LAND TENURE QUESTION.

Otago Witness, Issue 2923, 23 March 1910, Page 6

LAND TENURE QUESTION.

There are signs that the question of land tenure will be keenly fought out when Parliament meets. Already the few members of Parliament who advocate leasehold tenure have been making themselves heard in the conference held at Christchurch. The supporters of the freehold, on the other hand, who represent the true interests of the country, are preparing to take a firm stand when the House assembles in Wellington. In the North Island the necessity for the adjustment of the land tenure question is very strongly felt, as large area.; of Crown land are 6till unsettled, and on all hands in the northern portions of the Dominion there ,i.s naturally a desire that land settlement should progress much faster than it is now doing. The bye-election for Rangitikei, which took place some six months a.go, clearly indicated the feeling with regard to the land tenure question in that electorate, from the fact that both candidates for Parliament in the final ballot announced themselves as out and out supporters of the freehold, thus showing that no difference "oi opinion existed between the supporters of the Government and the Opposition in that direction. Those members of Parliament who are now so strongly advocating a restricted option of land tenure, and who are opposed to Crown tenants being enabled to secure the freehold of their holdings, should the latter r-o desire, do not voice the feeling of any large section of those who hav* up land in the

North nor of the farmers of the South Island, who jointly and severally are building up the backbone industries of this Dominion. We have before pointed out that every man on the land with any grit must feel that the option of Ultimately owning the property he is improving is his inborn right, provided he has the means and the inclination to acquire it, and farmers and settlers, taken as a whole from one endi of New Zealand to the other, are quite at one on. the point that no good reason can be nor has been, given by the legistators or the Government why the latter should; continue to. deprive them, of their undoubted rights. One can only repeat that the option of acquiring the freehold is unrivalled as an inducement to thrift and successful farming. It is contrary tti common sense to imagine that a farnjer would be willing to pass the best years of his life on a leasehold farm of, per-, haps, second-class land, making a comfortable home for himself and family, with the full knowledge that n,o matter how hard hie worked the property might eventually pass into other hands. It is unfortunate for the prosperity of New Zealand that a few members of both Houses should allow their zeal to outrun both their discretion and: knowledge. In the present Parliament, for instance, about a fourth of the members are practically pledged to tip confiscation, if possible, of the freehold, and as leaseholders they maintain, that the land belongs by natural right to the people—that is to say, to everybody in general airwi nobody in particular. Unfortunately. these sentiments, expressed by good: platform speakers, very :>ften carry conviction to the unthinking. It therefore behoves the members of the Opposition and those who favour the freehold to bestir themselves, so that when Parliament meets they may be in a position to have the question of land tenure discussed and settled without farther delay. The object of a successful land poliev in a country like New Zealand should be to develop and promote the settlement of the land as quickly as poeisible, and so far nothing has been proved a.gainst an optional poliev of land tenure with the right of acquiring the freehold, amd this is the policy that, those who have the best 'nterests of New Zealand at heartj now desire to see carried into effect.