The Land Bill.

Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 18, Issue 41, 21 May 1907, Page 5

The Land Bill.

TELEGRAPHIC.

STONEWALLING THREATENED. Auckland, M y 18. Responding to the toast of Pai ii .nr.nt at the Farmers’ Union Conference Mr Lang, M.H.R., said he believed there were sufficient freeholders in the House to prevent the Land Bill being forced upon the country. -They would use all the forms of the House, and resort if necessary to stonewalling, to prevent the Bill becoming law. SUPPORT FOR THE BILL. Dunedin, May 18. A meeting at Kaitangata addressed by Mr Barclay, M.H.R., unanimously approved confidence in the land proposals of the Government. Dunedin, May 18, Mr George Laurenson, M.H.R., addressed a meeting on the Land Bill at Mosgiel. He said, under the present system, the country districts boih in Canterbury and Otago were being depopulated. Taieri County had actually fewer population today than in 1896, while Canterbury, although showing an increase of 30,000 in fifteen years, accounted for 31,000 by the increase in her towns. Thus there was an actual decrease in her country population of one thousand. The census returns showed that all over the colony the town population was rapidly outstripping the country, and that by 1911, at the present rale, there would be more people in our towns than in the country. In spite of the Government having bought eighty-four large estates during the past lew years, the number of large estates in the colony, both in value and in area, were rapidly increasing. The price of land was goipg up so fast that it was almost impossible now for settlers’ sons to get it at a price which would enable them to live on it, As showing how the early settlers had viewed the endowment question, he pointed out that Canterbury, which only had an area of 9,600,000 acres, had had reserves set apart for education and public purposes of 961,000 _ acres, while Otago could almost show similar figures. Now, when it was proposed to set apart a proportionately much smaller amount for national purposes, they were told they were attacking the freehold. Mr Laurenson got a good reception. Mr }, Wright, a farmer, moved, and Mr W. D. Mason, also a farmer, seconded, a motion thanking Mr Laurenson for his address, and expressing hearty approval of Mr McNab's Land Bill, An amendment stating that no Land Bill would be satisfactory to the country which did not give settlers the option of the freehold, was moved, but this only found five supporters. The original motion was carried, with applause.