G. E. HILTON.]

5

C.—4.

55. I understand that you object, from your experience, to have any dealings with the Advances to Settlers Office ?—lt is no use to the settlers. 56. And that, after trying to obtain an advance, and using a very great deal of influence in your favour, you had to go to a private lender and borrow money at a very high rate of interest ?— Yes. 57. This high rate of interest being charged because of the fact that you had no freehold right either existing or continuing ?—True. 58. And your opinion is that if the leaseholder ultimately had the right to acquire the freehold he would be able to borrow money much easier than he can obtain it now ?—That is so. 59. And you think at the same time it is very proper there should be a stringent condition in the matter of buildings, and so on, before the freehold is given ?—That is so. 60. Mr. Paul.] I understand that your personal experience as a next-door neighbour is that the leasehold property is very much better cultivated than the freehold one? —Yes. 61. Would not a financial institution, in dealing with a proposal for a loan, take into consideration a long lease as against a short one? —No ; because, as I have pointed out, the Corporation leases here are only for fourteen years, and yet it is a very easy matter to raise money on a Corporation lease, provided you erect a building on it. The Government, on the other hand, must have the whole building finished before they will even entertain your proposal. You will see therefore that the question of a longer or shorter lease does not make any difference. The great thing is to have a proviso in the lease giving the ultimate right to the freehold. 62. Then, it is not exactly the leasehold tenure which is the drawback, but rather the irksome departmental regulations in connection therewith ?—That is so. 63. Mr. Anstey.] You said you are in favour of granting the freehold, subject to very stringent building regulations, and you suggest that if a man has spent £200 on a 10-acre section he should have the right to secure the freehold ?—Yes, say at the end of thirty years. 64. Do you think that regulation should apply to all lands, or do you confine your suggestion solely to village settlements ?—I merely cite the 10-acre section as an illustration. I think regulations should be framed to meet the larger settlements also. The value of the buildings to be erected should be increased in proportion to the increase of the size of the holding. 65. You admit that a leaseholder under the Corporation is not placed at a disadvantage with regard to raising loans? —Not in the least. 66. And you suggest the only remedy for it is to give the Government leaseholder the right to purchase the freehold : would it not be just as well if the Government leaseholder were put in the same position as the private leaseholder ?—They do not seem to have any faith in a Government leasehold. 67. Is that not because of the fact that there is no power for the lender to foreclose on a Government property? —That is so. 68. It means that in regard to a Government leasehold the lender has no security, and in regard to a municipal leasehold he has ?—lf a man lent me £200, and I did not pay off the money at the end of the term, he could sell to somebody else, who would have to go and reside on the section, or he would have to reside on it himself. There is the difficulty. The Government will not allow you to relet the land, although I know that regulation is evaded. 69. You told us that you have to pay 8 per cent, interest on your loans : can you inform me if you could have got the money at a lower rate if you had held a Corporation or private leasehold ?—lf it was other than a Government lease I could get £200 at 5 per cent, on my buildings alone in this town. 69a. You think the stringent conditions attaching to Government leases have rendered the security so unsafe that a much higher rate of interest has to be paid on them than on private leases? —That is so. 70. Mr. Forbes.] What amount of improvements had you to offer the Government as security? They had £235 according to their own valuation—that is the value of the house?— Yes. 71. And do you say that a man offered you a loan of £200 on that £235 security?—He said that if I had the right to the freehold even thirty years hence he would advance me £200 on the £235 house. In addition to that, my property is all fenced, and I am putting up other buildings. 72. What was the value of your land when you took it up ?—£4 per acre. 73. And what is the value of it now without improvements ?—They have assessed it at £6 per acre, but I contested that valuation as a most unjust one. 74. At that rate, if you had the option of the freehold, the man who offered you a loan of £200 would have that extra £2 per acre as security over and above the value of your house?— Yes. He saw himself what I was putting up on the place, and, knowing me also, he was quite satisfied. 75. But the Government Advances to Settlers Office gave you no reason for only offering a loan of £75 ?—They gave no reason whatever. 76. And £235 is their own assessment? —Yes. 77. Mr. McCardle.] Suppose the Advances to Settlers Act was amended so that you were entitled to an advance up to three-fifths of the value of your holding, including improvements, over and above the Government leasehold, would that not meet your case : you would not want to acquire the freehold then ? —After I have been on the land some time I by my industry make it worth so-much more than when I took it up. Now, the question is, when lam seeking to raise a loan have I not a right to participate in the work which I have done? Well, the Government say "No." 78. The Government would say "Yes" if the Act was amended? — They say "No" at present; and if I had to sell my place at the present time I would get no benefit for the improvements made on the land—they would only recognise the building improvements.