pose of taking crops off it. They would sometimes make arrangements to take a crop off any person's land if they could make money out of it. These men sometimes bought land themselves, and continued a system of cropping, and then tried to dispose of the land or sell it to the mortgagee. I may mention that, having some money to invest, I went to see the land, and saw even from the road what had been done in the way of cropping, and at once came away, and that man would not make a sale to me. The man had cropped the life out of the land. 127. The freeholds under those conditions would be very bad for the State? —Yes; but, fortunately, that system is as dead as Julius Csesar. 128. You spoke of some estates sold by private landowners to tenants : in that case would it be in their interest that they should retain the freehold?— Some of them thought that at one time, but since the lands were leased they have allowed some of the lessees to buy the land. 129. Mr. Anstey.] You expressed an opinion just now that if the lease-in-perpetuity tenants were allowed the option of purchase not more than 10 per cent, would exercise that option immediately?— Yes. 130. Can you tell us whether that residue of 10 per cent, laboured under any disadvantage in not being allowed to acquire the freehold ? They are now paying 5 per cent, on the capital value, less alO per cent, reduction, which brings the amount down to 4-J- per cent.—that is, on improved estates —and in the case of Crown lands they are paying 4 per cent, on the capital value, which is also subject to 10 per cent., which brings it down to 3J per cent. What advantage would it be to them to be allowed to pay off their money at that price? What advantage would it be to them to buy the freehold under those conditions ?—lf the farmer had the money to buy the land and get the fee-simple I would say he would buy the land. 131. Where he is getting money at 3J- per cent. ?—I cannot tell what another man would do, but if I had a leasehold and had an opportunity of turning it into a freehold and had the money to do it with I certainly would do so. 132. At any price?— Yes ; and I would tell the Ranger to go and attend to somebody else. I dare say it is sentimental to a large extent. I have known people borrow money and lend it to other people, and even borrow on mortgage and then lend it to other people, but I would not care about doing that. 133. There was a question as to compensation being paid to leaseholders, and you expressed the opinion that all Government leaseholders should have full compensation for improvements effected on their holdings. I understand that under most systems in connection with the Government they have already got that. Does your opinion extend to other leaseholds, such as education reserves or private leaseholds ? If it is right that Government leaseholders should have that right, is it not right that it should be extended to other leaseholders ? —I do not know that that follows exactly. The public estate belongs to the people, and if they decide to grant certain conditions to their tenants they have the right to do so, but that would not necessarily apply to private leaseholds. The public has not the right to dictate to the private landowner how he is to deal with his tenants. It is quite justifiable on the part of the Government or the people to give certain terms to their tenants. They pass a law that it can be done, and they have the right to do so, but it does not necessarily follow that they should have the right to say to a private landowner that he must give the same conditions to his tenants. There is one reason why Government tenants would naturally wish to have the right of purchase, and that is that we have a certain class of people who are trying to propagate their views, and who think that Parliament has the right to have a revaluation of even a 999-years lease. It is held by some persons that that long lease was wrong, and that there should be revaluation at stated periods. To find out what the rent would require to be for this new term it would be necessary to have a valuation of the property. The present tenant is therefore afraid that by-and-by there will be a revaluation for rent, and he is afraid his improvements will be assessed, and that his land will not be valued on the unimproved value. There are certain improvements he has made that will be lost sight of. I heard a man argue in Court —and it was admitted by the Court —that there was no evidence that bush had existed on the land. The man said there was bush, and that he had cleared it, but there was no evidence to prove it. Then, also, a man might have had toi-grass, flax, or scrub on his land, and he might point to a sample of land adjoining his ; but it has been held that this could not be reckoned as improvements, because there was no appearance of it on the land. If revaluation takes place this man will have to pay rent on his improvements, and that is what they are frightened of, and the reason they want the right of purchase to a large extent. 134. I understand you to say that, while you think it is the duty of the State to grant their tenants full compensation for improvements, you think it also perfectly right that Education Boards and others who have large reserves vested in them should be empowered to withhold that right from their tenants ?—I do not see why you should make any differenee. I see no reason why you should make the tenure different in the case of educational reserves, harbour, municipal, or any other reserves. I think that any system that will enable the best use to be made of the land should be adopted. 135. You think that this right should be possessed in the case of public reserves, but not in the case of private tenants? —Yes. 136. You expressed some diffidence just now with regard to stating your opinion as to the constitution of Land Boards: do you think there would be any objection to allowing tenants themselves some representation on the Land Boards ?—I do not think the tenants should have any right to put a man on the Board to represent them. I think the two questions are separate. The Land Board represents the landlord, and should represent the landlord and not the tenant. The tenants would have fine times if they had the appointment of their own factors or agents. 137. Mr. Forbes.] Does your experience of the lease in perpetuity in Southland lead you to believe that it is not so well suited as the freehold in this district ? —I could not answer that question. My experience of that is very limited.

2—C. 4.

9

J. MCQUEEN.]

C.—4