THE FREEHOLD.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 12215, 3 August 1910, Page 5

THE FREEHOLD.

THE BIG MONEY VALUE. A LEASEHOLDER'S VIEWS. (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) •WELLINGTON, this day. Leaseholders, during the course of the no-confidence' motion, generally 1 refrained from participating m the debate, it being understood that it was their intention to place their views before the House when the Opposition had been disposed of. This they are now proceeding to' do, and an opportunity was taken yesterday afternoon by \Mr G. W. Forbes (Hurunui), a prominent leaseholder, and, by the way, a Cheviot settler, to discuss the subject. "It is oiie of the most immoral proposals ever brought forward," declared Mr Forbes, hi condemning the Opposition cry for the freehold. The chopping and changing that had taken place m respect of the land question, the member for Hurunui went on to say, had been most unsatisfactory for the country. Instead of the legislation of the session being given a fair trial, another Bill was brought down, and this, together with the agitation for the freehold, was most unsettling to the settlers who were taking iip land. He would regret the introduction of another Land Bill, because he considered that the present legislation would work out very well. 'The land question would never? be settled. He did not know what the pew Bill waa going to be,and if it was of a freehold nature it would not be m accordance with the growing' feeling of the people, both m this country and m England. A great change had come over them m the Old Country, where the Chancellor of the Exchequer _ had brought down proposals more radical than they had liad m this country. Mr Forbes added the opinion that the selling of the public estates was not m accordance with the signs 6f the time. It would be a retrograde and one that ultimately would have to' be retraced with something more radical than they had had before. Referring to the grading of the freehold, the member for Hurunui pointed out that tliere were 637 renewable, lease tenants, Occupying an area oi 247,232 acres. Taking the rise m value at £1 per acre, that would mean a free gift of £247,000 to 657 tenants. Then, again, tliere were Al7 grazing run holders, with an- area of 260,679 acres. He Mas confident that if this land, were submitted to public auction it would bring at least an advance of £2 pei' acre. That would be a £ree gift of over £400,000 to 417 men. At a low computation the increased yalue of these two classes of lands represented over £647,000. The proposal of the leader of the Opposition was to hand this large amount of money over to these individuals. Take the Cheviot estate alone, on which he (the speaker) was himself a settler, the leases of which ran out m six years; There were 47,424 acres amongst 50 settlers. The increased value, he estimated, would be £2 per acre.' (Hon. members: Too low.) That was a low and safe estimate, but it meant a gift of £100,000 to 50 settlers. If Mr Massey Mere to succeed, this would to him (Mr Forbes) have -personally meant a gift of £300. That was the bribe that had been offered, and he would like to know if it was not lammanyism. This was what the Opposition had offered the settlers, and when the Government candidates were asked their views they had to declare tliey wcfuld never sanction such political influence. When they found the leader of a. responsible party offering to give away £364,700 of public funds, he thought it wns one of the most immoral proposals that he could imagine. He had sufficient -confidence m the people of the country that they would never return a party with such a low ideal tor its members to occupy the Ministerial benches. Mr Massey, m the course of a personal explanation said that this amendment referred to by the previous speaker had nothing to do with .Cheviot, which was not .taken under the Land for Settlement Act, ; but under the Cheviot Estates Act Consequently, had this amendment granting the freehold been carried it would not have meant one farthing difference to the hon. gentleman, for it omitted* Cheviot. Mr Forbes explained that he had asked a leading officer 6f the Land Office at the time and had been informed that SltV ot T°?] d bo affected b y the amend- ) XX ™ h * ?rm °re> had not the leader ot the Opposition promised the men on Cheviot the freehold when questioned by t J ,e iV, , V th , c auJj i«cfc? He (Mr Forbes) had told them that no party m thi* country would ever have the audacity to give the freehold at the' original value. To this -they replied that Mr Massey had propiised them it. Mr Massey: You were there. Did you hear it? • Mr Forbes : No, I did not, but this was at a subsequent private conversation. » .THE NATIONAL HERITAGE. "Here is a party that has risen m New. Zealand m the lifetime of our people," ..remarked Mr Liurensoti, m supplementing the views of the member for purnijin, "who, finding the Crown tenants have grown to 26,000, and they have a. voting power of 130,000 votes, to. capture these 130,000 votes they say, 'Put us; in power, p,nd- we will give you the national heritage.' When the his-tory-.pf this country comes to bq written,"' ,added the member for Lyttelton, "the blackest crime that will be laid against 'any party .will be that against that party, so lo^t to respect and decency m their desire to get into power that they would .sell these lands."