THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1882. THE LAND ACT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2626, 7 September 1882, Page 2

THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1882. THE LAND ACT.

The members of the Opposition are not so enthusiastic over the Land Bill as might have been expected. For instance, Sir George Whitmore is at decided variance with his late chief, Sir George Grey, on the subject. The latter gentleman, when the Bill was passing through Committee in the Lower House, took the occasion of denying that it would introduce an undesirable system into our political life, and asked the Committee not to confine the working of the Act to the goldfields, as proposed by Mr. Fulton. He would have all land open to lease, lie further stated it as his opinion that the system could have the effect of attracting immigration. Sir George Whitmore, on the other hand, appears to agree with Sir John Hall that the system is opposed to all the purposes for which men come to these colonies, and would therefore prove most mischievous. Sir John, in direct opposition to Sir George Grey, thinks that the proposals will drive away immigrants instead of attracting them. Sir George Whitmore, as will be seen by the telegrams published to-day, very nearly succeeded in shelving the Bill, his motion to defer its committal for six months being only lost by throe votes.

Although the Council have not followed Sir George Whitmore in his views, yet the Government were forced to make a partial compromise to ensure the passing of the Bill. The original draft of the Bill’s second clause ran as follows: visions to the contrary contained in the

Land Act, 1877, or in any regulation® made thereunder, or in the Mines Act* 1877, or in any regulations made therenuder, the Governor in Council may from time to time, by proclamation in the ‘ Gazette,’ sot apart blocks of rural land* or particular sections in or portions of blocks of rural land, for leasing by tbs Board in such areas, subject to the provisions of this Act, as he shall think fit. 1 ' The House, with a view of limiting thelarge power here given to the Governor in Council, had decided that the amount so offered for lease should not be more than a third of the total sum of rural land offered by the Government far occupation. The Council, however, evidently hold their own decided views on the principle of the Bill. In a previous article on this Bill we stated it as our opinion that Mr. Rolleston’s proposals were valuable for one reason alone, namely, that if the leasing system were applied to a definite portion of the whole quantity offered for occupation, elasticity would be given to the general land laws, but that it would sever do for tho leasing system to supersede all others, for that the almost universal desire for the possession of freehold land is an undoubted fact. The Council ate apparently at one with us on this point. They see no objection to a limited portion of land being open to lease, bat they look upon tho proposed new departure as principally valuable because it allows more play in the general land laws. And they think, moreover, that the House have given the new proposal too ranch swing in allowing a third to bo disposed of by lease, and have in consequence limited the area to one-fiftb. This was done on tho motion of Mr. Oliver, so that evidently the Government were of opinion that the Council had some firm convictions on this point. For our own part wo are rather glad than otherwise to see that the alteration has been made. Holding the views ws do about the leasing proposals, we think it perhaps better that one-fifth rather than one-third should be tho amount fixed on at first. One of the principal dangers pointed out by objectors to any leaseholds whatever was the creation of a Crown tenantry, dissatisfied with their tenure, sure to agitata for its creation, into a freehold tenure; and possessing considerable political power. But when only a fifth of the land in any district can he disposed of by lease, it is clear that the holders of this tenure will not form a very powerful body. A fifth would appear to meet the peculiar circumstances of the case. With such an amount available for lease, elasticity will be given to the land laws, and too much will not be risked in what is after all purely experimental legislation.