Presentation to the Hon. John McKenzie.

Manawatu Herald, 13 April 1899, Page 3

Presentation to the Hon. John McKenzie.

On Monday night at a large meeting at the Theatre Royal, Wellington an address and a cheque " for over four figures " was presented to the Hon. John McKenzie, prior to his leaving for a trip Home.

The Mayor of Wellington was in the chair and in opening the proceedings said it was not for him to enter into the debatable question as to whether Mr McKenzie's land policy had been right or wrong, but if, as had been said 11 An honest man was the noblest work of God," then (turning to Mr McKenzie) " there you have him." The effect of Mr McKenzie's land policy had been in gain for him to a greater degree than any other public man in his (the speaker's) memory the affection and esteem of the masses of the colony.

Sir Robart Stout followed as one of those who had known Mr McKenzie longest in his political life. He believed they were there that night not for 'the purpose of any political or party demonstration, but to testify to Mr McKenzie their good wishes, their sorrow at his parting from them even for a short time, and their hope that he would return to them restored to his old health and vigour.

Mr J. Hutcheson M.H.R. said without in any way deprecating the Labour legislation that had been passed since 1890, he would say that the land legislation of the Minister of Lands had done more to build up the big warehouses on the reclaimed land, or at least as much as any labour legislation that had yet been passed in the country. The Premier pointed out that when be was a dvised to take a trip for the benefit ef his health, Mr McKenzie offered to tender his resignation of his portfolio, feeling that there would be grave difficulties where he to go away. After consulation, his colleagues came to the conclusion that it would be injustice to him, and not right to the country, were he allowed to resign. Mr McKenzie's colleagues felt, as he (the Premier) was convinced the audience felt, that when he went back to his native land he should go there as minister of the Crown of his adopted country. (Applause.) The Premier added that he was delighted to find that the press of New Zealand had beeivalmost unanimous in supporting the presentation to Mr McKenzie. The latter " was leaving them as the Hon John McKenzie. Minister of Lands for New Zealand. He was going to re-visit the Mother Country; where those who had known him in his youth, and those who had watched his career afterwards, would receive hint back as one oi their sons, and give him a right, good, hearty, Highland welcome. It was no secret that he was going home as the chief of the Highland clans of New Zealand and that would be something to the Highland of Scotland. Whether it was as friend or colleague, or as man, everyone who kaew him must feel proud of the Hon John McKenzie. (Applause.) And his foes respected him because he was worthy of their steel. He did not fight for that which was for the time popular, and sink his convictions. As Sir Robert Stout had told them,* he had fought for what he believed to be be right, when there were few who held the views that he had, and few who supported what he supported. But public opinion had changed, and to-day throughout the length and breadth of this country there were thousands who blessed the day that John McKenzie became Minister of Lands. So far as questions of policy were concerned, continued Mr Seddon, his colleague and himself had never differed.

Messrs H. Beauchamp and J. J. Le Grove also spoke. Mr McKenzie said his powers of speech were inadequate to express his thanks on that occasion. His friends told him he would see great changes in the Old Country afrer an absence of thirty-nine years. He did not expect, however, to see anything like the changes there that he knew to have taken place in this colony — his adopted country — in the same time. When in those early days a small band of the settlers advocated a more liberal land policy, their views were scouted. But his early experiences, ,of whole parishes of people being at the instance of one man turned off holdings which they and their forefathers had held from time immemorial, had borne fruit, and he had determined that abuses which obtained in the old land should never be perpetrated in a young country like New Zealand. He did not take the credit for being the only land reformer. Sir George Grey deserved credit — (applause)— and Sir Robert Stout — (applause)— and the late John Ballance— (applause) -and the present Premier (applause) ; and going to the other side of the House, there Mr Rolleston— (applause)— who from time to time had done his best to bring abont liberal land legislation. He had frequently been twitted by his opponents and by the press ot the colony that he was a freeholder himself. He would tell them the reason.

It was that when he first came to the

colony, to become si landowner it was •s jiecessary to become a freeholder. >*rhere was no other system. But since ' he became Minister of Lands, in the Ballance Government, his colleagues had left him almost unfettered to carry out his views on the land question. If any failure attached to it, his was the blame, bat he must say that in carry-

ing out what he had conceived to be a right course, and settling the lands as far as possible under the leasehold system, he had had the hearty support of his colleagues, and not only of his colleagues, but of the Liberal party in the House, and of the people of the colony. He said the lease in perpetuity was a compromise which had come to keep the land from all going into freehold, but he hoped to see the day when all the lands of the colony would be nationalised. Now, as that might be his last speech in the colony, he had taken out a few figures showing what they had done in regard to land settlement. Notwithstanding that it was only within the last three or four years that they had got the Land for Settlements Act into full working order, 58 estates had been purchased, containing 245,534 acres^ costing £1,216,---482. From this they received a rental of £61,497, or a little over 5 per cent, on the money invested in the land.