Tuapeka Times AND GOLDFIELDS REPORTER AND ADVERTISER. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1885. "measures, NOT MEN."

Tuapeka Times, Volume XVIII, Issue 1123, 28 February 1885, Page 2

Tuapeka Times AND GOLDFIELDS REPORTER AND ADVERTISER. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1885. "MEASURES, NOT MEN."

In the very able speech recently delivered to his constituents at Naseby, which, by-the-way, by its free outspokenness, must not a little have disgusted certain members of the Ministry which he professes to support, Mr M. J. S. Mackenzie made some very pertinent remarks on the land question, in regard to which he is entirely at loggerheads with the present Minister of Lands. Mr Mackenzie thinks that there should be fewer restrictions and more freedom in taking up land ; that facilities should be given for getting the freehold as Boon as possible ; and that land should be "sold outright with greater freedom/ so that people might obtain any reasonably-sized block to suit the amount of their capital, but the policy of the Government, especially of Mr Stout, he affirms, is entirely the other way. " I must do Mr Stout the justice to say that he means thoroughly well — that he is really as desirous to promote true settlement as any man can be. But there is a fatal lack of practical knowledge about him that goes far to defeat his intention. The worst of it is that the lack of practical knowledge is accompanied by the belief that he knows more about the land question than any man in the Colony. Let him have ' The Book of the Farm ' or 'The Complete Grazier' for ten minutes or so, and he would be prepared to show any of you how to grow a crop of turnips. On any other subject, you will find the Premier an enlightened politician and a remarkably well-informed man ; but try him on the land question and he goes off the track at once. lam alluding to his Stateleasing and anti-freehold theories, which, to speak the truth/ I do not think he holds as he used to do, although when a man has cherished certain ideas for years it gives a painful shock to his nervous system when he discovers them to be humbug." Mr Mackenzie is very happy here in hitting off one of the | idiosyncracies of the Badical leader, who, having taken up the land nationalization fad, has been red-hot to apply the principle forthwith to the lands of New Zealand, and to this end would absolutely hurry people out of freehold rights already equitably acquired. The member for Mount Ida denounces, in strong terms, the " Land Act Amendment Act" of last session, which, he asserts, under the pretext of protecting the deferred-payment settler, does so by the simple process of making his life a burden to him. Now, he proceeds to say in effect, the deferred-payment system of settlement has on the whole been a good one; under it a million acres have been taken up, although only about one-fifth has been made freehold. But the settlers have struggled heavily,, and in order to prevent wholesale eviction the burden had, in some respects, to be lightened. "Until the Act of 1884 was passed, the deferredpayment settler could get his Crown grant in three years if he fulfilled the conditions of his license and paid up the balance of purchase-money, or he could capitalise, which was also a great relief in many cases. Now the new Act deprives him of the right to his grant in three years, and makes him wait' six and,' even when he capitalises and pays up every farthing, he has to wait this period. . The whole object pf this legislation, Mr M'Kenzie explains, was to prevent the settler borrowing money on bis holding. "Without bis grant he has, of course, no 1 valid security to offer. Mr Stout has taken into his head that the settlers are surrounded by a pack of wolves in the shape of agents and capitalists, who are laying in wait to devour them and seize their holdings. As a matter of fact, what lenders want is their interest j and " so Jong as they can get that they wont touch $h,e lancj

with a pair of tongs. Mr Stout asks, in his Dunedin speech : ' What does it matter whether a man has six years to pay for his land or only three V Let one unfortunate settler get into difficulties and he will soon find out the difference. He may have spent £100 on Iris holding, and yet be stranded for money to pay the Crown some odd instalment. What happens ? If he fails, the Crown forfeits. He loses his land, his home, his prospects, his money, ! and twenty-five per cent, of his improvements." [n such desperate straits, says Mr Mackenzie, Parliament — or rather Mr Stout — has deliberately deprived him of the chance of redeeming himself by borrowing what he requires ; and the district in which he resides is retarded in its development by the withdrawal of so much spare cash which otherwise might have been profitably invested in it. He believes, he says, that good as the various systems of conditional purchase are they should b 9 worked with others, should go hand-in-hand with some quicker system. " For the rapid development of land and settlement capital is as necessary as for the development of manufactures." It is in vain to try and do without it. He did not see why non-auriferous land should not be sold to suit the wants of all descriptions of settlers. If a man bus a capital for 500 acres or 1000 or 2000 let him have them. We could then have big farms, small farms, and mere holdings. The big farmer would employ the small, and the money would be spent upon the land. Whilst we naturally view with apprehension any system under which opportunities are made easy for the creation of large landed-estates, we, at the same time, recognise that there is much good sense in the contentions of the member for Naseby. The various systems of settlement should go hand-in-hand ; and whilst we may hope that the perpetual leasehold tenure will grow in favor, as being advantageous to the State, and, we believe, generally to the community, the fact must be dealt with that there is an innate strong prejudice in the Anglo-Saxon mind, at all events, in favor of freehold — so strong indeed that there is good reason to believe a Colony in which there was no such tenure would be avoided by just the class of settlers we desire to attract to New Zealand.

At a meeting held at Dunrobin last week re railway extension to Roxburgh, Mr A. P. M'Kenzie went very wide of the mark when he said that the Lawrence public wanted travellers to be compelled to gtay in Lawrence all night on their way to and from Dunedin. Mr J. Thompson, ! at the meeting recently held in Lawrence, explained that the journey would take longer than one day, and that travellers might, therefore, stay over night in Lawrence. In reference to the statement of Mr A. Clifford, who said that " the Lawrence people were trying to blind the public, and the position of Lawrence in the matter was one of selfishness," all we can say is that it ia a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The Dunrobin paople are willing enough to see a benefit conferred upon Roxburgh, provided that they secure the chief share of the gifts of the gods. We go further than that : we are prepared to sacrifice something for the good of our up-country neighbors. If they stand any chance of having railway communication with Dunedin, then we will assist them to get that by the shortest and most direct route, instead of a roundabout way, which would at beat confer a doubtful benefit. We think the Lawrence public is perfectly justified in advocating the extension of the Lawrence line to Roxburgh when they can do so with a clear conscience, knowing that no other route so favorable to our up-country friends can be found. It is the Dunrobin people who are trying to hoodwink the people, regardless of the interests of Roxburgh, so long as their own immediate interests are suited.