The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. THURSDAY, AUGUST Ist, 1907.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2147, 1 August 1907, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. THURSDAY, AUGUST Ist, 1907.

WHY THE FREEHOLD IS POPULAR. Tho la to Premier, Mr. It. J. Seddon was olio of tlio most dominating personalities who has ever been coulee tod with Now Zealand legislation. Once ho set his mind upon a certain policy ho had tho strength to withstand poxralar clamour to an oxtiaordinary dogreo, and usually got jus own way, however groat the obstacles. Yet tho longing for the freehold tenure by Now Zealand settlers, and would-bo settlors, was so deeprooted that ovei\ tho forceful Mr. Seddon was compelled to how to the people’s wish, even. as Ins successors have done. A few years ago the late Premier declared to a deputation in Christchurch that “liis back was to the wall,” and lie was going straight for the loasehold. It was not long before Mr. Seddon realised Ins mistake and when lie declared Ins last land policy, the optional tenure was still a chief feature. Mr. Laurenson raved and ranted in the House denouncing Mr. Sodden in violent terms— though in this connection it is worthy of note that the revolt of tho member for Lyttelton wasi ol short duration, and when electioneerin''' a few weeks later he was as -subservient ' ’as the rest of those Government candidates who chose Mr. Seddon’s personal favour as the best insurance of a safe return to the House. Tho present Minister for Lands appears to be a freeholder —that is if we can judge by his personal actions ill obtaining a substantial slice of the colony’s land for himself, and by speeches made before he agreed to join a Cabinet in which the Land Nationalist element is very strong. Speaking at Mataura in 1902, Mr. McNab said, tho ereat safety -in the present land policy was that the tenants on the cut-up estates paid tho money to the London money lender. Ibe time would come when they had lour or five million pounds invested in the estates and then they would stop borrowing. Then they would give the tenants the light of acquiring the freehold. This would bring ill sufficient for the Lands for Settlement Department to buy fresh estates.” This was Mr. McNab’s opiidoi iu 1902, and three years later it was apparently still unaltered, for m November, 190*5, when his constituents at Gore, lie said: They (the people) should say that the State had a sufficiently large sum (over three millions) invested in lands in tho colony and should keep it in a liquid state available for constant use. If tliey«,allowed the tenants the right to acquire tho freehold, that would give money to purchase more estates and thus do away with tho necessity for further borrowing on that account.” Now the hon. member is proposing that the Government should continue to borrow for tho purchase of large estates and that instead of the freehold which he favoured in 1902 and 1905, the tenants should bo given 33 year leases. However, the Ward Government has already receded so far from the position it originally took' upon the land question that there is every reason to hopo that the optional tenure may yet be included in the disposition of lands acquired for settlement. In any case that result is bound to come sooner or later. It is only a question of a few years when the Crown tenants will be so numerous that their united vote, added to the votes, of those who already are in its favour, will be sufficient to compel any Government that may he in power to concede the right of all settlers to acquire the titles of the land they are working. This is a phase of the case that rarely' receives the attention it should, but there. is no gainsaying its force. Whatever may have been the original views of any individual, once lie gets on the land lie desires the right to obtain the freehold of his allotment and will use his vote and influence in that direction. Mr. Laurenson and his friends may argue that it is not expedient for the State to concede this desire in the case of Crown Lands but they cannot ignoreits existence, and recent happenings have shown that the present Government is to some extent, at any rate, amenable to the power that it inspires. The freehold _ bogey has lost a good deal, of its terror nowadays and no one seriously entertains the belief that the Crown settler of today who gains the freehold of his few hundred acres is to become the hundred thousand acre “social pest” of to-morrow. The huge estates which exist in some parts of the colony and whicli are pointed at by leaseholders as object lessons against the freehold tenure were acquired in the early days under conditions whicli no longer exist and which certainly have no connection whatever with the present system of settling the people on the land through the optional tenure or by cash sales. Tho point to be chiefly borne in mind is that the object of State action in promoting land for settlement should be to place as many settlers oil the land as possible and to place them there under such conditions as will enable them to obtain the maximum return from the acreage entrusted to them. The better the result for the individual settlers the greater becomes the prosperity of the country. The query then follows: “Will any man do as good work on land that is the property of another person or of the State as he would if the same land were his own property?” Such a question can only receivo one reply, namely, the reply that the people of the colony gave to the Ward Government when it broached its original anti-freehold confiscating land policy twelve months ago.