 10 per cent upon the Properiy Tax valuation. A certain per centage is to be paid down, and the rest remains over. The landowner to be allowed to retain a thousand acres, and his homestead is not to be touched. There will be courts established to deal with certain questions arising out of the acqusition, and there will be Commissioners through whom the application for expropriations will be made.

It will at once be noticed by every intelligent reader that this does not in the smallest degree conflict with the allegation which it is put forward as demolishing, but that the two statements are perfectly consistent. Manifestly there is nothing to prevent the provisions above-quoted being used to relieve overbuidened landowners. On the contrary, they obviously afford facilities by which persons overwhelmed by mortgages—the interest on which is not paid by the land, but has to be found from other sources — may be relieved of a “ white elephant,” and set free to use their energies, and possibly their other means, more remuneratively ; while the public might beuefifc greatly by the land hitherto idle being brought under profitable settlement and cultivation. Indeed, there is little doubt that much of the Bill’s prospect of passing de pends upon its eliciting support on this very ground. It -yould not be exceedingly difficult not only to name eases in which the Bill would operate as indicated above, but also the quarters from which cordial support on that ground may be confidently anticipated. Reverting, however, to the professedly inspired forecast offered by our contemporary as to the purport of the Bill, we learn on authority that, save so far as it reproduces what Mr Ballance stated in his speech on the subject, it is by no means au accurate version of this measure; whose scope is to be far wider than is there alleged. Mr Ballance, we understand, is at present maturing a scheme—which has not yet been submitted to the Cabinet, and which it would therefore be improper to disclose just yet—which has lor its object to facilitate the acquisition of suitable private lands by the Government without a heavy expenditure of public money being involved. We mentioned a further rumour to the effect that no attempt would be made to pass the Bill during the approaching session, but that it would be merely brought in and circulated for the information of the electors before the pending general election. We have since learned, however, from the Minister for Lands that he does intend endeavouring to pass the Bill if possible during the coming session. If so, we feel tolerably certain that he will encounter a disappointment. On a future occasion we shall have something to say about the measure itself; we defer such remarks until the Bill shall be before us ; but we have no doubt at all as to the inadvisableness of so very important a measure being “rushed ” through a moribund Parliament, a Parliament, too, which is only holding au extra session through a species of “fluke”—if w r e may be pardoned the convenient slang term —owing to its existence having begun late in the year, and to there being a necessity to deal with the question of representation before the election. A question of such magnitude ought assuredly to be submitted to the electors before being

passed into law. There is very little likelihood, however, that so serious a measure will be passed by the present Parliament. Were it even to go through the Lower House, which is highly improbable, it would almost certainly be thrown out by the Legislative Council, if only on the perfectly justifiable ground that the country ought first to be consulted before ao large a new departure in regard to the law of real property as the virtual nationalization of the land is taken by the Legislature.