THE NEW LAND POLICY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 8984, 18 July 1907, Page 1

THE NEW LAND POLICY.

WHAT MEMBERS THINK. A COMPROMISE. [From Our Correspondent.] WELLINGTON, July 17. The new land policy outlined by the Premier in his Financial Statement last evening has pleased the majority of the members of the House, consisting of the Opposition and the Liberal freeholders. It has highly displeased the minority, consisting of the advanced Radical element and the land reformers, and it has, moreover, left an impression right through the House that the Ministers have proved a great deal less attached to their original policy and more amenable to pressure from without than was expected. The leader of the Opposition declined to be interviewed on the subject, but indicated that he considered his party had scored heavily. Another member of the Opposition waxed facetious. " Where is your leasehold Government now?" he asked. " Where is the flag that was nailed to the mastP Where is the £15,000 limit to private estates? Where is the refusal to grant Crown tenants the freehold? Where is the proposal to reserve the balance of the Crown lands?" The views of the Liberal freeholders, the members of the country party, were summarised in the words of one North Island member. "We are very pleased indeed," he said. "The Premier's announcement gave the very greatest satisfaction to the country party. AYe reserve to ourselves the right to reduce the nine million acres of endowments, but otherwise we will support the new policy." The more prominent members of the Radical and land reform party were not willing to express their views until they had been able to study the Land Bills and master the full details of the Government's policy. They considered the position too serious to be discussed lightly, and indicated that a meeting of the Radical members would be held to discuss the new policy. "I do not want to place my opinion on record until I have studied the full proposals," waid one Canterbury member. "At present I can say that there is a spirit of unrest amongst the land re- { formers in the House." A member reI presenting a Canterbury country dis- | trict said that the new policy was a j sop to the freeholders. " The Government's ideas on the land question are now very moderate," he said. " The limitation proposals have practically vanished, because the increases in the graduated land tax will not compel sub-division, and do not operate on estates of less value than £40.000. I think that Canterbury, town and country, will be disappointed." A southern member of the Upper House said that the Government's | proposals were, in effect, a complete surrender. "It is a mest humiliating P"si ion for the leaseholders and Radical members," he said. The Premier's announcement thit the freehold was to be grantor! to \ tenants of lease-in-perpetuity holdings only in the case of Crown l°nd, and ■not in the case of Land for Settlements ; ; land, has cleared the air to some ex- ' 1 tent, but there is a general feeling ' evf-n amonest leasehold members thnt the distinction is not logical. A Liberal , freeholder said that as the one conces- | sion had been granted without any 'struggle rt all, he had no doubt the other could be secured from the Government, and a member with pronounced leasehold views said that he oould not see why one class of Crown tenants should be favoured above another. It is not considered that many j tenants are likely to buy the freehold at the present valuation, because they can make more profit by selling the goodwill of their holdings. If they h~ve already bought the goodwill they will hardly want to buy it again. The proposal, thernfoo-e. might meet with comparatively light opposition from the lepsehold©r6 were they able to see that they were getting some concession in return. So far, however, they have not discovered this concession.