THE LANDS QUESTION.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1748, 6 September 1905, Page 20

THE LANDS QUESTION.

ROYAL COMMISSION’S REPORT. to* _ THE CRY FOR FREEHOLD, THE PREMIER'S PROPOSALS. OPPOSITION MOTION. The debate on the report of the Royal Commission on land, and the Premier’s motion in respect thereto, was com- " menced in the House of Representatives on Thursday evening, when Mr Seddon moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole to consider the report. Afr Massey: Does the Premier intend to take this as a want-of-confi-denoe motion? If so, he will be allowed an hour in which to express his

views, and I shall have the same priviSeddon: The hen. member will concede to me, I presume, the right to decide the course deemed to be in the best interests ot the country; Mr Massey: J. want yop to decide. Mr Seddon i I hope, in his radhness, the hon. member will nob attempt to intimidate me. When I have made it a no-confidence motion in the past, 1 have been tpld by the hon. member from the public platforms that whenever he (Mr Massey) brought a question before the House, the Premier immediately made a no-confidence motion of it, thereby hampering debate, and forcing members into the lobby. That has been the trouble of the hon. member, and those who support him. Time after time this has gone on, and now, when I desire to deal fairly with him, and not bring in the power of party, the hon. member complains. Don’t drive me. I ask you not to do it. I plead with you not to drive me to a course which you yourself have resented. Don’t do it. (Loud laughter from the Opposition benches). Mr Massey: How have the mighty fallen! Mr Seddon: The leader of the Opposition concedes, at all events, that I have been mighty. That will never fall to his lot. (Laughter.) I will take the same course with this matter as I did with the mail resolutions. If we had made that a no-confidence motion, what would have been the position of the hon. member? He would have said his right of free dehate was taken away by the course taken. I can give you precedent after precedent. We want a free and fair discussion upon one of the most important issues ever laid before the people of this country. Mr. .Massey: Where is your back now ? Mr Seddon: X ask the hon. member has he given us the slightest warning that he would intercept the motion ? He gave the Government ho warning until I gave notice of the motion 1 have put before the House, and he sought to allure me into an ambush, and have myself and party annihilated. (Laughter.) And he finds himself practically annihilated before we have commenced talking. Why, the hon. member has adopted our policy. (Opposition dissent.) An hon. member: Has he got his back to the door ? Mr Seddon: Some people haven’t got a back to put to the door. The Government of the day is going to bring down such legislation as it thinks fit, but we are not bound to bring down legislation either on the advice of a •Commission or at the dictation of the Opposition. The hon. meinber wanted to take away the fights of the people of the colony by making New Zealand join the Australian Federation, and he must now admit that he was wrong. An hon. member: Nothing to do with this question. Proceeding to deal with the amendment of the leader of tne Opposition, the Premier said Mr Massey had declared that the failure of the Government to formulate a land policy, even with the report of the Land Commission to assist it, “is an evasion of constitutional responsibility.” But, when they had dealt with the resolutions he (the Premier) had submitted, they would say that there had been no evasion of responsibility. The hon. member, on the public platform throughout this country, had told the people, “I want the Grown, tenants to have the freehold at the original valuation.” Mr Massey: Hear, hear. Mr Seddon: Well, why didn’t he put that in his amendment? Mr Massey: No terms at all are mentioned. Mr Seddon: Where is his courage now ? Why didn’t x he put it in his amendment that the tenants should be able to acquire the freehold at the .original valuation ? Why are those words wanting ? Mr Massey: I’ll tell you. Mr iSeddon: He knew if he attempted to move this, he wouldn’t have nad twenty supporters in the Hfrnse. Where is his courage now? "Why, he has run away. (Great laughter.) He says he would put in certain safeguards. These are to prevent the aggregation of large estates. Why, these are in our proposals. Mr W. Fraser: Ours first. Mr Seddon: Ha, ha. Ours, sir. They (pointing to the Opposition benches) are the representatives of the large estate owners in this country. There are, sir, a few bright exceptions. I have one behind me, in the member for Hurunui. An hon. meiqber: Where is he? Mr Seddon: He will be there when wanted on division. I have said in my proposals that any person holding over 5000 acres of first-class land shall buy no more. Now, where are they on that point? The only amendment which •gives us something definite is this (Mr Taylor’s), “No legislation affecting the lands of the colony will be satisfactory that does not provide for the cessation of the sale of Crown lands.” There you have a at.faight-out issue, and no quibbling. , , Mr Massey: The hon. member has just used a word which you, sir, yesterday ruled out of order.

The Speaker: If the Premier used it, he must withdraw. Mr Seddon: I have not said it as applied to the hon. gentleman, but to the resolution, which I said was a quibbling resolution. The Speaker: I can see no difference between what a person writes and says. (Laughter.) Cries of “Withdraw, Withdraw” from the Opposition benches. Mr Seddon: Then, sir, I withdraw, because it is the ruling of the House of Commons, not supported by yourself. (Laughter.) Discussing the proposals, the Premier said that before they made a change from the optional system, good reasons must be shown, and up to the present no good reasons had been shown for the change. He still adhered to the optional system. There were only fifteen million acres of native and Grown lands available in the colony for settlement. They must be very careful how they dealt with the remnant of land available. He told them that there would probably be an extension of the land for settlement policy. What was the hon. leader of the Opposition doing ? He was driving the House and the country into the position of altering the law in the direction of increasing the land tax. That would remedy some of the evils that at present existed. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman was going to punish his own friends. It would 1 take £7,000,000 if the Grown tenants were to have advantage of the hon gentleman’s suggestions. Where was that money to come from ? He (Mr Seddon) undertook to say that every moneylender in the country was behind the hon gentleman’s proposals. Mr Massey wanted to force the Grown tenants into the hands of the moneylender. He claimed that one of the results of the inquiry by the Land Commission was to prove the satisfactory administration in connection with the lands of the colony. It showed that the administration was practically all that was desired. He hailed w ith satisfaction and pleasure the results of the investigations of the Commission. The first question on the resolutions related to the change that would be made in respect to the lease-in-perpetuity. In this, he, the members of the House, and the country differed with the Commission, and said that, the lease-in-perpetuity should be a thing of the past. There should he lease for a shorter term, and the leader of the Opposition could , not do otherwise than agree with the Government in this. A mistake had been made in the past in exacting from tenants away back from ■civilisation the same conditions as were exacted from tenants with holdings in more advantageous positions. The lands remaining for settlement should be classified. He considered the Government and the Parliament would be doing the right thing if far-back land was leased for the first four years for nothing, the next four years at 2 per cent., the next four years at 3 per cent., and during the whole term the rent did not exceed 4 per cent, upon the capital value of the holding. In many cases there was no real value on the land except that created by the tenant, so why should the value be increased upon him when he came to renew the lease ?

Mr Massey: That’s what we say. Mr Sodden: Of course. As soon as I make a proposal I find the hon gentleman stealing my clothes. He went on to deprecate the penalising of the settler. Approaches should be made to his holdings, and schools should be erected for his children. “And,” he went on, “ let us give to the old tenants the same as we are offering the new tenants where the conditions are equal. That is what we shall ask the House to support us in when we bring legislation down.” An hon member: Etvery time. Mr Seddon regretted that a large number of people—artisans and shopkeepers—had been deprived from taking up land because of the residential conditions imposed. People who had the cash had bought land and placed their sons, or representative's, upon it, but that had bem denied to those who could not afford to purchase. It was late in the day, but opportunity should be given every soul in the country to make a home for himself. The leader of the Opposition was assuming the role of spider, and was saying to the Crown tenant fly, “Gome in, come in, come in.” He (Mr Seddon) hoped the fly would not be trapped into the web set for him. Mr Massey wanted to bring the Grown tenant in to pay the land tax. He had joined the singletaxers. (Laughter,) Before the Land Commission 985 persons gave evidence. One hundred and seventy-three were Grown tenants, and 167 were against freehold, and satisfied with their present leases. Five thousand five hundred tenants of the Grown had not been called upon at all, and he took it that as they had not been called they were satisfied with the tenure. He asked the House to allow the resolutions to go to committee, and so facilitate the passing of any necessary legislation. He proposed to bring down a bill this session, and those supporting the Government must do that which they believed to bo in the best interests of their districts and the colony as a whole. The object of the leader of the Opposition

was to place members on the Govern* ment side in a false position, but ha (Mr Seddon) would be no party to it. (Applause.) MR MASSEY’S AMENDMENT. The leader of the Opposition moved the following amendment (differing in terms to that of which he had originally given notice) :—The Government, having received the report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the best form of land tenure for the colony, and having failed to formulate any land policy which will grant to the tenants of the Grown the right to acquire the freehold of their farms on equitable terms, thereby forfeits the confidence of this House. Mr Massey said he had done his best to convince the Premier of some sense of the dignity of his position. He asked Mr Seddon if he would accept the amendment as a motion of want of confidence. Mr Seddon: "When the division takes place I will give the hon gentleman my reply. ’ Mr Massey, after waiting for the laughter-of members to subside, said the answer reminded him of nothing bo much as the bleat of a frightened sheep. The speech of the Premier was, he honestly believed, the most miserable and contemptible that he had ever heard in Parliament. Mr Seddon: The hon gentleman must toe the mark and withdraw. Mr Massey: I withdraw. I regret that Parliamentary usage will not allow me to express myself on the attitude taken up by the Premier. Every follower of the Premier in the House and country would be ashamed of the Premier’s speech. The amendment he (Mr Massey) had originally given notice of was not sufficient to kick the Premier into accepting it as a want of confidence, and he (Mr Massey) was doing his best towards the desired end in the new amendment. The Premier practically said, “We find ourselves in face of the coming elections afraid to take up a definite position. We admit that we are forfeiting our self-respect 5 but we ask our followers to excuse us, and they will he rewarded at the other fellow’s expense.” The position taken up by the Premier was the most miserable ever taken up by any man in the position that the Premier occupied. What did his colleague, Sir Joseph Ward, think of it? Was it- something that a K.G.M.G. would lend himself to? (Laughter.) It might be -worthy of an LL.D., but not of a K.G.M.G. He always understood that a knight was a gentleman who looked his difficulties in the face and did not run away from them. 1 The Premier had posed as a political Sandow—a pretty Sandow! He was like the Russian commander who, being driven back by the Japs, wired to headuarters that he had made an offensive movement to the rear. (Laughter.) It was only a year ago that Mr Seddon had at Newtown stated that the freehold proposals were immoral. Were they still immoral, or was it another instance of circumstances altering cases? At one time the great boast of the Government was its land policy. What would Sir John McKenzie —a man, every inch of him—have done if he had been in charge of the Land Department that night ? He would have come down and said: “These are my principles and proposals, and I shall stand by them.” If the House had not supported them, . he would have fallen with honour. That was not the position taken up by the Premier. The motion was not worthy of a statesman. It was the motion of a miserable opportunist-—of a man without political principles. His principles were made to swallow. Mr Duthie: You can’t insult him. Mr Massey: No; I am trying very hard. At one time the hon gentleman was looked upon as af strong man, and if he had gone out of Parliament at the beginning of this session that reputation would have followed him, but not now. Mr Seddon: Hear, hear. Mr Massey: I leave the resolutions to the followers who still intend to follow the Premier. Mr Seddon: They cannot do better than treat your resolution with contempt. Mr Massey: I express my contempt for the hon. gentleman. The report of the Land Commission was not in accordance with the evidence, and if it was not intended that the report should be in accordance with the evidence, what then was the good of taking the evidence ? He was not in favour of State ownership, and ho believed that the lands of the colony should be in the possession of as many people. as possible, consistent with their making a living. Give the people a lease, and •give them an option with. it. He believed that the country could not prosper under a system of State tenantry. After reading a copy of a telegram from Mr Seddon to Mr Taylor and other land nationalisers and single-taxers on the stump, offering them “best wishes,” Mr Massey quoted from a newspaper to show that settlers were leaving the colony with large sums of moneyMr E- M. Smith: They must be Massey: They are not all like the hon. member, who can get members of his family into the public service. Mr R- McKenzie: That article was written to order. Mr Massey: No, it was not written to order. There were three systems of tenure: —Gash purchase, oocupatio*

with right of purchase, and the lease-in-perpetuity. The proposal that he had put forward on many occasions was to enable the lease-in-perpetuity holder to overtake holders under the other two systems. Which were the more liberal of the proposals—those from his side of the House or those from the Government side? He considered that where the freehold was to be granted, opportunity should be given to pay the* money by instalments. If a purchaser could pay 5 per cent, of the capital value, he should be allowed to do so. He was occupying the whole of his time supplying the Government with a policy. Mr Ell: What about State fire insurance ? Mr Seddon: \VJi-at about yo-ur land, policy to-night ? Mr Massey: I move the amendment. Mr Herries seconded the amendment. The Hon T. Y. Duncan (Minister for Hands) said he had just listened to a most miserable speech. (Daughter.) “He talks about his policy. There is not an item of policy in the speech. He says it was his best! If that’s his best, good heavens —■—!” Mr Graham: Mouldy bread. Mr Duncan: He's simply floundering. The Government is not afraid to bring in a bill when it is necessary to deal with the land, as stated by Mr Massey. The land laws of the present Government had put the settlers of Otago and Canterbury to the front, and kept them there. Sir John McKenzie’s land legislation had put New Zealand in the forefront of the world.

Mr Massey: Yes, he was a man. Mr Duncan said the Government was always getting inquiries from all parts of the world’ from people who wanted to copy these laws. 'He was in favour of giving tenants land, and the opportunity to pay for it, if they wishedHe had always said that. Mr Buchanan:’ No, you didn’t. What about the land for settlement? Mr Duncan said he was not in favour to-day of giving the freehold under the Hand for Settlements Act. Mr T. Mackenzie: The bulk of the evidence was in favour of the freehold.

Mr Duncan: Yes, the Farmers’Union and the freeholders. As soon as one gets the freehold the others will claim it too. The report of the Commission showed there was nothing to be desired in the working of the Hand Act and the administration of the Commissioners. The leader of the Opposition had accused him of stopping the Hand Bill for a year. Well, he did it because things were so unsettled. As for the trouble with the Paeroa settlers, it was the Opposition who had advised them wrongly. If they had let it alone the people would have had the land years ago. Mr Moss: Why did you, go back on your promise ? Mr Duncan: It was you that went back on your promise. I have it in black and white, so I have you there. (Laughter.) We want to do work. We don’t want empty talk. The propositions made by the Government are open and wide enough for anything. All improvements should be registered, because in years to come they -were lost sight of. Settlers had had the option all through, hut not so many were going in for purchase as for lease with right of purchase. Mr Massey: It’s, the same thing. Mr Duncan denied that it was the same thing. Hand that was roaded, and ready for settlement was pretty well taken up at the present time. The native land ought to he settled at once. It would take about half to settle the natives, leaving about three million acres to be settled as proposed under long tenure leases with right of renewal. In the north there were acres of land going rotten. The great bulk of the natives were doing nothing, and it was time they were approached. Mr Massey had told them nothing about how to stop the aggregation of large estates. Mr Massey: I have plenty of time. Mr Hawkins: Your party has always told us it can’t be done. Mr Duncan said there were always discontented persons who were agitated, and wanted to sell out and make money. Mr Massey did not believe in his ow-n proposals. He had run away from the first of them. Mr Massey: I will give you something stronger. Mr Allen: Where’s your land policy ? Mr Duncan: Here it is now in these proposals. t Mr Seddon; I rise to a point of order. [After a proposal has been made and submitted to the House can it be altered? The Speaker: No, not without the leave of the House. Mr Seddon: In that case I wish to have the resolution submitted to the House as given to the House hy the leader of the Opposition. Mr Massey: I believe there is a standing-order to the effect that an amendment can he altered, that is, as far as verbal alterations are concerned, but the meaning of it cannot be altered. Mr Seddon: The hon. member gave an amendment which was given to the Speaker, and seconded by the member

for the Bay of Plenty. After that it has been altered in a material sense. Mr Massey: No. Mr Seddon: I say when you introduced at the foot of the motion “ the Government has forfeited,” you altered the sense. The hon member had r»lenty of time when he gave notice of the amendment which was on the order paper, but he moved another, and now we have before the House a third amendment. Gan an alteration be made without the leave of the House after it has been seconded and is in possession of the chair? The Speaker: I have already ruled that it cannot be altered. Mr Massey: Very well, sir, I stand by the first amendment. • Mr Kirkbride asked if the late Sir John McKenzie would have offered to undo his land policy as the Premier was doins: r.ow ?

Mr Seddon: What have you been doing since you have been in the House?

Mr Kirkl ride said revaluation was the very thing the late Sir John McKenzie set his face against. Bather than be out-voted, the Premier said they could do what they liked. He had his ear to the ground. The Hand Commission was simply to provide a loophole for the Premier and the Government to creep out of their responsibilities. On certain points the Premier could not hold himself in patience until Commission had reported. There farmer in the country who got the value of his improvements written off the value of his farm. Such an item as clearing should stand as an improvement for all time. The Commission found that tenants in occupation were often held responsible for rents they were quite unable to pay. According to the Valuer-General, the increase in the value of the Crown leaseholds was only £742,064, while the Premier said it was over two millions that would be given as a free gift if tenants were given the right of obtaining the freehold.

Mr E. M. Smith defied the Opposition to say it had not been the honest endeavour of the Government to put the land within reach of the poor man. He intended to vote against the amendment.

Mr Wilford said the Government had been twitted with refusing to* make this a no-confidence motion, but, to his mind, that was the very thing the Premier should not do. The scope of this question was so varied, the points of discussion so many, and at- times so contradictory, that it would be impossible for the Government in a series of resolutions, or even in the proposals of the leader of the Opposition, to treat this question as one of no-confidence. What fairer proposal could be made than that of the Premier, who desired to give members a free hand on the various proposals dealing with this complex and intricate question? What no doubt would have to come some day, so far as the Ministry was concerned, was a coalition between those members of the Opposition with Liberal principles and the Liberal party proper, for the purpose of keeping out the extremists. (Laughter from Mr Laurenson.) On the eve of the general election the Premier had taken a bold and decisive course. (Laughter from the Opposition.) The Premier had put every member of his party into this position: They had got to vote straight out in committee on every proposal submitted by the Premier, and the constituents supporting those members would be able to see in what way they dealt with land tenure. Mr Ell hoped that- after the present session it would be impossible for there to be aggregation of large estates. He believed that the clause with regard to abolition of the lease-in-pefpetuity would meet with the approval of the people of the colony. He described the position taken up by the leader of the Opposition as a barefaced, deliberate bid for votes—a shamefaced attempt to secure the Crown tenants’ votes—a bribe Mr J. Allen rose to a point of orders and asked if the term “bribe” could be used ? The Speaker ruled against the use of the term. Mr Ell: I withdraw. , Sir Joseph Ward suggested that he should substitute the word “inducement.” Mi* Ell: It’s too mild. I won’t use it. Members of Land Boards should be elected directly by the people. Mr Jas. Allen considered that the member for the Hutt. in his position as advocate for the Government,' had made out a very weak defence. His argument entirely failed, because the leader of the Opposition had been clear in his policy in the past, as he was today. He (the member for Bruce) never knew in the whole history of this colony or of any other country so deplorable a position as they had reached—that a man calling himself a leader of public opinion, and whose business, as leader of the House, was to formulate his policy, should, ask the House to decide the matter for him, and, as the member for the Hutt had indicated, to search for a land policy through the medium of the committee of the House. Mr Wilford: Don’t pervert what I said. Mr Allen: They were not your words, but.it amounts to exactly the same thing. If Sir John McKenzie was with: us to-day he would not allow the Premier to search for a land policy. When the Premier gets these resolutions out of committee, what is he going to do?

Mr Seddon: Time will tell. Mr Allen: A Minister with any selfrespect would have brought down his policy in the shape of a bill in respect to land settlement. There are no ideas here. Mr Seddon: What are yours? Mr Allen : We have no power to bring down a bill or we would do so very quickly. Mr Bedford said the Premier pretended to be the leader of the House, yet he did not know his own mind and was seeking for an excuse to conciliate the sentiments of his own party expressed in favour of the freehold. Mr Seddon: Where are you ? Mr Bedford: I am prottv certain on this question, x am opposed to the further sale of Crown land, and in favour of the leasehold with periodical revaluation. The debate was adjourned. FURTHER DISCUSSION. The debate on tlie land question, which w r as commenced on Thursday night in the House of Representatives, was continued last Friday evening. Mr Hogg said New* Zealand had been the theatre of some of the grandest reforms that had done service to the human race. And now we were called upon to make one of the greatest reforms. The speech, made by Mr Massey on the previous evening was a most unhappy one. It was permeated with abuse, not only of the Premier and the Cabinet, not only of the Liberal party, but of the members of the Land Commission. Mr Massey: I’ve not done with them yet. Mr Hogg contended that valuable information had been obtained by the Commissioners, although their report in some respects was contradictory. He believed that for years past improved administration had been demanded. The very best of the colony’s land was locked up, and in comparatively few hands—held on freehold. In every part of New Zealand landlordism was growing up like an evil weed. Mr Laurenson: Hear, hear. Mr Hogg: There is land that was acquired for a few shillings that is now bringing into those belonging to the class that has been called “ the idle rich,” 15s, 20s, and up to 30s an acre as dairy farms. Many people who did not know the circumstances might think that the dairy farmer, hy reason of the good returns, was making a little for T tune. As a matter of fact, even in Taranaki, where the richest of the dairy farms were, the life was slavery of the worst kind. An hon member: Nonsense.

Mr Hogg: If it was not for the children, who got nothing for their work, a great many of those farmers would be unable to get bread. For bush settlers he had every sympathy, hut they did not want the freehold. Those settlers were not clamouring for the freehold. It was the “ land sharks ” behind them that were raising the clamour. It was the freeholder who was trying to tempt the tenants to their ruin. What was really wanted by the tenants was not the freehold, hut roads and bridges, and cheap money, and more liberality on the part of the Government. The lease-in-perpetuity tenure had served a good purpose, and had enabled hundreds of men to become independent who otherwise would have been unable to go upon the land. The lease-in-perpetuity had been a step on the road to future progress. Mr T. Mackenzie said if Mi* Hogg wished to avoid the curse of landlordism he should raise his voice to assist the settler to become the owner of his holding. If there was a fall in the demand for our produce, there would be a corresponding response in the value of land, and it would probably result in a claim for a rebate or reconsideration from the Grown tenants. The Government wished the House to lead it on the land question. If, with all the experience at its command, the Ministry could not bring down a policy to suit the people of this colony, then it should vacate the benches and make way for a Ministry that would pin its faith to a policy. He urged the Government not to allow of the effect its decision would have on a future election to influence it, hut .to* determine what was best for the interests of the colony, lay its proposals before the House, and stand or fall by the result. Mr Willis pointed out that the only policy offered by the Opposition was a policy of obstruction.. If a vote was taken of the Crown tenants, the Opposition would find that those tenants had little to thank Mr Massey and his followers for. The Opposition talked about their sympathies for the Crown tenants! Huh! If the Opposition had had its way, there would have been no leaseholders to express sympathy for. When the Land for Settlements Act had been introduced, the Opposition in a body had voted against it. The perpetual lease had teen a frost, and was practically a freehold. He thought an eminently satisfactory method of leasing would be to lease the land for fifty or one hundred years, with periodical revaluations. This had been done with satisfactory results by various local bodies. «vnui\

Mr Fowlds said the question of how the remaining lands of the colony were to be dealt with was of more importance to the landless people of the cities than

to anybody else. To go round and ask the leaseholders how they would like the freehold of the properties at the original valuation was like asking a schoolboy how he would like a shilling. He referred to the statement made by the leader of the Opposition that Mr Seddon had sent a telegram offering good wishes to a number of single-taxers. Mr Seddon: There wasn’t a word about single tax in it. Mr Fowlds: The Premier has not progressed sufficiently in his education to see the virtues of single tax. As to the Land Commission, he pointed out that Mr Campbell, head of the Valuation Department, ■ had given evidence that the Crown leaseholds had increased in value by over £900,000 since the leases were issued. This was the greatest bonus for votes ever offered to any class. He would he quite prepared to give to leaseholders the freehold on to-day’s valuation under a proper system of future valuation taxation. He would support the resolutions of the Premier, but would endeavour to mould them when in committee to a form which he believed to be in the best interests of the people of the colony. He advocated an increase of one penny in the £1 in the land taxation. This would mean that Customs duties could be reduced by £2 per family, and the bulk of the taxation would be borne by the owners of large estates. Mr Buchanan contended that because the remaining lands of the colony were being taken up by freeholders and leaseholders, it was nonsense to say they were being lost. The Government had lost its courage. The Ministry took refuge last year under a Royal Commission; this year it?wished to take refuge behind members of the House. There would be no bill brSughlTdown this session. Mr Laurenson said every single-taxer was a freeholder. He was prepared to vote for the freehold if the Opposition would vote for a penny in the £1 increase in the land tax. Mr Lewis said the Opposition had not found it convenient to obscure their views until they got into power, for they regarded the freehold as the only form of tenure which most men wanted. The interest in the debate had flagged considerably throughout the evening. The discussion was lifeless. At 12.20 a.m. there was a bare quorum in the Chamber. Mr Moss, addressing nineteen members out of a House of eighty, ridiculed, the peregrinations of the Land Commission. Ministers’ policy seemed to be to “ sit tight, and make promises they don’t keep.” Mr Remington, speaking at 1 a.m. to seventeen members (nine Opposition and eight Government), several of whom were entirely oblivious to the proceedings, expressed concurrence with the views of those who advocated granting the freehold at the original valuation. Off the motion of Mr Houston, the debate was adjourned. OPPOSITION AMENDMENTS. The leader of the Opposition has given notice to move a number of further amendments to the Premier’s land proposals when the House goes into committee on this question. In regard to clause 1 (which provides for the repeal of the present law in respect to lease-in-perpetuity), Mr Massey will move to insert a provision for the option of purchase during the first term of the proposed substituted form of lease.

The next amendment has reference to clause 2, which reads as follows: ‘•'That, in respect to lessees who now--occupy under lease in-perpetuity, and who have acquired land under the Land Act, 1892, whether they are to have the right to acquire the freehold of their sections at the present market value,” This is in the form of an interrogative, and clause 3 (dealing with the question of obtaining the freehold at the original value with interest added) is similarly placed. Mr Massey will move two amendments, which, if carried, will consolidate these two clauses with one definite proposal to give the option of the freehold. The combined clause would then read as follows: “ That lessees who now occupy under lease-in-perpetuity, and who have acquired land under the Land Act, 1892, shall have the right to acquire the freehold of their sections at the original value, upon payment of 1 per cent, difference between 4 per cent, and 5 per cent., plus compound interest on 1 per cent, from day of selection, or the said lessee may change the tenure to occupation with right of purchase.”

The next amendment deals with, clause 4, which is also in the interrogative form, and deals with the question of whether tenants under the Lands for Settlement Act shall be allowed to' acquire the freehold, and, if so, whether they shall acquire it at the present market, or the original, yalue. Mr Massey’s amendment proposes to alter the clause to make it read that the tenants shall have the right to acquire the freehold at the original value. If thus amended, the clause would read, “That lessees under lease-in-perpetuity of lands acquired under the Land for Settlements Act shall he allowed to acquire the freehold of their sections at the original value, the purchase moneys

to be expended in the purchase of other lands for close settlement.” The remaining amendment is in rererenoe to clause 11, which deals with the constitution of Land Boards. Mr M!assey proposes to strike out the words, “That the present system of nominated Land Boards be adhered to.” The amendment also proposes to provide that at least the Crown tenants shall have the right to elect one representative to each Band Board. Mr Field to move —That there shall be a more complete classification of land than at present exists, or jfchat the maximum quantity of land to he held by each settler shall he determined on a valuation basis. Mr Jennings:—That this House is of opinion that all lands in the Auckland and Taranaki land districts, hut excluding those open under the lands for settlement tenure, which were thrown open for selection under the lease-in-perpetuity tenure only he again submitted to those selectors now occupying such sections so that they may reconvert holdings under occupation with right -of purchase tenure. [Note. — Selectors were debarred from availing themselves of the provisions of the Band Act which provides for taking up lands under three options—viz., cash, occupation with right of purchase, and lease-in-perpetuity-3 Mr Remington:—-That this House is of opinion that the option of conversion to occupation with right of purchase tenure should be extended to lessees of small grazinz-runs under part five of the Band Act, 1892. . . Mr Moss: —That this House is of opinion that a reasonable upset price should be at once placed on the sections in the town of Paeroa, and the freehold thereof sold by public auction, either subject to existing leases and encumbrances, or under conditions that will secure to the present tenants the value of their improvements.