The Dominion. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1907. A NEW LAND THEORY.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 8, 4 October 1907, Page 4

The Dominion. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1907. A NEW LAND THEORY.

Tiie very last tiling which the public expected, or feared, when Mr. M'Nab rose in the House of Representatives' last night to move the second reading of the Land Bill was the announcement of'a further development of Ministerial theories upon land legislation. Yet fresh proposals there were, not affecting the broad issues of tenure, but of their kind even more disturbing than the drastic limitation provisions of last year's indiscretion. Mr. Massey last night declared that the tendency-of recent agrarian legislation is to weaken the position of the man on the land, and he struck there the note the sounding of which is almost more important than argument over even essential details of Crown land tenure. This is our reason for giving first place to the new clauses which the Minister is to introduce in committee for the purpose of preventing land sold by the Crown from . entering the current of free exchange, or, as the Government jvould put it, from becoming a possible prey of the land-grab-ber. The Bill contains a provision under which a lessee-in-perpetuity may obtain the fee simple of his holding, but since the' Bill was brought down the Government has been overcome with fear lest such a lessee may, upon paying the price and taking possession of his land .as a free and independent freeholder, become so free and independent as to dispose of his holding like other freemen who have not served a term as a Crown tenant chrysalis. '' Accordingly, the Government proposes to give the converting leaseholder such a ( title that he will not be able to sell his land to any person who already owns 640 acres. He may obtain the . freehold, that is to say, but it will be branded with a kind of Scarlet Letter. It will not be as other land, and its owner, though lie has paid honestly for it, will ;npt be as other owners. If he sells it, the Registrar will not register the transfer unless the new purchaser signs a declaration that he already possesses less than 640 acres of first-class land. : Accidents may happen, however, and a man possessing 641 acres may purchase, and obtain registration of. title, of the 300acre holding that his neighbour has bought from the Crown. In that case the Supreme Court may be invoked, and -may decree that the purchaser shall divest himself of hid purchase, and, in the event of non-compliance with the 'decree, may inflict "a penalty" upon the contumacious opponent 1 of the new doctrine: that the time has come to make certain kinds of land-purchase a penal offence! It is fitting enough that a Government, that one day introduces retrospective legislation of a penal character, should next day seek to introduce the prin-« ciple that a vendor should retain the right of direction over that which he sells. It will not be overlooked, we hope, that the proposal is not merely the beginning, but almost the fullbloom,' of the principle' that no man who holds G4O acres of first class land shall be free to increase his holding— a' proposal twice as drastic as the "<£15,000 limit" of last year's Bill. Of course) no tenant will purchase the " freehold " —the quotation marks are necessary—on any such terms, but that such a proposition can be made is full of mitigations of other clauses of what to-morrow may bring forth from the doctrinaires.' In pleasant contrast to this disturbing proposal are certain promised mitigations of other_ clauses of ' the Bill—in _ particular the amendment which is to give at least the chance of a fair price for improvements to the landowners whose estates are resumed under the Lands for Settlement Act. The issue most sharply in dispute—the price at which the ,r freehold " will be obtainable—was but briefly discussed last night, and we refer to it here only to correct an error ' of the member for Lyttelton. Mr. Massey had put the case of a transferee who has paid £1000 for the goodwill of a lease-in-per- ■ . p.ctuil\"oi a value of £1000, and

the injustice that he-would sustain in being required to pay twice over for the goodwill, as he would do if he paid the Government "the present value" for the freehold. Mr. Laurenson asked whether there was.such a fool in Ivew Zealand. There are, as Mr. Laurenson will find if he reads the advertisements !n the newspapers, and in particular an advertisement, quoted some months ago by a local journalistic supporter of the Land Bill, which offered the goodwill at a price more than 100 per cent, greater than the original , value itself.

It is not our intention in this issue to deal in detail with last night's debate. Mr. M'Nab, save for the one surprise he sprang on the House, was somewhat lame and halting, due largely to a conscientious endeavour to explain in the brief time at his disposal the involved issues arising out of his measure. Mr. Massey especially, and Sir Joseph Ward, in lesser measure, made use of their freedom to proceed on broader lines by delivering-speeches of an energy that promises, we hope, a thorough debate of the Bill in later stages. We must, however, reserve for future treatment the chief issues which they raised, and we may add that the Premier's homily upon socialism calls urgently indeed for corrective discussion.