The Modifications in the Lands for Settlement Bill.

Waipawa Mail, Volume XVIII, Issue 3104, 26 July 1894, Page 4

The Modifications in the Lands for Settlement Bill.

( Evening Press.') The Lands for Settlement Bill, in the form in which it is now proposed to be passed, is similar in nothing but in name to the Lands for Settlement Bill which was introduced to the House last year by the Hon Mr McKenzie. The Bill then introduced, as Captain Bussell pointed out, proposed to give the Minister absolute power, at his own sweet will, to take away the whole, or any part, of any one’s property in the colony. Such power has seldom, if ever, been accorded to any individual in any civilised State. The first important amendment in the Bill was the introduction, at Sir Robert Stout’s instance, of the principle that a man’s home must not be interfered with. ' On this was based the amendment ‘ that the owner of any estate pro- ’ posed to be taken for settlement should have the right of pre-emption over an area, varying according to the quality of the land, from 1000 to

5000 acres. The next important alteration was forced on the Government by the Upper House. It consisted in taking to some extent the power of dealing with the question of the resumption of an estate out of the Minister’s hands, and placing it in the hands of a Board. These alterations, however, still left the Bill a very mischievous one, as we pointed out yesterday. After a man had taken his homestead area, his property then might be absolutely ruined by the

tlie rest. We have fortunately, however, in the present House, and on the Ministerial side of it, as well as the other, a large number of members who have determined to set their faces against spoliation and injustice. Mr Moutgo mery struck the key-note to the sentiments of this party in his speech on the Address-in-lieply. Mr Mackintosh echoed it last night when he said the only resumption of lands he would countenance would be resumption at the fullest values ascertained by the fairest means. In view no doubt of the probable action of this section of the own party the Minister found it necessary to announce last night that the Bill as brought down would be amended in committee, so as to embody the principle that if any part of an estate were taken the owner should bo in a position to insist that the whole should be taken at its full value. This, at any rate, was our understanding of his remarks, and we must say that if it is the correct one, by far the gravest objection to the passing of the Bill is removed. Supposing that principle to be embodied in the Bill, the loan companies and mortgagees need no longer have any fear that their investments will be affected. Nor need the public anticipate the disastrous disturbance of confidence that would ensue if they were.