THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, AUGUST 13, 1892. THE LAND BILL.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2395, 13 August 1892, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, AUGUST 13, 1892. THE LAND BILL.

AT . . „. „ a thrashing so No party ever,._ ~ ° . •ii *i „•„ got richly as the present ♦->,-, £ on last Wednesday night. Th(s *-»«-" vernnient had retained the freehold tenure in their Land Bill, the only change being the imposition of improvement conditions. To make the matter plain it is necessary to state that hitherto a man could buy land for cash, and do whatever he liked with it. He could go to live on it, sell it. or let it lie idle, hold it for speculative purposes. The Government saw that under this a great deal of land had been purchased by speculators, who were making no use of it, but were waiting until they could sell it at probably 50 per cent, profit. They regarded this as hindering the development of the country, and in order to put an end to it, they have provided in their new Land Bill that no title shall be issued to any man for any land until he has put improvements to the value of thirty shillings per acre on first-class land, and ten shillings per acre on second-class land. They say that no speculator will buy land on these conditions, and thai, therefore, if. will be secured for lioihi J'uU; settlers. Put shortly the Opposition say, •• Sell the land, and never mind what the purchaser does with it. Let him do what he likes with his own." The Government say, '• We shall not. We shall insist that whoever buys it must work it. He must improve it, or he will not get the title—the Grown grant of it. We shall allow him seven years to make the improvements." The Opposition say, " This is not freehold. This is deferred payment. You have destroyed the freehold teuure," and on the strength of this they brought forward a motion ou last Tuesday evening

which affirmed that the Government's proposals were not satisfactory as regards the freehold tenure. This motion was rightly accepted by the Government as " a want of confidence" motion. Two days and two nights were spent discussing it. with the result that the Government had a majority of 18; although Sir George Grey did not vote either way. Now the question for the electors to consider is this : Are the Government right in insisting on purchasers making improvements? Or should they sell the land without any regard as to what the purchaser may do with it. In our opinion any sane man will agree that the Government is perfectly right in doing all in their power to prevent dummyism and speculation, and that they deserve the support of every right thinking man in the action they have taken in this matter. The difference between the two parties in this matter is : The Opposition want to play into the hands of the moneyed men ; the Government into the hands of the hona jirte settlers. That is the plain unvarnished fact. We are not surprised at all at Mr Rhodes voting against the Government on this iioint; lie is wealthy, and of course he naturally favors his own class, but we are astonished at Mr Rolleston's conduct. If we had been told a week beforehand that he would vote against the Government on this point we would not have believed it, but now we have proof positive of it. Last year he supported the Government in this matter, because he was not then leader of the Opposition, but now he is, and is evidently determined to go the whole way with them. Who can have any respect for him any more V who can repose confidence in him again'? We cannot at any rate. He has sold his convictions for the sake of his position, and thus ruined his reputation. As for Mr Rhodes we do not blame him ; he has only acted consistently, lie has no sympathy with bonafuh; settlement; never had, and consequently voted in accordance with his convictions. Farmers would do well to take notice of this. If the land is sold to speculators what will their sons and daughters do? They must simply buy the land again at exorbitant prices from these speculators, or become hewers of wood and drawers of water to the moneyed men. The Government is trying to secure the land for farmers' sons and others who want to till it; the Opposition want to throw it open to speculators. The farmers ought to reflect on this, and decide which party is doing right.

PERPETUAL LEASING. In the course of his speech last Tuesday evening, the Hon. W. •Rolleston boasted that he was the author of perpetual leasing, and that it had been destroyed. So he was so far as giving legislative effect to it goes, but Mr Ballance and Sir Robert

Stout had previously advocated it. We do not want to rob Mr Rolleston of credit for it, but, why is it he lias turned round now, on those who are trying to carry it. He say it was destroyed. So it was, but by whom ? By the party whose leader he is now—• the late Government. Xow what does perpetual leasing mean ? Let us look at it straight in the face. We get at present about £200,000 in rents from perpetual and pastoral leases, and only for that taxation would be nearly double what it is now. We have 'between 2,000,000 and 8,000,000 acres yet to sell, say 2\ millions of acres, and let us suppose that were leased, what would the rents amount to, Put at the lowest possible calculation the rents would bring in as much as the property tax did last year. Now think of that; if we were to sell no more land, and only lease it we should in the course of time get enough money to pay our way without having to raise any taxation at all, either on land, on income, or on property. The farmers therefore above all others ought to insist on no more land being sold, so as to provide the means of doing away with taxation altogether. Mr Guinness M.H.R. for Greymouth, gave a very apt illustration of this in his recent speech on the Financial Statement. He said : I say the perpetual lease system is the best we could have ; and I eau prove it by the town I live in, which belongs to Maori owners. We have there a system which is most beneficial to the people. In the town the leases are perpetual leases, with the right' of renewal every twenty-one years, the ground-rent is readjusted, the " ■ - of all improvements going to the TTut %."• any settler in t«e Town 7 fi'vpvriiOUtn *k Jlod t 0 Purchase a piece ot Gieymemv inincl , a ho would oi land I have. ' -«■'*», of lawl **oo. have to give tor tiiat sec ■ _r whereas if he takes it up on the perpeLutwlease system he will have to pay a groundrent oi! .-»-'•< per annum. Instead of paying £2OO he keeps that in his pocket, and can use it in whatever way he likes. This sentiment of a freehold lias been_ dftne away with among in v constituents snathe town 1 represent. They wanted to right of purchase from the Maoris The Maoris, of course, have no right of sale, but now that this new system of perpetual lease has been introduced it has effected a complete turn in public opinion. Mark that. Even .in the town where the system is in vogue the people would have no other when they have got to understand it The present Government are doing their best to carry out the perpetual leasing system, and hence a great deal of the opposition to them.