THE LAND BILL.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXI, Issue 8761, 12 March 1907, Page 4

THE LAND BILL.

Mr W. 1. Birch's Views

At Marton Brandi of the Farmers* Union meeting on Saturday Mr W. F. Birch, who has just returned Tom England, took the opportunity )f saying something on events which lappcued • during his absence. Ho irst referred to the attempt made to foist the Laud Bill on the people, that its crude and revolutionary provisions would have ruined the jountry had it passed into law. He claimed it was the powerful influence and protests of the Farmers’ Union which compelled Government to drop the Bill. He was glad to be able to congratulate the Union on so great a victory and on the able manner in which the Executive and President piloted the cause. When he looked back only a few years to the first meeting for the formation of the Union, ho felt proud he had the honour of initiating it for it had fulfilled the functions which he claimed for it and had fully justified its existence. Having so far done well they must not now lose sight of the fact that efforts to combat the Bill—which was not dead—must not be relaxed. It was extraordinary, that Government should have ; brought down a Bill which showed no signs of having been properly thought out. The provision for endowments was no doubt a bid for popular support. It sounded well, but in his opinion, it would not bear investigation, even from ..an economic standpoint, and the provision to let such lauds for 6G years, with a revaluation for renewal, would be reducing the would-be settler into a slave of the State, instead of an independent citizen of a free State. Was that a position to hold out to the descendants of those who came here to gain a home that should indeed belong to them? The proposal to limit the value of laud held by any one person by a hard and fast line was also undesirable and to force such owner to sell under adverse conditions was unjust. No such line could be drawn but would act unjustly in some cases and cramp energy in others. He honestly thought the aggregation of largo lauded estates was not good for a country, but with the power of purchase and a graduated tax, there was surely power enough to prevent any aggregations. He trusted the Union would set its face against any such clause, and not allow it to go by default because only a few would be affected by it. If it was wrong in principle, and he believed it was, it should bo resisted even if only one man suffered by it. Anything that cramped energy was as bad for the State as the individual. Thou there was the freehold question, The Union had laid down in its platform the optional system of lease or purchase as that most in accord with the requirements of settlers together with the option of the freehold to theL.I.P. tenants. The Bill now before the country says no more freehold and in future a person must be & Crown tenant for GO years with a revaluation at the end of that time if lie wishes to take up Crown lauds. Then instead of granting the freehold to the L.I.P. tenants they are offered such an absurd alternative that no one could possibly bo fool enough to accept. Ho appealed to the Union to nail the freehold flag to the mast and insist on the terms mentioned in their platform. There could be no question that the Union’s proposal was a fair one and he defied anyone to show that Government rights as landlords of these leases wore worth more than the capital value of the rental. If put up to auction it could not realise more. It would be a profitable transaction for Government to sell on terms the Union suggested and thus provide a fund for further purchase of large estates. (Applause.)