LAND TENURE.

Taranaki Daily News, 10 September 1920, Page 5

LAND TENURE.

FREEHOLD v. LEASEHOL^I PARLIAMENT CLOSELY DrVjMJ^ (By Wire.—Parliamentary Z*Jottfflj[& Wellington, lout KUnifl The freehold versus leasehold "iflS} was raised iu the House of Bonn sentatives on the presentationW)is|H port of the Lands kWu Certain tenants of national (MflH ment land had.petitioned toe the right to acquire the their sections, and the chainnitt otJHH committee (Mr. E. Newman) ?em|fl that as the petition involved & QTWrfiMj of policy it should be dealt jrltb, briM Government. He added that thftlijlll mittee was of opinion, thM. prmM the proceeds of the sale of'the invested in Government •muritfß«>j|l the revenue reserved for the poirMM3l which the rentals, were now ftfriljHj the committee considered ti»t- Witt ljßßj lation desired by the petitUuMfra <MH be in the interests of the DdtytpMH The petition, therefore, should' W:f|| ferred to the Government fof *** i rifflS consideration. VU Mr. G. Witty (Rlccarton) •tated<fi| only four members of< the "ffllnljH had been present when the TOtttjHH taken, and the recommendation had MM approved by three votes to one. .'§§■ considered that a larger atfanJttH should have been secured before ap.'SH portant a recommendation Was niadalftH objected entirely to the national JH dowments being turned into inriflw freehold. If this course wa» tb|3 followed in dealing with the pvUlttjH tate, why should not tenant*, of &MH tional reserves, church even privately owned land!, %Mfe4H[ riplit to the freehold. PbtoM ||fll tions had an interest in the M&dHJ endowments; the tenants had saejdH| of tenure and good conditions, tt&nM were seeking the freehold menJ«<ln order to traffic with the lands, i ,-99 Mr. Newman indicated Uat.pign tnl] four members of the comftittae ha4'Hj present during the discussion Public interest would be fully (WMtfjiS it the money realised by the land were invested, since the >Werijj|H secured would actually be gtaaiecroH the rentals now being received, petitioners were returned eoldi*ra«'MH had found that they could not ra|(m their operations owing to the VBfcmS] their tenure. Their position "tFttniil greatly improved if they htld^p^H Members called for a divisiort4Aj|| motion that the report should ferred to the Government for taVoHH consideration, and the adopted by 36 votes to 20- . IsBH The division list was as follo^AfgS Ayes (86).—Bolland, Coates, ttaJHI J. Mc. Dickson, X L. Glenn, GgflWH Hamilton, A. Hamilton, J. i. !m Hawken, Henare, Herries, Hudson, fflj&k ter, Jones. Lee, Lysnar, McCWtanfiffiH Nicol, Malcolm, Maßsey, Masters, StjSM man, E. Nosworthy, 'Parr, Pcd&nd,V|||| mare, Potter, Powdrell. Heed, H. Rhodes, T. W. Sykes, Young j teftsfl Hockly, Mander. '''' 41 Noes (20).—Atmore. Forbes* ¥mm Holland, Horn, Howard, Isitt, JenfJtaHJ! Kellett, A. K, Newman, Savage, §idesl S. G. Smith, Statham, Stewart, Guffi van Veitch, Wright; tellers, MeCombffi