C—4.

38

[j. MUECHLAND.

tenure I have got. I have made money out of my freehold land, and have invested it in a Government lease of 1,168 acres. 217. You are getting on well ?—Yes; but I may add that I have not got a buggy. I advised a neighbour to change his tenure into a perpetual lease, but he would not take my advice : he wanted the freehold. The consequence is that he is now looking after the freehold until some one comes along to buy it. I know a number of instances of persons who have gone in for the freehold, and the result is that the people in " Crescent " have got possession of the property. The properties have been mortgaged to loan companies. There is no mortgage on my place, and I have never asked the Government for a shilling. 218. Mr. MoGutchan.] You had the right to convert the 200 acres into the freehold ?—Yes. I had the money to acquire a freehold, but I invested it in a Crown leasehold. I took up 1,160 acres of leasehold land from the Crown. 219. Was the new area bush country or open country ?—Open country. 220. Mr. Johnston.'] Is it rough country ?—Not very rough. 221. How many sheep will it carry?— About seven or eight hundred, by feeding in the winter and growing turnips. 222. Have you any cattle?— No. 223. You make your living out of seven hundred sheep ? —I make my living in -many waysknocking over rabbits, and in one way and another. 224. You make your living out of the land?— Yes; but a man on the land has to pick up a pound in other ways if he is able to do so. 225. Mr. Paul.] You are perfectly satisfied with the lease in perpetuity ?—Perfectly satisfied. I would not part with it. I am- sixty-eight years of age, and it will be a home for me and for my children after me as long as they pay the rent. 226. The Chairman.] What is the rent?— With the concession the Government gave lately it is £16 9s. per year, or 2Jd. per acre. ' 227. Mr. Paul.] You do not want the option of the freehold?— No. If Mr. Seddon said to me " Here, Jack, you can have the freehold," I would not take it. 228. You think it would be against the interests of the settlers to have the option of the freehold ?—There is no option in it. If a man gets the freehold he gets a monkey on the land. 229. Mr. McLennan.] Do you think that if settlers had the option of the freehold a «ood many of them would mortgage their properties ?—There would be more chance of it. There are a good many people in my district who are watching properties until somebody comes alone and buys them. & 230. The Chairman.] You think if they had the option of the freehold it would put temptation in their way to borrow ?—I am certain of it. There is a great danger of it. 231. Mr. Anstey.} Do you think that to a man of small means the lease in perpetuity is safer ■to build a home on than to take up a freehold?— Yes, I think so at a low capital value. 232. Mr. Hall.] You think 999 years is long enough for you ?—Yes, quite long enough, and also for my children. I would like to make one or two suggestions: You will have observed there have been some losses made on sheep in the high country. Some pastoral tenants did not want compensation exactly, but they wanted a reduction in rent and long leases of about twenty-one years. In my opinion, that would be opposed to the best interests of the country to give these pastoral tenants leases of twenty-one years. My reason is this: Where I live we are bounded by six large stations, and I would suggest to the Commission that when those leases fall in they should be cut up into sections of 5,000 or 10,000 acres, as the Government may determine The runs should be made into smaller areas. Then, as to the valuation of land, I think that land-valuers should go on to every section and ascertain what each section produces, and not simply go into a publichouse or meet some one on the street and ask, " What does that man sell his land for." There are no two sections alike. There is another thing which has caused a good deal of dissatisfaction amongst the Crown tenants, and that is the city members. I read Hansard Sir Joseph Ward sends me a copy—and I take a great deal of interest in what is done in Parliament and like to see how the country is governed. I think that revaluation of existing leaseholds is wrong in principle. I think land legislation should be final, and if a man takes up land on lease and makes a mistake he ought to surrender. 233. Mr. McCardle.] But you would not object to the land being revalued if the rent were lowered ?—I think it is wrong in principle. I think it is fair when they increase the original capital value for taxation purposes the tenant should have some interest in it.

Obepuki, Friday, 24th February, 1905. James Menpes examined. f }■ Jhe Chairman.} What are you, Mr. Menpes?—l am a farmer, and have 150 acres of freehold and 140 acres under occupation license, and have been here in that position about twelve years. 2. What evidence do you wish to give to the Commission ?—I think the lease in perpetuity is the most suitable for these occupation licenses. Twenty-one years is useless, because in that time a man cannot make a good farm out of virgin bush. He spends the best part of his life on the land, and unless he has a very large pocket it is very hard for him to have his rent raised when he is less able to work the farm. I think the residential conditions are too strict. The majority of the holders of occupation licenses are unable to comply with them. Most of those persons had either residence-areas or small pieces of freehold on which their homes were built before it became necessary for them to take up an occupation license. I say "necessary" because the commonage was done away with, gold was getting scarce, and we had to live. Non-residence