The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, JULY 8, 1886. THE PREMIER’S INCONSISTENCY.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1529, 8 July 1886, Page 2

The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, JULY 8, 1886. THE PREMIER’S INCONSISTENCY.

Of all the political actions of the Hon. Sir Robert Stout’s, there is none more difficult to understand than his opposition to Sir George Grey’s Land Settlement Bill. No one in Now Zealand has given utterance to stronger language on the subject of land monopoly ; no one has been more outspoken with regard to land nationalisation, He has proclaimed his views on that snbjtct from the house tops, and the whole radical element of the colony looked to him as a heaven-sent leader who would widen for them the gates through which they would gain access to the land. How wofully they have been mistaken in him can be seen from his actions in reference to Sir George Grey’s Bill. That Bill may be regarded as the thin edge of the wedge of land nationalisation, and the best means that could possibly be devised to settle the people on the land. In saying this we do not wish it to be understood that we regard the Bill as perfect. A few issues ago we pointed out its faults, but they are such as could be easily altered, and in no way destroy the principle involved. The points in the Bill of which we approve is that the Government should buy out large estates, sub-divide them, and lease them to agriculturists at a rental of so much per cent, on the purchase money. That appears to us an honest way of dealing with the question of lend monopoly, while it gives to men of small means a chance of building for themselves a home. Now this is what Sir Robert Stout violently opposed, and to discredit it he even went to the extent of making statements which were not consistent with the truth. The first objection he raised to the Bill was that it was needless because there were 25 millions acres of good land still in the hands of the State, and that until these were settled there was no necessity to purchase land from private owners. Sir Robert Stout has frequently advocated a “ bursting-up ” land tax—-the most villainous policy that was ever enunciated. If there were plenty of land in the hands of the Government, why has he advocated a dishonest policy that would ruin people ? The most charitable conclusion to come to is that he did not know what be was talking about when he advocated a land tax, and that it is only lately bis mind has been able to grasp the facts connected with the land question. "We should be vtry glad to give him the full benefit of lbs doubt, only that Mr Turnbull exposed him too completely by referring him to a return laid on the table of the House on the previous night, showing that there were only 2,101,000 seres of land worth having still in possession of the Crown. Under these circumstances we must conclude that the Premier knew very well he was not speaking the truth when he said that there were 25 million acres of good land unsold, and that 8 millions more would be acquired from the natives. Then be pointed out how the proposed system had failed at the Cape ot Good Hope, in a manner that would cheer up the heart of the most terror-stricken land monopolist in the world. If at any future time any one wants to argue against land nationalisation he will find in Sir Robert Stout’s speech sentences that will go far in proving that our Premier is deadly opposed to it. But the way he tried to reconcile his past utterances with his opposition to the Bill was perhaps the most amusing part of his speech. He approved of the principle of the Bill, he said, but the same principle was affirmed by the Land Act of the previous year. He evidently tried to snatch from Sir George Grey the honor of having originated the scheme, A London paper, recently commenting on Lord Randolph Churchill’s opposition to Home Rule, urged that it arose out ol jealousy, and stated that His Lord ship, after having heard Mr Gladstone’s scheme, exclaimed : “Oh Lord! Oh Lord I Oh Lord ! If I could have laid that egg, or smash it.” Sir Robert Stout’s opposition to Sir George Grey’s Bill appears to us to be prompted by a similar feeling. As he has not been able to lay such an egg himself, be would like to smash it. The truth of this is borne out by the frequency with which he reminded the House (hat he embodied the same principle in the Bill of last year. If so, has he given effect to it ? And why did he insert such a principle in bis Bill, if, as he asserts, no necessity for it existed ? Taken altogether, his speech was a most labored effort to wriggle out of the difficulty he placed himself in by undertaking to prove that he was acting consistently while opposing the principles of which he has been the high priest. Now, there is not in New Zealand a better settled district than South Canterbury. With the exception of a few large estates owned by companies, the land is very fairly divided amongst the people, and there is not a great deal to complain of. These companies are very anxious to sell out now, and the time is very seasonable for acquiring possession of their estates. Sir Robert Stout would delay the matter until times become better ami land dearer, and the colony could not get so good a bargain as at presant. This is not consistent with common sense, and the action of the Premier in opposing the Bill is deserving of the severest condemnation.