The Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, MAY 12, 1888. THE GOVERNOR'S SPEECH.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1736, 12 May 1888, Page 2

The Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, MAY 12, 1888. THE GOVERNOR'S SPEECH.

Tee Speech with which Parliament has been opened is the most empty, colorless, and insipid that has ever been addressed to any Assembly. It is useless to waste space in commenting upon it, for there is really nothing in it. Talleyrand said that language was given to man to conceal his i thoughts, and it certainly can be said that the Speech was drafted on that principle. For instance, nothing was said in the Speech in reference to the proposed alterations in the Standing Orders of the House, but immediately it was read the Premier gave notice that on next Friday he would submit such proposals for the consideration of Parliament. The Government may in the same way have many things in the “ heel of their fist ” of which they have said nothing, and consequently it is useless to speculate on what is going to occur. One thing of more than ordinary interest is mentioned, and that is a change in the Customs Tariff, We are promised that extraordinary and wonderful measure which will please Protectionists and Freetraders, and which will yield revenue and encourage local industries at the same time. That such a scheme is irn- , possible goes without saying, A taxing tariff cannot be a protecting tariff, because that which taxes places duties on many articles which ought to be allowed to come in free. But the present Government tell us that the wool industry is in a flourishing condition, and doubtless their object is to relieve that ot as much taxation as possible, and let the other industries sink or swim. It is, however, useless to speculate as to what the Government intend to do, for they have given no indication of it in their Speech, so we must await further developments.

THE LAND QUESTION,

One of tha measures which have shed a blessing over the face of the laud, according to the Governor’s speech and Mr Rhodes’s speech in Temulca, is the Land Act of last session, hut who has shared in its beneficent influences it is difficult to ascertain. Mr Rhodes said that "under the Stout-Yogel Ministry little or no encouragement was offered to any form of tenure other than the perpetual leasing, and this was a great hindrance to the settlement of the wastelands." This is not true, but we shall not discuss it from that point of view. Out of Mr Rhodes’s own mouth we shall condemn him. He said, as stated above, that the perpetual leasing system was a hindrance to settlement, and in the next breath told us that he got it from the Land Board that week that “ Up to this date 26,246 acres 6 roods 1 perch have been opened for selection, and the following has been disposed of; —Ror cash, 5 sections containing 416 acres 0 roods 18 poles, realising £687 3s 8d ; deferred payments, 9 sections containing 144 acres, annual instalments £26 13s; on perpetual lease, 35 sections containing 2598 I acres 3 roods 1 perch, annual rental I £230 6s Bd.” We cannot but pity | the state of mind of the man who i cannot see that the second statement is a condemnation of the other. “ The Stout-Yogel Government," says Mr Rhodes, “ hindered settlement by their perpetual leasing fad, and happily that has been done away with by the beneficent Act of last session.’’ hie ! then turns around and tells us that under this glorious Act 7 times as many people took up laud under perpetual leases as for cash, and 4 times as many as on deferred payment. Only 5 persons, he said, bought the land for cash, while 35 persons took it under a perpetual lease. What does this prove? Simply that the StoutYogel Ministry were perfectly right in offering facilities to people to settle on the land under the perpetual leasing system. What else could they do? There were, according to Mr Rhodes, 7 times as many looking for perpetual leases as there were cash purchasers, yet Mr Rhodes says that by giving these people land on the perpetual leasing system they hindered settlement. Of course, if that is the way to hinder settlement the con verse must be the way to promote it. Mr Rhodes would, according to this, give the one cash purchaser the land, and let the seven who wanted a perpetual lease, go to Jericho. But the people will not be driven to Jericho by Mr Rhodes or any one else. The great majority of them believe in the perpetual leasing system, and, bitter a pill as it may be to Mr Rhodes and others who want to play into the hands of monopolists, that system will henceforward prevail. According to Mr Rhodes’s own showing, the Stout-Yogel Ministry only complied with popular demands in disposing of land on a perpetual lease when those seeking perpetual lease land were seven to one cash purchaser. Yet Mr Rhodes he was putting a nail in their coffin in making this statement, Alas, Mr Rhodes’s ideas must he in a sad state of confusion.

Mr Rhodes also said that only 640 acres of first class land, or 2000 second class land could be taken up under the present Act, in any land district. There are, we believe, over 10 land districts in New Zealand, so that any

one can take up 6,400 acres of first class land, and 20,000 second class land at from 5s to £2 per acre. _lf this is not encouraging speculation and land-sharking we do not know what to call it.