The Land Question.

Star (Christchurch), 30 September 1893, Page 4

The Land Question.

Those Liberals who imagined that the chief difficulty in the way of settling the people on the land of the Colony would be easily removed, have bean rudely .tndeceived hy the action of the majority, of I the Legislative Councillors and the excited denunciations of the Government proposals fbr accomplishing this desirable end poured j forth by the champions of the monopolists lin the country. From the ravings of theße | gentry one would suppose that the Land for Settlements Bill was the ukase of a C_ar, and the Liberal Minister for Lands ! a despot as absolute as the autocrat of all i the Eussias. Now, the utterances of the j Tories on this question are nothing but j the purest humbug. They know very well that no holder of a small or moderately sized farm would be in the least danger of losing a equare inch of his land through I the oporation of the Land for Settlements | Bill. Indeed, it is very doubtful if tho inoßt radical Minister would attempt, or public opinion would sanction, the taking of land for settlement purposea even out j of a large estate, if that ostato were pro- i perly utilised, if it were under cultivation, I | and not merely carrying a few sheep. ! Thoso who declaim bo wrathfully against j the iniquity of compulßorily buying hack, i at a fair price, a few acres of those which ! have been acquired by their posaesßors, in • many instances, for a mere song, have 1 boen careful to avoid drawing attention to ■ the fact that the power of compulsory re. \ purchase of !anOy the iSfcate.ia-.no ftew _ "■ ". .. *"

I tMn g» that ib haa long been possessed by ' j the conntry in regard to land reqaftta for pablio works. AU that the Lan* for Settlements Bill proposes is tttfc extension of an admittedly sound prim ciple. Surely, if ifc be right to bny, eonfe | pulsonly, a piece of a man., land for « j railway station, it is not wrong to bny ifr , j for promoting settlement, whioh is of fti* greater importance to the welfare of ihi community at large. We should hear rer* little objection to the BUI, at least from the quarters from whioh most of th* j present opposition comes, if it did, aa ita | detractors pretend, injuriously affect thd | small farmers, provided that it did nofi touoh the large landowners. There's the . rub. Under the land laws of thft past, STS b /^ Qdhol **s the special beneat of themselves, and therefore, of course, not "class legislation," certain very astute gentlemen managed to get 5£ i°la ge areas of counfa y ** very little money. Nay, m some case, they have practically got the land fo* nothing. Jn the northern distriots of thii island, for instance; they grabbed tha frontages, and have thus prevented access to large areas of pastoral country, which is, therefore, of no use to anyone but them, 1 and can be disposed of only to them. Ifi is quite true that very much of this land ie not fit for agricultural settlement, but some of it is, andpeople who haveenjdyecl such advantages, practicaUy at the publio expense, for co long, have no right to cbmplam if the people of the Colony repur-chju.e-butata f air prioe ._ 80me of t £ privileges. The fact of the matter, however, is that the Conservative party deßpite its p_.otei.te of "real Liberalism,'* represents the interests of the few against j j thoße of the many, and its attitude on the I land question is another proof, if furthet proof were needed, of that fact— a fact whioh the people of New Zealand will bear in mind during tho approaching election.