The Socialists and the Land.

Mr. Seddon's famous Land Commission was intended, as everyone knows, to report against the concession of the option of the freehold to Crown tenants. Its members were chosen mainly for this purpose, and the resulting report might have been all that Mr. Seddon desired, had it not been for a few of the leading labour witnesses. It is asserted that it was only the unblushing manner in which these witnesses advocated the revaluation of existing leases-in-perpetuity—in other words, the repudiation by the Government of a binding contract—and the fact that they were sent to the Commission as representatives of the Labour Unions, that induced a majority of the Commission to recommend the grant of the freehold option to some of its Crown tenants.

This majority of the Commission apparently recognised that if ever the labour socialists gained the upper hand in New Zealand, the leasehold tenure would become most insecure. They, therefore determined to protect at least a portion of the State's tenants from a danger which, if not immediate, could not be wholly overlooked.

As one of the Commissioners remarked, the right the lessee acquired under the lease would then be taken from his widow and family.

Mr. Hampton admitted that this was so.

"Do you mean to say," he was asked,." that when that man-a lessee-in-perpetuity—dies, and the wife is deprived of the assistance of her husband, that that is the proper time to select for raising the rent on them: is that the unanimous opinion of your organisation as representative of labour? "

The witness replied that it was.

"Are you prepared to assert that if a referendum were taken of the workers of the colony, they would, as Britishers, repudiate the 999 years' lease? "

"I am not prepared to say what the workers would do under any circumstances," answered Mr. Hampton. "I, for one, would vote in favour of revaluation of all existing leases, even without the qualifications which the (Trades and Labour) Conference added to it."

In reply to further questions, Mr. Hampton asserted that a referendum of the 20,000 men represented at the Conference would show a majority in favour of revaluation. "Speaking from the opinions of men I have met at the Conference, and by mixing with Unionists. I feel sure they are very much in favour of periodical revaluation of all lands held on lease." ..." What I have given was the decision of the Labour Party of New Zealand in Conference." . . "My opinions with regard to land tenure and revaluation are endorsed by the whole of the (Trades and Labour) Councils."

Is it any wonder that Crown tenants desire the freehold in orde to protect themselves from the retrospective revaluation which would be introduced by the labour socialists if they ever came into power?