GENERAL ASSEMBLE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2394, 11 August 1892, Page 4

GENERAL ASSEMBLE.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The House met at 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday. REPLY TO A QUESTION. Replying to Mr Mcl Iniro, the Premier said that he was willing to refer to the Public Accounts Committee the claim of settlers within the iSTow Plymouth harbor rating area against the colony, and if lion, gentlemen were satisfied with that reply he would move to that effect.—Mr McGuire moved the adjournment of the House, and said that the Premier’s reply was very unsatisfactory. He suggested that a Royal Commission be appointed to go into the whole question.—The Premier said that the Government had never admitted, nor would they admit now, that the bondholders had any claim on the colony.—After a long discussion the subject dropped. EXPUNGING VOTES OE CENSURE. The interrupted debate on the motion for the recision of the vote of censure passed on Mr Bryce was resumed. Mr W. P. Reeves moved as an amendment —“ That in view of the eminent services rendered to the colony by the undermentioned gentlemen, now no longer members of the House, it is not expedient to retain, a permanent record of votes of regret or censure passed at various times with respect to each of them for unparliamentary language used in the heat of debate, or for disobedience to the Chair, and this House therefore directs that the entries in the Journals against Mr H. B. Curtis, Mr Vincent Pyke, the Hon. J. D. Ormond, the Hon. W. Gisborne, Sir Julius Vogel, and the Hon. John Bryce, be expunged.” The debate was interrupted by the 5.30 p.m. adjournment. On resuming at 7.40 p.m., the debate with reference to the vote of censure on Mr Bryco was continued, and Mr Reeves’ amendment was eventually agreed to on the voices. THE LAND BILL. The Hon. Mr McKenzie moved the second reading of the Land Bill. In the course of his remarks he said that the area of land available was getting less year by year, and, therefore, it was necessary that they should be careful of what was left, and make the best possible use of it. The Government had approached the subject with a desire to pass the best land law for the colony as a whole, but lie thought that every person in the colony had a perfect right to say under what laws the land should be administered, and no particular class should have any right in that respect. It had been asserted that he was going to do away with freehold tenure, but all that he asked in the present Bill was that everyone could choose their own tenure. He had more than once stated publicly that he would be the last man to interfere with the Crown grant when once issued, but ho contended that he had a right to propose the terms on which land should bo taken up in future. The Bill allowed a cash system of purchase, occupation with the right of purchase between 12 and 20 years, and the perpetual lease, and ho intended moving in Committee that the lease should be perpetual instead of 50 years only, allowing the Crown that right to say that they should not dispose of it to any person who already possessed too much land. A great deal had been made of the fact that every farmer in the country wanted to be his own freeholder, but that was great nonsense, as half of tue saviners in the colony possessed no freehold at all, Ihe Bill was very near what the Bill of last session was, but one alteration was that they were going to deal with the Land Boards of the colony, and make them elective. As to the “ one-maii-ontH'un ” system, he had provided that this could be done so long as small runs should not exceed 5000 acres, and for large runs they should not exceed a carryieg capacity of 20,000 sheep. He hoped that the House would see that as far as possible no more land should be secured for speculative purposes, but for the genuine settlement of the colony. Mr Rolleston congratulated Mr McKenzie in some respects, especially ns he had considerably modified some of the provisions of the Bill. In his opinion the land question should not be made a party question at all. Ho did not regard the present measure as providing a liberal land law. It could not be to the advantage of settlement that speculators and monopolists were brought into competition with bona fide settlers, and the optional choice of tenure proposed by the Minister was to his mind very mischievous. He had not much faith in Mr McKenzie’s professions about freehold, as the Premier had frequently advocated the nationalisation of theland, and Ministerial utterances had been decidedly opposed to granting the freehold to perpetual leaseholders, which was altogether different from the perpetual lease system which he (Mr Rolleston) had instituted. H& would bo no party to supporting the Premier in his scheme for nationalising the laud, and he contended that the House should be informed whether or not it was proposed to abolish freehold tenure. In his opinion they could not do away with, the freehold, and he hoped that the House would not rest satisfied till a clear declaration, had been made on this question. Mr Hutchison (Waitotara) said that the Bill was a worse one than that of last year, and although the Minister of Lands professed to bo sound on the freehold, the opinion of the country would be that the Government was very unsound on ihp question. They were tohi that the cash system was x’etamed in this Bill,but what kind of cash system, namely, that a man must pay the whole price of the land and get a receipt, hut could not get a Crown grant for seven years. Mr Seddon pointed out that when Mr Hutchison contested the Wnitotara seat he waaa supporter of Mr Ballan ee.au dknew that the policy of the latter, in advocating resuming laud tor settlement purposes, was to award lair compensation for land obtained. He denied that the Bill contained any reference io land nationalisation, and also that it proposed to abolish, freehold, or that they would -lutefero with freeholds that already existed ip the country. On the question of large estate# he instanced the case of Canterbury, ; where he said stalwart sons of settlers were driven from the country because they could not obtain hind owing to these large estates, and the Government were determined not to allow this state of things to continue. He d«luis<i<;:| the proposals in the Bill for making the perpetual lease in uerpetuity, and said that exacting 4 per cent, on the value of land be paid to Government, made the security all the better. Mr Bruce was heartily at one with Mr McKenzie in desiring to prevent the accumulation of large estates and preventing speculation in land. The Bill however did not make sutticiout provision for obtaining freehold, and it would greatly injur j small farm associations, which Mr iSeddon so strongly approved of, and the members of which had been denied the right of siquiring the feo simpm of their land. Ho moved as an amendment—- •“ That this House considers ijjat the extent to which Hit) Bill mins at ivulikbijug freehold tuum'fe is uiuwUtuwnory, iuiu

calculated to l»o injurious to the beat interests of Settlement..” The Pi’omier ashed whether Mr llolleaton approved of the amendment, and whether it had his sanction ? Mr Rolieston said that ho concurred in the amendment entirely. The Premier said that in that case he accepted the amendment in the spirit it was given, and us a motion traversing the motion of the Government; they could not posaaibly accept a motion of this hind in any other spirit. The Government were not alarmed by it at all, and it would clear the atmosphere. It was however, in opposition to the sentiments expressed by Mr Rolleston, who had said that the Rill should not be made a party question, but that it should be allowed to go to the Waste Lands Committee. The debate was adjourned on the motion of Mr Ridhardson, and the House rose at 1 a.m.