HON. R. McNAB AT HAMILTON.

King Country Chronicle, Volume I, Issue 6, 30 November 1906, Page 2

HON. R. McNAB AT HAMILTON.

Speech on the Land Bill. By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent. The Hon. R. McNab, Minister for J Lands, arrived at Hamilton yester- g day, and delivered an address in the % Town Hall in the evening. The hall was crowded, and the Mayor of Hamilton (Mr J. S. Bond) presided and introduced the Minister. Mr McNab's speech was virtually on the same lines as that delivered at Onehunga. He emphasised the fact that it was impossible for the Crown to go on parting with its lands, and afterwards ~ having to buy them up again at a greatly increased price. He asked the audience to realise the difficulty of the task of framing a land bill, which would deal fairly and be satisfactory to all classes. The proposed bill limited the amount of freehold, capable of being held by one person, to £50,000 unimproved value, and land owners were forbidden to add to their area to a value of over £15,000. He admitted that the measure would mean a great interference with the private rights of a community, but the question was one of vital importance, and had to be faced. In dealing with the lease in perpetuity tenure, the Minister explained that at present the restrictions in force often pressed hardly on the farmer, and the occupier was to be given the option of paying off 90 per cent, of the purchase money, and have a corresponding decrease in his rent, in addition to the removal of the restrictions. These clauses, of course, would only be carried, providing the remaining portions of the Bill were also passed. The 66 years lease was an innovation, and was based on the period of one man's working life. At the end of the term there was the right of renewal at revaluation. This.was a most important matter, and would give rise to great controversy. The freeholders were divided among themselves, some holding that leaseholders should have the option of converting to freehold, at the original valuation ; others being just as strong on the point that the freehold should only be obtained at the present valuation. This disagreement among the freeholders meant that they were not united on the point, and could not conscientiously combine against the Bill. The speech was well received and at the conclusion a vote of thanks proposed by Mr Young, and seconded by Mr Knight, was carried unanimously.