THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1892. THE LAND BILL.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2398, 13 September 1892, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1892. THE LAND BILL.

The Opposition have done their best to prevent the Land Bill from passing. They spent two days discussing the second reading of it, one day going into committee on it, and a whole week in committee, winding up with stonewalling it for twenty-four hours. The clause which led to the stonewalling is that which interests sipiatters—the one-man-one-run clause —and this shows plainly that it is in the interests of the scpiatters the Opposition are fighting so hard. Let us just see what this means. On the 29th of July last year there was laid before the Waste Lands Committee in Parliament the following return showingto whom the Crown lands of t e colony were leased. It showed that

“ Messrs It. Campbell and Son’s lease from the Crown, 25 runs, estimated to contain 5(51,7(5(5 acres, on which they depasture 205,000 sheep; the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company 17 runs estimated to contain -15(1,500 acres, on which they depasture US,OOO sheep ; the New Zealand and Australian Land Company, 17 runs, of 528,215 acres, depasturing 01,500 sheep ; Messrs Dalgety and Co, OS runs, 555,70(1 acres, 15(5,000 sheep; the New Zealand Land and Mortgage Company, 2 runs, 811,870 acres, 15,000 sheep ; Messrs Blackwood and Co., (5 runs, 87,751 acres, .57,000 sheep; Sir F. D. Bell, 11 runs, 157,228 acres, 18,500 sheep; Messrs Murray, Roberts, and Co„ 2 runs, 21,020 acres, 15,000 sheep; Mr J. 11. Preston, 5 runs, 112,101 acres, 31,500 sheep; Messrs Ross and Gloudining, !) runs, 151,188 acres, 55.000 sheep; Messrs Cargill and Anderson, 11 runs, 00,500 acres, 55,000 sheep ; Messrs Pogsonand Co., 11 runs, 70,10(1 acres, 58,000 sheep; Mr Scobie Mackenzie, M.H.R., 5 runs, (50,5(50 acres, 20,(50(1 sheep ; total summaried, 15 runholders, 1(55 runs, 2.511.000 acres, 017,000 sheep.” Now that is the way the Crown lands of the colony have been disposed of in the past. The great feud between the present Minister of Lands, Mr McKenzie, and the late minister; Mr Richardson, is over tljese runs. When Mr Richardson was in office, two runs in Otago fell into the market, and it was decided that they should be reserved fj>r settlement. Instead of doing that Mr Richardson allowed them to fall into the hands of the Honoi’able Robert Campbell, and when taxed with this maladministration he gave as an excuse that he made a mistake, and sent a wrong telegram. Mr McKenzie afterwards in Parliament said that he had been toldthat the Honorable Robert Camphpj) had “squared Mr Richardson.” It was ovfcf; this the row which led to Mr Bryce retiring Rom Parliament arose. When the Hon. ’ John l>lpKenzie took office he found that Mr‘Richardson had two days before given instructions that two runs lu Otago should be given to Mr Bell, son of Sir Billon JM- Mr McKenzie cancelled the order; he apt JJfc land, and now there are several fapiifies hying on it. In Oamaru there was a groat fight over getting a run cut up during Mr Richardson’s term of office. Mr llichardson would not cut it up until public meetings wove hold, and pressure brought to boar on Mr flisjqp, who was then in the Ministry 'and l member for could multiply instances like those si,iiicient to fill columns, and showing how the present Opposition when in power, were throwing the land into the hands of the big companies, It is this which Mr McKenzie in his present J v aud Bill wants to put an end to. Ho wants iq prevent any person or company from taking up more than one run. This, it must be remembered, has nothing to do with large estates. These runs are not Freehold, and there is no intention of selling them. They are simply mountainous country leased for paster?.' purposes by the Government. Some people may imagine that if this Bill passes the land will be taken from the present lessees. Nothing of the kind, llw clause will not affect the present leases until they expire. At the expiry of the present leases of course tlje present

lessees must give up the land, and then, instead of 13 squatters as now, we shall have about 165 squatters occupying the lands referred to in the above return. It is to prevent this and maintain the squatting companies in their monopolies that the Opposition have been fighting so hard. Last year the Bill passed the Lower House but it was destroyed in the Upper House, and the question is “ What will the council do with it this year?” Our opinion is that they will pass it. If the Tories of the Lower House thought that it would be destroyed in the Upper House they would not have fought so hard, and we believe it is the knowledge that the Council means to pass it that has made them stone-wall it. We heartily congratulate the Ministry on the stand they took ; they deserve all honor and praise for it, but what shall we say of Mr Rolleston and Sir George Grey ! Will anyone ever again respect them ? We thinlv not; for they certainly do not deserve it.