GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2233, 28 July 1891, Page 4

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Wellington, July 25, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. In the House on Friday

THE LAND BILL.

Mr Fisher resumed the debate on the Land Bill. He (Mr Fisher) dissented altogether from the proposal to deprive leaseholders, of the right tp acquire the freehold, and he should have much pleasure in supporting Mr Hutchison’s amendment. As to the question of land nationalisation, it was well known that was a proposal that emanated from Sir R. Stout, a man who had parted with and given away more national estate than any other man in New Zealand. Sir R. Stout had publicly stated in 1887 that there were only a million and a-half acres of agricultural land left in the colony, but the present Minister had given it as his opinion at Palmerston South that there were over four million acres available according to the present Minister’s estimate. Land nationalisation was a principle of about 100 years old. Yet they were seriously called upon to discuss it in thei present Bill. He (Mr Fishery never believed in Henry George, as he considered his views unsound and impracticable. As he disagreed with all those principles he objected to see them all embodied in this bill. He quoted from clause 85 of the Bill, which provided that any person in . possession of over 2000 acres of land should be liable to five years’ imprisonment. A more harsh or arbitrary proposal could not be conceived, and such a provision would not be tolerated. The Bill in respect to depriving people of the right to acquire freehold was most drastic in character, and he should*-have much pleasure in supporting Mr George Hutchison’s amendment;

Mr Hogg complimented Mr Fisher on having fulfilled the promise he had previously made that for some assumed affront which he imagined Ministers had put on him, they would have to expiate that affront; but if the present 0 attack were all that he could bring against the Government they would easily survive. He defended Sir R. Stout and Henry George from the attacks made on them by Mr Fisher, and said that whatever faults Sir R. Stout possessed he had shown himself to be perfectly sincere in regard to his advocacy of the perpetual lease land tenure. ’ He (Mr Hogg) was a Strong advocate of that system, and thought it should have a fair trial. The people who were clamoring for freehold were those who were enemies to settlement. He hoped the Bill would pass without any obstruction.

Mr 0 ? Conor drew attention to' tvhat' he thought was a great omission—namely, the absence from the Bill of ahjp -clause 'i to provide for American > homestead regulations. It was greatly to be deplored that so large a territory should be absorbed in raising stock, and it was their duty to encourage settlement of this 1 land 'by small people. He quite agreed with Mr Rees’ proposal for settling the country on a co-operative principle, and he was sure that was the policy the Government should adopt, as, in addition to settling the land, they would retain the population in the colony. They should also strive to prevent the congregation of a large population in towns, and he pointed out that in Victoria working men were conveyed by train for 10 miles for 3d: There was nothing to prevent people in Dunedin, Wellington, and other large towns being conveyed for 15 miles for 2s a week, and by this means small settlers would be induced to settle in the country and not Crowd into towns.

Mr G. Hutchesion (Waitotara) moved as an amendment—That the proposal to create a State tenantry by granting leases from the Crown in perpetuity, without the option of purchase, is a change opposed to, the best interests of the colony.” He said the real issue of the Bill seemed to be whether the waste lands of the colony shall be settled on a tenure selected by the settlers or at the. dictation of the Minister of Lands. He believed the right of freehold was a most important element in our land system. It was part of our national life, and he could not believe that future settlers would prefer t'o be under the supervision of rangers, inspectors, and Ministers. Mr Fisher had touched the real point in the Bill when he referred to it as a land nationalisation measure. The Minister should have been here fifty years ago with the proposal, or waited for the millennium before he proposed this ; change in our land tenure. The Minister had made an extraordinary statement when moving the second reading of the Bill when he said that within 50 years a Crown grant would be a thing of the past. That was the most portentous issue that had ever been submitted to Parliament. It simply meant that 111,000,000 of acres of land already Crown granted were to be bought under perpetual lease. It meant also that not only the land at present occupied, but all waste lands of the Crown, were to be brought under this system of nationalisation. His opinion was that no true settlement could take place under such a proposal, and for that reason he had moved the amendment of which he had given notice. He could see the Minister’s policy would lead to direful results to thePolony, and that was the Vituae of this amendment, f

Mr Pinkerton depfecafedthe attack made on Sir R. Stout by Mr Fisher, and said he would not have done so had Sir R. Stout been present. He hoped those who, supported the Bill/ generally, 'would'vote the amendment as it was hostle to the Minister for Lands. He believed, the object-of the Bill to be that those" who. occupy land should pay rent only to the State, and that large speculators should not have the right to‘fair 1 their fellows for all time. Mr Mitchelson had twitted the Premier wRh being in favour of land hatiohalism, but he thought they should not wait till they had no land before they nationalised it,’and they should do 1 so with the land they had got. He hoped that on the Government side of the House those who wished to retain the freehold tenure would vote for the second reading of the Bill with the object ;of amending the measure in committtee. He had received letters only that very day to the effect that a large number of people were perfectly willing to take up land on the perpetual lease. System if the land were available. Sir G. Grey - had hoped that no personal matters would be ; introduced into this Bill. It seemed to him that the Bill was prepared by two persons, one of whom was a Minister With benevolent views in his mind, but who had communicated his .views to a draughtsman who did not understand the land question. He (sir ; , George Grey) had always been strongly op-' posed to the - vasti powers which "had been conferred on nominated bodies, such as land boards, and he objected iq- it in the present: Bill.' 1 If ’ the Bill Was to be passed this session it must'be. considerably modified. He could not understand either 1 the. necessity T forturning a perpetual lease'into a lease of 50 years. He was strongly in favor Of perpetual lease, and had brought it from South Africa, where it had been in force for two centuries amongst a contented people. * There was, therefore no reasOh for changing the lease and it could be altered in committee. He was further of opinion that 640 acres of first-class land was too much for one person to take up, and he was also of opinion that 1 the 200(1 ac|e| of indifferent land proposed by the Bill would also have to be reduced. He believed that all the objections he had to the Bill could be remedied in committee, especially that relating to land boards, which' he thought could be rectified by passing a short Act makirjg land boards elective. He was in favor of persons being allowed to retain the fee simple of their land, but they would never avail themselves of it because it would be more advantageous to them to retain their beddings, under perpetual lease. 1 It was to him that the Government accepted this emendment as hostile, and he desired to say he hdd ho'desire whatever to be hostile to them in any remarks he had made on the Bill.

Mr, Fish said the House (always listened to Sir G. Grey with‘greatr pleasure, but he was bound to say he, had never heard him make a njore inconsistent speech than* the 4 one •■just delivered. He was very much afraid that his venerable friend had been, listening to the seducive wiles of the member for (Sir Gi Grey) hid diclaiPa he was in favor of perpetual lease for ever, lie had at the same tjme declared he was in favor of the fee simple. G, Grey’s objection to land boards, hje: was not certain that elective boards would be an improvement, especially whilst a popular Government was iji office. Referring to Mr Hutchison’s; amendment, he had thought hon. gentleman belonged to thq Liberal side of the House; but the amendment was not a Liberal proposition, and hewarned those members supporting thp Government not to vote for the amendment, as it was most undoubtedly brought forward in hostility -to the Government. He (Mr Fish) respected an ,open enemy, but an hon. gentleman •who acted in that way did not deserve the respect of either side of the House, As to the speech 'of the meniber for Clutha, that hon. gentleman should bfe on the Government side, as he had, been unable to find any fault with the Land BUI. Mr Mackenzie had spoken!, however, of the intense desire of every man to obtain a freehold, but he (Mr Fish)’denied that there existed such a terrible earth hunger as that. He dip ■not despise capital, but he preferred to see'so small‘capitalists in the country to 20 with three times as much capital. The time was coming and he hailed it with delight when individual ownership would be abolished. He should not have spoken ou this subject were it not for the amendment* off the member for 1 Waitotarap and'the reason he did not intend to speak was because he was perfectly satisfied that -any Land Bill brought forward by his hon, friend the Minister for Lands would be of a sound arid liberal character.

The debate Vas continued up to 2,35 a.m., when the galleries were cleared, and at 6.30 a.m. theßill was read a second time, the division being as follows : ■ — Ayes—29 ; Ballance, Buick, Cadman, Carncross, Dawson, Duncan, Earnshaw, Fish, Fraser, HallJones, Hogg, Houston, Joyce, Kelly J., Kelly W., Macintosh,' Mackenzie J., Meredith; Mills 0- H., Pinkerton, Rolleston, Rees, Seddonj Smith R. M., Smith W. C., Taylor, Thompson J, W., and Ward. Noes—lo: Buchanan, Buckland, Fergus, Fisher, Hutchison G., McKenzie T,, Richardson, Shera, Swan, and Wright. Pairs— For: Hutchison W., Palmer, Seddon,

Saunders, Parata, Guinness, Perceval, McGuire, Reeves R. H., Harkness,. B|Uves.W. P./ Blake, O’Conor, and .Thompson T., Against: Wilson; Rhodes, Fergus, Bryce, Hamlin, Mills J., Mitchelson, Macarthur, Valentine, Taipua, Russell,' Mackenzie ■J. ; M. S., LaWrie, -Moore, Duthie, . and Hall. At six o’clock op Saturday: morning the House was counted'put.