OPINIONS ON THE BILL.

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

OPINIONS ON THE BILL.

MR. MASSEY'S VIEWS. 1 : ''TRYING TO GO ONE BETTER V |v V '•■' THAN LLOYDtGEORGE." ~ ; :'■' Mr. Massey, Leader of ■ the : Opposition, had not had time to read, the, Bill when interviewed,. but he thought, judging/from Sir Joseph/ , Ward's short that it was .intended to please both leaseholders'and freeholders. j , :, "I do!not think!it will please.either,!' said Mr.'Maseey. !"At all events, , in common-with other .freeholders/ I want! to go, a-long way further than the Bill proposes in its. present,. form, as far as giving 'the Crown -. tenants '•. the right 'of; freehold !is : 'ebneern-ed. r'l-.am; ;nbt prepared!at -present/to, express .any definite opinion-'with regard- to'thenew I proposals, .but, when the Minister •" was explainirig'the point I;got the iriipres-, siou that some,influential member of. the Ministry ;had'been trying' ,to. go ■ one better.: than; : . -, Lloyd-George,-, ■ ■•.■ and:-.; ■ had Bucceeded v in producing something'which ■will require to be,,;looked /into:' very : closely.before beirig'allowed to.■-. become law [.'in. : this, country." In'any case'.it. ■iis-.'quite■'certain ■■ that, the: Bill will ; be :altered very--.-. considerably, .before!:.;i.it passes-'the- House of/Represeritatives.!' A SUGAR-COATED PILt. .;v;-;; : ■WILLi SPLIT' ON-THE ROCKS.!/' ■ 'Leaseholders aro disappointed in the Land/Bill,/ arid'the/remarks of Mr.;G:'W.(Russell (Avon), are typical. Inter-, Viewed!by! a' , Dominion .•..'■representative^. •Mr. Bussell. said lie believed the Bill would prove! satisfactory , -..'.t0 : neither tho.leasehold section/of the Government /party' nor!'. to' Mr, ■ Massoy's following. :':.-: '"rile proposal- to:'■ give,,- the • freehold,, only- to/the/ present-.leaeeholders,-/ it seems : tp'me, , '.said Mr? Russell, ''will' not go/far enough to• satisfy.thoso, who '■ are demanding, the freehold.,' If, a/man- ■ has a. 999 .years'' leasoj' he'is!to be'.al- , lowed, the freehold!. pn . ; payment! •' of■ twenty-five, per -cent., pf. the difference ,in value [ between the! original , priop', and itho' preserit 'value.;-.but tllis -proposal;is ; pf; no.: advantage''to himj. rather the. ireverse,' because,.^hb'/.'ii!!sacrificing/'the I right to' sell tho .-entire- goodwill -aid it into.- '.cash for -the mero "shadowy!-right of" purchasing;the freehold from [the State. •! If, on thoVother hand,.he- is,'not an original leaseholder, he has already;paid tho;.goodwill. to the man from, whom he /bought.: the /lease,' and : has -'nothihg-to/gain by getting the freehold from the. Government./ .The compulsory leasehold clause appears '-'to' ;be thp,',,sugar ; coa'ting'on': the freehold' pill. ~My feeling is! that /; this ; 'clause will 'be.-worth,,very little, .and; will pro-, b'ably.only, be'applicable to tho,;district: of/Hawke's; Bay,, .which ,was - specially, mentioned by' Sir' : Joseph Ward, in his explanation of the. Bill.'. (I !.clo ,not re.m'ember-. many ,iii my..province td/whiph.this principle, could be applied;: The fact'that ; only estates -of over £40,000,,, in. . yalue " can; ; be affected' suggests '/•, that , -' the Government' .realises^'V.that •; the ", 'principle• : ; : will, only- como,-into, operation in. a; ; •Tory. limited.-'number 'of cases. /What:,', we who belong! to the leasehold /party.,aro' looking for is a "■ progressive mbvemen't, in connection /with the..: cutting-up .'of estates yfor the.'..' benefit ';of. ' landless people,: and I See nothing of ■. that' kind in the Bill..! Ha d; the - Government ■presented,, a clean freehold Bill it , , might have been carried by' a ''combination, of, members from both sides,-although, it would have been strenuously' by .those.holding my.views.. As it is,! :I "am;/inclined. tor think that; the- Bill "will split on - tho rocks-, of indecision ■and want.of . definitenoss."; ".•/' ■ /: - "ABSENCE OF CUIDINC PfllNr ;■' .;://;' , ■; ; 'CIPLE."--'/-. '.■W^-.'.■' i./;A'LABOUR MEMBER'S: VIEAVS-V , In ,the course, of: some! remarks- W a Dominion reporter, Mr. D. M'Laren,the. Labour' M;'P. for ! Wolliiigton East, said that as a specimen of pure 'fusion:-.-ist.and• opportunist■ metlipds the Larid' Bill struck him as a rather clever pro--ductiou. 'Whether ,such : cleverness could make up for theiabsenco of guiding principle was another questiori. 'Thp [ attempt seemed to, 'have been , made .to ■give all sides something of. what -they had!asked for without considering.fully, how the principles/of the several: proposals agreed. If passed,; this proposed legislation would make our.already complex land laws still more complex, indeed he was not sure but what complexity was the thing'aimed at. The Billwas a kind of leasehold Bill, with a distinct . freehold . purpose. - To join •' together a national leasehold policy .with an attempted, peasant ..proprietorship'■ freehold system 'by the cement of State resumption powers taken.from the English Small. Holdings Act appeared'to, him a.very 'doubtful /conjunction of dif-. fering ;• principles. At this.tinie lie "could riot deal with ''Iho ■'details"' of the Bill but helcoked upon it as, "a give-away" of what had hitbeitto; beon -regarded as tho traditional policy of tho Liberalparty of national. leasehold., It ;wa.s ■true that with respect to the endowment ■ lands the i Government said by this Bill that:-it would practiso virtue, by doing nothing .on the matter "of. existing 'tenure. So the , leaseholders wcro , thus mado a present of what they'aJready" had. He,did not agree with tho proposal in tho Bill.to allot tho revenue from endowment lands to: tlio !uriiversities,;/as. he considered !our primary school "system-should,share'in'this source of revenue. The Bill was not. of tho kind he load looked for, and ho did not think such almost confiscatory legislation should bo passed by Parliament without a direct : mandate : : froni / the peoplb, : " > '■■■'■ ■.'•■■'■■.■':, ■■: - •■;■/. '