THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. SATURDAY, JUNE 15, 1912. HON. G. W. RUSSELL.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10660, 15 June 1912, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. SATURDAY, JUNE 15, 1912. HON. G. W. RUSSELL.

The. Hon. G. W. Russell., when lie is not romanioing, is generally saying .things which are calculated Id cover himself and his party with confusion In the course of an address at Hamilton on Thursday might, the Minister for Internal Affaire is reported to have said:—• "There was not one single-taxer in the Government to-day, nor i-. I»ne land nationaliser. They were leas'eholdetts .so far as to sa'y that the nine million acres which had been set aside for revenue and other national purposes should be handed down as a n'aticral inheritance to the people '/ who would come after us. Hie defied anyone to say that the Government interfered with the 'freehold tenure." How does the above read when, it is compared with a speech made last year l>y Mr ißusse-11, and reported in the Lyttelbon Times-—a Government organ— 'as folllows: — ' "On the .Leasehold-freehold question the Government was certainly in a tight corner, as some of the .party favoured the freehold, .> i while only half a dozen, including 'himself, were prepared to advocate the leasehold. He would .say, however, that he and the other progressive Liberals in the House would always be found | fighting strongly against any atj tempt to 'give the! freehold of the magnificent national endowments... ! that the country now held." Mir .Russell would like us to believe, no doubt, that his- .inference to the 'half-cjozeni leaseholder's, including liimself(, was directed at the national e'ndow.men'ts alone. But that will not 1 hold water; for Mr ,R;u.ssoll knew, when he made that statement, that (every member on his side of the. House, land many on the Opposition

tside, were opposed to the granting of the f,neehold to the national endowments. When he said that there were only half-a-dozen,', including himself, who were prepared to advocate the leasehold, he could only have been referring to the principle of land nationalization as applied to the whole of the territory of the Dominion. Who were the half-dozen to whom he refarrod P They ivoa v e, of course, Messrs ißiussoll, IfiU, Laurenson, Han an, Arnold and. Hogg. Four of these gentlemen are 'at presenj'b in the Ministry. And yet Mr Utosell wishes the country to ibdlieve thaib there is net ono land mationalizeir in the Government to-day! Ini page 6-18 elf Hansard, 11011, we find the Hon/. G. Laurenson, who is now a Minister, asking:—

"What night have we to give away .the. lands of this country ■without any thought of those whio will he here to-anorrow ? It is our business to retain' the remnant we have left." What did 'Mr Lauren son mean by the "remnant we have left"? Did 'he irJe'aii. the national endiowiments ? Of couflee he did not. He meant the 'Grown 'and Native land© of the Do'minicn generally. Am'd yet we- have not a' land nationaliser in the Government! In the debate ;on the Land far Settlements ©ill in the 1911 session, the Hon. H. G. Ell declared emphatically against the granting of the right of the -freehold to Orow.ii tenants. The .Hon. Mr. Hanan, if we .mistake not, is similarly promounced in his views on th&s' subject, in face of these facts,, the Hon. G. W. Russell lias the .temerity to stand up hi an agricultural district of the North. Island and tell the people that there, is not a land nationalize!' an the Government. The only possible conclusion one can .arrive at in view of the ■sentiments expressed ahove is that either Messrs Rmsserl, Laurer.son, ELI and Co. have 'abandoned their long-chea-iehed leasehold principles in deference to the wish of their freehold chief, or that the Minister of Jnteraal Affairs Qias been ''guilty of a deliberate attempt to mislead the public.