THE LAND QUESTION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 12654, 7 September 1904, Page 6

THE LAND QUESTION.

THE NO-CONFIDENCE DEBATE. [BY TELEGRAPH. —rBESS ASSOCIATION*.] Wellington, Tuesday. In the House of Representatives this afternoon Mr, Jennings resumed the debate on the land question. He said that since Friday night he had travelled some 500 miles, and he had found that very little interest was being taken in the debate in the country. Most people had made up their minds as to land tenure. With regard to the Royal Commission, he expressed the opinion that it should be composed of independent men from outsidai the House, as there was too much party feeling among_ members to enable them to give an unbiassed opinion en the subject. Personally, he was strongly in favour oi: the freehold system of land tenure, and would like to see the deferred payment system brought into operation again. Mr. Houston considered that the setting up of this Royal Commission was the only way in which the disabilities the Crown tenants now suffered could be found out, and the only means by which redress could be given. If by a" Royal Commission they could remove the anomalies of the land bcmrds it would do a great deal of good to the country and the settlers. There would be no system of land tenure more acceptable to the people of Auckland than the homestead system. If the evils that the settlers suffered from could be removed by the Royal Commission, it was his justification for voting tor the Premier's motion;, although ha favoured the freehold tenure.

Mr. McLachia'n believed that if the Royal Commission did bo good it could do no harm. The land reformers were 50 years too late. The good Crown land was all gone now, and what was left should be given to the settlers, under any conditions they liked. He favoured the" freehold, but he did not favour the present Crown settlers being given the freehold.. They had taken land under the 999 years' lease. Let them stick to their bargain. If they wanted the freehold of their estates let them surrender their leases 2 and have the land put up to auction.

Mr. Wilford said the only real " serfs" amongst the landholders were small fanners, whose holdings were mortgaged to large companies. If the power to mortgage were given to the freeholder a step would be taken back to the eld state of things, the building up of large estates, at which the lands for settlement policy was directed. He would vote for the Premier's motion, at the same time declaring himself in favour of the freehold for the man who could afford to purchase, and the leasehold for the man who had not the necessary capital to purchase. Mr. Field, who announced himself a freeholder, complained of the intangible nature of the Leader of the Opposition's amendment. If Mr. Massey had brought down an amendment providing for the abolition of the lease in perpetuity, and for the granting of the optional system of tenure, he (Mr. Field) would have supported it; but the Leader of the Opposition was merely actuated by a desire to oust the Government, and to do it with the assistance of those members on the Government aide of the House who favoured the freehold. He favoured a Royal Commission being set up. The debate was interrupted by the halfpast five p m. adjournment. The House resumed at half-past seven p.m. Mr. Kaihau dealt with the question as it affected the Maoris, the majority of whom were landowners. He was glad that the Europeans were not granted their freehold, inasmuch as it would bring many cf the members of the House into sympathy with his advocacy of freeing the Maori lands from the restrictions imposed upon them. He considered it would be waste of money to appoint a Royal Commission, as no benefit would result from it. He urged that a Bill should be brought in at once to grant the freehold to both the Maori and the pakeha. Every man, he urged, should De granted the right to participate in the freehold. Mr. Moss contended that the appointment of a commission would mean the expenditure of thousands of pounds and a delay of two years in dealing with the laud question, while the carrying of Mr. Massey's amendment would mean that the House would go to work at once. Why, he asked, did not the Minister for Lands move the resolution? It was in his Department. He believed that if Mr. Duncan was not led by his colleagues they would have found him fighting for the freehold as keenly as the Premier was pretending to fight for the leasehold. Mr. A. L. D. Fraser said that any doubts he had regarding the need of a commission) had been removed by the speeches made during the debate. He deprecated the fears that had been expressed regarding the manner in which the commission would be appointed. He asked the Leader of the Opposition to state what his policy was on the land question, and on what terms he would grant the freehold. In reference to the speech of Mr. Kaihau, Mr. Fnwer said that hon. gentleman was a political humbug, and quoted a contradictory speech of his in proof thereof. He (Mr. Fraser) did not look upon 1 the amendment as a want of confidence, but he wanted to know what the Opposition land policy was. Mr. W. Fraser maintained that the House j was quite competent to deal with the land question. Replying to criticisms from the Government benches, he denied that tho granting of the freehold would mean a financial loss by way of revenue, seeing that the freehold would not be sold for nothing. He denied also that the Opposition wished to see the aggregation of large estates, although it might suit the political ends of the Government to say that it did. Mr. Bennet thought that the lease in perpetuity was a better system of tenure for the tenant than for the Crown, and it woald have been far better for the Crown if there had been no lease ia perpetuity. Mr. Lawry blamed the Opposition for not challenging the proposed commission when the Governor's Speech was being discussed. If the Leader of the Opposition would bring down a policy to give the Crown tenants the option of purchase, he would support him. The best system was the freehold. He asked why the Leader of the Opposition supported the referendum, that abomination of abominations, which proposed to allow political questions to be decided by people outside the House, who only represented themselves individually. Mr. Fiatman expected great results from the -work of the Royal Commission. The reason he did not believe in giving the Crown tenants the freehold was because they were better off under present conditions. The House rose at a quarter to 1 a.m.