Commercial Intelligence. THURSDAY, AUGUST 23, 1883

Timaru Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 2782, 23 August 1883, Page 2

Commercial Intelligence. THURSDAY, AUGUST 23, 1883

Mb Conolly had a rough time of it with the Settled Land Bill on Monday, and was only too glad to avail himself of a friendly motion for the adjournment of the debate, m order to save himself the mortification of a severe defeat. The other Ministers, as usual, left their unfortunate colleague to his fate. Not one of them said a single word m defence of a Measure which is essentially a Government Bill. The Ministers on more than one occasion, have spoken of this Bill m terms which conveyed the impression that they wero particularly proud of it. They took great credit to themselves for undertaking to- abolish the law of entail ; as much as to say " See what advanced politicians we are. See what bold steps we are prepared to take m order to prevent the tying up of lands." Yet, when they found that their Bill was badly received, and that the House were justly incensed at tbeir delaying its introduction until this late stage, not one of them was man enough to stand by it, or to share with Mr Conolly the odium of having brought it m. That Minister, who appears to be a very poor debater, and to ha,ve no hold on the House, was singularly helpless on this occasion. His speech m moving the second reading of the Bill was not only weak and foolish, but it was thoroughly misleading ; and we are not surprised to see that Mr De Lautour sharply replied, and effectually turned the feeling of tho Houso against the Minister.

The Bill was, m fact, a complete sham. Instead of bringing m a Measure for abolishing the law of entail, the Government have made a servile copy of the English Act, which does not pretend to do more than modify some of the most objectionable features of the law of entail. Mr Conolly seems entirely nnable to realise the vast difference between an old country and a new one, with regard to social legislation. In an old country, reformers merely defeat their own end if they try to go too fast. They cannot sweep away m an hour institutions which are the growth of centuries, and with which a vast number of interests and a vast deal of sentiment are bound up. They must go slowly if they- wish, to make any progress. They must be contented at first to effect slight improvements m mattere of detail, and so by degrees, to work m and m, until some , fine day, they arc able to attack the pvinciplo itself. But m a new country where no institutions are deeply rooted, and where no abuses have the prestige of antiquity, no such caution is necessary or desirable. The best way is to go to the root of the thing at once, and to prevent the evil at the outset, instead of resorting to a lengthy process for curing it. In this case of the law of entail, there was not the remotest analogy between the conditions existing m England and those existing here. In England entail bas been exceedingly common ever since tho estab-. liahment of the feudal system. The famous Statute of Edward the First, called Be donis conditionalibus, was passed m 1287, and from that time to this a great proportion of the lands of England have been transmitted m tail from generation to generation. The presence of a hereditary aristocracy not only accounts for the prevalence of the custom, but also goes a long way to justify it. So long as the society and Government of Great Britain are what they are, the law of entail or something equivalent to it is necessary. The change, when it cornea, must be gradual and general ; else it would produce nothing but confusion. In New Zealand, on the other hand, there has never been but one instance, that we ever heard of, where land was entailed ; and that instance, just as the exception proves the rule, only bad tho effect of making more apparent tho absurdity of the system, as applied to a new country. Here land is a chattel. It is bought and sold and dealt m just as freely as livestock or groceries. We have no landed aristocracy, hereditary or otherwise ; and there is no tendency towards the creation of any such order. One eleventh of the whole population are landowners, and ninety nine landowners out of a hundred are perfectly willing to sell their land to-niorrow if they can get a paying price for it. The hundredth, who is not willing to sell, may fancy that it is because he is attached to the soil and would like his son and his descendents to hold it after him. But if he would only analyse bis sentiments honeßtly, he would probably find that, his real reason for holding is because he thinks he will get a higher price by-and-bye. If the land does not

" come into value m his time " it will surely do so m his son's time ; — and he contemplates with the utmost complacency the prospect of his son selling out at the right moment, and converting the property into cash, or approved bills at current rates. The cases m which there is anything like a fixed idea of making and transmitting a family estate, are so rare that they are merely to be regarded as so many cases of eccentricity. Neither interest nor sentiment is bound up with entail m this country ; and the vast majority of landowners do not even know what entail is, and would only laugh at it, if it were explained to them. Yet there is no country where entail would be more mischievous thau it would here, if ever it became at all common. In a new and progressive country where the local circumstances aro rapidly passing through various stages of development, it would be nothing less than a public calamity to have large areas of land tied up under an unalterable deed, for two or three generations. It is clearly, therefore, the dnty of the Legislature to make a law absolutely forbidding such a. thing to bo done, while there is yet no inclination to do it. There is uot the smallest excuse for a half measure m dealing with this subject; for the obvious reason that there is nothing to com-

promise. What sense is there, then, iv the action of the Government m bringing m a Bill which leaves the principle of entail intact, and merely provides for the life tenant disposing of the land for the benefit of the heirs m tail ? The Minister of Justice pleads that this is what has been dono m England. His Bill is a transcript of the English Act. Pid anyone ever hear of such nonsense ? It would have been ju6t a8 sensible for Mrßryce to bring m n transcript of the Coercion Act, m order to deal with the West Coast Disturbances, or for Mr Rolleaton to borrow the Irish Land Act by way of affording relief to the deferred payment settlers m Otago. What with their Magazine writers' schemes of social economy, their doctrinnaire notions of laud nationalisation, and their transcripts of English Acts, the Ministers seem to be sinking into a state of drivelling imbecility. We are very glad they got a good shake up the other day, on the Settled Land Bill, and we sincerely hope the House will put their foot on all such stuff for the future.