THE LAND QUESTION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 3769, 20 July 1907, Page 3

THE LAND QUESTION.

Dissatisfaction by Government Supporters. Hot time ahead. The sensational part of the Budget delivered by Sir Joseph Ward was the complete surrender of the Government in connection with their land policy of last session. This came like a thunderclap upon the leaseholders and the more socialistic of the Ministerial followers. They were simply astounded, and afterwards in the lobby they were fierce in their denunciation. Some of the language used was scarcely fit for publication. One well-known member of the Government Party said to one Oppositionist:—“It’s not you that will be moving a vote of want of confidence now ; it’s us.” During the few minutes that he remained in the lobby after the House adjourned, Mr Massey was congratulated on all hands and by several of the Government supporters. The Government change of front was, perhaps, harder upon Mr Laurenson than upon any other member of the party. Fresh from expounding on the platform at Gisborne what he had fondly believed to be the policy of his party, he entered the House just in time to hear that the Government had thrown that particular piece of policy overboard. There is still much discussion going on in the lobb} 7 , and the land policy proposals as contained in the Budget overshadowed everything else. Mr Hogg, a prominent member of the Leasehold Party, on being asked for his opinion regarding the Government’s proposals, stated :—‘‘l entirely disagree with the proposal to give lease-in-perpe-tuity holders the option of the freehold on the terms offered. A mistake, in my opinion, has also been made in simply setting apart a portion only of the unsold lands of the Crown as a national endowment after the repeated promises that the whole of the unsold Crown lands would he applied to these purposes. It is a backdown that must seriously embarrass the supporters of the Government, who expected firmness where the general interests of the community are immediately concerned. With the increased graduated land tax I heartily concur, but I must express my deep regret that for reasons that to me appear to be untenable, and which I hope to easily demolish, the Government cannot see their waj r once and for all to abolish the duty on flour and breadstuffs.

Mr Arnold, another leaseholder, on being approached, was disinclined to ,offer any criticism at the present stage. “ There is so much in the Statement,” he said, “that one needs to look carefully through it before criticising it in detail. As a leaseholder, however, I must say that I am very much dissatisfied with the land proposals. They are a complete surprise and a great disappointment.”

Mr Tanner, who, as a Government supporter, was invited to express an opinion on the Government’s new policy, appeared to be too full for words. He could onh ? say;—“l do not care to say anything except to say that it is the most complete collapse of the so-called land campaign of last year that, one could possibly imagine. Such a right-about-face movement has rarely if ever been known before.”

M Ell, another of the disappointed members, expressed himself briefly as follows “As an out-and-out lease-holder, and one entirely opposed to the sale of another single acre of Crown lands, I do not like the Government’s proposals. They were not a surprise altogether, in view of the recognised strength of the country party, and their determined claim for the disposal of the remainin g Crown lands on the freehold tenure. They have got their way ; there is no doubt about that.”

Mr Laurenson states openly that he. will support a vote of want of confidence in the Government.