The Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 1884. THE HON. W. ROLLESTON.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1169, 24 April 1884, Page 2

The Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 1884. THE HON. W. ROLLESTON.

The Hon W. Rolleston seems to have had a very rough tims of it last Saturday evening, nhen addressing his constituents of the Avon electoral district. He was called a liar, and several other epithets, equally disagreeable, were applied to him, and though he has represented that constituency for the last 16 years, there was not one present who had the courage to stand up and propose a vote either of thanks or confidence in biro. In fact there was none so poor as to do him reverence. There were numbers, though, ready to do the exact opposite, and they did it. They passed a vote of no confidence in him, and he had not present a friend to speak against it. This fact indicates that his constituents are thoroughly disgusted with him, and meant to let him know it in the most unequivocal manner. We are sorry for Mr Rolleston. We believe him to be a good man, but he is in very bad company, and he has allowed himself to be led into responsibilities, that have rendered him unpopular, without raising Ms voice against anything that has been done. If Mr Rolleston had resigned when the railway freights were raised a short time ago, ther* would not have been a more popular repre sentative in Canterbury to-day, and he would go into the next Parliament with flying colors. As it is we doubt very much whether there is a constituency that will return him. Mr Rolleston has done some good during the time he has been Minister of Lands. He appears to have a true conception of land administration, but he evidently is too willing to sacrifice bis own opinions in order to curry favor with other shades of political views. He said, in effect, at Papanui last Saturday, that land monopoly was primarily the cause of depression, but he would be no party to bursting up the large estates. The “ bursting up ” policy was nothing more nor less than confiscation. This is quite erroneous. “ Confiscation ” means taking away from people their land without giving them any compensation for their interest in it; “bursting up” means compelling land owners to sell their land or develope its resources by cultivation. There is therefore a great difference between “ confiscation ” and “ bursting-up.” The one is robbery ; the other is a legitimate exercise of governmental authority to compel the resources of the country to be developed. The advocates of the “ bursting-up ” policy, as it is called, do not urge that the landowners should be compelled to sell ; they only propose to relieve industry by placing a tax on uncultivated lands. This principle does nothing more nor less than recognise that certain individuals derive special benefits from the State, and that in consequence of this they ought to contribute proportionately in the shape of a special tax to the public revenue. This is called the “ bursting-op ” policy because it is held it would result in the uncultivated land owner# being driven to the necessity of selling their land, and if it did it would be a good recommendation for it. Mr Rolleston, does not approve of this. He save his heart and soul is in the desire to settle the people on the land, and though be tells us that there is scarcely an acre in Canterbury that has not been disposed of, he is not desirous of seeing the large estates cut up into farms for bona Me settlement. Now, we ask Mr Rolleston, it there is no land to settle people on in Canterbury, how can he settle people on land except by resorting to the “ bursting-up ” policy ? He cannot do it, and consequently, though he may be desirous of settling people on the land, we are driven to the conclusion that Mr Kolleston’s hesitancy to interfere with land monopoly amounts to a recantation of all I.is former liberal views on land administration, He has, evidently by the exigencies of politics—or, to put it :

more plainly, by a desire to keep his billet—been driven to proclaim his immutable reverence for the uncultivated land owners, although he has pronounced them the main cause of depression. This shows Mr Rolleston in a very poor light. He admits land monopoly to be the cause of the colony’s non-progressive, or rather retrogressive and depressed, state, but he will do nothing to mend matters. In other words, be is, one devoted to perpetuate eternally the cause of this depression. It is, we believe, good biblical lore that the responsibilities of men are in proportion to their lights. If so, the sin of Mr Rolleston’s acquiescence in the land monopoly policy is far more grievous than if committed by a person who did not see things in the same light. He recognises the cause of depression, and he has not the courage to step forward and put his shoulder to the wheel for its removal. Mr Rolleston has long been looked upon as a bold and fearless politician, but it appears that the emoluments of office have completely knocked the old spirit of independence out of him, and has rendered him timid and fearful of giving offence by advocating his own views. The best thing that could happen to him is that he should be allowed to run out of harness for a time until be picks up again, and, judging from the way in which his constituents treated him, he is likely to get a spell.