THE FREEHOLD.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1506, 31 July 1912, Page 2

THE FREEHOLD.

STATEMENT BY MR. VERNON REED. Not being able to thoroughly tour the electorate, during, tho present short adjournment, Mr. Vernon lteed, M.P., lias forwarded tho following for publication, and writes that he will speak throughout tho constituency immediately after the session:— During the election campaign last year I declared myself independent on the question of freehold, and I gave two pledges to the electors—(a) to stand by freehold independent of party; (b) to support the Ward Administration. I expressed my opinion strongly upon the questions of Native lands, railway construction, Crown lands settlement, and other matters, and I proclaimed myself in favour of liberal and progressive principles, but tho only pledges I made were tho two referred to. Both those pledges I have kept. I stood by the Ward Administration until it fell, and I then tried to bring, about successors to tho retiring Ministry that would carry out (he policy of. tho Liberal freeholders. In the selection of the leader I succeeded, but tho constitution of the Ministry that followed was such that wo Liberal freeholders found ourselves in an intolerable position. We had in ascendency in tho Ministry the most ardent supporters of leasehold in Parliament. Members who for years had attacked the freehold principle in Parliament and out, and whose land policy I had severely denounced on the platform during the last campaign. Members who had challenged the State's right t.o dispose of another acre of freehold land, and who advocated increased laud taxation. As a good illustration to show tho views of the majority of the Ministry,. ono can refer to the clause proposed when the Lands for Settlement AdminiS: tration Bill was before Parliament in 1909. This clauso'proposed on tho transfer of the property to confiscate to the State tho whole of the increase in the nnimprbved value of farms, workers' homes, and home-farms, established under the Lands for Settlement. Act. The passing of this clause would practically liavo meant ruination to the holders of land, and this clauso was supported in Parliament by the Minister for Labour, Minister for Justice, Minister for Internal Affairs, and Postmaster-General in the new Ministry. It would'have meant that on the transfer of the land, the vendor would only have been paid for his improvements, and tho State would have taken tli'eTest of the purchase money. With such a Ministry a freehold policy was impossiblo, and when I was invited to join that Ministry I realised that it was impossible, with my strong freehold views on tho land question, to work harmoniously with the majority of the other members of the Cabinet, and conseriuentlv I refused tho offer of appointment. My pledge was to the Ward Administration, and not to any successors in office, and should such successors . have been in office at last election, I would have openly opposed l them on account of the revolutionary views on the land nuestion held by the majority of them. My pledge to the electors was to stand by freehold independent of party, and my pledge and inclination were to ■ go where freehold led me. When'the noconfidence motion wns before Parliament T bad to choose between following a freehold party oOrerinT. and with power to earn' out. a freehold policy on the one hand, and on the other hand a Minisfrr chiefly consisting of the most bitter n.nd out-spoken leaseholders in Parliament. Tn common with other staunch Liberal freeholders T determined to follow Hie freehold party so long as, and on condition that, their policy wns both Liberal and progressive. T hare kept my nledee to my electors, and T feel convinced that mv action lias been in the best interests of mv electorate and to the advantage of the Dominion.