The N.Z. Times (PUBLISHED DAILY). TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1906. TO-NIGHT’S LAND DEBATE.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 6025, 9 October 1906, Page 4

The N.Z. Times

(PUBLISHED DAILY). TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1906. TO-NIGHT’S LAND DEBATE.

WITH WHJCK IS IJfCOaPOBATBD THS ** WXZXIBG9OB ISD*?SHDKNT.” 1845.

11l tho course of tho past dozen years there hare been legislative proposals which have been ju»t as intensely discussed outsiuo Parliament as the Land Hill, but there lias ijeeu none in which ilia ravenous public interest has been ielb so unfed by the leaders of the rival parties. Since tho Minister for Lands delivered his speech at Shannon, there has been no definite committal by either tho Government or Mr Massey, and tho result is that the second reading of the bill will bo moved in an atmosphere thick with rumours and speculation. .Although public criticism of tho bill has boon left almost entirely to the Farmers’ Union, tho friends of the Government’s policy are keenly excited -over its prospects, and Mr McNab will bo indeed greedy should ho do o a more intense expectancy for his speech than that which awaits it. This is not the time for criticising tho details of the bill, and in point of fact the intention of the measure is temporarily forgotten in tho general anxiety concerning tho attitude of tho Government. Although Mr -Massey has been peculiarly reticent over his plans, ho has doubtless been busy formulating a scheme of attack. It is one of tho difficulties of politics that there is not upon any question a plain hand-to-hand downright melee. Tactics aro everything, and Air Massey has, not unnaturally, refrained from telling ns what his tactics will be. As matters stand at present, tho motion for tho second reading will be met by a ‘'no-confidence” motion which, since it gives as its “raison d’etre” tho failure of the Government to grant Crown tenants tho freehold at tho original value,, is assured of defeat by a, body of voting which will include many members who, on a differentlyframed motion, would march into tho lobby with Mr Massey. There are ways and means open to the leader of the Opposition for forcing a division of the House upon the general intention of the, bill, but he may prefer to withhold this weapon and utilise tho malcontents of the Government party to imprison the bill in committee. There is no doubt that the stonewallers, the muddle-headed freeholders who cannot recognise “the freehold” when they see it, and tho “country party” generally will rally to tho Opposition banner on a direct determining motion. There is little doubt, also, that they would be defeated, and tho way would then bo left clear for an honest handling of an improved bill.

Even should the second reading debate collapse early, the remainder of the session, say- two weeks, will hardly be too much for the thorough discussion duo to a measure of such minute and extensive range. There has, however, been a tendency to exaggerate the time that the discussion will require. On questions of tenure a year’s debate in Parliament will change no opinion, and there need bo-no long debate upon purely basic questions. W© are not confident that finality will ho reached hy November Ist, and there appears to be some opposition to the suggestion that members should return to work after a couplo of weeks" adjournment. For the life of us, we cannot see why, if the bill and the position demand it, members should grumble at coming back, although, ao the same time, w© clearly recognise the difficulties in the way of a short summer session. We hope, v in any case, and wo are confident that a majority of the people hope with us, that tno Government will stand firm by its policy, and will leave no means untried to place the measure upon the statutebook this year, for firmness and energy must lead to ultimate success.