The Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. THURSDAY, JULY 25, 1907. NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume XIII, Issue 2775, 25 July 1907, Page 4

The Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. THURSDAY, JULY 25, 1907. NOTES AND COMMENTS.

The Parliamentary reporter 01 iuo Marlborough Express, writing to that journal last week, says that since the declarations of the Budget respecting the land policy there has been much heariuurning, and more discussion running into protest. The upshot is that there is talk of a new party, on th« lines of the New Liberal policy of “leasehol dand no other hold."

Whether this will go beyond the stage of taiK is going forward faster and faster with every moment. The members of the so-called party talk of a force of twenty pledged to their views.

Of course, if they are right in enumerating they must win, for on the basis of the last division, 50 to 15, they could make a division of 35 against the Government 30, and that means an actual, if bare, majority of the whole. Some of them, not content with these figures, declare they have already a majority of eight, and they threaten to raise it before long. 4 Pro tern their talk is of compelling the Government to another compromise. “swinging back a bit,” as they put it. What they object to is the exemption from the endowments of the Crown lands available for settlement, which exemptions have been announced. We shall see what we shall see. What is certain is that there is rising discontent on a labour foundation. It is announced that the land for settlement lands are not in the new system of offerin gtlie freehold option. This gets the freeholders up in arms.

We are not surprised that this should he so. If the principle of the freehold is made applicable—as we have always contended it should he. under certain specified conditions—to lands held under lease in perpetuity. it should be extended to land acquired under the Land for Settlements Act. The Government’s attitude in tiiis respect is therefore inexplicable to all intelligent people who evince an interest in the welfare of the colony, and nothing will contribute so much to make New Zealand great in the scale of nations as the

| giving to settlers of the option of the | freehold, as it is only by so doing that slie will possess an industrious I and contented peasantry wedded to the soil. Fixity of tenure is the great desideratum in settling the country and augmenting the pastoral and agricultural wealth of the colony. * As to the formation of a new Liberal Party, hinted at in the above remarks, we do not anticipate that the I subject w ill get beyond the nebulousstage. .Many members are prepared j to sink their political differences, and | vote with the party in power, as they | are doubtful ol being returned at the | next general election, and, like MinisI tors, are desirous ol enjoying the sweets of Parliamentary life as long as possible. * K,-verting to the question of land tenures, and to the necessity ol assisting the funner* in their efforts t i develop the agricultural and pastoral resources ol this country, it is interesting to note what an important I part the farmer plays in the general wealt ii. * A striking instance of this fact is show n by the report of (ho secretary ol the United States Department of Agriculture lor 1905. This report, dealing with the subject of wealth production, alter giving statistics, goes on to say :

“Dreams of wealth-production could hardly equal the preceding figures into which various items of the farmers' industry have been translated; and yet the story is not done. When other items, which cannot find place here, are included, it appears that the wealth production on farms in 1905 reached the highest amount ever attained by flu' larmer of this or any other country, n stupendous aggregate ol results of brain and muscle and machine, amounting in value to 6,415,000,000 dollars. The deduction from wealth produced, made in the report of last year, on account of products fell to live stock, is not continued this year, because the duplication of produced wealth in the consumption ol products hy farm animals is much less than lias been assumed, and is undoubtedly more than offset hy the amount of wealth produced on farms which cannot he estimated or even ascertained practically hy census enumerators. * II might reasonably have been sup liosed in 1901 1 hat the wealth produced hy farmers had reached a value which would not he equalled perhaps for

some years to follow, and yet that value was exceeded by the value for this year by 256,000,000 dollars, just as the value for that year exceeded that for 1903 by 242,000,000. The grand aggregate of wealth produced on farms in 1905 exceeds that of 1904 by 4 per cent. ; it is greater than that of 1903 by 8 per cent, and transcends the census figures for 1899 by 36 per tcent., and this after a lapse of only six years.

If there is no relapse from this high position that the farmer now holds as a wealth-producer, three years hecne he may look back over the preoeding decade and, if he will add the annual figures of his wealth-production, lie will find that the farming element, or about 35 percent. of the nopulation, has produced an amount of wealth within these ten years equal to one-half of the entire national wealth produced by the toil and composed of the surpluses and savings of three centuries.