THE LAND BILL.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 21, 19 October 1907, Page 6

THE LAND BILL.

Although the Premier has, several imes broken .into petulant complaint •i the l thoroughness with which the louse persisted in debating the Land Jill, nobody will grudge the time that ias been spent on this momentous meaure. At-die time of writing we have iy us a formidable pile of-new'.clauses tanding in the names of different uembers, but'we do not ■ propose to. liscuss these now. In its essential irinciples the Bill has undergone no .Iteration, although there: have been ome important modifications on points if detail.' To us it .still .remains momprehensible how the freeholders on he Government benches can reconcue heir pledges with their votes for the easehold principle 'contained in the dauses.-. establishing . the renewable ease system. That, however, isa mater between them and their constraints, and for other people there is the jonsolation that failure met the atempt to reduce the term of the renewable lease by one half. In Clause 14 y very necessary amendment _ was '■ effected in allowing for appreciation of mprovements, and well as for deprecation, in th§ case of' non-renewal of he sixty-six-years' lease, and a further ylinisterial'concession was the reducion from 50 per cent, to 33 per cent, u the proportion of capital value vhich a tenant must pay off to secure he removal of restrictions upon his enure of his holding. _ As' we have laid on an earlier occasion, we dp not •egret the superannuation of the lease-n-perpetiiity, and that, in any case, is ine good thing in a, Bill heavily iharged with very doubtful. qualities. 3iit such credit as is due to the Government on this count suffers heavily Torn the nature of the freehold "offer," jy : which it seeks to. coax, '. existing .i.p. holders into the other systems oi ;enure. The objection of Mr. Massey's iroposal ■ that the freehold shoiild be ifiered at the original value simply neans: that, the lessees-in-perpetuitj vill not convert, and, as if to make asmrance doubly sure, the "freehold'; s to be of a character which no cau;iousman, alive to the chances of his hiture fortune, Ncaii- with safety, acquire. > We confess ourselves amazec ,hat the House should have acceptec so' readily the eight clauses in whicl and sold by the Crown is to be prerented from ever entering the curreni )f free exchange in land, and we an jspecially surprised that Mr. Massej should have supported the clauses iven after securing exemption foi and converted under-,, the o.r.p system. There is much to be said ii lavour- of restricting the amount o: 'reehold that may be granted to , oni essee, but there is much also to bi said in favour .of. ,the conversion 6 ..i.p lands into freehold. Thesi dauses will make it impossible for i essee-in-perpetuity to make the sacri ice entailed in acquiring the freehold md it is incomprehensible that th Eouse gave no thought to this aspec )f the question. The other leadini imendmerits have been the more strin rent, pressure exerted upon the holder )f estates that may be taken for settle meht, the rejection of the " homosteai system" proposals, and the reductioi ■){ the minimum rental for lands fo settlement to : per. cent. . "VVe v mus leave for another occasion a genera review of the amended Bill, but it i ivorth emphasising that so far as tli broad issues are concerned, the Bill i i drastic "leasehold" measure, insc much as the "offer" of the freehol is as bogus and idle as the leasehol provisions are determined and real.