THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1906.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8302, 4 December 1906, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1906.

As tbe Land Bill is, practically, the one political question that is being disoussed at the present time throughout the whole colony, and in aotno quarters with a considerable amount of energy, we make no apology for again referring to Mr MoNab'e proposals, la his recoct speech at Onehunga, wbioh Is re* ported pretty fally in the columns of the New Zealand Heiald, the new Minister for Lands '.explained the "beauties" of his Bill in a very unconvincing manner, to our way of tbinking. He did not, of course, deny that the Government proposed to do away with the optional form of tenure; ho did dot deny that in future no man, if the Bill beoomee law, would be able to take up laud from the Government ou any other condition than a sixty-six yeare renewable lease; he did not deny that he proposed to permanently nationalise millions of acres of waste Grown lands; be did not deny that the Government were uot willing to grant Grown tenants, under the lease-in-perpetulty system, the light to aoquire the freehold at either the present or the original value. No, he did not deny all these facte. Ho was candid enough as to the intentions of his Bill— no one can complain that he was not—and the surprising fact is 'ibat Mr MoNab, who says bia sympathies are with che freeholder, should hold the views he does. . # * ; * * * On the occasion referred to, Mr McNab told hi* audienoe that in 1893

be bail condemned the lease-in perpe uity aa oeiug "neither a leasehold to the leaseholder, nor a freebold, to the freeholder," and he does not appear to have altered his opinion even up to the present day; yet, in order to appease the feelings of land nationalises, we presume, Mr MoNab does not favour Crown I tenants, holding laud under the j lease-in-perpetuity system, being I allowed to acquire their holdings at either the present or the original value. Surely the Minister for I Lands must imagine the sympathy which he declares he possesses for those who wish to acquire the freehold! Mr MoNab says the Government must retaiu 10 per cant, of the value of the perpetual leaseholdinqs. He attaches great importance to that ((10 per cent., und the reason Of it is this: The present value of the perpetual lease hold ingsjis £3,000,000, and in the comparatively near future, that is to say only ,1,000 years hence, Mr MoNab deslares that the value of the areas referred to will have in-" oreaaed to £300,000,000! Thus we should so frame our laws to-dHy that they may be of benefit nut bo muoh to the preseut generation and their descendants for several generations tc come, as of value to posterity a thousand years henoe. We have no desire to discuss what our nation will be 1,000 years hence, beyond remarking that it is n question v?bich oould be cousilerea best in coo' weather. How ftlr MoNab happens to know what the value of land will be 1,000 years henoe may interest some people, but it doe 3 not interest ua—it if the present with which we are concerned It may, however, bo observed that if all the rest, of the land in the colony is going to increase in value in proportion to that inorease which Mr MoNab prophecies for perpetual leases, the totai of fcho boaatry will be so gcoat that one's imagination simply reels in contemplating the figures.

***** In his endeavour to fix a limitation of value to land that may be acquired the Minister for Landa has, no doubt, a very general support, but, at the same time, it may be observed that the Minister recognises the right of large landowners, who have acquired their lands under the laws of the coun try, to retain a literal portion for themselvas, otherwise the £50,0u0 unimproved value limit would be absurd. Iheo the question arises, if the very v large landowners are to be compelled to sell their "excess" lands, do the Government propose to resume the remainder of those lands, and, if not, is it consistent on the part of the Government to resume estates of a fe<v thousand acres and to leave untouched estates of £50,000 unimproved value? Bub the objections , that may be urged against Mr MoNab'a Bill seem to be almost numberless, Certainly New Zealand is not a country for large landowners, and a polioy that, in the coarse of time, will fairly bring about their extinction should be pnranod, but Mr McNab's proposals do not appear to meet the oase at all. If the Minister were to bring in a Bill that would materially assist oloser settlement, also the .settlement cf the. waste Crown lauds, with a limitation of valu<» clause, and propiding that every nf Crown land and that everyone vho may take up Crown land in the future, should have the right to acquire the freehold, wo believe ho would introduce and snouflssfully pasß a measure that would fi,ud favour in the ey«?d of the majority of the people in this country. Mr MnNab's Bill, as at present drawn up, is so anti-freehold that we do not think it will ever find much favour in the country, whatever city populations may think of it. ; , '