The Timaru Herald. THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 1887.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 3965, 23 June 1887, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 1887.

We have read Sir Robert Stout's letter to the Australasian, and some remarks on it which appeared m that journal. In our opinion the letter was a foolish one, and at least m one respect was apt to mislead persons not acquainted with the facts of the case. The subject of the letter was the attacks which had been made by the Australasian on the scheme of land nationalisation which Sir Robert Stout and Mr Ballance view with so much favour, and which they appear determined to force on this colony. Sir Robert says : — " We have a very heavy task before us, for it is undeniable that the sentiment of the English people is m favour of freeholds. The freehold system has had a trial ; no one can say, looking at the older countries of Europe, that it has been a success. Ido not pretend to say that our system will be a success. If it fails, then some other will have to be devised; but this I do state, that m a new country, those who wish to see the evils that blight England, Scotland, and Ireland not finding root here, should, at all events, make an experiment with the conditional freehold system which is now the law of New Zealand." It is perfectly delightful to mark the cool way m which Sir Robert Stout writes of freehold tenure as having " had a trial." It is as though it were something m the nature of a passing experiment which could be flopped to-morrow without difficulty m order that some other experiment might be made, and that that m its turn could with equal ease be discarded if it did not speedily answer expectations. But freehold tenure is a system which has endured for ages, and is accepted and believed m by other countries besides England, and for other than sentimental reasons. We shall not go into that question here, but it was as well to notice the off-hand manner m which Sir Robert Stout writes of the system. It is a sure indication of the equally off-hand manner m which he and his colleague, Mr Balance, would be prepared to shelve tho system of freehold tenure altogether if they were allowed to have their way. They

have already done their best m tbat direction, and it is about time tbat their proceedings were checked and brought within legitimate limits. It will be observed tbat Sir Robert Stout winds up the paragraph we have quoted from his letter by saying tbat, the " conditional freehold system " is now the law of New Zealand. That statement is apt to lead people to believe that the new system has been universally adopted m this colony, and that freebold tenurehas been abolished. At all events many would gather from those words that no more freehold can be obtained from the State. The true position of affairs is that Parliament has consented that a system of " perpetual leasing " shall be tried, but has never dreamt of putting a stop to the granting of land m freehold. But it is true that the present Ministry, setting aside the will of the legislature and the " sentiment" of the people, has done all m its power to stop the sale of freeholds and to force on the acceptance of perpetual leases. Thus we find the Secretary for Crown Lands opening bis annual report to the Minister of Lands m these words : — " The main effort of the Land Department m this, as m the last few years, has been directed, not to raising revenue by cash sales of the Crown lands, but to the promotion of the occupation of the country by a population holding the land on residential and improvement conditions." We repeat that the Ministry, or rather the Premier and Mr Ballance, are doing their best to force that system on the country, and not m tho most straightforward manner either ; for not only the Land Act but their own Crown Lands Guide tells people that freeholds may be purchased. Yet when freeholds are wanted it is too often found that none worth having are to be obtained because the pick of the land has been set apart to be dealt with under the perpetual leasing system. There have been repeated complaints on this score, and some of them have been published m the newspapers. When, therefore, Sir Robert Stout tells tho Australasian that " the conditional freehold system " (that is the perpetual leasing system) is the law of New Zealand, he should have explained that it is only one of the systems, and that two members of his Government are doing their utmost to make it absorb the other systems m defiance of the expressed will of ParliaI ment and m opposition to the feeling of the country. The fact that during the year 49,475 acres of rural land were ' taken up on perpetual lease, whilst only 32,633 acres were sold for cash, does not cast a doubt upon what we say is the feeling of a large majority throughout tho country. Many who took up leaseholds no doubt did so because they could not obtain the more satisfactory tenure of freehold where they desired ; and others, rather than take the leasehold, gave up their intention of going on to the land, or went to colonies where intending settlers are not obstructed by Ministerial fads. Having delivered himself on the question of land nationalisation Sir Robert Stout thus lectures the Australasian -. — " I might add that I have noticed for some time that, whenever you refer to New Zealand politics, your information is exceedingly inaccurate. This I attribute to your correspondents, and I cannot understand, except it be from them, why it is that you should treat especially the Colonial Treasurer with the scant courtesy you always employ. Depend upon it, your mode of dealing with New Zealand public men does not help to bring about that kindly feeling amongst the Australasian colonies which it should be your effort to promote. On the contrary, you are doing all you can to prevent any hope of closer relationship, far less even an informal federation." We consider it a fortunate thing that the Australasian, which has now a fairly large circulation m this colony, should take an intelligent interest m New Zealand politics, and that it should present to Australian readers a fair picture of that state of the public mind, and of the mind of a Parliamentary majority, which resulted last session m a vote decidedly adverse to the Ministry. The Australasian haß never gone beyond that, and it certainly does appear to us to be a piece of surpass! ug folly fora New Zealand Premier to take an Australian journalist to task for not adopting a Ministerial view of the situation, and for not loading Ministers themselves with praise which to the said journalist seems to be altoj gether undeserved. In reply to Sir Robert Stout's lecture the Australasian says :— " This is the error into which Ministries for the time being frequently fall. They think they are the colony, and that what is said about them individually affects the standing of the whole community; but the delusion vanishes when the tide rises and sweeps them and their memory away for ever. Sir Robert Stout has spoken like a statesman on many occasions. He spoke wisely at Invercargill on the subject of such fads as the State bank and paper currency, and the wholesome truths he addressed to the unemployed of Christchurch, when they were demanding perpetual maintenance from the State, put an immediate stop to a ridiculous but threatening agitation. But for the greater part of their time the leading members of the Stout- Vogel Ministry have been engaged m repressing one another's vagAries ; and there is scarcely any single great public question on which they can be said to hold unanimous views." There is not much misrepresentation m those sentences, and if they are not particularly flattering they are at least a3 polite as the circumstances would permit.