THE LAND BILL.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XX, Issue 43, 12 August 1892, Page 17

THE LAND BILL.

feggj|ljy»HE Land Dill of the Government has been declared «3J|ps|p'. to be in some respects a good Bill, even by the • Opposition. Under such circumstances . one ?k||||p£»: should have thought that its second reading 'Iflrefflfg^ would have been permitted without much opposition and debate, and that Hon. Members would yspjK < * k * have waited for the committee stage before showWv ~ ing their teeth. But such is not the case. A motion has been made, with the approbation of the Opposition, that the provision of the Bill in reference to freehold is not satisfactory. This has been accepted as a no-confidence motion, and thus an avalanche of bootless talk threatens the House of Representatives, to the waste of public time and money. What is our House of Representatives about ; what does it mean ? It seems to be under the impression that its business, for which it draws a handsome sum of money annually, is to talk, talk, talk, and do little else than eternally talk nonsense. Everything that Members can hope to gain by the impending discussion could be gained in committee, and to committee, therefore, Members should have hastened. We agree with the Government that something should be done, and something done speedily, to check the tendency ot freehold land becoming concentrated in tha hands of indiv'duals, and that companies and syndicates should be absolutely prohibited from becoming possessors of freehold land. But this is no reason why there should be no bmall freeholders. We think nothing can contribute more to the security and prosperity of a country than a multitude of small freeholders, and we think, therefore, that sensible men not bent on a party sciimmage could easily, in committee, come to a satisfactory conclusion on this point. We say that everything possible should be done to discourage and prevent landlordism — a system which has engendered untold evils in every country where it has been established, and in the second place that companies and syndicates should be absolutely forbidden to hold an acre of freehold land. It has often happened that individual landlords have been just, humane and rational men, who have given equitable terms to their tenants, but land companies and syndicates have no soul, no conscience. Their primary, and, indeed, almost only object and raison d'etre, has been large dividends for the shareholders, and equity and humanity and the public good, if holding any place in their estimation, have held a very secondary one. Therefore, we say, let an end bo put as soon as possible, consistently with justice and sound policy, to land companies and all syndicates, and lot everything possible be done to prevent the growth of landlordism. But it does not by any means follow from this that moderate freeholds should be prevented. Restrictions should, indeed, be imposed so that no freehold should exceed a certain moderate limit, and no man be free to become possessed of more than a certain moderate amount of freehold land. All this could be brought about in many ways, as is done in some of the most civilised countries of Europe. Testamentary restrictions and the compulsory division of freehold land on the demise of holders could do much in this direction, and the impossibility of alienation of homesteads, as in America, could also help. Where there is a will there is a way, and if our Legislators were really in earnest means could be easily found to prevent individuals from monopolising the land of the country

to the impoverishment of the people, and the depression of the country. This discussion, therefore, on freehold, which threatens to be long and bitter, could be easily prevented, and a settlement arrived at, if Members understood their business and were in earnest in desiring to do it. But everything now-a-days is made a party question, and thus the interests of the people arc sacrificed to the fancied exigencies of party warfare. We should advise the Premier to put down his foot at once and stamp out this silly party move by invoking the power of the House to put a stop, not to legitimate debate, but to a bootless flow of silly and purposeless talk, so that the real business of the country may be speedily and satisfactorily transacted. It is painful to bystanders to be obliged to contemplate in sorrow how the business of the country is so monstrously neglected in Parliament, whilst Members by their folly and unmeaning talk make themselves a spectacle to men and angels. The real interest of the country and the real worth of legislation are seemingly not much thought of by men who are making fools of themselves by posing as orators and political economists, whilst they are most efficaciously demonstrating to a gaping world their almost utter ignorance, and their utter want of a sense of responsibility, as to the real object of political and Parliamentary life.