The Dominion. THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 8, 1910. STILL ANOTHER LAND POLICY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 916, 8 September 1910, Page 6

The Dominion. THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 8, 1910. STILL ANOTHER LAND POLICY.

When Okippen was arrested the other day s . our readers'will remember, his overmastering feeling was one of reliof that the suspense was anyhow over. Something of the same feeling, we should say, must have possessed the Government yesterday, when, after months—or is it years I —of torturing anxiety, it gave the Land Bill to the House. The suspense was anyhow ■over—-the thing was done. And although their real trouble will now begin, we should not be surprised to learn that Ministers slept the sleep of relief last night. The country, too, will be glad to know the the prosent session, since there is no reason to believe that this Bill will not share the fate of the Bill, of 1906 or of last year. Were we to follow our inclination, we should file away the new measure and make an early beginning with speculation as to what will be proposed in the Land Bill of 1911. When the Bill was introduced by Governor's Message, the House and the, country were completely in the dark as to what would be proposed. All that was known was that it would be different from the Bill of 1906, the Act of 1907, .or the Consolidated Act of. 1908, and. the: Bill of 1909:. We 'set out its principal provisions in another part of this , issue, and from these it will be readily perceived ■that it is largely a surrender to the leasehold minority, but that the Government are still balancing. T,hc 'Bill of last year,- while quite unac-1 ceptable to the freehold sentiment of. the country, did go some way towards cutting down the leasehold reservations of the Go\'ernmeiit. It | has now been decided"by.the Government that.some of those steps must be retraced. :, : .. ■ :> Ci •■■-.. "■-. v The new. proposals can best be understood by : comparing them with .the ■ existing law -' and last year's abortive Bill. As the law stands there can be no ; more leases-in-perpetuity, the-. renewable lease (of 33 years with .a .second term of 33 ycar.s) becoming-the staple .tenure.] The holder of any lease-in:perpetuity, or renewable ljziise-, is'. entitled to: pay • off up. to. nine-tenths- •of the capital value of his land,-.the-' -rent abating in ( proportion to the payi ment made. The holder of a leasc-in-perpetuity, may surrender his leaseand obtain a renewable lease in lieu thereof, or he may. purchase the freehold of his selection at the present -value;-; . Last .year's .Bill proposed that the holder of t cither a renewable lease- or. ■lease-in-pe'rpctu-ifcy, whether of ordinary^Crown land or settlement. land, might at .any time; purchase the fee-simple of his holding for cash or. by instalments, the purchase price being the.original value. It was hoped to make this concession palatable to the. Radicals, who' know .little -of land-hold-ing-.excepting -that ■•:'. it ' is. an occupation that' may .V be perfalised ■ without- affecting'; themselves, by • providing •■. that ■' the State Should; periodically .confiscate; from 10 to '40 per cent of any., increments in the value of the land thus alienated. -.' It was further.: provided that the holder of a lease-in-p'er'petuity might, by a spot-cash payment, pb-, tain the fee-simple at the- original .value plus' oue half ■ the''.' difference betweerL; that- and the present unimproved' value. Moreover settlement land capable of being disposed of by renewable lease might be disposed of by sale. : TEb Bill now before the country differs very, vitally from last year's measure.:' Not only does it introduce an entirely new method of assault upon the private landholder —which wo disijuss- in a separate article-pbufc it .reverts to.something like the 1907 Act, which bad'hardly got upon' the Statute Book, together with the plausibly-named "National Endowment" Act, than the Government realised that the country would not tolerate its maintenance. .'"•'' l .' The proposals of last year's ; Bill : for the acquisition of the.fee-simple by the holders of renewable leases are withdrawn.. The only now right of.purchase'that is provided- is in respect of leases-in-perpet uity. ■ The holder of any such lease may secure the fee-simple of his land at the original value plus. twenty-five per cent of the difference 'between that and the present ■ value. • Tho ■ socalled "national endowment" la.rids are to be retained on the leasehold system.. These arc the most important - proposals in the Bill, lor" .the rest we have only to repeat what we said last yeai. We_ shall have.to leaveJor future occasions a fuller discussion of the many specially. objectionable features ..of' this latest attempt ltd thwart the often-, expressed will of the country, .What the leaseholders in the House will do. r-whother they will consider that they have done well in persuading the Government to go back to the lines of the 1907 Bill ao far as the general question is concerned —we do not know,*but we do know that the country will make a.sharp reckoning with those freehold members who do not stand. by/their pledges against , a measure' infinitely; worse than the bad Bill of last year. We have shown over.- and over again that the "National Endowment" Act is an imposition—that it in no sense "endows" anything, that "it 'cannot benefit by a penny piece the financing of the old age' pensions or the education system. The Government and its supporters have shrunk from attempting ''even to question the easily visible fact that the "Endowmont Fund" is only a spare ccjmpartment in the Treasury safe into which somo revenue is popped -for a moment before being thrown into the general cash-box, and that tho Act is only a trick to preserve the principle of State landlordism. Whether Hhc Government is riding for a fall or merely hopeful that it can go on thwarting—it cannot any longer deceive—the freehold majority of the country we do not know. That it has no convictions of any sort everybody does know. , The curious misprint in tho dating of tho Bill, which is referred to elsewhere, is evidenco_ enough of the .readiness of the Ministry to propose anything that it thinks will help it to keep a grip on office. It is the business of the opponents of State landlordism, to show the Government that it has made another mistake. In Parliament the question may be a question of tactics. In the country it is a question of principle: -the country wants an end of permanent State landlordism. Any tactics that run counter to that sentiment can only.- bring ultimate disaster to those who resort to them.