The Manawatu Herald. THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 1907. THE LAND BILL AND DR. FINDLAY.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 3762, 28 March 1907, Page 2

The Manawatu Herald. THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 1907. THE LAND BILL AND DR. FINDLAY.

There is no man in the colony who can be and is, so. delightfully indefinite as Dr. Findlay, the new Attorney-General. The difference between the handling ot the Land Bill by the Minister of Lands and Dr Findlay, is that Mr McNab tells the people what is in the marvellous Bill and Dr. Findlay tells them what is not in the Bill, Dr. Findlay is travelling the country allaying the fears sown by Mr McNab, and he is one of those suave, polished, insincere gentlemen who is bound to make a case out of any brief he tackles. At New Plymouth lately the AttorneyGeneral made a very fine speech indeed and quoted Dickens in support of himself. He did not in any specific instance state the position the lands of the colony would be in, under the proposed Land Bill and the public which passed a vote of confidence in the Ministry and asked it to modify the Land Bill, were no wiser after the intellectual treat the learned lawyer gave them, than before he began. The Attorney-General said that self - interest was actuating the people who were crying out for the freehold. What a very beautiful truth ! It Is self-interest that actuates every man on the land in the law office, in the Ministry and elsewhere. It is self-interest that actuates the man who takes up a Government lease, if by self-interest one means the interest of the lessee and his family. Every person, including the Attorney - General

and Mr McNab, wish to acquire more than they already possess, and it is human nature for any man who possesses a leasehold to wish to acquire the freehold. Such a man will work harder and make his land more productive if he is able at some future time to possess it. This is not greed. It is the instinct implanted in every human breast to progress and grow more comfortable, less dependent on chance, less fearful of “ a rainy day.” The learned lawyer, of course, said that the Government was not going to interfere with the freeholds that now exist—that is to say the freeholds within the maximum limit of area —but what the Government are going to do, if possible, is to prevent the acquisition of any more Government freehold, or the concession of right of purchase to freeholders, which is obviously unjust and cruel. This at once sets up two classes*. One which consists of freeholders who held their land previous to the coming of the Laud Bill, and the other that can never, except by private purchase, become freeholders. Again the AttorneyGeneral remarked that most of the men who carried on the agitation for the freehold were not men upon the land. . In this case we find a Scotch verdict “Not proven.” The possession of the freehold is dear to the heart of every mother’s son on the land. It is untrue that those countries are the most prosperous generally where the land is leased either by the State or the private individual. Communities of small freehold settlers are incomparably richer than communities of large or small leaseholders. Please note that the Land Bill proposes to dispossess the large land-holder of a proportion of his land. In its mixed fashion the Government intends to not “to preserve the national estate ” by acquiring this land itself, but by forcing the owner to sell the freehold. The Government defeats its own purpose in succeeding clauses of this remarkable document and the Moses who drafts a Jaw compelling the creation of freeholders in one breath and prohibiting the creation of freeholders in the next, really is inconsistent, to say the kindest thing about its attitude. The laud in New Zealand has been experimented with by every successive Government since Nevv Zealand had any Government. Every Government saws a bit off the old garment, harasses the man on the laud a little more, seeks to upset his tenure and tacks new conditions to bis transfer. Despite all the mixed land-legislation that has been passed there is as much landjobbery, dummying, and other forms of swindling in N.Z. as elsewhere. It is quite true, as the Attorney-General apparently -involuntarily said that a great deal of the land agitation in the colony was carried on by men who did not intend to go on to the land. On the other hand it is true that the learned counsel knows nothing about the land except in a theoretical way. It is not to the Attor-ney-General one must go to obtain an opinion about the benefits or otherwise of the Land Bill. The men who are best entitled to express an opinion about it are the men who make their living out of the soil. It is worthy of _ remark that nowhere has the farming community received the gospel of the Land Bill gladly. Probably the people had made up their minds about it before last session when, if you remember the Government threatened to go on with that Bill though doing so might mean dissolution. Probably the Government, mindful of the howls of execration of the people at the other hastily-passed legislation kept that Bill back in a spirit of kindness. No amount of perfervid oratory by able lawyers can explain away the anomalies in the Bill. The Bill is not wholly bad, but any Bill that forces a man to give his neighbour the freehold and prevents the Government from doing likewise is a silly Bill. The limitation ot large estates is of course a good idea but if the Goverment is sincere in its belief that State ownership ot the land is the only perfect ownership, the Government should force the big men to disgorge to the Government and not to private people. And if the Government wants to kill the desire in human nature for the freehold, the Government has undertaken a contract, besides which, the damming of the Nile with tissue-paper is a mere half-hour’s amusement.