The Otago Witness. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE SOUTHERN MERCURY. (WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1913.) THE WEEK.

Otago Witness, Issue 3109, 15 October 1913, Page 47

The Otago Witness. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE SOUTHERN MERCURY. (WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1913.) THE WEEK.

" Nunquam aUikl natura, aliud sapientia dixit.”— Juvenal. “ Good nature and good sense must ever join."— > Pope.

The prospects of the present session of Parliament being brought

Another Stonewall.

to a close at the end. of November —never very bright—have still further

been diminished by another stupid stonewall undertaken by the Opposition. This deliberate obstruction of the business of the country took shape almost as soon, as the Land Bill reached the Committee stage ; it involved another all-night and all-day sitting, the waste of much valuable , strength, and still more valuable time, 1 and accomplished simply nothing besides. The whole proceeding initiated by the ; Opposition may be stigmatised as another contribution to that terrible amount of Waste with which Parliament is unfor- j Innately becoming so closely associated. A more Vneaningless stonewall than that foolishly undertaken last week, was surely never set on foot. There was some wild talk on the part of the little knot of extreme and irresponsible Labourites, who somehow or other secured seats in Parliament at the last election, of continuing the stonewall to the point of forcing the Government to a dissolution. Seeing, however, that Sir Joseph Ward and oilier of . the Opposition members had, by voting for the second reading of the Land Bill, already given their assent to the principle of the freehold underlying the whole measure, to go to the country on such an ( issue would be the supreme height of ( political suicide. Besides, it has already : been abundantly demonstrated that the Reform Government has the people of New j Zealand at its back in the matter of ; the freehold land tenure. There was also the suggestion that this attempt at fore- , ing a dissolution was the work of Hie j anti-Prohibition party, was saw in the i ruse a way of dodging a local option poll j at the general election; and in view of the prominent part Sir L. M. Isitt has j taken in the obstruction tactics, there > would have been a grim irony in the pro- j ceeding. But this idea has been- scouted in the fact that it would now be im- i possible to fix the date of the general elec- i tion early enough to secure such j The probability it that the stonewall wae j simply the outcome of the indifferent hold | which Sir Joseph W<ird as Leader of the Opposition has over his followers; indeed, , even although they theoretically acknowledge his leadership, it is becoming more and more evident that the leader of the Opposition has an exceedingly thankless and unprofitable task. The serious matter to the country is that an irresponsible minority can, while keeping well within ; the forms of the House, so contrive to block the business as to make progress . well nigh impracticable. Mr Massey is therefore confronted with two alternatives, both disagreeable, and the one as unpalatable as the other. The Prime Minister may, of course, decide to jettison several important policy bills in order that the session may conclude at a- reasonable date. ; But naturally such a procedure will not appeal to a Reform Government that has practically pledged itself to institute certain Reforms, for in a sense its credit is at stake. The other course—and the most commendable one—is for Mr Massey, relying absolutely upon the courage and loyalty of his supporters, to announce that the full programme of Government legislation is to be carried through without abatement of one jot or tittle, ami having made the announcement to stick rigidly to his word. And although tho temptation, to break down the Opposition in the shape of vexatious stonewalls, byj all-night sittings and the like,-the result in the shape of legislation by exhaustion* is not conducive to the quality of th< and certainly is detrimental both to the health and temper of members. Besides, an all-night sitting appeals in a way to the heroic stoicism inherent iir every man. and lends a certain stimulus to an otherwise extremely monotonous j proceeding. Mr Massey would therefore j be well advised to set his face against all- i night sittings, or, indeed, any undue pro- I longatiou of the hours of- Parliament, and ; at the same time make it plain that : members will be expected to remain in Wellington—with perhaps a brief adjournment for the Christmas and New Yea* holidays—until the business of the country • is concluded. Such a course, unless wa are much mistaken, would take away tha keenness of the Opposition appetite for obstruction, and the Government would then experience little or no difficulty in putting the remainder of the business through in record time.

Mr Lloyd George has at last launched his

Mr Lloyd fleorgo and Landlord's™.

final coup by outlining the intentions of the British, Government in regard ta

land legislation. This is in no sense a surprise, for it has long been known that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to follow up his famout Budget scheme, which sought to improve the conditions under which the poor live by placing the greater incidence of taxation upon the incomes of the wealthy, with a campaign against a landlordism which he has just described as “Great Britain’s greatest and least controlled monopoly.” Here it is interesting to interpolate a comparison between the conditions in this Dominion and at Home, and of current opinion on those conditions. In England Mr Lloyd George i* regarded, at least by his political opponents, as a Radical of the Radicals, whilst the old-fashioned English Tory look* '

suspiciously upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer' as little short of a deep-dyed Socialist, if not, indeed, a dangerous Anarchist. In New Zealand the pseudoLiberals, the ragged remnants of the supporters of the Continuous Ministry who still retain their seats in Parliament, have over and over again invited the electors Oil the Dominion to look upon Mr Massey and his followers, especially in regard to their land policy, as crusted Tories, let Mr Massev is entirely in accord with Mr Lloyd George in his denunciation ot British landlordism. Mr Massey has characterised the English system as a “damnable system,” and he justified hia use of the adjective because he did not want to see it introduced into New Zealand. And the Prime Minister explained the stand he is taking on the land question by an interesting little piece biography. “What 1 want to see. the Prime Minister said, “is a set of men in this country owning and farming their own lands/ I want to see the svstem that we are told existed in England 2UU or 300 years ago— that is, everyone owning Iris own piece of land; and 1 will netei be satisfied until I see that it is possible. My people came out here in 62 because it was not passible to obtain a freehold section in the North of Ireland. Me may make mistakes here, but this Bill is introduced with a perfectly genuine desire to further the development of •the land system of this country and prevent anything like a system of landlordism coming into operation.” How wonderfully the British Chancellor of the Exchequer and the New Zealand Prime Minister are in unison upon this point can be seen by reference to the cabled account of Mr Lloyd George’s speech at Bedford Skating Bank, when for two and a-half hours he addressed 1500 delegates of the Home, Midland, ‘and Eastern Counties Liberal Federations. The Chancellor declared that he had not attacked landlords individually, nor even as a class, but he argued that no human beings could be trusted with such sweeping powers without abuses, oppression, ana injustice arising: and lie stated that it was the intention of the Government to place the landlord beyond the reach of temptation in this respect. The present English land system was designated a ghastly failure, and attention was directed to the lamentably low scale of the agricultural labourer’s wages. “Ninety per cent, of them received wages that were below the scale necessary to keep a family on workhouse fare, and the worst paid districts were those where the landlord’s sway was greatest. The worker formerly had a stake in the country, but the landlords in Parliament had annexed Naboth’s vineyard.” Mr Lloyd George further pointed out that, while the Small Holdings Act had met with much success, the worker had not profited to the extent the Government had anticipated, and this mainly because of tho prohibitive price of land. “Men bought land for social position, power, and sporting, which had nothing to do with its intrinsic worth. Until thte monopoly value was placed on a proper basis the Small Holdirigs Act would not be a success. The country possessed millions of acres that were not cultivated, whilst they were buying millions of pounds’ worth of food abroad. No country gave up so much land to sport as theirs did.”

Mr Lloyd George fired a bomb into the camp of the Conservative classes at Home when he defined the policy of the Government as a reduction in the game lands by one-third, and greater security to the cultivator; and he pointed out that while this might even end the dominion of the landlord, the country had to choose between the power of the landlord and the prosperity of the labourer. The end in view was to so deal with the land monopoly as to secure for the labourer a living wage, a decent house, a piece of land, and the prospect of becoming a small cultivator. To this end the State would have to instruct the cultivator, besides cheapening and improving transport. It will thus be seen that at Home after all these years the Government is confronted with practically the same problem as the younger countries are grappling with —namely, to settle t lie people on t*ne land so that they mav win for themselves and their children a home and a comfortable living, but the difference in conditions is all in favour ol the dweller in New Zealand, and the comparison only requires to be made more widely known to induce a continual tide of immigration to these shores until such time as the new land legislation brings about a tremendous improvement at Home. One of the reasons why the Small Holdings Scheme in the Homeland has not been taken greater advantage of is because of the lack of housing accommodation for the holders; and housing is the central evil in the present situation of the English agricultural labourer. The insanitary and ill-provided cottage which he receives in part payment for his labour from the farmer is the chief instrument of his subjection, while the growing scarcity of housing comformable to modern standards of hygiene everywhere enables owners of other cottage property to raise their rents, and stimulates overcrowding, relieved only by compulsory exile. It is estimated, by careful investigators, that from 100,000 to 120,000 cottages are at once needed to provide properly for the present rural population in England, and recently Mr Runciman, President of the British Board of Agriculture, outlined a scheme which would commit the Government to building not fewer than 90,000 cottages, 10,000 of which should be put in hand at once. The scheme, which presumably will form part of Mr Lloyd George’s larger proposal, comprises the compulsory purchase by the State of land in considerable blocks at reasonable prices, and the erection thereon of cottages, four to the acre, or thereabouts, so that a decent section would encircle each cottage. It is estimated that the cottages could be built at a cost of about ±llsO each, with a further payment of £SO or so for the price of the land. After making allow-

Tlip X. n Land Policy.

ance for other charges, the total annual cost to be met works out at £sl 19s per group of four cottages, and which could be covered by a rent of a little more than os per week for each cottage. ne of the chief objections to this scheme is that low-waged labourers in the southeui counties, accustomed to renting hovels for Is 6d per week or less, wouto object, on the plea of inability to pay the higher rent for a sanitary and wellequipped dwelling. On the other hand it is argued that the conjunction of the small allotment with the cottage would prove an irresistible inducement beside* sowing in the labourer s heart tha *>e of independence which would even ua free him from a position of absolute subjection. amounting to veritable serfdom, in which so large a proportion of the English agricultural labourers at P’-'esent abide. Mr Lloyd George insists that the State must be invested with the po\\ei to acquire the land from owners unabL or unwilling to cultivate the soil, and that the State must also be provided \m .1 finances necessary to carry out the scheme \nd to those who know anything ot the opinions generally hetd by the English land-owning classes, this portends a revolution beside which the criticism of .ur Llovd George’s famous Budget mil fall into insignificance. Mr Lloyd George evidently appreciates the storm which his scheme will provoke, since he, at a second meeting, remarked :-“H the iov.es are prepared to settle the land problem bv agreement, the Liberals will be prepared to work with them, but there must be a real settlement.”

The land legislation which Mr Lloyd George is seeking to promote is only the rational outcome of the investigations which earnest and thoughtful students have been making into the condition of Rnra. England during the last . decade hor years past it has been evident that thpassing of the English peasantry will speedify proceed to the point of vutua extinction, of a sturdy class once the strength and sinew of Old England unless prompt remedial measures are devised. But Mr Lloyd George is the first statesman who has ventured to take the bul by the horns and to propound a compre hensive solution of the land problem. How far the thing has been, allowed to go may be gleaned from a perusal of the Hood of recent literature on the subject. Only four years since Mr C. 1 1 . G. Masterman, one of Mr Llovd George’s Ministerial col leagues, published a manual on “The Condition of England,” which made an important contribution to the subject. Mr Masterman wrote, and the picture is true to-day: —“Rural England, beyond the radius of certain favoured neighbourhoods, and apart from the specialised population which serves the necessities of the country house, is everywhere hastening to decay. No one stays there who can possibly find employment elsewhere. All the boys and girls with energy and enterprise forsake at the comment-) ment of maturity the life of the fields for the life of the town. A peasantry unique in Europe, in its complete divorce from the land, lacking ownership) of cottage or tiniest plot of ground, finds no longer any attraction in the cheerless toil "of the agricultural labourer upon scant weekly wages. In scattered feudal districts a liberal distribution of alms and of charity masquerading'as employment may serve to retain .a subservient population in a ‘model vil lage.’ When these hierarchies and generosities are absent the cottages crumble to pieces and are never repaired ; no new cottages are constructed: the labourer loses not only intimacy with the land, but even all desire for the land, that longing for a particular position of his own which is the strongest animating force in the peasantry of every other country in the world. The villages are left to old men and to children, to the inert, unenterpris ing, and intellectually feeble. While ancient skilled occupations—hedging and ditching, the traditional treatment of beasts and growing things-—are becoming lost arts in Rural England. Behind the appearance of a feverish prosperity and adventure —motors along all the main roads, golf courses, gamekeepers, gardeners, armies of industrious servants, excursionists, hospitable entertainment of country house parties—we can discern the passing of a race of men.” And Mr Masterman quotes one of the keenest students on the rural life of England as saying. “the monopoly of great farmers must be broken up before the dawn of hope can rise upon the English peasant.” He has discovered deep) in the heart of the country labourer that “love of the land” which has survived through all the generations of hopeless drudgery. He recognises it as “a survival from the days when an able bodied Englishman, bred on and to the land, might cherish the hope of one dav calling a corner of it his own, at least as the -tenant of a landlord without personal interest in the degradation of his depen dents.” In all this there is a splendid moral for this dominion. It is indeed a happy augury, at the very time when Mr Lloyd George is inaugurating his great campaign for the amelioration of the many evils from the English system of landlordism, that New Zealand should possess as Prime Minister a man so fully alive to the danger of perpetuating in New Zealand these very evils. And it is an even happier sign of the times that on the very day when the English Chancellor of the Exchequer was delivering the speech outlining his land campaign, the New Zealand Prime Minister was occupied in passing through Parliament a Land Bill embodying those very principles as a policy of that prevention which is bettor than cure. What greater condemnation can possibly be meted out to the Opposition obstructionists than the plain consideration of these things?

The Passing ot the Peasantry.