The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING TUESDAY, JULY 16, 1907.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2133, 16 July 1907, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING TUESDAY, JULY 16, 1907.

THE LAND QUESTION. All those who listened to Mr Laurenson on Saturday Slight must have been impressed by liis eloquence anil earnestness, but at the same time have regretted the exaggeration anil bias which was so apparent. 1 lie speaker, when attributing misrepresentation to liis opponents, spoko ot the half-truth which was worse than a lie, and remarked that a clever man could frequently so represent the truth as to convey a totally wrong impression. Mr. Lnurenson is a very clever man, and when lie attributes to tho Opposition a desire to encourage or perpetuate the aggregation or large estates and an objection to the limitation of areas, those who have troubled to follow tho utterances of both sides will recognise that lie is an illustration of Ins own statement. It is needless to enumerate the various speeches in which the Leader of the Opposition anil speakers who support him have empliaticallv approved the limitation oi areas, while criticising the crude proposals of the Government in tins clii eetion. At the same time they have consistently opposed the Governinent’s attack upon the principle or optional freehold tenure to all "’ho settle on Crown lands. If Mr. Laurenis of the opinitjn that the Government’s late proposals were not an attack upon the freehold principle, lie is almost alone in holding that view, as not only have we disinterested observers like Mr. lla ms ay MacDonald (who rejoiced that the Land Bill would “knock tho freehold on the head”) but we have tho evidence of the electors of Maiiukail and Taranaki and meetings all over the countrv to the contrary. Mr. Laurenson’s references to Taranaki ujion this subject were singularly unhappy, for not only did that electorate return a “freeholder” to Parliament, but at a mass meeting of Government supporters at New Plymouth addressed by Dr. Findlay, a resolution was passed condemning tile Land Bill. The speaker, when illustrating the huge profits made by holders o) land, quite forgot to mention that these profits anil the enhanced values have arisen mainly through improvements which have been effected by the settlers’ hard work anil enterprise, and to which he is surelv legitimately entitled, as would Air. Laurenson bft to profits on his various investments. AYe have not the space in this article to deal with this gentleman’s arguments seriatim, but we cannot refrain front expressing the hope that wc shall hear the land question discussed by gentlemen having practical and not theoretical experience in the near future.