The Timaru Herald. THURSDAY, AUGUST 11, 1892.

Timaru Herald, Volume LV, Issue 5485, 11 August 1892, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. THURSDAY, AUGUST 11, 1892.

We, or perhaps we ought to say our ' readers, were not treated fairly by the I agent of the Presa Association m Wei licgton m respect of Mr Bruce's amend, to the motion for the second reading of the Land Bill, which is one of the principal policy measures of the Government. The agent sent us the following as Mr Bruce'B amendment : — " That this House considers that the extent to which the Bill aims at restricting freehold tenure is unsatisfactory and calculated to be injurious to the best interests of settlement." But, as we learn from the Cbristchurch papers, that was only the second half of the amendment, the first half being as follows : — " That while, m the opinion of this House the Land Bill contains some useful amendments m the existing law, and should at an early date be read a second time, this House," etc. It will thus lie seen that the first half contained matter of very considerable importance. It admitted that the Bill had some merit, and we thought that the Opposition, after a debate, would offer no obstruction to the second read, ing, on the understanding that, the Bill was then sent before the Waste Lands Committee. The proposal of the Minister of Lands when moving the second reading was to that effect, bo that there would have been no diffieuliy on thejpoint. All that is now changed, or at all events changed for the present, and, ie consequence of Mr Bruce's amendment, the debate is practically one on a motion of " want of confidence " m the Government. As soon as Mr Bruce had said bis say, the Premier turned to the leader of the Opposition and asked him if he approved of the amendment, and whether it had his sanction. Mr Rolleston replied that he entirely con. curred m the amendment. Tben came the announcement by the Premier that, as it traversed the policy of the Government, he accepted it m the usual way, that is to say, that if the nmendment were carried, the Ministry would resign. In subsequent speeches by members of the Opposition it was contended that the Premier was wrong m so treating the amendment, but we are unable to see how such a contention can be fairly maintained, although at the same time we heartily endorse the opinions expressed by Mr Bruce; We Buppose that the true meaning of the Opposition m the coarse they have pursued is to emphasize their disapproval of the manner m which the Government propose to alter the land tenures of the colony, m regard to land still belonging to the State. Those alterations are indeed very serious. It is true that the freehold tenure is not entirely, abandoned in' Mr McEenzie's Bill ; but, m the first place,. it will depend entirely on the pleasure of the Minister whether any land is thrown open for cash purchase; and, m the second place; if the Minister deals fairly with that part of the business, and land is disposed of for cash, the purchaser will be debarred from obtaining his Crown grant for a aeries of years. Another very serious alteration, more serious indeed than what was proposed m the Bill as circulated, is m regard to the perpetual lease system. In moving the second reading Mr McKenzie announced that m committee be intended moving that the lease should be actually perpetual, instead of for fifty years as proposed m the Bill. Up to the present the .speeches m the debat9 have been extremely interesting, and our firm con-

viction is that, m their interference with I the laud tenures, Ministers hnve not tbe country on their side, although they may, and probably will, Becure a niajo. rity iv the House. [Since this article was put into type, Mi' Bruce's amendment bus been lost, and the second reading of tbe Bill carried.]