THE LAND QUESTION.

Otago Witness, Issue 2686, 6 September 1905, Page 6

THE LAND QUESTION.

The plight in which the Government has involved itself in respect of the land question- invites the mingled compassion and contempt of the public. Its irresolution is a thing that is more to he pitied than denounced. The time was not so many, years ago when, as Mr Seddon has been repeatedly reminded in the course of the debate into which thes House has plunged, the Government had a definite land policy and was prepared to abide by it at all costs 1 . Sir John M'Kenzie held strong convictions on the subject of the land laws, and fought determinedly in support of theaa. No one would have dared to suggest to him that the question of the disposal of the land of the colony was one of such small importance as to render it immaterial whether his views or those expressed, by hisi opponents should prevail. That is, however, what the Premier now infers. For two or three years he has, by the adoption of one contrivance after the other, managed to dodge the necessity for facing an issue on the question. And while the Opposition has clearly indicated the general features of its land policy, and while supporters of the Government have with equal clearness expressed their views one way or the othe^^mgi^rfß^ain points ili<^^j^B|^H^^^^^^^^^^Jie land pon^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^fe^^^asM

I obtain the freehold of their land. But no such. fa<re as that has been offered by him for the consumption of country constituencies. Upon them, indeed, a form of imposture has been practised. They have had circulated amongst them copies of a speech delivered in Wellington by the Premier from which", as the outcome of the exercise of a " Liberal " censorship, the whole of Mr Seddon's arguments in opposition to the freehold tenure were carefully excised. To them his favourite device lias been to represent himsslf as the champion of a system of land settlement under which an applicant for Crown lands is afforded an option of tenures. Ifc is in defence of this system that he hag claimed jto have his back to the door. But there is no person in the colony who wishes to interfere with the optional system. There is not the remotest desire on the part of anyone, whether in opposition to the Government or not, to prevent an applicant for land from obtaining it on the leasehold tenure. It is common ground, indeed, that the leasing system, in some shape or other, must be retained. Its maintenance ai&'ords the easiest and most effective way of assisting a man of moderate means to the occupation of a farm. There is absolutely no contention respecting the wisdomand necessity of preserving the leasehold. Where opinibns differ is as to the desirability of permitting a person, after his settlement upon Crown land under the leasing system, to' acquire the freehold of his farm. Upon that point there is a cleavage so distinct as to divide public opinion in the colony into two well-defined parties. The Premier alone, a monument of indecision, is unable to make up his mind. He has said that the concession of £be freehold option to the Crown tenants would involve an •enormoiTs gift by the State to that class. He has said, further, that the concession would simply have the result of throwing the Crown tenants upon the mercies of the moneylenders. Hie conclusion is absurdly unwarranted, for there will be* no compulsion upon the tenants to convert their tenure: they will retain their leases unless and until they can advantageously acquire the free^ hold. But if Mr Seddon believes that the effect of conceding the option of the freehold to the Crown tenants would be, as he declares it would, inimical to the interests alike of the State and of the tenants themselves, he should be found, as Sir John M'Kenzie would have been found if he had lived, resisting' to the extent of his ability the proposal to> enable the Crown lessees to acquire the freehold. Mr Seddon has no fixed principles such as Sir John M'Kenzie possessed. He implies that the concession is a wrong thing, but he adopts it as a feature of the Government scheme for the housing of workers, and he has not the courage to say that he will be no party to its extension to the tenant in occupation of rural land? c.f the Crown A Minisiei, ike her -I ,i" a political party, i\ko ll.u- h i to^ have not the mnrehfc scrap oi & principle upon a que.-Uon of the most vital interest to the colony must surely be an object of pity to the community. And when he proposes to submit shame Wiv in J'.uiiament a serie^o|^-proposa.l= v i ■yhe construction. j^|^|^^^^^^^_iik e »»KQ_

contempt and der I "' in r , — ..parallel, in, T5nH-h pol'tiOL. - --^ ptosent day, we should ha j i'J sir ;:o-e that Ml' Balfour, who ha 0 - no settled convictions in respsct to the preferential tariff proposal, but is in favour of the adoption of a system:- under which retaliatory tariffs miglit be introduced, was capable of throwing the whol© fiscal question on \ the floor o£ the House of Commons, that it might bo wrangled over by the^ members without any guidance from their leader, and of subsequently sweepingxxp the fragments that remained after the fray with the view of constructing; out of them a policy which he-tniglifc claim as his own. If Mr Balfour, however, were to exhibit himself as a statesman so devoid of principle as to be willing to adopt a policy framed for him by the House of CommoßS', afc tho dictation, probably, of M& political opponents, he would constitute himself a butt for the giti&s of the world. ."But the Trim© Minister of Great Britain respect^ the traditions of his office. He has a-" high, conception of principle and a . just conception of tlie responsibility, of his 1 position. He has. lately shown himself to be more tenacious of office than many of his friends and supporters can have regarded as altogether commendable, but the merest* stigge&tion that lie should cling to> power by the adoption of the expedient, resorted to by Mr Seddon and approved by a few, but not all, of his followers, of asking the House to formulate a policy for him, which, he should thereafter proclaim throughout the country a® the programme of his Govemmentj would be revolting to his sense of the dtity he owes to himself, to his party, and to the country. He would resign, as any; self-respecting Minister would, rather than abjectly declare his own inability, to frame a policy and profess his readiness to adopt whatever policy Parliament might signify its preparedness to support, regardless 61 whether it should be the policy of his opponents or not. Mr Ssddon 'has not infrequently presented an undignified^ figure in Parliament. Never, however,, has he shown. himi^i|MMfl| advantage than at thej|^^^^^^^| But even, though astounding propositi^^^^^^^^^H appropriation by hi^^^^^^^^^^^H of the land policy <j^^^^^^^^^^^H an end to which l^^^^^^^^^^^^H feeling his way — i^^^^^^^^^^^H entertain no sei^^^^^^^^^^^^^H one of disgust £^^^^^^^^^^^^^H displayed by th^^^^^^^^^^^^H most important j^^^^^^^^^^^^^H da 7- V^^^^^^^H