The Dominion. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1911. THE GOVERNMENT'S "LAND POLICY."

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1059, 23 February 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1911. THE GOVERNMENT'S "LAND POLICY."

« The determination of .the, Government never again to nail its flag to the mast where tho land question is concerned would seem to have developed into a determination, not only not to stick to its policy, but not to.havo any policy; and as a result its friends arc more embarrassed than at any time since the flag of 1903 camo down with a run. They never hear their leaders speaking of '/the grand traditions of the party," they never speak of them themselves, without praying -under their breath that the public will not romcmber tho miserable shufflings and surrenders and somersaults and frantic attempts at cscapo which represent four and a half years' dealing by tho "Liberal" party with "the greatest of Liberal interests," as some unhappy man once callcd it when tho 1006 flag ran up tho mast. There is no topic that "Liberal" speakers and writers more sedulously avoid; they refer to it only when avoidance .is .impossible. What their feelings must havo been when the Prime Minister mentioned tho ciuestion at Ashburton we can easily imagine. What, indeed, could the harassed Ministerial apologist feel but alarm and a fresh sinking at the heart when the head of tho party broke the silencc only to say this?—

In regard to tho question of tenure, a great diversity of oiiinion existed in tho llouso of Representatives. He had no hesitation in sayiiljj that the' present Ifouse could not liopo to reach a decision, the question of tenure could not bo settled without an agreement between tho two great parties, freehold and leasehold; yet tho miestion of tenuro was " sc "d by men who know'tho facts, as a stalking-horse, and tho result was not in tho interests of tho people. To tho Christchurch organ of tho Ministry it hns appeared ncccssary to come to the rescue, and the result is an article which reveals ' very clearly what it was sought to conceal —the desperate case of tho Ministry and the alarm of its allies. Our contemporary begins by protesting that it is scarcely just to say p Government "has given no hint of t.ie solution of the tenuro question it Would prefer." Now, wo do not suppose thoro is anybody left who really, believes that the Government has any preference at all in; the matit wants is, not what it thip.ks just or_ best, but what it th'.nks will suit its party interests. •Tno question with it is not what.it prefers, ; but what is likely • to* pay politically,-and anybody who comes along'with a'policy based on principles will waste his time bo far as the Government is conccrncd. • Tho Christchurch paper, however, cannot admit these pretty obvious facts. Tho Government, it says, dees possess views on , the land question, and those, it explains, arc embodied in tho Land Laws Amendment Bill of last , session., Wo need not ston to ask why .that,'measureshould be. pitchcd upon, rather than any' other of the numerous Bills and Ministerial statements during the past four years, but wo are ready to take our contemporary's word that tho Government, whatever it may 'propose, yet inclined moro to the confiscation and rObbory embodied in tho 1910 Bill than to anything else. Thi3 doss not, surprise us, but the .public .will, do .'well'to note this confession, since it comet) from a newspaper'suspected of acting, very often* under hints from the Government! .

Our contemporary,' to" bo sure, adds that it "docs not know .if the Government has since revised ita proposals, but so far. it has made no arinounccmcnt to that cffcct." This is, unfortunately, the ease of • all of lis.' Wo are not sure.ourselves, for example, whether we may not be doing the Government an injustice in supposing that it has no convictions on tho question. It has never shown any convictions, of course, but it may cherish them in secret, and may secretly mourn that it lacks tho courage to proclaim and defend them. most significant thing in the Christchurch paper's article, however, is its comical conclusion. It sot out, apparently, to convince its readers that the Government's attitude was perfectly clear, and it criclcd by failing to convince oven itself, for it declares in its penultimate sontenco that "before the general election tho Government should state its intentions in regard to the land question without the slightest ambiguity." Tliis is really very funny, and funny, too, is the warning that "if the Government should fail t(5 do this it may find itself again confronted by a Parliament unwilling to givo it any useful assistanco in the settlement of tho outstanding difficulties." Our contemporary has quito overlooked another possibility, namely, that whatever the Government may_ do or leavo undone it will find itself in the position of having to throw the land nationalises overboard or abandon its desporate grip upon office. , The Ministerialist writers, to whom tho question is purely one of tactics, cannot grasp the fact that with the freeholders ■the question is one of principle. If tho Government is wise it will come out strongly as an;opponent of perpetual State landlordism. What could another somersault matter to it]