THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1894. LAND SETTLEMENT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2748, 8 December 1894, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1894. LAND SETTLEMENT.

One of the most frequent arguments used against popular representation is that the representatives pander to popular demand. This charge is often true, and in some instances the representatives cannot help themselves. For instance, when a large section of the community demands reform, the representative must submit, or lose his seat; but such demands ought to be honest, or, if not so, ought to be resisted to the bitter end. The representative who encourages a section of the community to disregard honest obligations and endeavours to secure advantages to which they are not entitled is unworthy of the trust, reposed in him, and is a standing menace to the good government of the country. In making these remarks we have in view the actions of Messrs Hogg and Piriani —two North Island representatives. We have had implicit faith in both. We have looked upon them as thorough Liberals, and esteemed them as highly intelligent and capable men, but we must condemn their conduct with regard to special settlers in the districts which they represent. The facts of the case are as follow:—These settlers took up land under the old perpetual lease regulations, under which they had to pay a rental of 5 per sent, on the capital value of their holdings. Since then, however, the lease in perpetuity system has been adopted, under which the rental is 4 per cent. No sooner did these settlers discover this than they began to agitate for converting their perpetual leases into leases in perpetuity. With the view of getting a redaction of 1 per cent., and a tenure that would last forever. Messrs Hogg and Piraui are suspected of having prompted this agitation. At any rate, they did all they could to encourage it. They were both members of the Wellington Land Board, and in that position, and as members of Parliament, worried the Minister of Lands till at last they secured their ends. The Minister, be it said to his credit, resisted their demands, and insisted that the matter did not come within the scope of the functions of the Land Board. Messrs Hogg and Pirani, on the other hand, held that it did, and threatened legal proceedings to compel the Minister to concede to their demands. This strikes a blow at Liberal land legislation, and is mischievous iu the extreme. The great objection which the opponents of land reform raise to the leasing system is that the leaseholders will become so numerous that they will control the members, and compel them to relieve them of paying rent. A coloring is given to this argument by the combined action of the Wairarapa settlers and their representatives, and a handle is given to those opposed to the system of which they will be able to make use with some effect iu future political campaigns. Messrs Hogg and Pirani are thus not only doing wrong in encouraging the settlers to disregard their obligations, but are also injuring the prospect of expanding the leasing system, and strentheuiug the hands of its opponents. There is at the present time in Parliament a majority favorable to abolishing the lease in perpetuity, All the Ministers are favorable to it if they could sog their way to the remanent establishment of the perpetual least}, and, without a doubt, it will yet be abolished, Ct any rate, so far as to give power for a period'Q-tl revaluation of the land. In the face of this, it is certainly wrong to convert pertetual leases into lehsos in perpetuity, but if so, what must bo thought of Mr Hogg’s more recent action. A few days ago he presided over a meeting- of these settlers, and made a violent attack on the Land Department, because rent had been demanded from these settlers. The Hon. John McKenzie now explains the position. Under the old perpetual lease regulations the Land Department had power to capitalise the first-two years rent, that is, the first two-years’ rent was to tfie capital value, and interest chargcu on i* The settlers converted their perpetual lease's I-to leases ’. u perpetuity and thus came under fresh regiu.'itions. Their rents were reduced from 5 per cent to 4 per cant, but they were bound to pay them in advance, and what they complain of now is that they have been called upon to do so. Impudence could not go beyond this, and it iZ v ery discreditable to Mr t Hogg that he is coi? n^®na,,c * n 8 BUC b som/.dajons dishonesty. He eiir oura S and assisted the settlers in the lira., iu stall f-o to violate obligations, and now he is encouraging them tp do what is worse, that is, to refuse to pay their lawful debts. The settlers evidently want to secure all the privileges of both systems, but none of their responsibilities. They want the two yoprs time given to pay rents under also the reduction of rents given under the lease iu perpetuity. To encourage au agitation so well calculated to bring our spleudid system of land settlement into disrepute is extremely mischievous, and Mr Hogg iu doing so has acted iu a manner nuworty of a Liberal representative.