The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, APRIL 20, 1889. MINISTERIAL MISSTATEMENTS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1881, 20 April 1889, Page 2

The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, APRIL 20, 1889. MINISTERIAL MISSTATEMENTS.

The present Government may well be called the Silent Ministry. In Opposition most of them were overgarrulous; on the Treasury Bench they show no disposition to take the public into their confidence. It is something rare to come across anything said by Ministors, and consequently we feel inclined to make the most of afew pearls which dropped from Mr Hislop at Kurow, near Oamaru, last Monday evening. The meeting was called by persons interested in the proper distribution of the South Canterbury runs, and Mr Hislop, the Colonial Secretary, attended to hear what the meeting had to recommend. Several speeches were made, urging the necessity of cutting up several of the back country runs, and insisting that much more rent could thus be obtained from them. In the course of the discussion a Mr Cain commented strongly on the way in which the Minister of Lands had behaved when he visited Kurow, but Mr Hislop intimated that he would leave the room if anything were said against his colleague. This was 'good—very good. It was at Kurow, it will be remembered, the trouble took place last year. The Kurow run was in possession of the Hew Zealand and Australian Land Company, and the Stout-Yogel Government gave the company the customary 12 months’ notice to quit.

The manager of the company went to Wellington, and button-holed members ; and when the Atkinson Ministry came into power they withdrew the notice to quit, and wore on the point of disposing of the land to the company when indignation meetings were held at Kurow and at Oamaru. The result was that the Government had to give in, and the Kurow run was broken up. Owing to the pig-headed obstinacy o£ Mr Eichardson on that occasion, and his determined efforts to give the ran to the Land Company, a very strong feeling exists in that district against him, and it was breaking out when Mr Hislop threatened to leave if the actions of the Minister of Lands were discussed. Now, this is a new idea. The actions of responsible Ministers must not be criticised. Like Benares monkeys, they must be allowed to do what they like with impunity. What a fine despot Mr Hislop would make!—a magnificent Grand Turk, who would cut the heads off all who dared to look crocked at His Majesty. But, though his arrogance told in a certain way, and there was no more said about Mr Eichardson, the speakers were pretty plain with him, and he had to enter into a defence of the land policy of the Government. According to the report published in the Oamaru Mail, Mr Hislop said the Government of which he was a member was “ the first Government to insert a clause m the Land Act to prevent the sale of large areas of land for cash.” Shade of Munchausen!

This is wonderful. How any man could stand up and say this in the face of the Acts of Parliament in existence surpasses comprehension. He went on to say that “the clauses they inserted provided that no person could take up more than 640 acres of first class land and 2000 acres of second class land, and by this speculators were prevented from taking up land.” Here is the truth half told, making up a good substantial lie. The 640 acres and 2000 acres—that is, _ 2640can be bought in every land district in New Zealand; and, as there are some nine or ten land districts, the total area one could secure is about

25,000 acres. So much for Mj Hislop’s truthfulness. He went or to say that laud was disposed of aa follows: “From the 21afc March, 1888, to 28th February, 1889, they were : Selectors. Area. Average. Acres. Acres. Cash lands ... 462 64,966 140& Deferred paymt. 333 48,166 144| Perpetual lease 836 202,881 242| Iho average of cash sales had never been so small as it was now, and this fact proved that the present administration had prevented the wholesale alienation of the colony’s land in large areas."

Impudence could not go beyond thia. The present Ministry did their best to destroy the perpetual leasing system, but the people have taken to it in spite of them, and now here is Mr Hislop taking credit for it. The cry had been that the Stout-Vogel Ministry were trying to puah perpetual leasing dowa the throats of the people; the present Government came in determined to reverse that order of things. The land fund was exhausted because the Stout-Vogel Government had sold very little land, and the present Government determined to replenish it by selling land for cash. Their scheme failed —the people would i not buy the land—they preferred the j perpetual leases, and now Mr Hislop wants to prove it was due to the good administration of the present Government. One thing to be gathered from Mr Hislop's half-a-column speech is that he has not the slightest regard for the truth. Never have we seen so many misstatements crowded into so small a space. The least we might expect from Ministers of the Crown is the truth, but it is evident that this is an article in which the present Ministry do not deal.