CROWN TENANTS RELIEF

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 19, 17 October 1907, Page 5

CROWN TENANTS RELIEF

■< . . i . CROPPINC REGULATIONS. ' THE MINISTER INTERVIEWED. The Minister for Lands (tho Hon. R. M'Nab) on Tuesday morning receivod a deputation of ton.mombors of 'Parliament whose request was that the''Land Bill should be amended so as to free Grown tenants from the operation of the' cropping - regulations where they had placed 50 per ■ cent. of improvements upon their holdings. .. Sir - Stewart,•.'■who headed the .deputation, isaid 1 would have been present 'had not committee work kept.them; awayV'~He :: went on to say that ono of a number of reasons for tho freehold-for-Grown tenants, agitation t was the vexatious nature of' theso regulations. Where a ■man had" improved his holding to a consider'able extent it could be taken for granted, he thought, that he ' would 'not, injure his property. The Bill provided that whero a tenant paid; off'one-third of the 'capital value •f his holding the restrictions no longer applied to: .him. The deputation, however, wouldurgo : that a man who improved his holding, to the extent of, 50; per cent., and maintained such improvements, should be in the same position 'as a tenant-who paid; off one-third of, tho capital value. Sir William wont on ; to say that if tho clause could'not be re committed tho deputation would like to know if ■ the Minister would _ have tho Bill amended,'in the direction indicated, in the Upper House. , Messrs... Hogg, Hornsby, M'Pherson, and Ilatman spoke in support of tlieso arguments. '.'•'■ • • The Hon. Mr. M'Nab, in reply, said the proposals ; of tho Bill had been enormously modified- in committer in the.direction referred to by 'the deputation.' He now deduced that further modification was desired and not the abolition of the■ regulations. .Ho did not know to what extent this .could .be done, but he would investigate and see if the Government could not 'be milder' in' its' requirements. It Bhould be. remembered that in the great bulk of ;• cases ■ which had not come under) the Lands for Settlement 'Act, that what the deputation urged was virtually thorequirement of'the Bill.' In - actual practice that would be'found to be so. The. question of the amount to be paid' before modifying and romoving the restrictions had been very carofully thought : out bofore-tho. embodying of the proposals. ' He would place the matter,before his colleagues, but a ; final solution of the: points referred to would bo found along the lines of a revision of the cropping rognl?tions—the greater the amount of the I improvements, the less restriction there should be. ~' • !. ■ : . .). :