The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. MONDAY, APRIL 6, 1914. THE LIBERAL LAND POLICY.

Southland Times, Issue 17619, 6 April 1914, Page 4

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. MONDAY, APRIL 6, 1914. THE LIBERAL LAND POLICY.

So far as we are aware Mr G. W. Russell was never appointed custodian of the Opposition’s land policy by Sir Joseph Ward with authority to deliver it to the public at a time, and place selected by himself, but we presume that the interesting announcement which the member for Avon matte at Christchurch a few days ago was not made without due respect to authority. The meeting to which Mr Russell explained the Liberal laud policy augured none too well for the newlyformed Liberal and Labour Association of Canterbury, for though it was called as a public meeting it was attended by less than half a hundred persons, and none of those present were representatives of Habonr as the term is understood in politics. However, the so-called Liberal and Labour Association never had secure foundations beneath it. and it was not difficult to predict for it at the outset a speedy death from inanition. But the point under notice is the Liberal land policy, and this policy as explained by Mr Russell is quite frankly admitted to be the Massey Government’s freehold policy. The leasehold has been jettisoned, and the Opposition now virtually offers to give the farmers of the country all that the Government

can give them. In other words, the Opposition joins heartily in what it has called “the freehold raid.” Some of those present at the Christchurch meeting, Liberals of the old school we suppose, were anything but pleased with Mr Russell’s statement. One of them said that if the Liberal party adopted the freehold for its land policy all distinction between it and the Massey party would disappear, and Mr Russell’s answer was that while there were still leaseholders •who adhered to their principles on the Opposition side, as “practical politicians” they recognised that there was a majority for the freehold. Mr Russell added that it was useless for the Liberal party to put leaseholders on the land, because Mr Massey and his friends went round promising the freehold and the leaseholders promptly voted for them. All this is just an admission that the leasehold form of tenure is not popular with the setlers on the land, the people whose interests are most closely affected by tenures, and who know most about them. The leasehold is popular enough in the towns among those who strive to get a freehold quarter acre for themselves but contend that because a farmer needs 400 or 500 acres he ought to be satisfied with the leasehold. Hence the almost unanimous support given to Mr Massey’s I-and Bills by the representatives of country constituencies on both sides of the House, and the restriction of opposition to the bills to those who sit for town electorates. And why is the freehold preferred to the leasehold ? Because it is the most secure of all forms of tenure and that which offers to the tillers of the soil the strongest inducements to industry and effort and the most liberal rewards for them. For many years the leaseholder has pooh-hooed this idea as ridiculous, contending that the leasehold on satisfactory terms is quite as good for the farmer as the freehold, and in many cases better. His arguments have appealed well enough to townspeople who have only a theoretical knowledge of the question, but they have never carried the least conviction with the people actually on the land. Now, we gather from Mr Russell’s announcement that the leaseholders have begun to realise that the man on the land is probably the best judge on the tenure question, and the freehold becomes the essential feature of the Opposition’s land policy. This means that Sir Joseph Ward has induced the party to accept his own views on the subject. The Leader of the Op’position is a freeholder and supports the optional form of tenure, and his difficulties in regard to land legislation have arisen from the fact that he has always hal to placate a number ot leaseholders among his followers. As “ practical politicians,” i.e., as politicians who realise that when all is said and done the main thing is to get votes, the leaseholders have now consented to sink their scruples, and as regards tenure there is no longer any difference between Government and Opposition. As so much has to be admitted the Opposition press will find it more difficult than ever to persuade the electors that the Government is “ Tory " and “ reactionary."