MR A. W. RUTHERFORD ON THE FREEHOLD.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12365, 2 December 1905, Page 12

MR A. W. RUTHERFORD ON THE FREEHOLD.

THE FUTURE TENURE. Mr A. W. Rutherford, at hb Birch Hill meeting on. Thursday evening, said that tiro big quest ions before tho next Parliament will bo the Land Bill and £he Tariff. Regarding the former Sir Joseph Ward had said that it would Le impossible- to get along without a compromise. In 1592, Mr Rutherford said, tho word freehold etank in the nostrils. It was true Mr Rolk-e----1 ton. one of our few statesmen, attemptled to settle people on the leaseholds, but he -V3.S thwarted by his colleagues. About that period Sir John McKeuzie, Minister of Lands in the first Soddon Administration, came to the fore. Ho wan an ewentially strong man, with any amount of backbone. There was a legend, probably true, that Sir John Mekenzie kept his resignation always written out, and when his autocratic chief interfered he tendered it and only withdrew it when the Premier promised not to meddle again. Sir John Melvenzie. it was said by many, invented the lease-in-perpetiiity. Such was probably not the case, for it was in existence in some, parts of Scotland, but they mnt-t five Sir John McKonzie credit for hayI fng introduced it lu'ie. For doing th;s ho had boen lauded to tho skies and looked on ac a saviour of tho email farmers. Tho leasc-in-perpetuity had been a great success, and too eueccestul from a town Socialist's point of visw ac the Crown tenants wero now sturdily demanding tho freehold. The Premier recognised that tho coming pohttcal force was the man on the land. Mr be<idon had shown eigns of weakening and finally pv«n way when introducing tho Workers , Homes Bill. That Bill authorised tho purchasing of land im proximity to large towns and tho erection of homes thereon. The measure, under other arcumstances, enabled the workers to acquuo the freehold. When the Lands for Settlement Bill was in committee. Mr Baurne, a Government eiipporter, movjd that tne lease-in-perpctuity tenant have power to , convert his leasehold into freehold, lho Premier alto supported th:< 3. which was ; carried with the weight of the Guyerr.- , ment by eight or ten votes. lh f t : showed cleariy to Mr Rutherford r> , mind, nnd tho mind of every other , reasonable man, that tho Premier iiad > come right round from the leasehold to the freehold. That the Land Bill, to b<3 introduced would provide for giving tho freehold was beyond doubt, but there might be a keen discussion on its provisions. These conditions had simgestca salo (1) at the original value; (2) at ft valuation made at the time the right or purchaso is exercised; (3) sale at 1 per cent, phis accrued interest. The last was Mr Massey'e recommendation bach plan had ite "strong advocates. Mr ilMKoy's was a split-the-difference sugjrefition, and bearing in mind Sir Joseph Ward's observations as to a compromise, would bo probably the plan adopted. Of conree provision would be made, (-aid Mr Rutherford, to prevent the re-aggrega-tion of large estates. Ho went on to say they heard a great deal about tho Conservative money-lender, who would gradually acquire the freehold, but what farmers were going to borrow from the Conservative money-lender at 8 per cent. when they could borrow readily from tho Advances to Settlers Office at 4 or o per cent. ? The Conservative moneylender was a bogie set up by the leaiso- ; hold advocites, and was non-existent. Twelve or fourteen years ago the lea?«w in-perpetuity was oonsfdered the best form of land tenure, but in the lost Parliament Mr Ruther r ord did not tlvY.k ft found more than ten advocates. The longest period he then hea-xl named was 99 years. Hifi idea was that the <-orni should bo 66 to 99 years, with re-valua-tion every 21 or 33 years, the tenants ; to have the right of purcVso at any ; time during currency of the lease, at tho unimproved valuo at the timo tho ritjht of purchase was exorcised. This would, in effect, mako tho land tenure system an optional ore. Tho tenant, if he preferred, could retain tho leasehold, or if he preferred tho freeliold, could convert it For tho life of him at this point, ho could not resist Raying that he failed to see why tho leasehold, man should feel jealous of his neighbour, or the Litter should hold any les* opinion of the former. There was an inherent love of the freehold in every British brenst. He recognised tnat the leasehold w«s newefrary as «v stepping stone fo the freehold. Apropos of the love for the freehold, he might menTion its effect on the mindfi of a few of their greatest land reformers. Tho greatest of thcee was Sir John Mc7jC*>nzie. Did lip, when he wanted land for his sons, i-end them out to billot for the Jessclrcld? Xo. he purchased Bnsliey Park—the freehold. Did tho late member for Aehley. when he wanted land for himself and go to the ballot ftv the leasehold ? No. they tried to get G^ntui —the freehold— and not having Fucceeoed in this attempt tho late member wax now settled. Mv Rutherford bel Wed. en the freehold , nr. Wnimate. for like the baby in the Poar's soap advertisement, the ex-mem-ber for Ar-hley wan not going to be happy till he got it. Mr T. X T.iylor, tho great sdvocate, of for the nwwov" lwd fw<[ Tie would not allow another acre of Crown land to be sold, yet ho acnu'rfd fre? T, o'd on the Port Hills. Mr H. G. Efi w*ns quoted as mrtother example of the ssme JoTidency. Tne attitude of thr=e pent!-men was ar, much a puzzle to 3lr Rutherford «c it had nrobabjy been "to m<-r,t intelligent pei'sons. If M r s.--rs _I=itt Brothers, known as strenuous a-cTvocaioA for tpinperance, after spenTTintr the W-t of tTVir fives in denouncing tTi? l'quor traffic, settled down into a rmblie-boueo, and" hewn steadily to make mon?y out of the liquor trade—in n way they did not j do now—what would people think end , say? What then, was tli<? conclusion j as to persons who wac'ipd for and +lia frwho'd for Mmm- | pelves? He paid Board's l'.irl fu r n'shod .imp'c information on iht> I rwint *.l'at the man on +ho ]-"t1 ment to have the freehold. ThU was more st-vonn-ly in (lio NWI, (J,.iti in the Soit'h. Take r br> /If<;. trirt. TVio Mr J. O'Meara, M.H.R.. \ir<r) toVl Mr that ho was n fro (fielder, and thnt the rr-ajoritv of poop'e in district wore frefhokipiAr the bv-oleeiirm ta fill Uio lamented c»cnt!f»T>ianV' vacant sont. o\;i cf whom candidph** lioklinc aH views were prepoed. c Hawkins, tho Oppositionist, and a freeholder, was olertod. The Government enndidate, Mr Buick, who ' Mr Riithrrford h;id be»>n told was « nro- j lecturer, very nopu'ar. and all j bis political tiff a fupporter of the leas-.*- ! holcl. jettisoned every sentiment he held ; for tho leapeho'd in favour of tho free- . hold, knowing thnt it was hi? only chance of being returned. Pur-a man on tho land, continued Mr Rutherford, and bo b-">camo more or less a Conservative, and>| that man was determined to hare a j voice in future as to the tenure on which { he was to hold his land, and would no longer leave that tenure to be settled for'him at the dictation of the city socialist. Iγ. connection with Crown tenants, bo mipht mention the nnesticn of nji Elective Ijand Board. This, in his opinion, would be a great and grave , mistake. The bind belonged to the \ people, and therefore they would have : the right to vote. Owinc: to tho centralisation of population in the cities would return members o? the Latirenscn. Taylor and E!l type, and rh* Crown tenants under suoh a rejrimo would wish tlial they had never boon born. j