POLITICAL ADDRESS.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 13430, 22 March 1907, Page 7

POLITICAL ADDRESS.

t)R. FINDLAY AT THEATRE , ROYAL.

THE LAND. QUESTION.

The attendance at the Theatre Royal on Thursday when Dr. Findlay, Attor-ney-General, delivered an address on the Land Bill, <tas disappointing, for it was not nearly bo well attended as expected. Xhe Mayor (Mr E. Dockrill)' presided*. Dr. Findlay was accompanied by Ufrrs Findlay, and there were also on the platform Mr Jennings, M.H.R., Mr and Mrs Kerr and Miss Kerr, Messrs Ji B. Roy, F. P. Corkffl, D. Barry, t>r. McCleland, G. Grey, C. E. Bellringer, and others. Apologies wore announced from Messrs Smith, 'M.H.R., and Connett, and the Chairman then briefly intro* duced the Attorney-General. Dr. Findlay, on rising, was well received, and at the outset observed that on that night, ho delivered, for the first time since, he had had the honour of becoming a Minister of the Crown, a political speech, and he had v chosen — and with great pleasure choson — a New Plymouth audience for his first address. He could assure them he had not done this with a view to their advantage, but vrith a view,. 'to his own, for he knew from previous experience in this town how well and hospitably visitors were treated, and also that every public man who, had tHe privilege qf addressing fin audience in New Plymouth could rely on an attentive and intelligent hearing, (Applause.) Although not personally known to a great'many of them, . he* Felt bo stranger here.' They were ajl fellow-colonists, they were people of the . same race, they- were all united 'in one deep and sincere desire to see the welfare;, and futitre' of this" ypung nation furthered. . (Applause.) His first intention was to discuss the most prominent question of the day in this colony^ viz. j the- land qxieritlon, and if time peri mifcted would speak also on the Hative Land, Coniniission and .the general outlopk of. the colony. ' ' ' " - THE LAND QUESTION seemed now to have p 1 used the calmer controversial stages and become a,fightjng political creed — a fighting political * creed esigcessed, mainly by party cries and preposterous; • misrepresentation. ' They could ;*iot settle; t|he. question by . shouting "the freehold" any .more than by r shouting "lajrid nationalization." 1 They •boulc^'not settle it by the idle cry - that there was in the Land Bill a power '■> to take existing freeholds. Therfe was no. reason to believe that existing rights were in danger or .'that this' Government to which he had the honour to belong would -ibe. sucb. a, reckless pack of revolutionaries b&io're whom tio man's property was* safe. All that they had stf iveiij to ; do, f ho whole head and front * ot.tbe. lighting, in £onneGtion with, this - l|uiesti6ii7"w'as^Ed seeTc to preserve to the^ t people of the State the poor remnant X of the -land 'unsold for the benefit of^ c those who in years to corner have passed c through their life of toil into declining. I •years and poverty perhaps, and become q old-age pensioners, for those who have' s the misfortune to require hospitals and c charitable aids, and for the children of, * this country, to equip them better for s the race of life. That was why they * were seeking to create a national en- * dowment. To declare that they intend- * ed some attack upon the freehold of this country and to destroy were mourn- t ful and alarming predictions* .were idle t nonsense that settled nothing beyond s the insincerity of the speaker and his t estimate of ; tho audience'' he was ad- i dressing. Now he desired. to say, and « he appealed to them as.jhnpai*tial students of the history of their country, to ' agree and admit that the land question , had a history, a, history of more than ;half a cen&iry, and that history told .mainly oi. ■'*& sacrifices oi the. people's interest, a history -which might be readin all its melancholy - lessons from the date of the 52 acts and ordinances on statute books of this. colony, when the late Mr Ballance. passed a bill in J 92^and swept them all out of existence! It. was .a history from which they would find - more -intrigue *cMBt!-Isocia*r 'trouble than any other,, l.Qgisj]atiQja. N they had passed^ s More thaji ofice,, Indeed^ even ir this colony, the land laws had- made class hato class 1 , the rich distrust the poor, and the poor distrust th& rich. The record of tfifefl^licTjavcs ami their administration was a, record of mistakes, and larg<s^ it;re£ord of failure. He asked the audience to reflect on tho magnificent endowment handed over to the responsible Government of this colony 5Q f years ago in thjo pf the Crown lands, and then recall tljie loss and injustice which bad laws, wjant of, laws, evasion of laws, and mal-acfminis-tratrion of laws has made to this "colony soplaiirf^.aiKlso^DainfuJly visible; They ,4iiU3t p^asc if they; na<j tlio' iriterests of this country at heart, and with all this -reason for paiise'and counsel there werfe few moderate men, , of cours<e exoJuding the town of New Plymouth, which he knew was always moderate on everything. On this question of the land settlement it had been recognised there were few moderate men; one man took a side, thought quickly if he thought at all, spoke hotly, arid in the principle evidently of where you see a head hit it. (Laughter.) Their opponents did not trouble. themselves much in any consideration of the practice or experience of the past of this country and the experiences of the past of- other colonies. Their opponents recognised that it was a privilege to listen to practical meri. but practical men in thoughtful investigation were found to be men who measured and interpreted ' the State's rights and public needs by their own interests and. the interests of?tlieir own class. And he would recall to their remembrance the fact that in their discussions of the qttestion there was very little halt between the two opinions, very little calm consideration to the rights of . this country and the claims for the future Their cock-sured-

ness fctfel certainty arrived mainly from t^is. They knew full well their own interests and thought that what suited them would suit the whole community, and hence the argument became superfluous and dwindled down to mere enu- ! nieration. They had had enough of this in the past. Just now they had the extreme Nationalisaiors; shouting their cry. They had the extreme freeholder declaring that the freehold is in danger, and shouting wi,th spirit, and they had. the^mpdVate freeholders and also Crown tenants shouting for the freehold. Amid all this commotion, cry, and counter-cry one was tempted to follow the advice suggested by Mr Pickkick — to .shout for the biggest mob. Now the biggest 'mob in -this oqunfry,. the largest class that had most interest in the land question, were the landless people of this -colony, and let him rejsall .to. their memory this fact — that there were* less than 50,000 freeholders or" rural land-holding one-third of the whole colony, and all the Crown tenants except 'tlibse who were tenants with the right,. of 'freehold were 16,500, which made* a total altogether of something like 65,000 on the rolls at the last genewaC election in 1905. There were 475^473 odd people able to vote. If they we"re : going to determine the size of the mob he knew where the shouting would be. These people were not shouting, but they knew, and he knew, that when the time came their votes were just as effective. They could not judge the-nu-merical strength of a party by the fuss it made, and this applied even to the Farmers' Union. , He admitted from this, point of view v the-mere possession of a, majority ..was in itself no guarantee that one's cause was right — it was riot pi-oof* 'that "one's cause was the righteous one.' He would now pass. on to the' inimediajie; consideration pf the land question, and would beg them x-o recognise that they would reach -mo shfe and reliable donchVs'ions if they looked at this through selfish- party or individual <?yes. They must rise on a question of this 'kind to a height of looking at it from a national point of view, from the point of; view of the colony, of the nation, not from • the good of any, one particular class. This country, was not going to be run by this or any other Government, in the interests of any one particular class', be it land. or labour. As a .Government they, or any of their successors, he did not believe would so far rorget the tradi-' tions of . their '.nation- as to legislate purely in the interests of one class,however .how Iflrgeji or powerful. They > recognised #iat. tfbe, f armirig interest was pne '.of tb&.jnps& potential, in. this colony, and they might well have stayed their and l£t matters dtift along and' be content' doing nothing to run counter to ,the potential interests of the colony.; -''Tje" <presenff administration did not desire to hold> office at a price like : that. The.. time had come when tMs question shotrld be faced strenuously and courageously by those who held' office to-day, who would carry out their convictions if 'jfchey considered it would be^or the- country's good. The land question was not one question ; it raised several "questions ; it affected not one class, ij; affected' directly 'several classes, and ha' would show how these interests stood, and how it af ected different ways these different classes. If they were asked- this question, he felt they would all bo prepared" to answer it in one way. "Was it -in the interests of this colony that the»largost estates should be subdivided? Was' this not conceded by almost everybody 1 ?- The only qnestiom that, arose was — How 'was it to be effected? He did w; b desire to quarrel as to the means' byfwhfch it was to be brought aßoiit. They held there were two; essentials .which might be carried oujL and on these they v were prepared to 'ikke advice^ and if necessary to change -the ' machinery^ el&uses: The Lancl Biljl^it was.^ajd, providing, as it/ dbfes provide,/for compulsory sale of j all surplus over- £50,,000 worth of land ' unimproved v&lue held by any one ov/rier must putit on the market within ten years, was olumsy and tyrannical . and inoperative-. -^-Wery well, you aft-* Wit' there must be sub-division; give them the graduated land tax," said, Mr Massey. If the Opposition would join iMm in effecting the end they would soon achieve sub-division of these large estates, which wero prejudicial and a menace to the best interests of the. country: 'The third question was simple— >-~ a 'corollary to this — should the-aggrega-tion of large estates be permitted in the future ? Would they delay the offer of tlfe Government so t .that some further remedy would bo required ? What they ht(d in 'view was that this sub-division should take place in. such a way as to prevent a recurrence of the trouble, and the-Mii proposed that a limit should be placed, on the. amount of land which aJHTcno , could hold. in this country todifcj,.. Tims no Jlookefoller or other millidhairevcould come into the country and buy- up'rvast areas of land. The Government were going to prevent big accumulations, in the, future. The limit tvas, to be £15,000 on the unimproved valued .;.i^ais was ssaitf to be impracticable and'clumsv. Well, he was not goijig to tost the virtue of the machinery then. If, the graduated land tax was 'better, let them have it. But so long as they achieved the object they would not quarrel about the method. The fourth question they/ hadi to consider wfls.~she contention- tha-t. the Governajejii should give the freehold, te-the largenumber of tenants; under the Land for 'Settlement; Act:" 1 (Applause.) He was going to tetrtliemfrahkly/aMougli Be could see his views were not in accordance with those of many persons prosent, that he could not give his support to such a scheme; In the first place, the land 'was taken from private owners, in many cases wrested coinpulsorily from them, for the purpose of settlement, and it .would be inconsistent and unjusb to take the freehold from one man and sell it .to another. And he said they had done enough; they had done well for those wlio had settled job 4 9

the land under tho Lands for .Settlement Act. Each of these settlors had cost this colony '£l2oo, and he thought this was evidence of how well they had thriven. Ask tho Land Boards and the land officers what goodwill was being asked and received by Lands for .Settlement tenants, when they wished to part with their holdings. This colony had conferred great blessings on these tenants, and it was unreasonable and unfair to the people in the cities, who had no land* that these people should come knocking at the gates and doors of Parliament to ask for still further rights. .This was his answer to those who asked that they should receive the freehold. The fifth question was one upon' which there * was more divergence of opinion, viz., whether the freehold 3hould be given to the tenants in perpetuity under the ordinary land acts. Well, now, if the freehold was to be given to the tenants, in perpetuity, at what price was it to be given — the original valuation or the price to-day ? For that the Land Bill offers to these tenants tfie freehold at the price the

unimproved freehold bears to-day. Had not ,'the" time" come when this country should copy tho example of older lands, when they should copy the' example V>f the United States^ and set apart, while they had yet time, reserves and endowments which in years to come would help their bid-ago pensioners, their hospitab and charitable aid boards, and their educational , system ? Had the time not come for this, ajpart from the granting of tho freehold to any man? Was it not time they had taken this j>recaution, a precaution taken by people in older lands and taken with the very greatest benefit to those pooplo themselves? What class did this question affect -/how and in what way wore the classes influenced, prejudiced, or benefited by the proposals of the Land Bill?- First,- he! took the great landowners — the great landowners of whom

there \veite»sueh a happy family on the other side of. tneir island, at Hawke's Bay, and what attitude did these men take towards the Land Bill, and what was their. , reason for this attitude? What the great landowner feared was •nOt that the Crown tenant would get the freehold, not that the freehold would be given to the small settler of the future 1 . What the great landowner feared, and why he opposed the Bill, was that he did not like the settler, arid did not want to sub-divide his great holdings, ,so that small settlement should come in where at present he had his flocks of sheep. This was hisjatti-^ tude, and his objection to tjie Land Bill was mainly a selfish one. . Divert from the present agitation to sub-divide his, estates., and they would divert from that agitation most of his energy. They would relieve the pressure which was daily being found to grow greater and greater on those large areas now hold for pastoral purposes by a single hand. He affirmed 'the squatters- of this cbun-* try, like every other country, were a' brotherhood, and they treated the small settlers as a pest>,to be got rid of i£ they could. He- warned the small settlers of this colony it was not a true alliance that was offered by the large landowner. There was every justification for this' Statement, and he instanced New South Wales as an example. Many, years ago the squatters of that country were holding not 640,000 acres, but 640,000 miles, and greater than that in area, of Crown lands. The squatter wanted to make himself secure, and once he had accomplished tjhis end what 'did he trouble about the small settler. (Faith was justified in the Government which, following- up McKenpie and Ballance's measures* had been the true friend of the small settlers for many years. Their legislation was aimed at the growing interests,, not-.for^the exclusive large landholder, but to secure those who haoMittle and deserved more. Then came the land for settlement tenants. >- He did -not blame them for wanting to acquire the freehold, out he certainly would blame, the Government if it 1 were given. , They, strangely enough, were placed onthe^large estates, mainly with resistance' on the part of the owner, and he quoted the bittorness with which the owner of Hatuma fought the advent of the settler. There was no jus r tice. the speaker claimed, in the demand of the land for settlement tenants, who had not the arguments of tho leasc-iit-perpetuity settler, who hewed a home out in the back-blocks, to back up their claim. Estates in Hawke's Bay district cut up and settled had * all the conveniences of roads, railways, schools, post offices, etc., and *" every thing* to. make the settler's „lifd comfortable.Further incentive was necessary. Incentive indeed ! - Did not the fortunate man who held these holdings ask £400, £500 and £600 for the mere goodwill? They must be just to all before they wore" generous to any , particular class, and they must be generous to 'those in their cities needing some .consideration. Coming to tho lease-in-porpotuity tenants, these, or the majority Of them,| asked for the freehold at the original valuation. The area leased under this form of tenure amounted to 2,141,000 odd acres. The originator of the perpetual lease of 1882, likewise the lease

in perpetuity, intended recurring valuations to be provided for. In both cases, however^ the periodical re-valuation proposals were defeated by the strength of tjhe, f reehold interest. , , Consequently I these tenures were mutilated and left in their present form, which he (Dr. Findlay) regarded as senseloss and incomplete. This gave the tenants a D 99 years' tenure at a fixed rental, which was in some measure a concession at the expense of the colony,. . Yet because they had given them so much they now asked for more. This was a unique reason — because they had already given too much they were now asked to give more. Dr. Fjndlay hnving dealt further with the reasons as* signed by. the different classes, said he ventured to promise that this Land Bill, i» .perhaps . some modified shape, was

going on the statute book this year. It was going because the opposition had not come from any whole-hearted desire that the freehold should be given to the Crown tenants present or future. After explaining in detail what had been called' the " bursting-up " clauses, the speaker referred to the argument that the Government should go on buying large estates and settling them as in the past. He had had experience in connection with re-purchases, and had come to the conclusion that the re-purchase system was rapidly reaching a position in which it would be confronted by difficulties so great aS to be almost impracticable. Full value had to be paid, with 10 per cent, compensation, to which had to be added all the expenses of the proceedings — in the case of the tflaxbourne estate these latter amounted to several thousand pounds. The procedure was costly and cumbersome, and in his opinion jtho time was fast approaching when some other means must be provided for acquiring estates for settlement. Under the Land Bill the land for settlement tenants were to be given practically the freehold. One clause in the Act, a clause that was very widely misunderstood, gave the equivalent of the freehold to lease-in-perpetuity tenants. This was perhaps more a question for lawyers than for a general audience! There was a clause which provided that upon the tenant paying up to 50 per cent, of the original valuation Tie could get his land freed from every condition and every restriction save that he had to pay in cash half the rent formerly paid ; so that if he had paid half the original valuation his land was to all intents and purposes a freehold, and he could do as he liked with it. If he chose to pay the State 90 per cent, of that valuation, the rent was reduced to a tenth, and he would have all the advantages of a freeholder. The money wquld be paid back to the tenant at the end of the 66 years if he did not take a re-lease on the new valuation, or he conoid , l^ave it contributed to the rental of "the sedond term. He contended that this provision gave to the lease-in-perpotuity tenant the equivalent of the freehold. But the Bill offered to ,the lease-in-perpetuity tenant still greater advantages. He had four optiqns — (1) to keep his land on its present terms, untouched and intact, (2) ik> have the freehold, (3) to have the freehold in 66*' years; or (4) a new lease for 66 years with right of renewal. Dr. Findlay emphasised the need for /calling a halt in the sale of Crown lands, for it was more to the interest of the people of this colony' to keep this portion of the national estate, this remnant of it, unsold, for the purposes of future settlement. It was frequently stated that without the freehold there was no inducement for settlement. In the early stages of the history of a country that might apply* It might be impossible then to get men to go on the Land o|i any- other Btit in the early stages not land but petfple' were wanted; land was a glut in the market. But with the , increase of population came greater social needs and greater demand for land, emanating from the cities, from people who wanted larid, on which to establish a home. It was too often forgotten that the State, itself was a creator of values. The value of every acre of land held under the freehold tenure had been increased in value as much by the public services, such as post and, telegraph, public works, and increased facilities which enabled the land to be opened, .as by the freeholder himself. The State was a creator of values, he repeated, and was entitled to have its interest* in the increfmient protected. He asserted "tha,t mariy of 'the big blocks of freehold held privately -had beeii - obstacles to progress, and he illustrated 'this by pointing to the fact that when the §tate acquired land they had to pay six times as much, r a& the, seller had paid for it. Of £5,000,000 spent in the purchase of 'private estates, fully £3,000,000 was for unearned increment. They had to pay the landowners £3,000,000. tor what they had never earned. The State had parted with sixteen million acres of land. How much had they lost on that if £3,000^000 were, lost on,, a million acres? . Besides that sixteen millions, nearly another two million acres had passed away, for evoi*, practically, in 990 years' leases. How much was ' left for settlement? They had parted with more than half the lands in the colony, or, judged on the test of productivity, probably three-quarters, or [even fivesixths of it. The population of the colony to-day was under a million, and as they were proudly looking forward to the day when New Zealand*woiiild have her four or five millions of people, it behoved 'them to sec that some lands were reserved for future settlement. Etc quoted the opinions of some of the colony's teadiiig statesmen in the past — Mr. Rolleston in 1882, Mr. John.Ballance in 1890, Sir John McKenzie, and Mr. Sed&on — that it was in the best interests of the colony that no more Crown lands should be sold. The lato Mr. Seddon had had "his back to the door " on this point, and these men, and every man who as a statesman had adorned our Parliament, had said the sale must stop. This marked the way in which the tide was flowing. His Government hoped to try and do what Mr Ballance's Government tried hard to do and failed. They would try ' to reserve for the purpose of tiie peopio's estate the remnant of the land that was." left unsold' for closer sottlement. This was the main underlying principle of their .Land' 'Bill. If they did not give inducements as suggested

by the Bill, what incentive had a man to go tfut in|o tho bush country ? j He claimed to have as much knowledge of the hardships experienced by the struggling settlers in the back blocks as anyone. . In his, early days, thirty years ago, ho saw ss much as any man of the ulterior; and what h© wanted to emphasise was this that for this very reason they were giving the freehold to the back block settlers; and he "would give

his consent until the very last of these acres had gone. He joined issue with those who said they could not provide sufficient incentive to the back block settler unless they gave him the freehold. He dio not agree with this. The State could give to the settlor such inducement and security as would encourage tho best class of settler to go there. They could do it, and they would do it, by improving the roads, which would not only improvo the value of tlic freehold toaant,' but they hoped to provide schools, postal and telegraphic coinniu-

nication in the remote areas* But on this question ho did think the argument oi : the struggling settler in the back blocks was being unfairly used. One would imagine from what one heard every Grown settler and Crown tenant was labouring under burdens and hardships toiling in the back blocks. What of the land for settlement and of the great bulk of those who had the lease in perpetuity ? Thoy must test this by the State rule of giving equal opportunity to all. They must not deal with one class, but fairly and justly to all. Tho State gave omploj'rnent, and for the last ton or fifteen years men had been engaged on th6ir public works and railways at a remuneration of Bs, 9s, or 10s a day, and at the end of this ten or fifteen -years they had their ' hands still — not improved by ' their years of labour — and very little else. That was the state of the employeo who had done his work, but contrast him with the land for settlement tenant and the Crown tenant and they would find the latter doing well and better off by far than the State-omployed labourer to j whom he had referred. He knew they had worked hard for it, but so had the labourer worked hard, and in the one caso ho was left with nothing but his hands and very small savings indeed > lvhilst in the. other ttie man had been able to provide himself with a comfortable home and the means of maintaining himself and wife and family. He would impress upon them 'that most of

f the men who wore maintaining the pre^ Sseiit agitation we're men who had no intention of settling on Grown lands themselves. The moving force behind the Farmers' Union was mainly the men with the groat estates. (A voice: "No it isn't.") He would say to this man when ho talked about the lonely axeman out in the back blocks, "Do you know that it is you who hold the land in an iron grip who' are driving these men from the fair face of civilization." Let them give some of their vast estate^, some of their acres, 'show their sympathy in a substantial way by sacrificing that land which they did not require. The enemy of the small settler to-day was the man who held his 50,000 and 100,000 acres with an iron hand for the purpose of sheep runs; who, if they had any philanthropy and patriotism -'Would have opened up their land which would soon be covered with smiling prosperous horned He ventured to say, passing from the Land- Bill itself, that there would be for tjie' small settlers of this colony more freehold' during the nest year or two than there had been during the- last 20 years. Firstly, if they had their way, there would be an effective and prompt sub-division of the great estates in such a manner that it would not take the form o.f re-aggregation. This wduld open* up land for settlement in many parts of .the colony. The whole, of the unsold Crown lands of the North Island was mainly poor and of second class. Did they*know that within the next- two or three years there would be two million and a-half of good native land rendered available for European settlement ? He had been told by ' His Honour ,the Chief Justice that aX | roady the titles of 120,000 acres had been confiscated and, made available for " European settlement. While he said that. the large landowner of Hawke's Bay and elsewhere >b,ad driven the small settlor back the way in which the native lands wjere held for the la&t fifty yeqrs, particularly during the. last 20 yea,rs, had had the effect of driving settlers back too. Why should thid land ,havo been held in idle hands? Why. should the Maori be allowed. his leisure $nd waste the productiveness of rich areas ( whilst the white man had got to take himself and family into the remote areas of their bush land ? They must do Justice to the natives, of .course, and they could. rely on this being meted out to them by Sir Robert Stout. .

FINANCE.

Dr. Findlay then commented on the financial year, which would be closing on the 31st inst., and whilst they might differ with him on, the Land Bill he felt they would unite ttn whole-hearted eonat the figures he would subuiit to them. '' So, f afi ' this year would outstrip last year's hy & greater amount than any previous year had shown over its predecessor. When they remembered the record of the ten years just passed, this stalomont must lie-in the highest' degree gratifying. He instanced the increase of the deposits in the Post Office

Savings Bank from 2 4 millions in 1896 to sovon millions in 19Q6> and they all knew from what classes these savings came. In the eleven mouths ending in February last the return from agricultural products had inpreased in value by £-1,141,817, hemp accounting for an incmisc of £159,000,; lamb, £279,000; mutton, £220,000; boef, £180,000; cheese, £3,55,000; butter, £136,000. This proud record, and tho splendid outlook, were due in a large measure to no industrious pooplo, who were proud of theii; country, *of its beauties, and of its destinies.

Mr J. B. Hoy proposed — "That this mooting accords a hearty vote of thanks to the Attorney-General for his political address, and expresses its confidence in the Government, with the hope that it will materially modify the proposals in the Land Bill." He mentioned he had told Dr. Fiudlay they did not altogether agree with the Bill as it stood, and had a strong loaning towards the freehold. (Applause.) Dr. Fiudlay declined tp answer questions.

Mr C. E. Bellringer seconded, and the motion was carried with several dissentients. Dr. Findlay, replying, said lie did not feel at all Jtnnoyed, for the. resolution was really what he asked for; confidence in the Ministry. TJiey. woul&^hayp no. objection to modifications so^onja^as $h« principle of tho Bill remained intact. (Laughter.) . . , .\ • , A vote of thanktf. to tho Chjairjman concluded the meeting.

'»