LAND TENURE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 8007, 19 December 1905, Page 4

LAND TENURE.

VTKWH OF MEMIIKRS. j Such evidence as is already oh- ' tail, able goes to show that the now ' House of Kepivsentalives contains n • majority of u<eui'reis in favour ol tiic freehold. . . . Unfortunately, ! nothing wry definite can be written j as to the views of the I'rentier on the subject ef land teuuri'. Htai'tiiiy ' out as a 'letenmneil advocate of the Ileasehold, he has shifuil his ground so much of late that it it impossible to liml the exact niche in which he should be placed. Sir Joseph Ward supports the optional system, lint favours n shortcling of the term of lease from 999 years. Hon. W. Hall-Jones is in favour of the leasehold. He, too, is against tne 999 years' lease, which he would alter to a lease of a shorter term, Hitn periodical re-valuation. Hot). J. Carroll would give u teniae preferential right to the freehold, provided he paid the present Jay value of the land. Hon. T. ,Y. Duncan Is generally in favour of the leasAoW, tout has eJfc pressed himself in faveur of giving the freehold to bockblocks settlers. Hon. J. M'Gowan is in favour ol the State ownership of 'the laud, holding that, absolute freehold by the individual is not the best thing foi the country. Hon. C. H. Mills is in favour ot the leasehold. Mr Massey. as the Leader cf the Opposition, has expressed himself in decided terms as an exponent of,the freehold. « Ml Kirkbrido, as a prominent meira bcr of the Opposition, a-nd representative of the Farmers' Union, ho.ds the same views. Mr E. M. Smith supports what he called last session the ■"(Jovenunent's hind policy," but decland that "h* was willing- to place the freehold within the reach of every man wht desired it." Mr Kll, -Mr Hogg, and Mr Laurcnson are well "iiiown as being entirely opposed tj the further sale of Cro*n lands, and m favour of the leasehold system. Mr Fowlds is a single-laxrr. ami would give the frcHiold, provided bis theory of taxation 'was put into force. Mr T. McKenzie is in favour of the freehold. * ' Mr Remington hohls that freehold is the best tenure, and supports the occupation with right of purchase system. Mr Lewis is in favour of the freihold.

Mr W. Frascr supports the system of occupation with right of purchase.

Mr Klatinan supports the lease-in-petuity, hut urges thai Crown /enants should be able to pay off a portion of the capital value of then (land. I Mr Millar is absolutely opposed to the freehold. He wislilil. however, do away with "the hssw-m-pprpetuity, land'substitute! a shorter term.. Mr lluddos opinion is riot veryclear, but he apparently favours the •easehold. insisting, however, on the necessity of fixity of tenure.

Mr Hvid supports the, freehold, but favours the leasehold system as a stepping stinie to the fnvhold.

itr Witty supports a shorter lease than the lease j n j>erpeliiil,v, but is reported by Mansard as having said hat, iwi-simally. he 'thought there was nothing like the freehold, and that he favoured thou system of occupation with right of purchase. Mr .lenninfcs. 'Mr Kyinis, Mr Major. Mr Marnier. Mr llollard. Mr IVnnet. inrl Mr M'l-achlan are all out-and-•iiit freeholders.

Mr Field's views have latch- Ixvn reported. lie favours the fnvhold. and. while not interfering .with existing leases, wouhl do away with the lease-in-pcrpetuity. substituting for it a lease of -12 years, with a right of renewal on revaluation. There should also be the o.r.p. system aim. -<ale ler cash.

Mr Aitken is against parting with my more Crown lands. He favours a 42 years' lease with right of renewal on re-valuation.

Mr Fisher would grant lessees in n-rpetuity the right to acquire the. freehold at the present day values, the receipts therefrom to he used foj the purchase of further lands for -lose settlement under the purchase. system. With that exception he favours the leasehold sysleni, and is against the sale of any more Crown lands.

Mr Izard is of -opinion that the lease-in-perpetuity should be got rid of at once, and the lenn redtio-d to, i say, 50 years, renewable on rcvaluJlion. Generally speaking,, he is a leaseholder.

Mr Harber is in favour of the leasehold system, but thinks a term of o 1 .'! or oO years/ renewable on revaluation, would be sufficient.

Mr Wilford supports the freehold, with limitation of an-j. Me does not favour.tin; H'J'J years, thinking that a lease for (io years, renewable on revaluation, would lie long enough.

Mr A. L |i. Fcascr would give the right of tho freehold at the valuation of tlcj hour, minus improvement s.

Mr llauiiie would, as a matter of i!X|iedi.-nrv. give existing Crown tenants the option of tin- freehold, hut not at the original value.

Mr 11. M'Kcnzio would give the fnrrhold of Crown lapds. ,Init" not itf Land for Settlements. He is against the lease-in-perpetuity. hut favours a lease for a shorter term.

Mr J. C. Thomson thinks that if J limitation of area is insisted on there is no xlanger in throwing open the land on. the optional system.

Other memliprs whose views cannot [at present bo . aectiratrly ohtainwl may be classified as follows :

Leasehold—Messrs Hall. Wood. Ilanan. Cuinness, Tanner, T.. 0. Allen, Sidey, Lawry, Iloyan. Urahuin, Davey. Marclay, Arnold. Fre-hold.—Messrs .1. Allen. Kidtl, Colvlti. Alison, ili-rries. Malcolm, Uhr.ili-.. Ilnrdy. Cray. Qiiafdii.il freehold.—ll,,nsti n. ::i r , nslade. M'Nab. Stallworthv, Hornsbv Stmtanl. I'ooie The liew-s ,-.i' Messrs Coland Klhiu,muri, and Uacpln-rson (Mount Ida; on 111,- subject are not obtainable from the lib-, ut our disposal. Ku-eptiiijr the I'remier ami .Messrs Polhikl and Marpherson. we eslimjl- lb,- eoiiiiHisiiion of ihe new House as follows :—Freeholders. 20 ; qualilied ir.-ehohlers-. 17 : lva*-h'ld-ers. 2fi. In addition four Maori members have yet to no elect.il. and these, it may lie assumed, will vole Iwilh the Coveriuiienl without question.— Wi-Hiiigton I'osi.