THE LAND FIGHT

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 6995, 8 December 1909, Page 9

THE LAND FIGHT

COLLAPSE OF THE DEBATE. THE RESULT OF A CAUCUS DECISION. SNUB FOE ME FISHEK. Evidently as the result of the caucus held by the Government party at midday yesterday, the interrupted debate on the committee, report of tlio Laud Laws Amendment Bill was brought to a. sudden conclusion when the question again r«me before tho House ywte-iday alterjioan. ~,. .... . Mr J. A. Hunan (Invorcargill) utilised the low minutes he had at his disposal jn oxpluining that he did not »«li to further discuss the merits of the cjuc*t:«n at any length, ah he would probably have another opportunity later on. The Speaker then put Hie question:— That the report of the Lands Committee on the Lands Laws Amendment Bill do lie upon the table; witn the addition of tho amendment moved by Mr Hemes: "And that tho minute* of proceedings ot the committee with reference to the If ill uo laid upon tho table of the Honae mid printed." PROPOSAL HX Mil FISHER. Mr F. M. B. Fisher (Wellington Central) then rose- for the purpose, as he explained, not of prolonging the debate, hut to point out the attitude ot tho Uovernment in the past, hi JW.iJhe House had been asked to vote upon everv conceivable question relating to the land. At that time u motion, mo\eil to Mr Taylor, that tho sale of Crown \Us should r.ca«,, had only ten supporters. The other day a similar motion had. received the support of sc u - teen members. The Government had a few years ago brought down a leasehold .-measure und a measure which was na.lt a leasehold one. Now they had brought £ measure down which was an abso uto ■renunciation of the principle of Ip.jbciiold on tho part ot members of Cabinet, who had always preached that ««tiinc. He understood a decision had been arrived at to abandon the Land Bill. Aie we to go on feasting for ever on abandoned laml BUls?'\ heasked. Was to bo «aid that those in. this country who weie in favour of reform were to go along year after year and be satisfied with the production of a, Bill and not with lis enactment? Wea-e they to stand by and oeo tho Crown lands alienated or tne system of renewable leases knocked on the head? If members of tho House- refused to say that they could not allow such things to pass without expressing an' opinion on them, then the sooner they got a new Parliament the better it Would be for the country. " . Mr Wilford (sotto voce): With Mx Fisher as Premier.

A PISHERIAN THREAT. Mr Fisher, continuing, said that if members voted in favour of the landpolicv of the Government as outlined, possibly steps would be taken to organise. J, campaign which would bring forth a, new land policy during the course of the next year. He desired to move:—• That all the words after "that" bo struck out with a view to the insertion of the words, that in tho opinion of this House— The Speaker hero interrupted Mr Fisher with the direction: No words can be struck out. _„;„ Mr Fisher: Very well, I will move ihe addition of these words— That in the opinion of this House the land proposals of the Govern-. men* are unsatisfactory. " . ' NOT SECONDED. "Is there any seconder to the addition?" asked the Speaker Mr A. L. Herdman, (Wellington North) halt rose in his seat, and then slowly subsided without speaking. Members T\rho noticed him laughed loudly. No seconder yet being, forthcoming, -the Spoakeir again asked if there was *Mt Herd-man then formed the target ior several sarcastic remarks. >t "Stand up like a man and second it, demanded one voice, while another memiber remarked: "First he would and then be wouldn't." , . , Mr Speaker: The amendment is not ■ 6e Mr ld a'H. Poole (Auckland West): Ah! a rap on the knuckles. The report of the committee, as amended, was agreed to, and tho House pro.ceeded to consider other business.

A BRIEF TKTJCE BATTLE BREAKS OUT AGAIN. PROPOSAL BY LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION. "TAKE YOUR CHANCE." MOTION LOST BY A LARGE MAJORITY. Very brief, however, was the truce which had been called, for before the afternoon was out the. leader ■ o± tne Opposition had set the battle going again. Mr Maasey's ' opportunity came when the House was in Committee on the Land for Settlement Administration Bill, to which he moved an addition ■which provided material for debate until well on in the evening. Clause 9 of the Bill deals with sums <of money that may be raised for the purposes of the measure, ana to it Mr Massey moved to add an important new sub-section aa follows: To provide further funds the Minister is hereby empowered to sell to any lessee of land held ..under this Act the fee simple of the land occupied by such lessee subject to the following conditions:—(l) The ppchase price shall be the original value of the land; (2) any .lessee on any day appointed for the payment, of rent may pay to the Superintendent any sum not lees than one-tenth of the capital value in part payment of the purchase money for the freehold, and his future rent shall henceforward be proportionately reduced. "I am in hopes,". said Mr Massey, "that the Minister will get up and say that he will accept the amendment. "No, I won't," said Sir Joseph Ward nmmpHv amid laughter. Mr Massey affected to be disappointed, saving I hat after the freehold proposals of" the Government 1-e thought that the Prime Minister would willingly support the proposal he had just made, 'juicy had heard a lot about the land question, and he thought that before the session came to an end they should have an opportunity of coming to a conclusion upon it, at least, upon some of the issues. It was quito evident that the Land Bill was dead as Julius Caesar. "Oh, no, it's not!" said the Prime Minister. WHAT OP THE BILL? "Then will you give us an assurance that it will be gone on with this session?" Mr Massey asked. The Prime Minister: Yes, if Mr Massey: No if's. It was quite evident that an arrangement had been made between the leaseholders and members of the Government party, the understanding being that the Bill would be dropped at least for. this session—(Voices: "No!") —and that in the meantime it should be allowed to come upon the floor of the House. "You must have b"en listening at the caucus," said Mr Russell. "How do -you know that I was not there?" Mr Massey retorted amid laughter. He went on to say that there were fifty men in the House pledged to the freehold. Hero was an opportunity for them to keep their pledges to their constituents. It seemed to him that it

ivas impossible to go on with the laud for settlement scheme unless some arrangement was made in I he direction he proposed. It would provide money 101 tho purchn-e of other land as weekly arose, 'it was necessary to allow tenants easv terms for the payment* on their land, and -o lie had propo-ed <l,e instalment plan. He sincerely hoped that the Prime llini-tci- and ho would be able to vote together at le,'i.-t once »" connection with tho la-nd proposals. "I am sorry that I cannot give myself the great pleasure of walking into the lobby with -Mr ila.s-.ey on this proposal," 'said the Prime Minister It was ii proposal to give the lee simple t" le.-oees at the original value, but he did not think that many in the country were prepared to do that. (Hear, hear.; Not one-tenth of them," said Mr Davey. A QUESTION OF RIGHT. The Prime. Minister went on to remind Mr Massey that: in attempting to arnern. a. Covr-nnnent policv Bill he was usurpin" a prerogative, that did not belong to a, leader of the Opposition. "Haven't 1 got. a right to do it.' asked Mr Masrfy. . . -You have a 1 perfect right,' rejoined the Prime Minister, "but 1 have the right also to oppose it." The Bill, he sa'il was a Land for Settlement Administration Bill, so that what was an amendment to the land law was not really in order. "Oh, let it go on," cried several mcniThe Chairman, Mr Wilford, ruled that the amendment was quite in order. Somo surprise' at'the non-acceptance of tho amendment was expressed by Mr Herries (Tauraiiga), who remarked that it was pretty laueh the same as a proposal in one of the Governments other Bills. Ho could not see why the principle involved, which had already been announced in the Budget, should not bo put in this measure. The chief attraction about, the* amendment, was that t' lo money received for the land was to be earmarked for' tho purchase of other estates. That effectively removed the objection that if the freehold was given tho money could be expended in other directions', and the land for settlements nolicy allowed to drop. He could not see any reason for refusing to adopt the proposal. It seemed to him that the Prime Minister should have jumped at it.

Heairtv -support for -Mr Massey s pro-' poH.il was expressed by Mr W. 1« raser (YVakatipu), who said that if.it had been adopted years ago ithev would never have heard of tho difficulty of obtaining money for the mirchase of estates. They had heard that it would be very difficult to find money for this purpose, and that the scheme was likely to bo droipiped. Why. here was a, scheme ready to hand to overcame tho whole trouble. Why did not the Prime Minster accept it?. "HERE IS -TOUE CHANCE!" The amendment was'also* supported by Mr D. Hi Guthrie (Oroua), who held that it'was not right that a man should be charged anything " but: tho original value for his land. If a mistake had been made in the <past the present Parliament should assume the responsibility of putting it right. If they refused to let a man 'purchase the freehold of. his land at the original they would ho inflicting a grievous injury upon settlers and people genetrally, and would also be doing much'to retard tho settlement of the oountrv. ' There were fifty-four men in the House ' who had pledged themselves on the public platform to support the freehold, and he simply could /not see' how: they were going' to vote' against ■ the-"' amendment. " Here •is the chance for jou," he "declared. "If you take it you will be acting in the interests and for ■ tho welfare of the country at large; in accordance with -people's wishes, and absolutely doimr your duty- as you should as the representatives of the people.'' ■ , "At last we have a definite .proposal from the leader of the Opposition, and now we know where he stands," said. Mr J. A. Hanan (Invercar«ill). But at the next election, he went on, they would have to watch Mr Massey and see what he said then. It came to this:, that Air Massev said to the Crown ten-, ants, "I want your votes. , What is your rjriee?" "That's the point," said Mr Witty. SPECIOUS ARGUMENTS. Mr D. McLaren (Wellington East) said ho did not think that the-House would be caught bv the specious arguments, of the leader of the Opposition. He did not see how the amendment could he accepted. . Mr J. Allen (Bruce) claimed that the object of tho amendment .was to induce closer settlement and provide money to push on with tho scheme. Mr G. Witty (Riccarton) said the amendment was practically the same as that which had been moved by Mr Massey for tthe last ten years. Be believed' that sons of the member for Orona (Mr Guthrie) had Government sections. No wonder he was asking for the freehold at the original value'. Cries of " Shame, shame.' Mr Witty continued that, such people would not got the freehold at the original value. The cry for tho freehold on such terms had simply been a voteoatchirtg one. Settlers when in need went to the Government every time for assistance. The people wore misled by i the cry because there was hot in the freehold what the leader of the Opposition intended the people to believe. It was- unfair to say that people should have the freehold of land acauired for. settlement at the original value. IMPUTING MOTIVES. :

Mr D. H. Guthrie (Oroua), in a personal explanation, exoressed . regret that any member should have fallen so low as to iromite such motives* as had been attributed to him. He had fivo eons engaged in farming, and they only hold 200 acres under loase-in-perpetuity. Mr "Witty <sa l ( l he had asked the honourable gentleman if it was-correct. He had not denied St. .That was why the* speaker had said he did. not wonder at him wanting the freehold at the original value. If they had the land, that bore out.his. statement. Mr Guthrie: It is not true the way you put it. . Mr Witty said there was no degradation in .sayinc what, he had heard. He bad left it open, to'the.honourable gentleman to correct him and he had only confirmed his statement that the family had land belonging to the Government and wanted the freehold at the original value. ■, ' On a point:of-OTde.r, raised by'Mr W. C. Buchanan.: the Chairman of Committees (Mr WilfoTd) ruled that members had no right to. impute motives to any honourable onember. nor to reflect on the private business of any member. If. members would address the chair and sneak impersonally' there would be no necessity for. points of order to be raised. WITHDRAWN. -Mr Massey complained thait Mr Witty had undoubtedly imputed .motives to the member for Oroua. The chairman ruled that a motive had been imputed, and.infor-med Mr Witty that he must withdraw it * ■ Mr Witty: Very well, I will withdraw it. but Mr Wilfoi'd: I must ask honourable members to helo the chair. It is the only way we can preserve order. Where' there is a withdrawal it must be unconditional, ~■.,_ Mr Witty: I said I withdraw the statement. I was informed during the time we were put that the honourable member's family . held land under the Land for Sottlemenit. Act. Well. I accepted the explanation immediately. •; I (did not, accuse,!him.. osdept'*.„]iyj) saying »;hat I did not wonder ...at." him. wanting Ithe freehold. There was nothing . low /in it at all. . :,, , . i Mr Wilford : I think it is iusb as well ifor the incident to drop. , The explanation has been accepted. . ~,,•,,- '_'..'..■ ME HOGG AGAIN. Mr A. W. Hogg (Masterfon),"in speaking against the amendment,, made sbme reference to the members on the Ministerial benches being looked upon by the Opposition "as the rogues and vagabonds." . "..-'",■ Mr Wilford: I am not going to allow those words.

Mr Hogg: "I withdraw thorn." He then proceeded, pointing to the Minis-t'-rial benches—" Here, sir, are the miicr u pul oils i-epres,eiitatives." Mr Wilford: The honourable gentleman is ju»t, as much out of order in saying unscrupulous. Mr Hogg: Then I withdraw that, but 1 will suv: On the opposite benches arc Hie scrupulous as distinct from these on the Treasury benches. (Laughter.) Mr Hanaii: Where do I come in? Mr Hogg: You are not one of them. I inn not one of them, and I glory in inv shame. What was the proposal? To d'o something that the Opposition would never dream of doing if they were dealing with their own property. This was the proposal of men who were net tho trustees of the public property. Tho Crown leaseholders had never asked the Government for tho freehold, neither had the farmer, because they were honest men. They would not come forward unblushingly and demand tho land, at the original value. AN OPEN SECRET. Mr W. C. Buchanan said the reason why the freeholders on tho Government side of the Houso would not vote for the amendment was because, it was brought forward by Mr Massey... J.he responsibility for whatever was done would bo upon those members. It was an open secret that the Land Bill would not bo made law this session. LAND JOBBERS. Mr Massev said that if land were held under lease-in-perpetuity the tenants paid ■1 per cent. If under occupation with right of purchase they paid 5 per cent. What he wanted was that before giving a tenant the privilege of acquiring the fee simple tho difference between the i per cent, and 5 per cent, should bo paid the same as if the land jad been taken up under the occupation with right of pur-chase system m the first place. He would be very sorry if any party which was in power should take up 'the position of laud jobbers and endeavour to make profit out of the people thev had induced to go on tho land, .tie slo:d for the freehold every time. IDs proposal, would not mean the loss of a single sixpence to the State. If it would it would not be proposed by him. Ho proposed it because he honestly beliovcd it to be in the interests of the peaplo on the land and in the interests of the people as a whole. In replying to Mr Hogan (Wangamu), who had accused the, leader- of the Opposition with,changing front on tho land question, Mr, Massey said he was going to put the members of tho House into the lobbies on every possible" occasion on the question to let. tho people see where the freeholders were and the leaseholders were.. Continuing, ho said he had tho utmost respect for -every man who stood up for the. leasehold believing 'ho was light, but he had no respect for a man'who went beforo his constituency, posod as a freeholder and supporter of Mr Massey, but all the time was looking for ia. loophole ~of escapeand' walked into the Government lobby with-the leaseholders when the, division came. ' '-"'■" "HUMAN SELFISHNESS." Mr tTh. Davey (Christchuroh East), replying to Mr Massey, said . there, was no. tenant' of the State , to-day , under the land for' settlement scheme ' who had anything' io sell'who'did not want to-day's value for it. Every member of the Opposition knew it. He could not. find words strong enough to condemn the action of the. Opposition.. The leader of the Opposition .was appealing to the worst' form of human selfishness —appealing to-the-cupidity- of'the "worst typei-pf^the 4 --Ci'own. -tenants.v." No single Crown tenant had the temerity to ask to-be allowed to buy the freehold. at, the .original'price. If the motion was carried it would ■'. be a standing dis-' grace to the Parliament of -Ne,w Zealand. He could understand, the resolution being carried • if the . tenants were .allowed to purchase tho freehold' at.' to-day's valuation. That was fair enough,' but tho motion was : right down: below, and it would- be d-e'errnding of the House and any of the tenants to accept-the terms. ■He hoped tlie-House would-,.take -'fine care- to toll.- the leader of the Opposition and. his party that they would not be allowed to carry the resolution. A STATE OP CONFUSION. ' -'illr T. E.-Taylor (Christchurch North) said tho position of the Government.and the position of the Opposition over the land question was one of confusion. The attitude of tho Government, was nebulous, full of promises.- They had lost faith in the land for settlement policy —a policy which had been 'alluded to as a success'for the last fifteen _ years, as being a financial, and economic success. This was to bo abandoned now for various reasons.. The... Opposition . pro-!' po3al .was not an, honest, nroiposal.., It was' about as politically' dishonest. as a proposal could possibly be. The motion of the leader of the Opposition covered renewable leases. The whole of the future -increased value was vested in the people. .The amendment proposed to hand over, the freehold at no advance in. price, at what the. land was valued at, when the leases were entered into. This was not an honest' proposal. At anyrato," the people interested should bo consulted before they' were a party: to it. -It was absurd for ' the _ leader of the Opposition to say that if he- had tenants who ■ held; 33ryear leases, upon' which he or his children in another 33 years, were entitled to receive advances of rents, that he" would be willing. to give them the right to convert the leasehold to the freehold. It was not' think-' able. > Tho moral of the last, week's history in the House was that it'was high time the people were thoroughly roused on the land question and made to. understand the pros and :cons. If they then chose to remain apathetic, they must suffer the penalty which was to come after. No one .could deny, .that the leaseholders had. a more definite and logical position than the proposals of either the Government or Opposition. The freehold question was not involved in tho discussion of the last week. He did mot. propose to attack the existing freehold. ' Between the nebulous- pro-, posals of .the Government. and the dishonest proposals of the. Opposition it was time the electors had the matter put fairly before him. He thought their decision would be in favour of the"pro-, posal of the leaseholders that the Crown lands must not be alienated, and that: whatever increases in value there might be in the shape of rental should come to the of the people of the State rather than-let it pass to the private individual. A GIGA-NTTC STEAL.

Mr G. W." Russell (Avon) said if the motion was carried it would represent one of tho most gigantic steals that had ever 'happened m tho history of the country or. which could ever : again happen. If" Mr Massey.was going to start such a plan as proposed in connection with tho public estates, what was he going to do about the endowments that now belonged : to university colleges, harbour, boards, municipalities, .and other, public bodies?' Was tile hon. gentleman pre. pared -to make' a proposal for the same policv to ■ applv to these? , Mr"G. H. Poole: He'll do that to". Mr Massoy : My proposal has nothing whatever to" do with endowments. , Mr Russell: What is honest in one case, is honest in another. -• Mr Witty Said it was easy to answer the question of the previous speaker. It had been already moved by some of the Opposition that the endowments—every acre of them —should be sold. Mr Massey said he had no desire to interfere with genuine endowments. What he objected to was the endowments held by tho State tinder the. National .■BndowinMVts-'-'Act'.' r * These endowments. were a sham.' They were really not endowments. They were of no value-to the. Department of State for which they' were suoposed to be set aside. They were" simply set aside as endowments to prevent the possibility of settlers ever acquiring the fee simple of the land. lie was-opuosed to this. If he had tho opportunity he would give the .same tenure to the settlens. of these lands as was given in. the case of Crown lands under the optional system. Neither the Government proposals nor his , own would do away with' the present gamblin<» which went on in land, but he was quite willing to support any. proposal

brought down by the Government which would put an end to the speculation which was going on in the land being opened up for settlement. Mr K. A. Wright (Wellington South), alluding to allegations of changes' of front on the part of the Opposition, said the protont -Liberal party had been continually .shifting on the question. Remarks made against the Oppositionwould applv equally to quite a number of members "on the other side of the House. He would certainly support the motion. THE MOTION DEFEATED. On division Mr Massey's motion was defeated by 12 votes to 21. 'the division Hot was an under:— Against the Amendment, 42. Arnold Maedonald Drown McKenzie, R. j Buxton Mackenzie, 1. Carroll McLaren Clark • Millar Colvin • Ngata Craigio l J arata Davcy Poland Dillon Toole Duncan, T, Reed Ell . Eoss Field Russell Forbes Seddon Fowlds Stallworthy . Glover Steward Hall Taylor, T. E. Hanan To Raugihiroa Hogan Thomson, J. 0 Hogg Ward Laurenson Witty Lawry Wright . For the Amendment, 21. Anderson Mandor Bollar ( d Massey Buchanan Newman Dive Nosworthy Duncan. Okey Greenslade Pearce Guthrie Phillipps Hardy Scott Herries Smith Hino . Thomson,' G. M Lang "THE PLAN OF OPERATIONS." "In .order to proceed further with the plan of operatioais," said Mr Massey, immediately tlie; result of the division, was announced, "I am going to move the' addition of this new 6ub-clau.se-: "To provide further funds the owner of a lease-in-perpetuity under tlio Land for Settlements Consolidation Act, 1800, may purchase tlio fee simple of the land occupied by him. The -purchase' price eliall.be the original value of the land." His last amendment, Mr Massey explained, applied to all tenures, but this to only one. The last amendment provided for •■■payment-by ■■instalments, but this did. not. "I am eorry to say that this proposed new sub-clause is substantially the same as the clause just negatived," said the chairman, "in. that it is part of. that clause. Therefore it is out of order." »: At this' ohe.ck there 'was, hearty laughter, amid which Mr Massey said lie" supposed it was no good mowing- * o ' report progress in order to secure the Speakers ruling, upon.the point. The chairman said that this .would, be perfectly in order, and M* Massey, immediately moved in the direction indicated. ' ANOTHER DEFEAT.' The.motion was defeated by 33 votes to 30; The division list was as under : Against the Motion, 33. , Arnold Laurenson Brown. Maedonald .Buxton : McKenzie, R. ' Carroll Mackenzie, TV 'Clark . '." .'McLaren , Colvin. * Millar Craigie Ngata Davey Parata ' ...Dillon. . •■.:■'■ Poland Duncan, T. Poole Ell . . , Reed - Forbes Stallworthy Fowlds ' Taylor, T. E. Glover Te Rangihiroa Hanan Ward Hogan Witty. ; ., ; ,Hogsr ~ For the Motion,' 30. Anderson Mnnder ■Bollard Massey Buchanan . ■ Newman • Buiok Nosworthy -.- Dive Okey Duncan, J. . Pearce , , Field Phillipps Greenslade ' ' Ross Guthrie Russell Hall Sootfc Hardy Smith Herries Steward Hine Thomson, G. M. Lang Thomson, J. C. Lawry- . Wright LAND COMMITTEE .} LEASEHOLDERS' SHORT-LIVED 'VICTORY. . REVELATIONS OF THE MINUTES. HOW A MAJORITY DISAPPEARED. The Lands Committee's report was read with considerable interest by many mem-: hers immediately the. motion to receive it had been adopted yesterday. The minutes indicated that ' although the leaseholders made an excellent _ start, striking out every clause objectionable to them until clause 12 was reached, they stiffered sudden disappointment, Mt F. Lawry (Parnell) withdrawing hie leasehold support, thus carrying a majority of one (exclusive of the chairman's casting vote) to the side .of the Bill's supporters. At the meeting next day, Mr Guthrie, a freeholder, attended, and the deleted clauses were reinserted by a majority of two. On clause 4, which provides that the optional', system of. Crown lands shall not be affected by the Bill, . Mr. Hogg moved to substitute "renewable, lease", for "optional," but "only found support from Mr Forbes. THE FIRST LEASEHOLD WIN. A leasehold victory wa's.. ecored on clause 5, which provides that lessees of lease-in-perpetuiity or renewable lease may purchase the fee simple. The committee divided on the question that the clause be retained, the result being:— Ayes," i. Noes, 5. Anderson Ell Duncan Forbes Lang Hogg Ward Lawry Witty Mr Witty endeavoured to substitute "present value" for "original value" as the basis of purchase (clause 7), but eventually . withdrew his motion, thus enabling the committee to divide upon the question that the clause stand part of the Bill. Again the five leaseholders carried , their point, »nd deleted the ■ clause". "' ■". •" - " ; , .' Clauses 8,9, and 10, which completed the section of the Bill relating to the acquisition of the fee simple, were similarly struck out, and the whole section which provides for the Crown receiving a proportion of. the increased value met with a similar fate, the live leaseholders voting solidly against it. Clause 12 (holders of leases in perpetuity, whether settlement land or ordinary Crown land, may purchase foT cash) was next thrown out by the leaseholders. MR, LAWRY'S CHANGE. •,. A. similar, attempt was" made 1 to reject the clauses empowering the pale of land for settlement land; but 'Mr 'Lawry joined Sir Joseph Ward, the Hon. T. "5 . Duncan, and Messrs Lang and Anderson, thus providing a. majority of one for the Bill. This change enabled all the clauses up. to and including clause 17 to bo retained on-division, and six more were adopted on the voices. OPPOSITION AND AGGREGATION. Messrs Anderson and Lang opposed the non-aggregation - clauses, ■ but were defeated by seven votes to two. the only change effected being upon Sir Joseph Ward's motion, the term of imprisonment for evasion of the provisions being

increased from two years to five years. There were no divisions upon the proposals to acquire native laud for settlement. ENDOWMENTS ATTACKED. Clause 33 declares that national endowment land is not affected by the freehold proposals, but Mr Lang moved to reverse the position by deleting the word "not." He was supported only by his Opposition colleague, Mr "Anderson, and the clause stood without amendment. They endeavoured to strike out the clause" which provides that a selector must be twenty-one years of age, but received no support. On the clause-, which gives a rebate of rent only to Crown tenants who have four children they were assisted by Mr Forbes in an endeavour to remove it from the Bill, but the voting was: Ayes 3, Noes 0. NOTICE TO RECOMMIT. Before, the committee rose, Sir Joseph Ward gave notice as follows: —"That consfdering that all members of the committee are not present at this meeting, he would move at next meeting that clauses 5,7, 8,9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 be recommitted for consideration." On the following day, Mr Guthrie was present at the meeting, and. the proposal that tho clauses be recommitted met with his support, the motion being carried by six votes to tour. Sir Joseph Ward's motions to reinsert the clauses previously deleted were thereupon carried, the division list being uniformly thus :—Ayes (6): Anderson, Duncan,' Guthrie, Lang, Lawry, Ward; Noes (4): Ell, Forbes, Hogg, Witty. ' '"SIX-TO-FOTJK-AGAINST." Mr Witty endeavoured to again carry his oropcsals defeated at the previous meeting* but a steady six to four vote prevented this being done. IDs proposal in regard to tho acquisition of leaso-in-porpetuitv land was that it should be' acquired at the price which the land would fetch, in the open .market, but the six to four vote decided the matter in the negative, and in the end the measure came back to the House with but two alterations, both of which originated with the Government.