THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1894. THE LEASEHOLD TENURE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2653, 1 May 1894, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1894. THE LEASEHOLD TENURE.

A politician's life, like a policeman's, is not always a happy one. This is exemplifield by what is going on now in a part of the North Island. la the 40-mile bush district and its neighborhood there is a large number of settlers who hold their land under the perpetual lease tenure : that is, a lease for 21 years at a rental of 5 per cent per annum on the capital value of the land. After the expiration of the lease the land will be revalued, and the rent will then be fixed at the ascertained appraisement. Since these settlers took up their holdings a new Land Act has been passed, under which the lease in perpetuity has been instituted. The lease in perpetuity differs from the perpetual lease in two important features. The perpetual lease is only for 21 years or so, the lease in perpetuity is for 999 years; under the perpetual lease the rental is 5 per cent on the capital value, under the lease in perpetuity it is only 4 per cent. It is therefore obvious that the advantage is altogether on the side of the lease in perpetuity, and for this reason the perpetual leaseholders are agitating for changing the tenure of their holdings from a perpetual lease to a lease in perpetuity. Two members of Parliament, Messrs Hogg and Pirani, have taken their case in hand, and have brought up the subject at the meeting of the Land Board, of which they are also members. The Land Board seemed disposed to give favorable consideration to the claims of the settlers, but the Minister of Lauds stepped in and prevented action being taken, pointing out at the same time that to effect the change was no part of the functions of the board. Messrs Hogg and Pirani, although very radical members and staunch supporters of the Government, grew very indignant at the Minister's interference aud made a violent attack on Mr McKeuzie. The Tories are jubilant at this. They see in it great possibilities, but in our opinion they vril\ find themselves mistaken. It must be perfectly plain to the most ordinary capacity that the Minister of Lauds is right. The perpetual leaseholders tqok up their lands under a solemn obligation to fulfil the terms of their agreement, A bargain is a bargain, and they have no right now to ask the Government to vary the tenure of their lands. If they complained that their rents were too high we should feel inclined to sympathise with them. Rents should be proportionate to ruling prices, and if the values of the products of the soil have decreased since the settlers took up their lauds it would be quite legitimate to reduce their rents proportionately, but it would certainly be wrong to allow them to alter the tenure of their holdings. Messrs Hogg and Pirani know this, and we feel sure that their anger at the action of the Minister is put on. There is no danger of Messrs Bogg and Pirani going over to the Opposition camp, so the Tory hope of a split is groundless. Messrs Hogg and Pirani must please their constituents, aud hence their anger at th-i conduct of Ministers. However, it appears to us that members of Parliament ought not to be allowed to occupy seats on Laud Boards, or perhaps on other local bodies. It is the fact that Messrs Hogg and Pirani are members of the Wellington Lands Board that has given force and influence to these settlers' agitation. In our opinion the lease in perpetuity ought also to be abolished. It is in all respects better than a freehold, aud does not secure the unearned iucrement to the State. The lessees in perpetuity will in a few years be the best off people in the country; they will have land at a peppercorn rent, and will be the envy of all. The result will be eternal fighting for abolishing the and it appears to us that the sooner it is abolished the better.