THE Temuka Leader SATURDAY, JULY 20, 1901. FAIR RENT BILL.

Temuka Leader, Issue 3768, 20 July 1901, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader SATURDAY, JULY 20, 1901. FAIR RENT BILL.

Oucfl again tho Fair Rent Bill is before Parliament, in all probability to meet the doom which has in the past so frequently befallen it. This Bill has been introduced time out of number, but has never yet passed into law. It was some years ago urgently demanded, but whether those who desired it have despaired of ever seeing it pass, or that it is not needed now, or that a change has come over the relations of landlord and tenant, wo know not, but whatever the cause of it, there is at present no agitation in the country clamoring for a Fair Rent Bill. Under these circumstances politicians have no great incentive to push it forward. Tho conclusion tho politician must draw from the absence of any demand for this Bill is that tho people are indifferent respecting it, and consequently the politician becomes himself careless. What moves tho politician is public opinion, and if that is withdrawn from any measure its chances of passing are minimised. It is because there is no public opinion urging tho Fair Rout Bill on that it has beeu regarded with so much indifference, and it is for the same reason that we are not very sanguine as regards its chances of passing this year. It was iu the years of depression that it was so urgently demanded, chiefly by tenants on lands owned by public bodies. Tho law prevented those bodies from giviug any abatement of routs to their tenants, and during tho hard times this was felt a hardship by both landlord and tenant. Tho depression passed away, times improved, and the agitation for fair rent died out This is characteristic of the Britisher. So long as ho is doing well he says uothing, but tho moment tho tide turns against him he complains, only to forget all about it if the following years yield abnudance. This is a,mistake. Ho ought, to remember that hard times may come again, aud bring with it as great a necessity for fair rent as ever. Ho ought therefore, seek tho reform iu years of prosperity .as assiduously as iu years of adversity, and thus prepare for the raiuy day. Iu our opinion a Fair Rent Bill is absolutely necessary, for the reason that tho condition of this colony iu respect of rent bears a striking analogy to Ireland. Tho trouble iu Ireland arose in this way. The industries of the country were hopelessly destroyed so put them out of

competition with English industry. In consequence of this the people had no scope for their energies except the land, and for this reason the competition for it became extremely acute. There being no other industries everyone wanted to get on the land, and thus in their eagerness ran rents up too high. Of course the policy of the Government hia given a great advantage to New Zealand over Ireland, but the main elements of the trouble aro present here. There is no great scope for industry in this colony, and consequently the people must look to the land, just as in Ireland. The competition far laud, therefore, must grow keener and keener each year, and as this condition intensifies, so rents will increase. It is not good tor the landlord or the tenant, or the colony as a whole, that rents should ri e beyond their honest level. The result to the landlord in the end would be the same as in Ireland, and we are sure men in New Zealand have no desire to see such n state of things. For these reasons wo aro of opinion that a Fair Rent Law would benefit all. No honest man wants to get more for hi:' land than a fair rent, and this measure would suit such a man admirably. The provisions of tho Hill now before tinHouse is that the colony shall be divided into districts to bo called “ Fair Kent Districts,” that each district shall have a Board of three members, who shall be appointed by tho Government, and that a Stipendiary Magistrate shall be the President of such Board, or in case of his illness a Judge of the Supreme Court may be appointed. Details as regards tbs machinery clauses need not bo given, but it is, of course, important that people should know what would constitute a fair rent. That is given in the interpretation clause of the Bill as follows :—ln the case of agricultural and pastoral laud such rent as a tenant using or cultivating in a husbandlike manner can fairly produce from the land over and above the cost of cultivation and production reasonable interest oa capital invested,reasonable maintenance for the tenant and hi? family. In case of towns anch rent as the tenant could fairly bo expected to pay, taking the situation of the leasehold into consideration. “Land of every description is to be subject to this Act, including Crown Lands, Public Reserves, and Native Lands, so that no exception shall be made. Of course, the chief thing would be to secure capable men on ttie Boards, that would do justice to all, and no doubt, that is, so far as possible, what would do done. In that case there can be no doubt that the Bill would work fair enough, and that it would give satisfaction to all,

DRILL IN SCHOOLS. A. very innocent little Bill which came before Parliament last Thursday night created a good deal of discussion. The Bill merely provided for the compulsory teaching of physical and military drill to boys and girls over Si years of age in all public schools. There is a clause in the Bill providing that the children of patents who object to drill shall not bo required to do so. One would think that a Bill of this nature would meet with no opposition, but it did, and very vigorous speeches were delivered on it. Mr John Hutcheson made what was practically a virulent pro-Boer speech, and other members denounced the measure as an insidious method of creating a spiint of militarism m this colony. They expatiated at some length on the recent military displays, and condemned them, but what they meant by all this wa fail to understand. The object we in this colony have in view is to train our young men for defensive purposes, and surely it is desirable to do that. Self preservation is the first law of nature, and ought to bo and is the first law of nations, as well. It is true that wo may never be called upon to defend ourselves, but wo have no guarantee of that. Tho Philippine Islands.w.is the, most distant dependency of Spain, but it was there that America struck tho first blow at tho time of the late Cuban war. New Zealand is the most distant dependency of England, and what happened to the Philippines could happen to us. That being-the case, to say that to train our young men to bear arras so as to fit them to . defend the colony is to promote militarism's the very acme of folly. Other nations have to maintain standing armies at tremendous expense, but if we cultivate the volunteer spirit we shall nei or have to do that. We shall always have an army of citizen soldiers ready and able to defend the colony against any invader if needs be, and we think that is better than to have to maintain a standing array. The cry about militarism therefore is worse than nonsense. It is mischievous. We must maintain some class of defence, and the cheapest and best is the volunteer system. Why objection should be taken to physical and military training in schools passeth understanding. Such exorcise is addmitedly good for the children’s health ;it is well calculated to straighten them up, and improves them physically, and, in addition to this, the training costs the country nest to nothing. There can be no doubt of all this, nor of the fact that boys drilled in early youth retain a knowledge of it all their lives. Boys at school will learn drill ranch quicker than men, and aro less liable to forget it than if they learned it later in life. Teaching boys at school therefore means that in due time every man in the country will be fit to bear arms, and surely that is a thing that ought to be .encouraged. And yet there are men in Parliament who condemn this, because they say it will cultivate a military spirit. This is really astounding. To cultivate a military spirit is an absolute necessity so long as we aro liable to be attacked. It is an insurance against the possibility of the country being invaded, and why anyone should object is more than we can understand. But so as to satisfy these people there has been put into the Bill what is called a conscience clause, under which parents or guardians can object to military training being given to their children. We do not sea the necessity for this, further than that it would not be right or proper to force children physically unfit to learn drill. With this exception we do not see tho necessity for allowing parents tho power to prevent their children to learn that which must make them better men and fit them to defend their country.

[Since the above was in type the measure has been again before the House, and all reference to military drill excised from ifc.l