The Dominion. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1909. IN SORE STRAITS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 683, 7 December 1909, Page 6

The Dominion. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1909. IN SORE STRAITS.

The outstanding feature of yesterday's sitting of the Houso of Representatives was a remarkable speech by the Hon. J. A. Millah. It was remarkable no less for its revelation of Mn, Millar's extraordinary conception of what are political principles than for its exposure, of tho despcrato opportunism of the Government. ■ "You should remember," Mr. Millar said, in replying to one of the numerous interjections from Mr. Taylor, "that you have peculiar ideas on Liberalism." That, no doubt, is true; what Mb. Taylor thinks is Liberalism is sometimes a negation of true Liberal principles. But Mr. Millar's views on Liberalism are equally pccuJiar, and still, more peculiar''are his views on something more important than Liberalism or Radicalism, namely, consistency in> principle. ■ "It had beon said," so he observed in the opening of his speech, "that he had departed from the leasehold principle,; but the same rights were given with regard to the leasehold in the now Bill as before." We are astonished that Mr. Millar should havo descended to such a very transparent piece of what footballers call ;"pointing," but it is oi; small consequence in the presence of the larger issues involved. "He had not," he went on, "changed his opinions in the slightest." Now, although' the freehold offered by the Bill is not the freehold demanded by the country, yet the Bill docs most definitely propose the sale, under conditions, of land, including settlement land, that is already owned, or may be acquired, by the..Crown. What were Mr. Millar's former opinions—not his opinions in his youth, but his opinions of only four years ago I Speaking in the House on October 9, 1905, he said: I must say that it.comea as a surprise"to me to hear that-any, member on the Government 'benches would give the freehold at all. . And again: ■. So far as I am conoerned, I do not intend, at aiiy time; so long as I: retain a seat in this House, by a vote of mine to allow one acre of land to be sold. •

We trust that it will not be considered unkind if we add that in the same speech Mr. Millak also said: "Each man.[in the House] is looking to his own scat, and doing what he believes will keep him in his seat, irrespective of the interests of the. people." ■ ' . It is small wonder, therefore,' that the leaseholders in the : Ho'use .should have been "sceptical as to- Me. : Mili;ab's ! professions yesterday—small ' wonder that there were such passages as these in the debate:

t Mr. Millar :V If the settlers did not take advantage of the provision in the. Act [within two ■years] tho land would remain leasehold for ever. ; :: . '>■ • Mr. Taylor:'That, is a great resolution. ; Mr. Millar: It is. Mr.:Taylor: But . . .1 . youwill throw it overboard when you think it advisable. Mr. Millar wput on to say that the: nine millions of National Endowment land was intended 1 to be kept as leasehold for all time. Mr. Poole: Are yon slireP ■' ■ ■ • ■Mr. Millar: As far as we are concerned. Mr..Taylor: Until the pressure is sufficient. ■ Mr. - MiUar next remarked that' under the proposals it was proposed to acquire Native land to the extent of lialf a million a year, Mr. Russell: "Will you ever give the freehold' of that? -- . ■ ~' ...' /•' Mr. Millar: Only the back sections; Mr. Taylor: Wo shall see. And hero we may leave "Me. Millar, noting only -that although he passionately opposed in 1905 the borrowing of money to purchase land, to enable men to acquire the freehold, he remains a member,of the Government; which last 'night proposed this very; thing, in the Lands for Settlement Administration Bill. No one will be surprised at the scepticism '. of' the leaseholders as-to the future intentions of the Government. Having thrown over the main planks of their leasehold policy in response to the persistent demands of the freeholders, they may be expected in the future to endeavour to get them back or to throw the balance overboard, just as the leaseholders or the freeholders appear to dominate the; situation. There is no principle behind: their' actions, and the result is that'both leaseholders arid freeholders distrust them and fear further betrayal. The Government at present is afraid wholly to antagonise the leasehold party, and it hopeß to conciliate the friends of the freehold. As result it has pleased neither party, and if the Bill were to come on for its third reading to-morrow it would be defeated. Accordingly we, may be.pretty sure that it will tfot be allowed to go past the second reading, and the session will end with tho failure of the Government's chief' policy measure. It: is a truly remarkable situation, or would be considered so in any. Parliament other than that of New Zealand. • ;